Part of Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill – in the House of Commons at 6:00 pm on 9 November 2005.
Robert Marshall-Andrews
Labour, Medway
6:00,
9 November 2005
That may well be right. That could be the solution.
In the argument that I have just postulated, the problem with the Amendment tabled by David Davis, well intentioned though it undoubtedly is, is that even leaving that recklessness—as in the case of R v. G—in the Act means that I would be caught, because I undoubtedly would foresee the possibility that someone out there would be comforted or encouraged by what I say. In those circumstances, I would be caught by recklessness, either under the old Caldwell recklessness or under R v. G, because a subjective test would be applied to me and I would own up. I would be guilty, under the Bill. I would have no choice but to say, "I'm sorry, it's a fair cop, guv. It shouldn't be, but it is."
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
