Terrorism Bill

I support the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, the clause has a wide application. It covers part 1 and is therefore extremely broad in scope. I believe that it goes too far, especially in its inclusion of neglect, which the amendment would rightly exclude. Neglect is not the opposite of connivance or consent and does not complete every other possibility, but it imposes a substantial onus on a director, member, officer and so on to be absolutely sure that nothing he does could prevent the dissemination of a relevant publication. Perhaps my hon. Friend could advise me—at no charge—whether the term ““body corporate”” in the provision goes wider than a private company or, indeed, the public corporation that he mentioned. It appears to me that the trustees of a library, the secretary of a research institute and even the treasurer of a very respectable mosque might be caught if they had not taken every conceivable precaution to ensure that they could not be charged with neglect in the undertaking of their functions. The clause applies to a large part of the Bill and its drafting is far too wide. The least we can do is remove the provision for neglect.