---

Terrorism Bill

This group of amendments is concerned with one issue only, and that is objective recklessness in Clause 1. We appear to have launched ourselves into Clause 2. What the noble Baroness has said will be extremely important when the Committee comes to debate Clause 2, but I respectfully suggest to noble Lords that, having heard the noble Baroness, we should wait until we get to that clause so that we can put her words into the context of the amendments we have tabled to it. If not, we are in danger of discussing government amendments to a text that we ourselves intend to amend, but have not yet discussed the details of those amendments. This may be an appropriate moment to bring this part of the debate to a close. I thank the noble Baroness for what she said on Amendment No. 9. I listened carefully to what she said on Amendment No. 8. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, has defined recklessness in the context of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. If I have understood the noble Baroness correctly, she has said that, for the kind of offence in the Bill, particularly when talking about terrorism in its generality rather than in relation to a certain act, the way in which the noble and learned Lord formulated the definition of recklessness for the Criminal Damage Act 1971 might not be appropriate for the offences as defined in this Bill. I understand exactly what the noble Baroness has said. I shall look at the issue before deciding what to do about this amendment on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.