Results 1-18 of 18 for terrorism speaker:Mark Fisher

Orders of the Day — Identity Cards Bill (29 Mar 2006)

Mark Fisher: ...the Government what the debate is not about. We had been led to believe that it was about us coming in line with an international network of information that would allow us to tackle international terrorism and international crime. It was interesting that the Home Secretary said today that Britain was not acting as part of an international network, nor in relation to any requirement from...

Orders of the Day — Identity Cards Bill (16 Mar 2006)

Mark Fisher: ...hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said, the proposed scheme will not be effective; the card certainly will not achieve any of the things that the Government hope for it against terrorism, international fraud and so on, unless it is universal. The idea that it could be semi-universal actually denies the whole purpose of an ID card, certainly in terms of its practical...

Identity Cards Bill: Clause 5 — Applications relating to entries in Register (13 Mar 2006)

Mark Fisher: There is a perfectly logical case for compulsory identity cards. If one believes, as the Home Secretary does, that they really will deliver something very important in the fight against terrorism, fraud or impersonation, of course we should have a universal card, and a universal card is only possible if it is compulsory. However, that is not what our manifesto says. It says that there should...

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill: New Clause 6 — Power to make control orders (28 Feb 2005)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...those who voted in favour of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and against the Government on various other provisions are unaware of the dangers of terrorism. Indeed, I do not believe that a single Member is complacent or soft on terrorism. We are all, frankly, frightened and concerned about it. The idea that any one of us cares more about...

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill: New Clause 6 — Power to make control orders (28 Feb 2005)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...There were flickerings of that when the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary invited the other parties to Downing street. It is clear that everybody, because they are concerned about the threat of terrorism, wants to try to find a solution, but that will not be achieved by the adversarial process inherent in both our judicial system and the House; it must be through consensus and debate....

Orders of the Day — Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill: Clause 21 — Suspected international terrorist: certification (12 Dec 2001)

Mr Mark Fisher: Members on both sides of the House agree that we are under threat from terrorism—the whole world is under threat from terrorism, this country perhaps more than most others apart from the United States. We were under threat from terrorism before 11 September, and that threat may have increased since, but that is not the test for derogation. Mr. Pannick and others who support him say...

Orders of the Day — Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill: Clause 17 — Extension of existing disclosure powers (12 Dec 2001)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...Members have said, makes good practical sense. Of course, the Home Secretary made the perfectly fair point that the relationship between crime—and sometimes even misdemeanour—and terrorism is complicated and that the one may lead to the other. We all agree that there is a link that may be helpful in detecting terrorism and in bringing terrorists to justice. When the Home...

Orders of the Day — Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill: Clause 17 — Extension of existing disclosure powers (12 Dec 2001)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...is simply describing good police detective practice—something that already happens in criminal law and in the detection of other terrorist acts. It happened throughout our attempts to prevent terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. It is good detective practice to bring together disparate pieces of information. From what the Government have said, they have not demonstrated that...

Orders of the Day — Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill — [1st Allotted Day]: Clause 21 — Suspected international terrorist: certification (21 Nov 2001)

Mr Mark Fisher: The Home Secretary is willing to allow people voluntarily to leave the country whom he has good reason to suspect are associated with international terrorism. It cannot be good to let loose into the international community people whom he believes to be international terrorists; they should be detained and prosecuted here. We would do international security no favours by allowing those people...

Orders of the Day — Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill — [1st Allotted Day]: Clause 21 — Suspected international terrorist: certification (21 Nov 2001)

Mr Mark Fisher: ..."terrorist" to which it will work? I welcome what he had to say about rethinking the use of the word "links" in clause 21(2)(c), but I find it difficult to understand what has changed since the Terrorism Act 2000 was passed. Clause 40 of that Act contains a completely different definition of the word "terrorist". Has that definition proved inadequate and, if so, in what way? Why are we...

Orders of the Day — Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (19 Nov 2001)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...agreed about the scale and nature of the dangers that confront us, and that almost all considered many of the intentions and new powers in the Bill to be sensible. The prospect of international terrorism focusing on Sellafield certainly concentrates the mind on the powers of the police around nuclear plants, and the idea that terrorist organisations can accumulate money in their bank...

Orders of the Day — Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (19 Nov 2001)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...of a country's system of law and order. I do not believe that it was meant to deal with a horrendous attack in another country that made us all only too acutely aware of the scope and nature of terrorism. I commend the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the speed with which it has served the House by issuing its report. In paragraph 30 of that report, the Committee seems to say that it is...

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill: Terrorism: Interpretation (15 Mar 2000)

Mr Mark Fisher: I certainly did and I would do it again as it was in a good cause. The idea that I was committing an act of terrorism is absolute nonsense. I believe that would be generally accepted. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) who is no longer in his place said, a jury would probably acquit one, but that misses the point of the Bill. It is not about whether or...

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill: Terrorism: Interpretation (15 Mar 2000)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...against property and against the person. I cannot think of anything that the criminal law does not cover. That requires us to be much more detailed and specific about what we mean by an act of terrorism that is distinct from normal criminal activity. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said about the debate in Committee and the various speculations....

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill: Terrorism: Interpretation (15 Mar 2000)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...to go too far down that path, because the House wants to make progress, but I think that the amendments are all designed to pare away certain elements rather than identifying what is specific about terrorism. Surely a threat to the security of the state is at the heart of what most of us mean by terrorism as well as of most dictionary and legal definitions. None of the amendments quite...

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill: Terrorism: Interpretation (15 Mar 2000)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...announces his intention, or hope, of burning a field of GM crops, would bring all the consequences triggered under clause 1. Does not the definition used in the clause throw our definition of terrorism far too wide?

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill: Terrorism: Interpretation (15 Mar 2000)

Mr Mark Fisher: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who has had to live under the shadow of terrorism as hon. Members from English or Welsh constituencies have not had to do. I listened carefully to his comments and to all of the debate. I was not a Committee member, and therefore was not party to the detailed speculation on the various definitions of...

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill: Terrorism: Interpretation (15 Mar 2000)

Mr Mark Fisher: ...the concept of threat. That is one of the things that I find most baffling and disturbing about the Government's wording in the Bill: the threat of serious violence against property constitutes terrorism. As I read their wording, a letter threatening to burn a field of GM crops would constitute an act of terrorism. I sympathise with much of what he says, but, by maintaining the idea of...