---

Terrorism Bill

I quite understand that that is the position. My position is that I have heard very clearly the views of the House, expressed by Members whom we all respect. They speak about the academic richness of our country and about things that are proper and real, and we very much want to respond in a positive way that would alleviate those concerns. Therefore, in putting forward the submissions that I am about to put forward, we believe that we are meeting those concerns. Indeed, in our Amendment No. 79, we believe that we go further than Amendment No. 83, and we do so because we acknowledge the force of the concerns that have been expressed. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing between us. On our Benches, we have the very powerful voices of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on libraries and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on universities; the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, speaks with her usual authority on these issues, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, in advancing the cause of the University of St Andrews. So we are all at one about the issues that need addressing so as to ensure that there is the certainty that we seek. As I have already said, we already have the indications that I gave on Monday in relation to Clauses 1(7) and 2(9). The concern was about statements or publications being in some circumstances objectionable but in others not so, and that it should therefore be illegal to publish or disseminate them in some circumstances but not in others. The clearest example of when it should not be illegal to use the material would be in purely academic contexts. The changes that I explained on Monday about the defences in Clauses 1(7) and 2(9) should provide sufficient comfort for the academics who are worried about Clauses 1 and 2. I explained the reasons for that at some length so, with the Committee’s indulgence, I shall not repeat them in detail now. In summary, the changes that we propose to make mean that it will be a defence for a person to show that he did not endorse a statement, when it was clear in all the circumstances that he did not. In an academic circumstance it would be clear that he did not endorse it, that he did not endorse the publication, or that he did not intend it to be of use to terrorists. That is in Clause 2. I am confident that those changes will protect all legitimate academic interests. It will protect institutions such as the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St Andrews University, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. It will protect history faculties that touch on Islamic extremism, and debating societies and libraries throughout the United Kingdom. Therefore, I urge noble Lords in whose names Amendments Nos. 21 and 45 have been moved or tabled not to press them. I make a similar point about Amendment No. 83. The change that we intend to make to Clause 6 should be entirely acceptable, we hope, to everyone who has expressed concern about the clause. The Government have tabled Amendment No. 79, which will mean that a person will commit an offence under the clause only if he knows that the person to whom he is giving training intends to use it for terrorist purposes. In other words, if he suspects or believes that the person intends to use the training for terrorist purposes, he will not be committing an offence. Of course, if he does suspect or believe that his student intends to use the training for terrorist purposes, as a good citizen he may want to report the matter to the relevant authorities, but he will not be committing an offence if he continues to provide training—only if he knows. That means that only those who know that the intention of their pupils is to use the training for terrorist purposes will be caught. We think that is correct. We say that if someone knows that the people they are training are seeking that training for the purpose of terrorism and none the less continues knowingly to train them in order to enable them to do so, of course properly they should be caught. We think this change represents a far better protection than that set out in Amendment No. 83. If an academic provides training knowing that his pupil intends to use it for terrorist purposes, he should be caught by this offence, but not otherwise.