I will deal with that point specifically when I conclude my remarks.
The Opposition also suggest that there should be a defence for those who try to prevent the training. Again, we are worried that that would create a sizeable loophole. If someone knows that terrorist training is happening, the appropriate course of action is to leave that place and alert the relevant authorities.
Amendment No. 59 deals also with those who may, against their will, be at a place where terrorist training occurs. Again, I am not sure that that is necessary because clause 8 provides that a person commits an offence if he ““attends”” a place where training occurs. Attendance implies voluntary participation rather than being kidnapped or held against one’s will. Attendance implies that the person has some intention of being there. The context is important but the change would create a loophole, which terrorists would not be slow to exploit.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Paul Goggins
(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 c1016 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:44:39 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275434
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275434
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275434