My Lords, this group contains only Amendment 13. That said, there ought to be two amendments, because a further amendment in exactly the same terms is required to Clause 3(2)(b).
Clause 3 deals with assisting a foreign intelligence service, and Clause 3(2)(a) provides that a person commits an offence if they engage in conduct
“that it is reasonably possible may materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities.”
For some reason that I cannot explain, we did not propose that Clause 3(2)(b), which provides that the person
“knows, or ought reasonably to know, that it is reasonably possible their conduct may materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities”
should be similarly amended. If this goes further, there will be such an amendment.
6.45 pm
The test of “reasonably possible” is hopelessly vague. It is 14 years for a reasonable possibility, for an offence that includes, I remind noble Lords, indirectly providing goods or services—any goods, any services—that it is reasonably possible may materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities. Again, I remind noble Lords that UK-related activities may mean any activities taking place in the UK—such as meeting for lunch or renting out a venue for a party. That casts the net far too wide.
We have proposed a modest amendment that it should be likely that there will be assistance. That is Amendment 13, and it is the minimum needed alongside our other amendments to the Clause 3 offence. We need to help to limit the ambit of the clause to fit the mischief at which it is aimed. I beg to move.