---

Terrorism Bill

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says in relation to that. I am confident that there are no circumstances when it is likely that I will be glorified. I have a very clear appreciation of my own ability. If I did not have it before today, I shall certainly have it afterwards. The issue for the courts will always be one of how they interpret these provisions. I wish I could be as sanguine as the noble and learned Lord that the courts spend as much time, on a Pepper v Hart basis, looking at our debates as some of us would perhaps wish. The courts have also had a tendency to say, ““We will look at the Bill and the terms contained within it. Although Hansard may assist us, the debates in the House are of such interesting quality that one can almost subtract from it anything one wishes about where the balance was at the end of the day””. This is a very clear opportunity to give the courts examples of things which specifically should be caught. I have already explained why that is important. A specific, identified mischief needed to be addressed and the subsection addresses it. It is not otiose; it does not detract from the provisions in Clause 1(1) or Clause 2 in relation to intent and it is not in conflict with anything therein and would be helpful. This commitment was made as part of our manifesto and we intend to honour it. I have no need to remind your Lordships that this provision met with assent in the other place, in such a way as to suggest that it would doubtless meet with assent again.