---

Terrorism Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that we did not need to deal with the definition now because the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would report on it in a year’s time. He may or may not recommend that Clauses 1 and 2 should include a more limited definition of terrorism than appears in the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government may or may not accept his recommendation if he makes it. Even if they do, we may have to wait a considerable time to get a legislative slot. Meanwhile, we are left with what I certainly believe is too wide a definition for the specific purposes of the offence of encouragement created by Clauses 1 and 2. I do not dispute for a moment that attacks against property should be treated more generally as terrorist offences where they are inspired by terrorist motives. Of course serious attacks of that kind constitute offences such as criminal damage, which are quite distinct from terrorism and are offences in themselves. Incitement to such offences is also capable of prosecution under existing law irrespective of the law about terrorism. But we are talking about something at a lower level than incitement: encouragement. It seems right to distinguish between incitement and encouragement in certain respects, particularly where there is a lower level of harm to the public. Certainly any deliberate encouragement of anything causing violence likely to cause death or do great damage to public health and safety should remain an offence, but encouragement of what I might call the somewhat lesser forms of terrorism should not also be a criminal offence. After all, I see no prospect of any organisation linked with al-Qaeda advocating terrorism that is limited to damage to property or to electronic mechanisms and does not involve also the death of civilians or others as a necessary consequence. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 [Application of ss. 1 and 2 to internet activity etc.]: