---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, my primary concern is the definition of ““intent”” in Clause 2. I will save my fire until we debate Amendment No. 17, but contributions from other noble Lords have prompted me to ask the Minister how ““recklessness”” is intended to be interpreted in Amendment No. 20, which does not relate to a direct communication between individuals. The offence in Clause 2 is the distribution of publications where they may fall into the hands of people who might use them for terrorist purposes. It is the distance between the action of the librarian and the reaction of the potential recipient that now causes me concern. How, if you have an unrestricted group of potential recipients, can you know whether some may have terrorist leanings? Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, in sharing some of the concerns expressed, to say something about the meaning of ““recklessness”” in that context.