Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Rob Marris (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 3 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

I ask the Minister to have another think about these matters. I understood him to say—perhaps I misunderstood him—that clause 17 is being introduced in part to comply with our international obligations under the Council of Europe convention for the prevention of terrorism, and similar obligations. That confuses me because in the explanatory notes to clause 1, it states:"““The offence has been introduced to implement the requirements of Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention for the Prevention of Terrorism””." Clause 1 refers to the convention. Clause 17, as I read it, makes no reference to that convention and nor to the explanatory notes. I ask my hon. Friend to think again and either to explain tonight or at some other convenient juncture what it is in clause 17 that is needed for us as a country to comply with these international obligations.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c1052-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Criminal investigation Asylum Companies Directors Liability Incitement International law Nuclear weapons Protest Proscribed organisations Radioactive materials Terrorism Training Trespass Encouragement of terrorism
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk