---

Terrorism Bill

I am grateful for the support which my amendments have received, not only from my noble friends, but from other quarters of the Committee. The purpose of the amendment is not, as the Minister seemed to think, to state that the Government must never introduce an offence of indirect terrorism. Its purpose was to raise a debate, which indeed it has, about what ““encouragement”” means; about what ““direct encouragement”” means; and about what ““indirect encouragement”” means. It is plain, and it has been borne out by the report of the Joint Committee, that when one is creating a new offence, one should make sure that it is adequately defined. In the case of the Bill, ““encouragement”” is not defined; ““direct encouragement”” is not defined; and ““indirect encouragement”” is not defined. It is necessary to start by defining ““encouragement””. Once one has done so, one may well find that it is unnecessary to distinguish between direct and indirect encouragement. Let us say that one’s definition states that ““encouragement”” is, ““saying or doing anything which makes it more likely that some recipients of your message will become involved in terrorist activity””. That would seem to be a perfectly adequate definition of what is meant by ““encouragement””. I am not necessarily putting it forward to the Government, but one has to start by defining ““encouragement””. Only then can you move on to see whether you can in fact produce a sensible division between direct and indirect encouragement, and, if so, where that division lies. To begin with, I asked the Minister whether she could give me any indication of what, apart from the specific matter of glorification under subsection (4), might be covered by ““indirect encouragement””, and she failed to do so. We need further clarification of what the Government have in mind. I should add that issues were raised during the debate relating to the problems of Kashmir and Chechnya. There will be opportunities to come back in more detail on those issues when we get to later amendments. At this point I say simply that if ““indirect encouragement”” goes as wide as the Government seem to intend at present, we could well find ourselves in a position where if the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, were to say outside your Lordships’ House—where he would be protected by parliamentary privilege—the words he said tonight, which he was perfectly entitled to say, he might face a charge of indirect encouragement. The long term may be that my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew will recommend a revised definition of terrorism, and the Government may accept it and legislate for it. The problem here, though, is that the Government clearly do not intend to defer the commencement of the provisions relating to indirect encouragement until such time as we have a revised definition of terrorism. While I do not necessarily expect to bring these amendments back at a later stage, because they are intended to provoke a debate rather than to change the Bill, it is important that the Government give further thought to what they mean by ““encouragement””. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.