My Lords, does the Minister not accept that the number of individual cases quoted shows that the law is extremely difficult for the police to understand? Does he recognise that since 1984, when I took the PACE Act through this House, at least 50 and probably 54 criminal justice Bills...

My Lords, does the Minister not accept that the number of individual cases quoted shows that the law is extremely difficult for the police to understand? Does he recognise that since 1984, when I took the PACE Act through this House, at least 50 and probably 54 criminal justice Bills...

My Lords, the noble Lord’s is not a solitary voice. He rightly said that the last two of his illustrations might not justify this amendment, but his principal example of the investigative journalist is crucial. I hope that some means of protecting that activity will be found.

My Lords, the noble Lord’s is not a solitary voice. He rightly said that the last two of his illustrations might not justify this amendment, but his principal example of the investigative journalist is crucial. I hope that some means of protecting that activity will be found.

My Lords, it is such a pleasure to have two speakers from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. They obviously cannot perform a duet but it is good to have an accompanist instead.

My Lords, it is such a pleasure to have two speakers from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. They obviously cannot perform a duet but it is good to have an accompanist instead.

My Lords, may I—

My Lords, may I—

My Lords, I cannot see how that squares with the need for the journalist to report fully on what is going on and on the views of the people who are doing those things, which is what all the rest of us need to know.

My Lords, I cannot see how that squares with the need for the journalist to report fully on what is going on and on the views of the people who are doing those things, which is what all the rest of us need to know.

My Lords, I want to pick up on one word that the Minister used: ““participate””. I do not think that anyone was suggesting that there should be any participation.

My Lords, I want to pick up on one word that the Minister used: ““participate””. I do not think that anyone was suggesting that there should be any participation.

I am not quite sure I follow why this should be. If someone has a radioactive source sufficient to be a danger to the health and safety of people in, say, the Queen Elizabeth Hall, the Royal Courts of Justice or the House of Commons, why should that not be a grievous...

I am not quite sure I follow why this should be. If someone has a radioactive source sufficient to be a danger to the health and safety of people in, say, the Queen Elizabeth Hall, the Royal Courts of Justice or the House of Commons, why should that not be a grievous...

I am very much in favour of the provision because it appears to me that its first two subsections answer exactly my concerns about the difficulty of rebutting a charge that one had endorsed something.

I am very much in favour of the provision because it appears to me that its first two subsections answer exactly my concerns about the difficulty of rebutting a charge that one had endorsed something.

I should be happy if he would. All he has done is confirm what I thought the meaning was without giving a reason for it. The difficulty would be removed by my pressing my Amendment No. 112 and removing the exemption. I had hoped that he would be able to enlighten me before then. In...

I should be happy if he would. All he has done is confirm what I thought the meaning was without giving a reason for it. The difficulty would be removed by my pressing my Amendment No. 112 and removing the exemption. I had hoped that he would be able to enlighten me before then. In...

moved Amendment No. 96:"Page 16, line 17, after second ““in”” insert ““section 1 of””" The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 96 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97, 108, 109, 137, 138, 140 and 141. All these amendments embody what to me is a new formulation. It may simply be that I have not...

moved Amendment No. 96:"Page 16, line 17, after second ““in”” insert ““section 1 of””" The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 96 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97, 108, 109, 137, 138, 140 and 141. All these amendments embody what to me is a new formulation. It may simply be that I have not...

I simply cannot follow the noble Lord in this at all. The whole of the statute book is littered with references to the meaning of a term in one Act of Parliament by reference to a particular section of another without any reference to the rest of the other Acts, although...

I simply cannot follow the noble Lord in this at all. The whole of the statute book is littered with references to the meaning of a term in one Act of Parliament by reference to a particular section of another without any reference to the rest of the other Acts, although...

That was very lucid, but did not quite answer the question I asked. It was not, ““What is the relationship with terrorism?””, but, ““What is the relationship with Scotland?””. It is only ““in relation to Scotland”” that this exemption bites. An explosion, not in a bank, but in a barracks, which...

That was very lucid, but did not quite answer the question I asked. It was not, ““What is the relationship with terrorism?””, but, ““What is the relationship with Scotland?””. It is only ““in relation to Scotland”” that this exemption bites. An explosion, not in a bank, but in a barracks, which...

I accept that by what the noble Baroness has already said.

I accept that by what the noble Baroness has already said.

Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness therefore to write with the answer to a very simple question, to which I should know the answer. The decision to have this measure of extra-territoriality is a very sweeping and important matter. At what stage was it debated in the House? Was it a...

Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness therefore to write with the answer to a very simple question, to which I should know the answer. The decision to have this measure of extra-territoriality is a very sweeping and important matter. At what stage was it debated in the House? Was it a...

Has anybody moved a Motion yet?

Has anybody moved a Motion yet?

My Amendment No. 101 is to elicit the reason for treating offences under Sections 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 differently from the offences listed in Clause 17(2) when they are treated as triable in the United Kingdom—I refer your Lordships to Clause 17(5). My Amendment No. 102 is, first, to elicit which offences would...

My Amendment No. 101 is to elicit the reason for treating offences under Sections 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 differently from the offences listed in Clause 17(2) when they are treated as triable in the United Kingdom—I refer your Lordships to Clause 17(5). My Amendment No. 102 is, first, to elicit which offences would...

I am happy to speak to Amendments Nos. 101 and 102, provided that the answer is given separately and distinctly in the speech.

I am happy to speak to Amendments Nos. 101 and 102, provided that the answer is given separately and distinctly in the speech.

The words ““in relation to Scotland”” puzzle me in this context. Do they mean that the planning is done Scotland or that the explosion is intended to take place in Scotland? If I am in Edinburgh and I plan something in Puerto Rico, is that caught? If I am in Puerto Rico and...

The words ““in relation to Scotland”” puzzle me in this context. Do they mean that the planning is done Scotland or that the explosion is intended to take place in Scotland? If I am in Edinburgh and I plan something in Puerto Rico, is that caught? If I am in Puerto Rico and...

The noble Baroness invited me to defer my rather narrow point until a later time, which I think we have reached. I do not want to wait until Report because if we do, it will no doubt be too narrow to discuss. The point is very germane to our discussions, in particular...

The noble Baroness invited me to defer my rather narrow point until a later time, which I think we have reached. I do not want to wait until Report because if we do, it will no doubt be too narrow to discuss. The point is very germane to our discussions, in particular...

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s fairly convincing flow, but how is one expected to show that one has not endorsed something? How do you prove that negative?

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s fairly convincing flow, but how is one expected to show that one has not endorsed something? How do you prove that negative?