---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, the Government have graciously conceded that intention and recklessness should be the mens rea in offences under Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill. It is interesting to compare that with the offence that is created by Clause 8. The actus reas is simply attending a training camp. That is all. The mens rea is not encouraging, intending to help, playing a part or anything of that sort, the mens rea is simply knowing or believing that the training is being provided at that camp. That opens a person to an offence carrying 10 years’ imprisonment. The purpose of this amendment is to cover all the areas that have been referred to by noble Lords in discussing this amendment. Clearly where one has as draconian a prohibition as is set out in Clause 8, it is right that a person with perfectly legitimate reasons should not have to face the possibility of being convicted of a serious offence. It may be a medical person, for example, as well as the illustrations that have already been given, who finds himself attending at a training camp. If he puts forward his perfectly legitimate reasons for being there, it is for the prosecution to rebut his defence with evidence. That is the essential thing; that it should be with evidence. In a defence of this type, raising an evidential burden of proof should be faced, and not with something that is far more nebulous than that. I hope the listening Government—as we have heard it said at least six times today—will listen just a little bit more carefully on this one, and realise how tight and draconian this particular section is.