---

Terrorism Bill

I apologise because I was sitting in great comfort thinking that my noble friend Lord Bassam was to reply, but of course I realise that it is for me to respond and I am delighted to do so. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, for raising this matter. I hope that I shall be able to reassure them that there is little for them to be troubled by. Clause 8 creates the offence of attending a place where terrorist training is taking place, and I am sure that I do not need to explain at any length the rationale for that. Training lies at the heart of successful terrorism and we need to clamp down on the places where such training takes place and on those who attend. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, gave us a graphic example of how groups meet in the most unlikely of locations. We must not be na&-uml;ve about such things; I agree with her about that. Concerns have been expressed about the effect of Clause 8 on legitimate investigative journalism. The Government’s position on this is clear. Nothing in the clause or the Bill as a whole will hinder in any way the work of legitimate investigative journalists or those who find themselves in the same position as that experienced by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. She was in the middle of a situation of which she could have no real understanding and discovered subsequently that it was a training camp. She then made every effort to leave immediately. Someone in that position, or a journalist who suspects that terrorist training is taking place, can take steps to establish whether there is any foundation for their suspicions. However, at the point when their suspicions are confirmed, the correct course is to leave, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, indicated, and, if they are good citizens, to alert the appropriate authorities to what is going on. I do not see how this approach is hindered in any way by the clause. Anyone finding themselves in the situation described by the noble Baroness, once they have established the facts, should leave immediately. The mere fact that they find themselves in that position would not put them in any difficulty. The important moment is when they discover or realise that it is a terrorist training camp. Staying thereafter would become a difficulty. Up to that point, when the person does not know, is not sure or may simply suspect, no offence is committed. It is the moment they establish where they are that they must take proper steps to remove themselves. That is particularly true for journalists who find themselves in that situation. Under Clause 8 as currently drafted, there would be nothing to put such a person at risk. Amendment No. 84, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, is not necessary. Exactly the same argument applies to the first part of Amendment No. 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I will not dwell on it, other than to repeat that the Bill as drafted provides the protection that the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord seek. The second part of Amendment No. 85 provides that a person does not commit an offence if, while at the terrorist training camp, he had no intention of furthering the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or conventional offences. This would be a significant loophole. I imagine the courts would be faced with a steady stream of people claiming that they were simply observing but not participating. There might be those who would claim that they were just doing the catering or running the crèche. People would certainly argue that they were only at the terrorist training camp to provide humanitarian assistance. The Government’s position is clear: no one has any legitimate reason to be at a place where they know terrorists are being trained. It is as simple as that. We should not provide any loopholes which will make prosecutions virtually impossible to secure. Amendment No. 86, which again is in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, provides an exemption for covert human intelligence sources, drawing on the definition found in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I understand what the noble and learned Lord is seeking to achieve. However, I invite him to consider the context in which we have dealt with these issues and to accept that the amendment is not necessary. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act already provides a detailed and effective code for the operation of covert human intelligence sources. Exceptions for the acts of such sources are not included in relation to other criminal offences and we do not intend to begin providing such exceptions in the Bill. On principle, the Government resist giving intelligence and security agencies, and those who act on their behalf, special statutory protections that would place them above the law as it applies to others. In the light of the reassurance I have given that those who find themselves in situations similar to the one described by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, would not be in jeopardy as a result of the way in which the clause is drafted—including investigative journalists trying to discover whether terrorist training is taking place—I hope the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.