---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 24:"Page 3, line 8, leave out ““a view”” and insert ““intent””" The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 24 is the first amendment in a line of amendments that cover two issues. The first issue is intent in relation to the offences described in Clause 2 and the second is what subsection 3 adds to Clause 2 that is not already in Clause 1(1). Amendment No. 25A is a probing amendment to tease that out. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that our original amendment, Amendment No. 25, has been adjusted in Amendment No. 25A, which merely substitutes ““terrorist publication”” for ““statement”” in what would be Clause 2(1A)(a). I can deal briefly with the first amendment, which refers to Clause 2(1)(f). The subsection reads as follows:"““A person commits an offence if he””," and then there are five examples of how the offence can be committed. The sixth example, in paragraph (f), states,"““has such a publication in his possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling within any of the paragraphs (a) to (e)””." It is important to make it absolutely clear here that the reason an accused person has a publication in his possession is because he wishes subsequently to distribute it. Plainly, a number of people will have publications in their possession which have been distributed to them. In our view, therefore, ““a view”” should be substituted by ““intend””, to make it absolutely clear that the reason somebody has such a terrorist publication in their possession is because they wish subsequently to disseminate it. That is a purely drafting point. Amendment No. 25A, however, raises an important point of substance. Unlike Clause 1, there is no intent provision in Clause 2—that is, no intent provision with respect to the act of dissemination. Amendment No. 25A seeks to insert such an intent requirement. Indeed, it goes further than intent; it mimics Clause 1(1) by requiring that the act of disseminating a terrorist publication has either to be intended or to be committed recklessly—recklessly in the subjective sense of the word. It is important that the Bill reflects that the intention to disseminate involves two separate acts in order to be an offence under the Bill. First, there has to be an intention to perform the physical act of dissemination; and, secondly, there has to be an intention that the publication that is disseminated is a terrorist publication. Both intents have to be proved by the prosecution according to the usual standard, although they are not expressed separately but as a single intent—that is, the intent to disseminate a terrorist publication or to disseminate it recklessly. That is all I need to say about Amendment No. 25A. If the Committee accepts my Amendment No. 25A, the defences in Clause 2(8) and (9) become otiose. I now turn to the second issue these amendments raise, that of Clause 2(3). Amendment No. 27 simply seeks to eradicate the subsection altogether. But it is at this stage a probing amendment, because I have not yet heard the noble Baroness’s reaction. Subsection (3) seeks to clarify what ““matter”” constitutes. What does ““matter”” mean and does the clause add anything to what is already in Clause 1(1)? ““Matter”” is defined in Clause 2(2), and it constitutes two ingredients—first, in Clause 2(2)(a),"““a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism””;" and, secondly, in Clause 2(2)(b),"““information of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts””." I have no difficulty whatever in accepting that ““matter”” is necessary to incorporate what constitutes Clause 2(2)(b), but I am in some difficulty in understanding why the expression is necessary when we are dealing with Clause 2(2)(a). What is covered by ““matter”” in subsection (2)(a) that is not covered by subsection (5), which elaborates subsection (2)(b), other than a statement? What can matter be in subsection (2)(a) other than a statement? If I am right in reaching that conclusion, why do we need subsection (3) at all? All we need is for subsection (2)(a) to read, ““a statement to which subsection (1) of Clause 1 applies””. In sum, I submit that ““matter”” in Clause 2 can only mean either a statement, in which case it is covered by Clause 1(1) and no additional definition is needed, or constitute what is described in subsection (2) (b) as,"““information of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts””." In tabling this probing amendment, I am not seeking to reduce the obligations on any potential disseminator of information. Nor am I seeking to reduce in any way the powers of the Government concerning dissemination. I am seeking to see whether a singularly opaque subsection—subsection (3)—can be expunged altogether from the Bill to achieve greater certainty, something for which we are all desperately seeking in this Committee. I beg to move.