---

Terrorism Bill

I should put on record at this stage—because do doubt it will come up repeatedly during our deliberations—that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and our report has come out only today. These issues are ones about which we thought a great deal in drafting the report. The first point I would like to make is that I am very glad indeed to hear my noble friend the Minister say that the issue of intent is going to be revisited in our deliberations. We see this as crucial. It is central to the way in which law has traditionally operated. Distinguishing the person’s intention in what they were doing and saying from how others interpreted what they were doing and saying is a very important issue. I want unashamedly to make one point at this stage of our deliberations. I take second place to no one in my concern about the gravity of the issues with which we are confronted. It would be lamentable, to say the very least, if somebody who was guilty of the most heinous crimes against innocent people were to go free because of inadequacies in the drafting of law. However, in the midst of the dangers that confront us and the gravity of the situation, we are about defending our society and what makes it worth living. The rights of the accused are crucially important. We must not, therefore, simply concentrate in our deliberations on what would make for a more effective prosecution. We also have honestly to state that the law must be quite clear in its approach so that the interests and rights of the accused are being properly considered throughout its Administration. What we are discussing here is central to that. The Committee has not yet dealt with this point about ““would””, but it is an interesting one. It is central to the issue of having as much clarity and certainty as is possible to achieve not only to ensure effective prosecution, on the one hand, but to ensure that the rights and freedom of the accused are not being rode over roughly, on the other.