Terrorism Bill

No, I hope that as I develop my argument the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the provisions deal with intent and recklessness, with an objective assessment of recklessness at a higher threshold. I am really trying to achieve a formulation that will command the support of the whole House. I was concerned about negligence, and I shared those concerns, so we want a formulation that lifts the threshold but still enables us to prosecute people who, through their statements, are encouraging others to commit terrorist acts. That should command broad support. I want to amplify those comments. We cannot allow people who could not reasonably have failed to realise the likely consequences of their actions to get away with that simply by saying that they did not know what effect their actions might have. That would enable people who have encouraged or glorified terrorism to get away scot-free, without paying the penalty for their actions, by insisting, regardless of all the evidence, that they did not know the possible consequences of their actions. A provision that they should be caught if they could not reasonably have failed to know the consequences of their statements is the right way to avoid that situation. I think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that juries are capable of considering such issues in context, and the provisions deal with the context and circumstances. The court will take all that into account. If we have only a subjective test, people will be able to say that they did not realise what the effect of their actions would be. We would then find it incredibly difficult to prosecute people who genuinely were encouraging other people, indirectly, to commit terrorist acts.