Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 17 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill 2005-06.


Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 2: "Page 1, line 5, after ““by”” insert ““some or all of the””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. These are both relatively minor amendments and I hope that we shall not have to spend too long debating them. However, before explaining the detail of the amendments, I should like to say a little about the Government’s general approach with regard to Clauses 1 and 2. I hope that all noble Lords will have read the amendments and will be aware of the broad package that we now propose. Our broad aim is now to insert ““intent”” and ““recklessness”” into Clause 2. As part of this package we also propose to revise wording in Clauses 1, 3 and 28. I am confident that this package will satisfy the concerns expressed, in particular by my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lady Warwick but echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and a number of other noble Lords. Before we go into the detail of these issues, it is right that I should explain these relatively minor amendments. I hope that we can end this part of the debate quickly. Amendment No. 2 clarifies that a statement will fall under Clause 1 if it is likely to encourage some or all members of its audience to commit, prepare for or instigate acts of terrorism or convention offences. This amendment is intended to provide greater clarity in the Bill, but does not change the way in which we have all in practice understood this clause. Amendment No. 3 would remove the redundant expression. I realise that we have discussed this provision previously and I argued that it should be kept. On reflection, however, it became clear that the wording in question does not make any beneficial difference to the offence and can be taken out in the interests of brevity and clarity. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for bringing this provision to my attention at an earlier stage. Amendment No. 13 is a technical, consequential amendment, necessitated by government Amendment No. 4. It would not change the meaning of the offence in any substantial way. I therefore urge your Lordships to support these government amendments, crafted so beautifully as they are. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c549-50 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Databases ICT Incitement Exemptions Libraries Internet Higher education Organised crime Publications Sales Terrorism Surveillance Telecommunications British Library Encouragement of terrorism
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk