Terrorism Bill

I want to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and the names of others. I can deal with them compendiously. They relate to the question of specific intent. They do not descend to deal with recklessness, which in my view would be wrong in a criminal statute of this kind. They would both remove the words ““encouragement or other inducement”” and replace them with the old and well-known rubric in the criminal law—namely, ““incitement””—and remove the odious provision relating to glorification. If I may, I shall being by speaking to my first amendment. When we pass a criminal statute, it is always as well to look at the acts that will be criminalised by that statute—not the acts that the Government intend to be criminalised by the statute, because the courts do not look at the Government’s intention. Indeed, they are proscribed from doing so. We should consider a small litany of the statements that will, without a shadow of doubt, be caught by clause 1. The first—it might be recognised by many—fell from the lips of an important person not so long ago, who said, ““In view of the illegal occupation of Palestinian land I can well understand how decent Palestinians become terrorists.”” That statement was made by Cherie Booth, Queen’s Counsel and the wife of the Prime Minister. When she made it, I agreed with the sentiments she expressed and leapt to her defence, because she was criticised throughout the press, and indeed in the House, for making it. Indeed, I went on the radio and, in a trenchant debate with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), pointed out that it is possible in this world to hate the sin and love the sinner. I can say in passing that that is the only occasion that I can remember when I have ever been on the media and supported somebody who inhabits No. 10 Downing street. But I did my best to do so. This morning, on the ““Today”” programme, the Home Secretary said, in his inimitable way, ““This will not be caught by the Act.”” Well, I would like to debate that with the Home Secretary—he is not here, of course—and with the Minister so as to find a single part of the clause that offers any comfort to anyone delivering that public statement. Such people must consider, reasonably, that there will be someone out there, listening to them, who, having heard them express that, will be encouraged to commit an act of terrorism. ““Encouragement”” is, of course, the word involved here. One takes a harmless analogy: I can imagine people saying, ““There is legislation that the Government try to pass that is so awful that it can be understood that even loyal and decent Back-Bench Labour MPs oppose it.”” I have sympathy with that. It undoubtedly encourages me, on occasion, and I have a number of letters not markedly different from that in my postbag in respect of the Bill. That statement is undoubtedly caught, and there is no defence. There is no proviso in the Bill that would enable Cherie Booth, QC, if the director chose to prosecute her, to defend herself.