Terrorism Bill

The right hon. Gentleman is spot on, and I know he gains support from throughout the House for what he has just said. The dangers of allowing clause 1 to continue unamended stem from its broadness and vagueness of definition, the lack of any intent, as the right hon. Gentleman said and the lack of any sense of the certainty essential to a fair and credible criminal justice system. People will be unaware of the consequences of their actions, as he said and have no control over how their words or publications might be interpreted even. We are on very dangerous ground at the moment. Liberty, for example, believes that this offence is totally unnecessary anyway, because there is sufficient criminal law allowing prosecution of those who incite terrorism, a point that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made well earlier. If there is to be any new offence—I do not believe that there should be one—it must have at its core the element of intent. Furthermore, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, anyone arguing for deposing brutal dictators anywhere in the world at any time would be guilty of a breach of clause 1. If this offence had been on the statute book a few years ago, it would have caught dissidents against Saddam, and it would certainly catch anyone calling for the deposition of Robert Mugabe.