---

Terrorism Bill

I hear what the noble Earl says about muddle and some powerful speeches outlined why, regrettably, the position on terrorism that we face today is significantly different from that which we have ever faced. I know that the noble Earl may not accept that but we believe that the terrorism with which we are currently faced is significantly different. It is of a more virile, disparate effect. In answer to my noble friend Lord Ahmed, no one is saying that people must define how they describe people—as Kashmiri, independence campaigners, freedom fighters or terrorists. The Bill does not criminalise any description. We must be clear about what the Bill does. What is criminalised is the encouragement to commit terrorist acts, whether by express intent or recklessness where there is the application of the subjective test. That is a narrow compass indeed. A person could not reasonably have failed to know what the effect of his statement would be should he make it. There will be no circumstances under this offence, if we amend it as I describe, where the offence could be committed if the defendant did not either intend to encourage terrorism or know that his statement would do so. That is what Re G does. It says, ““You either expressly intended or you knew that your statement would encourage terrorism””. In those two narrow circumstances, culpability would have to be demonstrated that this offence would bite. We can put to one side the arguments about what a reasonable person might have thought objectively about what was said and we have to look at the specific, the subjective, of what this individual—not someone else—intended or knew. They will either stand or fall, be convicted or acquitted, on the basis of what they did, what they intended and what they knew. That is what the majority of people in this House wanted to see. With the combination of specific intent and a Re G form of recklessness, that is what we have. There are those who would say that Re G is wrong. I have got to the stage where I do not know what cannot be said. However, I say strongly that where the Government, having listened so carefully to what was said in the other place by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, and having listened to what was said by the majority in this House and just as powerfully by those who sit behind me on our Benches, we have come to the view that the right course would be intention and Re G recklessness. I have not stood at this Dispatch Box so long that not even I sometimes hope that I will be met with a certain degree of welcome when the Government move as far as we have moved today.