I am sure that the Minister will forgive me, Sir Nicholas. I am new to this place. I have been doing something else, which was perhaps linked to this Bill.

In relation to amendment No. 111, I want clarification of the indirect and the offences the Bill covers. Does the phrase

“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”. cover someone who was carrying out extortion or an armed robbery and, when he is arrested, says, “Well, I did not know that the man who asked me to carry out the armed robbery was a member of a terrorist organisation, but can I be let off as well?” Will the Minister give us some clarity? As Opposition Members have pointed out, there are some other cases in which people have decided to come under the paramilitary cover of justice after the event. We are owed some clarity.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for tabling new clause 2. At least he is attempting to open up the debate on what exactly collusion is and the issue of actions that are carried out in the combating of terrorism. Collusion is an interesting thing; it is well played up in Northern Ireland by a certain section of the community in an attempt to destabilise not only the British Government, but any initiatives of the forces of law and order. We have yet to hear of any convictions for collusion. I agree with people on both sides of the Room that anyone who is found guilty of colluding with terrorists should face the full rigours of the law. No one here has said that that should not be the case. The hon. Gentleman has not tried to exclude collusion from the Bill; what is trying to exclude is those offences committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is not the same as collusion.

Let me give an example. In east Belfast in 1992 two Guardsmen by the names of Fisher and Wright shot dead a man who they genuinely believed was about to carry out an act of terrorism. They were subsequently tried and found guilty of murder in the courts. They were not colluding; they did not join up with the LVF, the UVF, the Red Hand Commando, the IRA or anyone else. They made, in my view, an error, but the courts felt that they had committed murder. So be it, but they did not collude in terrorism.