---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have expressed concern about the recklessness test, and particularly to those who have held senior positions in the universities. The noble Baroness started by saying that my examples do not cause anxiety and went on to discuss them. They continue to cause me anxiety. In particular, there is something seriously wrong in this in a situation where the BBC broadcast a valuable programme which may have considerable effect in keeping people informed of what is going on in the world, but which may incidentally lead to a smaller number of those people who hear it becoming more active in terrorism. The BBC may in those circumstances, prima facie, be found guilty of an offence. To escape conviction, it has to come to court and at present has the burden of proof on it to satisfy the court that it did not endorse this. No doubt the BBC would not have much difficulty with this, but there are other less well known broadcasters which might find themselves in a different position. In connection with the Hazel Blears letter which showed a great lack of understanding of what the whole of our higher education system is about, it would be plainly desirable for the noble Baroness to say that it was a mistake and does not apply. The position is that intent is simple but recklessness is a test that is difficult and uncertain. It is unlikely to secure convictions because it is difficult. I remain firmly of the opinion that it will have—indeed already is having, to some extent—an effect which is chilling on freedom of expression. In those circumstances I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4A) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 190 On Question, Amendment No. 4 agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]