---

Terrorism Bill

The names of myself and my noble friend Lord Henley are appended to this amendment, which we also regard as extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said everything that needs to be said about it, so I shall be extremely telegraphic in my support. I simply want to emphasise two features to which the noble Lord himself gave great emphasis. First, it would be inconsistent if the Bill adopted a different approach to the evidential burden from that in the Terrorism Act 2000. After all, the definition of terrorism that runs through this Bill like a spine is the definition adopted in the Terrorism Act 2000. It must flow from that that the Government’s approach in the Bill should be consistent with that Act. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also said, the offences in Clauses 1 and 2, if proved by the prosecution in a trial, attract very heavy penalties. Our submission, like that of the noble Lord, is that, in those circumstances, the full mens rea of an offence should be required.