Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 6, line 41, leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 7 on page 7 and insert—
(1) If any person—
intending that the money or other property shall be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this section applies, he shall be guilty of an offence.
( ) If any person gives, lends or otherwise makes available to any other person, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property, knowing or suspecting that the money or other property will or may be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this section applies, he shall be guilty of an offence.
( ) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (1A) above
§ Dr. Summerskill
These amendments constitute a substantial redrafting of subsection (1) of the new clause, which deals with contributions to acts of terrorism, and contain minor adjustments to the 162 remainder of the clause. The amendments also bring within the scope of the clause the case where money is raised not by way of a gift but by way of a bogus sale.
There was some criticism of the drafting of the clause, on stylistic grounds, on Report. These amendments reflect the Government's response to these criticisms and attempt to clarify the sense of the clause in general. We have not gone all the way to meet some of the points which were made, but we believe the amended version is a significant improvement on the clause as at present drafted.
The only change of substance we have made is, by the first amendment, to include within the scope of the clause money raised not by way of a gift but by way of a bogus sale, for example by selling flags, or by a raffle. We believe that an amendment to this effect should be made so that there is no possibility of a technical escape on these grounds.
The second amendment is consequential on the first. The third and fourth amendments are purely drafting, and meet a criticism of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) of the grammatical construction of the words "and intended".
§ Mr. Powell
Another place has found the way to fulfil the prediction that I made on Report—namely, that it was not beyond the capacities of the parliamentary draftsmen to turn Clause 10, as it then stood, into something more easily recognisable as English. In particular, I think that future generations will be grateful that we have been relieved from the spectre of a pronoun preceding its antecedent. In any case, however—purist or not—the result of the amendment is a decided improvement not merely stylistically, as the hon. Lady said, and not merely grammatically even, as I would say, but in terms of intelligibility. I welcome it.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Alison
Did I understand the hon. Lady to say that these amendments cover the additional case of money raised by way of bogus sale—for example, by a raffle? Without in any way seeking to detract from the clarity and improvement to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred, I 163 would like the hon. Lady to point out what operative phrases in the amendment cover the point of a sale or a raffle? Is it the phrase "for consideration"? If it is that phrase, again it is of Delphic ambiguity. It does not seem to be particularly clear. I take it that it is the standard phrase to cover a sale or raffle.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.