---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, it seems that the Government’s position combines the risk of serious damage to journalism with the absence of any benefit whatever to our national security. I want to read another passage from what John Simpson wrote. He said:"““There have been unreflective, knee-jerk laws in this area in the past: the ban on broadcasting the sound of Gerry Adams’s voice, for instance. It will be much harder to defend society better against terrorism if we prevent journalists from finding out the precise nature of the threat against us. Does the Government really mean to do this amount of damage to the meticulous, independent journalistic investigation of terrorism? Surely not””." Unfortunately, the Government have shown that their answer is ““Surely yes””. In those circumstances, I must take the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 145 Clause 21 [Grounds of proscription]: