---

Terrorism Bill

I am intrigued by the amendment, because although its objective is to produce a new definition of terrorism for the purposes of the Bill, as I understood it, the Government have asked the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to look at precisely the definition of terrorism. Is it not rather premature, given that many of the Bill’s provisions will have to come back in a year’s time because of sunset clauses, to be doing that in advance of the noble Lord’s report, which I am sure that we are all looking forward to with enormous interest? Why does the noble Lord feel that that is necessary or sensible? Is it not a weird vote of confidence in his noble friend to suggest that we should prejudge his work? Secondly, from what he said, I heard that he would exclude cyber-terrorism from this definition of terrorism. Although I accept that much cyber-terrorism appears to be an attack on property, if the consequence of cyber-terrorism is that the emergency services cannot operate their telecommunication or computer systems, or if its effect is that the public utilities or food distribution system cannot operate, surely—