---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his valiant attempt to differentiate between ““subjective”” and ““objective”” recklessness. I will not say that I absolutely agree with that definition but I think it is within the right ball park. I agree with the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in relation to recklessness. Quite often ““intent”” which has a subjective recklessness element is very similar to ““intent””simpliciter. In making that more accessible to those Members of Lordships’ House who may need it to be, perhaps I may say simply   to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, that, notwithstanding the indication of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about the way in which he may be treated, I think that he would be not guilty. I do not think that the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred cause anxiety. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is right. The difference between ““subjective”” and ““objective”” is this. ““Objective”” is what a reasonable person would do or expect. A ““subjective”” test is what this particular person thought or believed at the time, not what any other sane, rational person would have thought. It is what this person thought that makes it subjective. I confess to a certain degree of naivety. I had hoped that these amendments would give a great deal of pleasure to this House. I thought that I would be met with ““hurrahs””. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the letter written by my right honourable friend Hazel Blears. That letter was sent before we tabled the amendments which your Lordships now discuss. We have provided for intent with recklessness and the generalised defence of non-endorsement. The noble Baroness and noble Lords will know that we have been giving anxious and proper consideration to our response to the concerns about Clauses 1 and 2 properly expressed in the House.