---

Terrorism Bill

I hesitate to enter into this aspect of the debate while on this group of amendments because I know that a later group will introduce the whole topic of the definition of terrorism and whether it is too wide or too narrow. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that Amendment No. 27 has strayed into this group of amendments because it plainly applies to Clause 2 rather than Clause 1. It ought to be included in the group beginning with Amendment No. 10. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in his identification of vagueness as the main disease of this Bill. It is indeed vague and it is therefore additionally worrying that such wide discretion is later given to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Clause 20. The combination of the vagueness of the Bill, together with the width of discretion given to the Director of Public Prosecutions, moves us nearer to a situation where the rule of law is displaced entirely by government discretion. Every clause should be tested with that yardstick in mind. We did not add our names to these amendments, but that does not mean to say that we do not have considerable sympathy with the arguments brought to bear by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in support of them. We agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights that there is a role for indirect encouragement, although that role should be much more tightly and narrowly defined than the definition to be found in the Bill itself. Clause 1(4) provides a definition of the notion of indirect encouragement, but nowhere in the Bill is there a definition of the concept of direct encouragement or, indeed, of encouragement itself. There is already an offence of incitement which would catch much of what would be published in the context that the Government seek to control. I wonder, therefore, if the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, would be kind enough to explain to the House—to the extent that she feels able—the degree to which ““encouragement”” goes beyond ““incitement?”” Is encouragement the same as incitement? If not, to what extent does it go further? If it goes beyond, could she give us some examples of how incitement differs from encouragement? Until we understand exactly what is meant by ““encouragement”” in this Bill, I do not see how we can go on to analyse the distinction between ““direct”” and ““indirect”” encouragement.