---

Terrorism Bill

When I moved the amendment I think I said that it was a probing amendment. I realise now that it was a lance that was being employed, and that I have been offered, in what the Minister very generously said in response, material which goes far beyond what I intended. I was concerned not with intent, in the sense of the person accused, but with the description of a statement which is to be the subject of an offence. It has to be described adequately, in terms from which a jury would understand the kind of statement covered by this offence. Issues of intent of the person uttering the statement or being responsible for publishing it come at a later point. I am grateful for what has been said by all noble Lords on this matter. I would like to go back and consider again what the Minister has said. For the moment, I am not entirely happy with her response. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked me whether, as a judge, I would be happy trying to describe to the jury where they are going. In subsection (1), the offence has to be a statement that is,"““likely to be understood by members of the public to whom it is published””." It can be looked at first of all as a direct encouragement or other inducement. On the other hand, it can also be an indirect encouragement or inducement. We then have to go to subsection (4) to determine how that is to be looked at, particularly where it includes,"““every statement which glorifies the commission””," and so on, and is—this is the point I was making in opening—"““a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer””." So it goes on. I raise the issue in subsection (5) about the questions that could arise. I will look again very carefully at the Minister’s response, but I do not think that she quite covered the point I was trying to raise. My point is that, if you have a test of a statement which members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer was to glorify conduct which should be emulated by them, why cannot that test also properly be brought back into the description of a statement which directly invites them to take part in,"““the commission, preparation or instigation of acts””?" Obviously, I did not put the matter properly before your Lordships in opening. For that I apologise. But I would like to look at the matter again in the light of what the Minister has said and perhaps come back to it at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]