I did not want to broaden the debate into a consideration of what constitutes terrorism at this stage of the Committee’s proceedings. However, I wanted to point out to the Minister that clause 5 is an example, if one were needed, of how careful we must be elsewhere in the Bill when defining terrorism. If we get the definition wrong elsewhere in the Bill, I could be caught under clause 5 if I made a donation of 25p, or even, if we wish to be pedantic, if I went to the bank to draw out that money, because that would be conduct in preparation for my assistance—the donation itself. Surely that is not Parliament’s intention. We must get the definition of terrorism right elsewhere in the Bill, because otherwise clauses such as clause 5 will become nonsensical.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Rob Marris
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 3 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c1004 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:45:07 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275388
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275388
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275388