---

Terrorism Bill

I will then restrict my comments to Clause 1(7). We do not think that those two are incompatible and I shall make it plain that we make the concession in relation to the subjective test predicated on the removal of Clause 1(7)(a) but the retention of subsections (b) and (c) as a defence. And for the purposes of clarity, before I move to the substance of the comments I will make on Clause 2(9), it might assist the House if I indicate, as has already been accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we would remove subsection (9)(a). But then if we look logically—we do not have the draft, so I am trying to assist on the basis for debate—we would have to add an ““and”” after paragraph (b) and then the ““and”” that appears at the end of paragraph (c) would become ““or””. So, it would read (b) ““and”” (c) ““or”” (d). I say that at this stage so that as I am dealing with the other comments, noble Lords may wish to bear that in mind. Let us come back to the defence that we now propose in Clause 1(7). We do not believe that Amendment No. 20 would be useful, for the following reasons. If the limbs were alternatives, it would be possible for defendants to take advantage of the alternatives to disguise their real aims or beliefs. Given the relatively low standards of proof involved in demonstrating a defence it might be possible for defendants to show that they did not endorse the statement in question, for example by calling friends up to confirm the point even though it was clear in the circumstances that prevailed that they did. This would render the offence ineffective. Exactly the same point arises in the context of Amendment No. 42, which seeks to make a corresponding change to Clause 2(9). As I have indicated, we are happy to remove the first limb of the offence but it will be important that the remaining limbs continue to be governed by ““and””. Otherwise, we could again have the situation where a person seeks to show that the publication which he distributed does not reflect his views when it is quite apparent because of the circumstances of the case that that is not true. Unfortunately, we cannot accept Amendment No. 41 either, because it concerns the defence in Clause 2(8), which has no parallel in Clause 1. Perhaps I may explain why it is important that all three limbs of Clause 2(8) are retained. It should be demonstrated for us to understand the validity of the defence. If the word on line 9 on page 4 is ““or”” rather than ““and””, it would be possible for a defendant to say that he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that it was a terrorist publication and that he endorsed it, but that he had deliberately not bothered to examine it. For this reason, ““and”” must be retained in line 9 on page 4. However, I can assure your Lordships further on this point. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others were concerned because they envisaged librarians being unable to avail themselves of this defence if they had examined the publication, suspected that it might be a terrorist publication, did not endorse it, but nevertheless felt obliged because of their professional duties to disseminate it. They are quite right that such persons would not be able to use this defence. But such persons would be able to use the defence in Clause 2(9) when it is expanded on Report in the way that I have set out. For this reason, Amendment No. 41 is not necessary. I can see why it is proposed now, but once we amend the Bill as I have outlined, it will be so. Those who would not be able to avail themselves of the revised defence in Clause 2(9) should not be able to use the defence in Clause 2(8) if it is not available to them in its current form. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied that I have explained why we need to retain Clause 1(7) and why the proposed amendments to Clause 2(9) will meet the concerns that have been raised in relation to it in a way that noble Lords will feel is appropriate.