Skip to main content

1-20 of 230 results for subject:Incitement

Year X
2007

Type

House

Session

Month

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

By using the word ““appropriate””, the Minister is suggesting that the High Court would operate in an inappropriate way; otherwise, he would not have put the word in the Bill in the first place. I do not accept his argument. For the purposes of clarity, ““necessary and proportionate”” sums up...

Member
James Brokenshire (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c99-101
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. If the activities to which he referred were undertaken in pursuit of serious crime, the answer is yes. I do not demur from the notion that we need to look at other aspects of the broader issue of incitement. The incitement aspects of...

Member
Tony McNulty (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c118-9
House
House of Commons

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I shall make a few remarks. I reciprocate the warm appreciation that I received from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing who, along with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other...

Member
Lord Coaker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c125
House
House of Commons

I shall apply myself to the specific issue of certainty and clarity. When the Minister said that the tests would be virtually the same, it raises an important question. If they are virtually the same, why can they not be the same? It is no more difficult than that. I...

Member
Lord Deben (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c101-2
House
House of Commons

Does that not show that divisions in politics nowadays are often not between left and right but between libertarians such as the right hon. Gentleman and me, and authoritarians?

Member
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c102
House
House of Commons

I was trying to use good, old-fashioned language so as not to upset the Under-Secretary too much, but the hon. Gentleman may be right. The Government are the most authoritarian Administration that Britain has ever had. No historian would question that. The hon. Member for Taunton hinted at the importance...

Member
Lord Deben (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c102-3
House
House of Commons

In the time available, I will go through the various amendments. However, I do not propose to go through them in fine detail, not least because, as hon. Members who are present know, we have already debated them in great detail in Committee. They were also debated in equal detail...

Member
Lord Coaker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c103-4
House
House of Commons

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman added that rider. He must have suddenly realised, when he said that he hoped that the orders were proportionate, that he was suggesting by implication that the High Court—which is, as he knows, a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights...

Member
Lord Coaker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c99
House
House of Commons

The Minister has said that he expects that that standard will apply. Can he state categorically that it is the Government's intention that that standard should apply? That is an important but distinct point on which we would appreciate some certainty.

Member
James Brokenshire (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c104
House
House of Commons

To put beyond reasonable doubt what I am saying, the civil court, in making its judgment about such matters, should take into account the case of McCann in the House of Lords. I am not a lawyer, but every time I raise the issue everybody says to me, ““Well you...

Member
Lord Coaker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c104-6
House
House of Commons

In that example of an employee, the Minister has said that it would be up to the employee to show that his actions were reasonable. Does he accept that that would be a somewhat perverse burden in those circumstances, should an SCPO be sought against such an individual?

Member
James Brokenshire (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c106
House
House of Commons

I do not accept that, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman knows. We have already debated that matter long and hard. As I have said, the intent behind the amendments seems to be to force the applicant authority to show that the actions were unreasonable. Whether that is correct...

Member
Lord Coaker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c106-7
House
House of Commons

I am grateful for a final opportunity to speak on the Bill. As is customary, I shall begin by thanking the many people involved in its inception. In the other place, where the Bill kicked off, my noble Friends Lords Dholakia, Goodhart, Burnett and Livsey all made substantial contributions to...

Member
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c122-4
House
House of Commons

I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and applied the scrutiny and the approach to which the Minister has alluded in seeking to highlight points in the Bill and to raise the concerns that rightly exist in relation to the operation of its provisions. I want to...

Member
James Brokenshire (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c119-22
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. This Bill has been debated at some length, both in this House and the other place, which has culminated in us debating on Report a piece of legislation that will provide important tools in the fight against...

Member
Tony McNulty (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c117-8
House
House of Commons

The Minister mentioned incitement. The Bill gets rid of the common law offence of incitement and replaces it with new provisions. There is growing concern across the country, and on both sides of the House, about incitement in lyrics, especially of rap songs, which are particularly offensive to minority groups....

Member
Philip Hollobone (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c118
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the Minister for his customary courtesy in dealing with all aspects of the Bill. However, I wish to press the amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 274.

Member
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c107
House
House of Commons

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Member
Lord Coaker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c124
House
House of Commons

I have no doubt that many of matters raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) are legitimate matters for debate, but this is not the time for that debate. As he suggested, new clause 5 will not achieve what he seeks to achieve, not least because of the...

Member
Tony McNulty (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c88-9
House
House of Commons

I present to the House new clause 5, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends; amendment No. 83 is consequential to it. Through its long title, the Bill offers us the opportunity of looking at the working of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,...

Member
Dominic Grieve (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c85-8
House
House of Commons