---

Terrorism Bill

They are unnecessary, but if we are to have them, for heaven’s sake, let us have a proper legal basis for the offence. We should adopt the traditional route of mens rea—a guilty mind. At the very least, there should be the intent to commit an offence, rather than stumbling into it. On that point, I pray in aid of my amendments, which would introduce a requirement of intent and replace ““are likely to”” with ““will””, a letter of support from the Law Society of Scotland, which came to me via my good friend the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked why there is a difference between clause 1, which refers to what members of the public ““will”” understand, and other clauses, which refer to what they are ““likely to”” understand. I have not heard his question answered by a Government Member. All the amendments in the group row in the same direction. My hon. Friends and I do not intend to press our amendments, because their purport is covered by other amendments, not least the ones tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). We have been drawn into the Bill—I shall not say dishonestly, because that would be unparliamentary, but let me say that we have been drawn into it slowly but surely by the Home Secretary. On 20 July, he said:"““indirect incitement, when it is done with the intention of inciting others to commit acts of terrorism—that is an important qualification—will become a criminal offence.””—[Official Report, 20 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1254.]" That is, more or less, where the argument has focused today. On 6 October, in relation to amended draft clauses for the Bill, the Home Secretary stated that"““the offender must have also intended to incite further acts of terror””." The requirement that a person can be guilty of encouraging terrorism only when they intend to encourage further acts of terror is also found in article 5 of the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism, which requires signatories to criminalise"““the distribution, or otherwise making available of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence.””" The explanatory notes state that clause 1"““has been introduced to implement the requirements of Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention for the Prevention of Terrorism””," but as drafted, the clause contains no such requirement on the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to incite or encourage further acts of terrorism. Under the clause, it is sufficient that a defendant merely had ““reasonable grounds”” to believe that another member of the public, however unreasonable that hypothetical person may be, might understand his or her words as a direct or indirect encouragement to prepare, commit or even instigate an act of terrorism. I am saddened by the fact that we are debating the Bill today. Such a Bill does nothing for Parliament. Only a few months ago, Parliament sought to criminalise Brian Haw, the protester who sits outside Parliament—and a right dog’s breakfast Parliament made of that. Given the curtailing of every debate in this place, it is no wonder that we have been making rotten law. Rotten law is one thing, but a law that might criminalise and imprison a person for seven years for saying, without thinking about committing or intending to commit an offence, something that might be offensive is more than rotten: it is undesirable and insidious, as well. I am embarrassed by the whole process and I do not think that we would have slipped into this sort of debate 10 years ago. The Government want to act tough. Every time, they react by creating a new offence. Earlier today in Prime Minister’s questions, I referred to 700 criminal offences that have been introduced—seven per month, or almost two a week. That is ridiculous, and of all the new offences, the ones set out in the first clauses of this Bill will be the worst. If the hon. and learned Member for Medway presses his amendment, I hope that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will vote in favour of it, because he is absolutely right. We should appreciate the fact that he speaks from experience and vote accordingly.