Terrorism Bill

I was going to address the points made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is in the Chamber, but it was good that he popped in to see us. He will know that amendment No. 48 is an attempt to narrow the extra-territorial jurisdiction. The measures in clause 1 that we are discussing would apply only to convention offences because if we are to be able to ratify international conventions on the matter and comply with our international obligations, we have to ensure that there is extra-territorial jurisdiction. Other states will be doing exactly that, too. There are circumstances in which we refuse to extradite people to states in which offences take place, such as for human rights reasons. We thus must have the extra-territorial jurisdiction to allow us to carry out a prosecution here for an offence on which we are unwilling to extradite for good reasons. We have tabled further amendments on extra-territorial jurisdiction to narrow its reach as an attempt to address genuine concerns that were raised about the worldwide jurisdiction of the Bill. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talked about pressure from other Governments and raised the question of the glorification of proscription offences in clause 21. We will make a proper and full assessment of organisations, without any preconceptions, to examine the criteria that apply to proscription. We will then reach a proper view on the basis of the evidence. Clause 21 addresses the fact that promoting or encouraging terrorism will include glorification. It is proper for us to say that if organisations glorify terrorism, they should not operate in this country and draw young people into extremism. The final point that I wanted to make was—