Counter-Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I endorse what has been said about the general thrust of the amendments, which I of course support, and what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said about complexity and the dangers that go with attempting to legislate at such speed, albeit in necessary circumstances. I have one small point to raise, which I have not made the subject of an amendment. It is a faint point that I raise in the interests of consistency about the drafting in line 213 of government Amendment No. 61A, which is to be found on page 12 of the Marshalled List that was published on 7 November—I hope that there has not been a subsequent one. My point gives rise to the question whether there is any difference in meaning between undertaking enhanced customer due diligence measures and taking enhanced customer due diligence measures. This is very much a nit-picking point but nits, if left undealt with, can turn very toxic. It is a point for Committee, but there is no opportunity to take it elsewhere. Paragraph 10(1) of the proposed new schedule, beginning on line 213, states: "““A direction may require a relevant person to undertake enhanced customer due diligence measures””." Paragraph 10(2), states: "““The direction may do either or both of the following … impose a general obligation to take enhanced customer due diligence measures””," and so on. Immediately after that, we read that the direction may, "““require a relevant person to undertake specific measures identified or described in the direction””." I do not think that a technical distinction is intended between taking and undertaking enhanced customer due diligence measures. Paragraph 11(2) states: "““The direction may do either or both of the following … impose a general obligation to undertake enhanced ongoing monitoring””," and so on. There is scope for tidying this up, in case leaving it at large gives rise, in some later litigation, to a quite unintended distinction and to difficulty.