---

Terrorism Bill

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy. I apologise for having interrupted him in the first instance. The amendments are very similar. Their effect would be to move us from the current certainty that, on conviction, a person is liable to life imprisonment, to the rather uncertain position that he is liable to a term of imprisonment, whatever that may be, as determined by the judge. This presumably allows that term to be 12 months, five years, 15 years or 50 years. We would not see that as being acceptable. It would be inappropriate to create an offence of this seriousness with no specified maximum for the term of imprisonment. It has been the practice in recent years for a statute to specify a maximum term as it creates a greater degree of certainty. We do not see a reason to depart from or abandon that degree of certainty, especially for serious offences for which sentencing is vital. I invite the noble and learned Lord, with his long experience, to agree with that principle—I am sure that he does. Although we are not entirely sure, we see the amendments as being designed to undermine that principle. We cannot allow for wide fluctuations in sentences from one judge to another. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will accept that the Bill provides life as a maximum sentence. The sentencing court has the power of course to impose a discretionary life sentence or a lower term of imprisonment as it seems appropriate. This means that judges can make decisions according to the facts of the case, using the high upper limit set by the Bill as a guide. We believe that that is absolutely right—but the amendment allows a variation, with what we view as potentially absurd consequences. We argue for consistency and certainty, and in those terms we cannot see the amendments as acceptable. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord will say that the amendments were of a probative nature, and I am sure that that is the case. However, our clauses set out defences relating to very serious matters, and for that reason we believe that our approach is important to achieve consistency in sentencing.