---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 13:"Page 18, line 33, at end insert—" ““(a)   after ““terrorism”” in subsection (4), insert ““inadvertently or by design””; (b)””    The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government have very properly accepted that intent and recklessness should be an element in the offence under Clause 1 where a person publishes a statement to which the clause applies. There is a loophole, because the Government could say, ““We cannot prove intent or recklessness in this particular case. We will get the Secretary of State to proscribe the organisation to which this individual belongs. If the Secretary of State does that, and no question of intent or recklessness comes into it, then we can do him simply for being a member of that organisation””. He will face exactly the same penalty—up to 10 years’ imprisonment—for being a member of an organisation or, if he wears a T-shirt or carries a banner, up to two years’ imprisonment. This is therefore a small amendment to Section 3(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which sets out the mechanism by which the Secretary of State adds an organisation to Schedule 2—proscribes it—with the effects to which I have alluded. All that ““advertently or by design”” adds is that the Secretary of State, in exercising his power to proscribe an organisation, must believe, first, that it is concerned in terrorism; and, secondly, that it is deliberately concerned in terrorism, not by accident. It may well be that if a person inadvertently published something that would answer the definition of ““indirect encouragement””—"““the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it””—" the Secretary of State could exercise his powers under Section 3(3). These are two simple words, which are simply trying to introduce into the concept of proscription an intent on the part of the organisation to support terrorism. I beg to move.