Terrorism Bill

Our consideration begins with clause 1, which provides the offence of the encouragement of terrorism. Specifically, it seeks to widen the scope of incitement by moving from direct incitement to commit a criminal offence to indirect incitement. Conservative Members believe that a change in the law can properly take place to allow indirect incitement to become a criminal offence, and that proposition may attract universal support. The issue that we must consider this afternoon is how the Government have chosen to draft clause 1. There are two areas of concern: first, the intent that is required for an offence to be committed; and secondly, whether the glorification of terrorism should form a separate and discrete part of an incitement charge. I find clause 1 almost impossible to read and understand. I do not know where the Government found their draftsman, but if ever there were an unintelligible document, it is clause 1, which is extremely convoluted. It moves from an offence based on a person’s knowledge or belief to an offence based on ““reasonable grounds for believing””. The offence is committed if"““members of the public to whom the statement is or is to be published are likely to understand it as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.””" The Minister must clarify what the Government are trying to achieve—the explanatory notes are no help whatever. Do the Government want the offence to be committed by specific intent, which is common ground, and can it be committed by recklessness? By my reading of clause 1, it can also be committed negligently. If my reading of the provision is incorrect, I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate as much at the earliest possible opportunity. My reading of the provision is that it is much wider than an ordinary recklessness test, because it combines the fact of a person’s committing the offence only on the basis of having ““reasonable grounds for believing”” with the fact that members of the public need merely be ““likely”” to understand that incitement was the intended consequence. That combination, which I could describe as the double whammy of clause 1, goes much further than I would consider to be suitable and proper.