Terrorism Bill

I have listened carefully to the Under-Secretary. He knows that I did not intend to press amendment No. 57 to the vote because I accept that ““suspects”” is necessary. We should therefore concentrate on the safeguards that may provide a let-out for those who would otherwise be criminalised. I am slightly reassured by the Under-Secretary’s comments on the point about the university lecturer. However, that slight reassurance is heavily tempered by his suggestion that our proposal would create ambiguity in that someone could report a suspicion to the police but continue to help in training in the knowledge that it was intended for terrorist purposes. That is rather far fetched and I am unable to accept it. Let us consider the basis for the money-laundering provisions. For all I know, solicitors or accountants may report suspicion in the belief that they could be exonerated from subsequent participation. The Under-Secretary’s argument would be equally valid in that case, yet the Government were happy to provide a framework similar to our proposal.