Proceeding contribution from Charles Clarke (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 16 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
The point that I was making is that the amendment seeks to provide an exhaustive description, which, in my opinion, does not meet the original position put forward by the House. That is precisely why we think that the amendments made in the other place and the amendments tabled by the Opposition should not be accepted here. The removal of the reference to glorification, which appears to be the purpose of the amendments made in the other place, appears to be the position of the official Opposition, although it is difficult to be sure. On Tuesday, the official Opposition tabled amendments jointly with the Liberal Democrats that included the word ““glorifying””, but by yesterday those amendments had been replaced by Conservative amendments that do not make reference to glorification. In the other place, those on the Conservative Front Bench urged their colleagues not to vote against the Commons on those points. No doubt we will receive some clarification on that from the Opposition spokesman.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 443 c1665
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Incitement Terrorism Encouragement of terrorism
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-05-13 12:04:23 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309322
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309322
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309322