---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 46:"After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—" ““DEFINITION OF TERRORISM (1)   For the purposes of sections 1 and 2, ““terrorism”” means the use or threat of action where— (a)   the action falls within subsection (2), (b)   the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and (c)   the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2)   Action falls within this subsection if it— (a)   involves serious violence against a person, (b)   endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, or (c)   creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public. (3)   The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied. (4)   In this section— (a)   ““action”” includes action outside the United Kingdom, (b)   a reference to any person is a reference to any person wherever situated, (c)   a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and (d)   ““the government”” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom. (5)   In this section a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.”” The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to define terrorism for the purposes of offences under Clauses 1 and 2 more narrowly than in the Terrorism Act 2000. The amendment repeats the definition of terrorism in that Act, with the omission of the references to violence against property and cyber-terrorism. I should point out that that definition is intended to apply only to offences under Clauses 1 and 2, not to the obviously more serious offences under Clauses 5 and 6 or, indeed, the other offences under the Bill. We are moving the amendment because, to begin with, any direct incitement to terrorism against property will be caught by existing legislation and we believe that there is no need to extend the new offences to terrorism that is directed against property unless it also involves a threat to life or health. That distinction is justified because Clause 1 and, in particular Clause 2, involve serious interferences with freedom of expression that may well be justifiable under Article 10 of the European convention where there is incitement to or encouragement of serious violence against individuals or acts that may put the health and safety of the public at risk, but it is not a proportionate response and is unjustifiable for less harmful kinds of threat. The amendment would go some way to meet the criticisms of the Bill provided by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That restriction would improve the Bill without causing any damage to the purposes that it seeks to achieve. I beg to move.