Terrorism Bill

My hon. Friend, very properly, muddies the waters even further by illustrating the complexity of the situation. On the face of it, a jury considering this offence will be asked not to decide whether members of the public were influenced but whether it was ““likely”” that people who heard the speech would have concluded that it was"““a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement””" to commit a terrorist offence. In regard to that, they will, as the clause says further on, have to consider all the surrounding circumstances.—[Interruption.] The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety says something from a sedentary position, but I did not quite hear it. I do not find myself in disagreement with that approach, but it brings me back to the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow)—if a jury is to be given such a test, which is not subjective but objective, it becomes very important that we criminalise those who intend to commit the offence, not those who end up doing it by accident. That is the root of my anxiety.