The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) may be more familiar than me with the precise wording, but there would have to be substantial entry beyond the fence. That is clear. My understanding is that the individuals concerned would physically have to go beyond the fence; in that sense there would need to be substantial entry to the site. In fact, the amendments are intended to be helpful and to clarify where people would not be committing an offence, whereas if we left the Bill as it is, they would be committing an offence even if they stood outside the perimeter fence and were on a licensed site.
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 c1028-9 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:44:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275466
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275466
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275466