---

Terrorism Bill

In supporting the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I adduce two other points that it is important for the Committee to have before it. The first of those is the extremely interesting report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Without delaying the Committee, I shall briefly remind it of the Committee’s conclusions. Referring to Clause 2 and dissemination, it stated:"““In our view the proposed new offence suffers from some of the same compatibility problems as those identified in relation to the proposed encouragement offence””—" in Clause 1—"““including the lack of connection to incitement to violence, and the absence of any requirement that such incitement be either intended, carried out with reckless indifference, or likely””." I confess that I remain completely puzzled by the Government’s position on the issue. The Minister, Mr Rammell, in trying to quieten the fears of academics when speaking in the other place, specifically said that intent meant that those fears were misplaced. He cited the Government’s amendment to Clause 1. I do not understand why the Government feel unable to add intent to Clause 2, rather than the heavily complicated system of defence that they have adduced, because it would be so much simpler to add intent to the position of people affected by Clause 2. One would then be able to show whether any intent could be demonstrated. If not, the matter would not be prosecuted. There would be no need to bring in the Director of Public Prosecutions—or anyone else, for that matter. The reassurance given to the large groups of whom we are speaking would be immediate, widely understood and transparent, rather than opaque. I do not understand that because when the Government moved a very similar amendment to Clause 1, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, pointed out, they immediately won over a substantial part of opinion to the Bill. It was felt that that had dramatically narrowed down the area of possible offence and that that would be very appropriate. We now find that in Clause 2, the Government are not so far willing to support that. Among other things, that leaves the anomaly that has been pointed out by several university briefings and others: that you might be perfectly covered by making a statement that could in some circumstances be interpreted as encouraging terrorism because you had no intent to do so; but if you disseminate that same speech by handing it around to your class or to a journal to publish, you would immediately become liable for an offence under Clause 2. That is a curious disjunction; it does not make a great deal of sense. In the light of the fact that there is also a question about whether without intent Clause 2 would satisfy the requirements of the Council of Europe covenant, it is exceedingly puzzling, to me at least, that the Government, given their willingness to listen to this Committee and to another place, have not reconsidered whether intent should be added to this clause.