---

Terrorism Bill

I thank the noble Baroness for her comprehensive reply to this group of amendments. So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 24, 25A, 30, 36, 37 and 39—that is, the amendments which deal with intention—I do not think that the noble Baroness can be in any doubt whatever about the feelings of this Committee. I do not recall any of your Lordships intervening for any other purpose than to support one or other or all of these amendments. I hope that I speak for all noble Lords who have participated in this phase of the Committee debate when I say that it is certain that all these amendments will reappear on Report, despite the valiant efforts of the noble Baroness to reassure us that they are wholly unnecessary. In particular, I am not at all reassured by the idea that the discretion of the DPP is a satisfactory substitute for the mens rea of a crime. It is a novel proposition. In fact, in my experience that assertion has never before been made in your Lordships’ House by a Minister. I hope that by the time we reach Report, the noble Baroness will have seen the compelling force of all the arguments made in support of our amendments this afternoon. I propose to say no more about that issue, even though it is crucial. I would, however, like to say something about Amendment No. 27, which the noble Baroness addressed at the end of her remarks. I repeat my question to the Minister. What in Clause 2(3) adds anything to the Bill that is not already covered in Clause 1(1)? Clause 2(3) refers to ““matter””; but in my submission the only matter that could possibly be covered by Clause 2(3) is a statement of the sort included in Clause 1(1). Why does the noble Baroness think that anything other than a statement could be covered by Clause 2(3)? I accept that in Clause 2(2)(b), which states,"““information of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts””," is matter in addition to a statement; but apart from what is in subsection (2)(b), what matter other than a statement can be included in Clause 2(3)? In support of my argument, I refer the noble Baroness to Clause 2(7), which states:"““It is irrelevant for the purposes of this section whether—""      (a) the statement or how it is likely to be understood, or""      (b) the usefulness mentioned in subsection (5)””—" that is the definition contained in Clause 2(2)(b)—"““is in relation to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism, of acts of terrorism of a particular description or of acts of terrorism generally””." If there is matter in addition to what appears in subsection (5) and a statement, why is that additional matter not contained in Clause 2(7)? Perhaps I could leave the noble Baroness to say when I sit down that she will write a letter to me on this matter since, from the expression in her eyes, I think that I am unlikely to hear her again on this topic at this stage of Committee.