---

Terrorism Bill

We accept that the Minister has moved a long way and we are grateful to her for the way in which she described it at the beginning of our deliberations. The problem is that we are not sure how far she has moved and I would like to focus again on the issue that has been raised. If I lecture a group of students and make a speech setting out the views of a terrorist, I accept, in terms of subsection (1), that I have made a statement,"““that is likely to be understood . . . as . . . indirect encouragement . . . to the commission . . . of acts of terrorism””." However, my defence under subsection (7) is that that is not my view and I am not endorsing the statement. The issue on which we require clarification is whether I have to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that I do not hold or endorse those views, or whether it is for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that those are my views and that I endorse the statement that I read out. That is the precise issue and, although it is not for me to make suggestions to the Minister, it requires her considerable thought. As my noble friend said, the matter arose in the Terrorism Act 2000, and was the subject of considerable discussion. It was raised by my noble friend Lord Goodhart, and, as a result of his intervention at that time, the burden of proof became an evidential burden on the defence and no more than that. That is the issue on which we need clarification.