Proceeding contribution from Lord Elton (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 December 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
moved Amendment No. 96:"Page 16, line 17, after second ““in”” insert ““section 1 of””" The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 96 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97, 108, 109, 137, 138, 140 and 141. All these amendments embody what to me is a new formulation. It may simply be that I have not been involved in legislation for a while and a new style has developed. However, it seems to me an unsatisfactory style. We are referred to the whole of another Act of Parliament for a meaning and then asked to look at one provision in it, rather than simply being referred to that section as would be normal. What I propose, therefore, is to revert to the normal—saying that the meaning of the term in this Act is the same as in a given section of another Act, and no reference to the rest of the Act to be read through to see if that holds good throughout. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 676 c726
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Crimes of violence Crimes against property ICT Jurisdiction Incitement Fines Libraries Internet Journalism Police Prosecutions Publications Sentencing Universities Terrorism Training Research Students Academic freedom Propaganda Encouragement of terrorism
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:20:21 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285003
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285003
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285003