Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. I have not used the word ““intent”” in my amendments for the very reason that he stated; intent is a matter for proof in the criminal court. Instead, I have sought to circumscribe to a very small degree the discretion which the Secretary of State has in deciding whether to proscribe an organisation. However, I have listened with care to the safeguards to which the Minister referred, and note particularly that there is parliamentary scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s decision and that affirmative orders are required before proscription can be affirmed. Mindful of the fact that the clause is to be considered later in another place, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, and express my great thanks to those who have spoken in favour of it in this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 678 c229
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Conduct ICT EU law Exemptions Libraries Internet Electronic commerce Journalism Protection Police Powers Prosecutions Proscribed organisations Publications Terrorism Stop and search Training Encouragement of terrorism
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:09:31 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296840
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296840
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296840