---

Terrorism Bill

May I support what has just been said? If the intention, as everyone appears to agree, is to make the definitions here as precise and as clear as possible—which I fully endorse—then I am not yet satisfied that this amendment will achieve that. If you take out ““direct”” and ““indirect,”” you leave simply ““an encouragement””. A court is bound to be asked to decide whether indirect encouragement is sufficient for this purpose. If the object of this exercise is to cut out indirect encouragement altogether, one has merely to delete ““indirect”” and leave in ““direct””. So far in this debate no one has suggested that this is the intention. It does not seem that the object of clarity is achieved by taking out words that the courts might have to decide many times are included, while having to look at ““encouragement””. I wholly agree with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but what is really important is to get a clear definition of ““encouragement””. I do not think that this amendment will achieve that objective.