---

Terrorism Bill

Yes, it is. The convoluted drafting of clause 1 is going to be nightmare for anyone who has to deal with it in the courts. On the other hand, in a spirit of good will and compromise, I have not touched that provision in my amendment. I have simply added to it two completely unobjectionable paragraphs that would deal precisely with the point that I am making. This would simply import into the Bill the provision that recklessness would apply only if what someone perceived as likely was inducement or encouragement to reasonable members of the public. If I say something that I perceive may induce or encourage reasonable members of the public to commit terrorist offences, I ought to be prosecuted for it. I accept that immediately. But I should not be prosecuted for saying something that I genuinely believe may encourage someone whom I do not intend to encourage but who I know may be encouraged by what I say because of their state of mind—however mad, irrational or evil they may be. I would be caught under the existing provision, and we should not allow that. I hope that amendment No. 64 commends itself to the Opposition. I am going to ask them to smile upon me—because they will be given the first bite of this particular cherry, although the cherry might be too small for two bites to be taken from it—and to allow the amendment to go through.