Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 36, 37, 39, 40 and 43. Clause 6 creates an offence, so we must be very confident that that offence is on a proper basis. My amendments would change the words, "““or has reasonable cause to suspect””," in the context of a person knowing or suspecting that certain information is to be treated as confidential, to ““reasonably suspects””. The same point comes up in a number of places in the Bill. The two terms are obviously extremely close but ““reasonable cause to suspect”” is about the reason for the suspicion, whereas ““reasonably suspects””—my alternative phrase—is about the suspicion itself. One needs to ask whether the suspicion is reasonable in the round, as distinct from merely whether it is reasonable to believe in whatever caused the suspicion. Indeed, with regard to the term in the Bill, ““reasonable cause to suspect””, I might add the question: does the person have to have the suspicion or can he be guilty of an offence—I stress that this is why this issue is important—if he believes something that would lead a reasonable person to suspect although the person himself does not form the suspicion? If someone says ““angels and pinpoints”” I shall understand, but I think that there is an issue there. Amendment 36, quite differently, would take out the reference to ““any other enactment”” in Clause 6(4)(c), where disclosure is permitted if it is necessary to give effect to a requirement under this part or under any other enactment. I have tabled this amendment in order to ask the Government to justify those words and to explain why it cannot be left to the ““other enactment”” to deal with the situation. I beg to move.