Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Peyton of Yeovil (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 December 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

I would never presume so far as to suppose that anything I say in your Lordships’ House would be memorable, but it was only yesterday afternoon that I expressed my concern not about what the Government think a clause means but about what some busybody will subsequently claim that it means. I gave an example of a victim who I was sure was not intended by Ministers: the poor lady who was reciting a list of British casualties in Iraq from the steps of the Cenotaph and found herself escorted away by no fewer than 10 policemen. That is an example of what vagueness can do and this clause is extremely vague. As a matter of interest, I would like to know whether the word ““organisation”” is defined in the Bill. Is one person capable of being an organisation? This is an important matter.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1131 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Civil liberties Admissibility of evidence Criminal proceedings Codes of practice Appeals Administration of justice Detainees Crimes against property Communication Electronic surveillance Evidence Intelligence services Judges Police Prosecutions Proscribed organisations Police custody Politics and government Scotland Terrorism Remand in custody Time limits Telephone tapping Cryptography Sunset clauses
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk