The Under-Secretary certainly appeared to imply that. He argued that my suggestion that people who had a suspicion could escape prosecution by showing that they had told their employer, the head of the department where they were working in the case of the university lecturer, or the police, was somehow not appropriate because it would facilitate such training. For that reason, I intend to press amendment No. 58 to the vote because I want to encourage the Under-Secretary in the review that he will conduct between now and next Wednesday. Similarly, I shall seek to press amendment No. 59 to a vote thereafter, with your leave, Mr. Cook, because there is a real issue involved here in respect of attendance at a place where terrorist training takes place. So, with the leave of the Committee, I seek to withdraw amendment No. 57, and I hope that I shall be able, initially, to put amendment No. 58 to the vote.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
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 c1018 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:44:37 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275441
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275441
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275441