---

Terrorism Bill

I would like to follow up what the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Greaves, said, because they raised an important point. This is not only about libraries and academia; it is about normal discussion between people. For example, we have—or at least we used to have—trade union branches, and in my experience very vigorous political discussion goes on about all sorts of things in trade union branches. We still have local trade councils, and I assure noble Lords that they were very effective and influential. I do not know whether they still are, because I have been in this House now for 22 years, and I have not had the same contact with trade councils and trade union branches that I used to have when I was a Member of the House of Commons. I believe that they still exist; and where they exist they discuss all sorts of matters. They discuss the Arab-Israeli position, for example, and some of them may say and even publish things that in certain circumstances could be construed as supporting terrorism of one sort or another. This is a dangerous Bill in that it constrains free speech right across the board, and that is what worries me. I welcome the amendments that have already been put down, and I welcome the amendments that are to come. Unfortunately, we do not know what they are at present. What really worries me is that on an issue of such fundamental importance to our democracy we should have received from the Government and from the Commons a Bill that is so defective that it has to be so amended. I really hope that this will be a lesson to the Government that they have a duty, particularly where our freedoms are at stake, to see that legislation is properly prepared to safeguard the freedoms that we have held for a very long time. The House of Commons should be given adequate time and facilities to consider what the Government have put down, so that the properly elected House also has the opportunity to examine such legislation. It ought not to come to this House in a form where the Minister has to say, ““We have not properly considered this Bill, but we will amend it bearing in mind what has been said””. Frankly, that is not good enough. I listened to the Minister with great intent, and she is an extremely able Minister. She should not have been landed in this soup. She should have had a Bill which had been properly thought out, prepared, considered, and considered again before it went to the House of Commons, and was then brought to this House in a proper form so that we did not have to spend so much time amending a bad Bill.