---

Terrorism Bill

I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendments just referred to by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. On the face of it, putting the word ““would”” in place of the words, ““is likely to be understood”” may create a more difficult test for the prosecution to comply with, but I suggest that that might be a wise outcome. I would argue that any conviction under this part of the Bill must be clear not merely to the population at large, but particularly within the host community. I am thinking, for example, of the recent London bombings committed by British citizens. There is a hearts and minds issue in all these matters which would be better served by this clearer and slightly more stringent test than the one currently in the Bill.