---

Terrorism Bill

Earlier in our proceedings, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked who might not be a member of the public. I would like to suggest that somebody who undoubtedly would be a member of the public would be a member of a jury invited to try a prosecution under this particular provision. They are not likely to take kindly to being told what it is likely that they should understand as indirectly encouraging the commission of a terrorist offence. Page 2 of the Bill states:"““For the purposes of this section the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public””." The jury are going to say, ““Thank you very much—we thought we were there as members of the public to determine what the English language means””. That can be perfectly well avoided by heeding what has been said already this evening—that this clause is quite unnecessary. Once you have encouragement of an offence, you do not need to go on to specify what should be done in the case of conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances. Emulation is a result of encouragement. The purpose of encouraging is to bring about emulation, so it is quite unnecessary. I think the Minister will say that this is included in the Bill for the avoidance of doubt. Unfortunately, it will create much more doubt and she can be spared a lot more trouble from her already far-too-onerous load by dropping it.