---

Terrorism Bill

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for tabling the amendments and for providing us with the opportunity to discuss a clause that we might not otherwise have got around to. Clause 5 provides for the new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism. This offence has been supported by all political parties. The offence is intended to facilitate the prosecution of individuals known to have been planning or preparing to carry out a terrorist act. The offence has two elements: first, a person does an act preparatory to committing or assisting others to commit one or more acts; and, secondly, that the act is done with the intent of committing or assisting others to commit such acts. We believe that we should not underestimate the seriousness of the activity we are trying to capture. It includes those making home-made explosives with the intention of using that material to kill. It captures those who are conducting surveillance of United Kingdom government buildings or embassies with the intention to kill or harm those who serve the Crown. In those terms, it would not cover the example that the noble Lord gave of providing accommodation. Those supportive activities to acts of terrorism might well fall within Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000, as it was inserted by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It has been made clear in debates on this Bill that we are confronting a terrorism that is markedly different from that which we faced in the past. Its goal is to inflict casualties without regard to human life, including that of the terrorist. This means that our law enforcement agencies have to intervene much earlier. They can no longer afford to let a carefully planned conspiracy run in order to gather the most evidence possible. The risk to the public is too great. This offence responds directly to that. The new offence will allow the police to intervene in cases where it is clear that there is intent to carry out a serious terrorist attack, even through the details of the attack may not be known in absolute detail. Indeed, the terrorists themselves may not at that point have decided how best to conduct their attack. The terrorists may be carrying out preliminary research for several different types of terrorist attack with a view to carrying out whichever turns out to be the most promising. It may be very difficult to prosecute for a specific offence because it will not be possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the terrorists intended to use explosives, as that was only one of a number of options at the time. That is where acts preparatory will be useful. But of course it does not mean that we should not underestimate the seriousness of the level of conduct we may be dealing with. The consequence of these amendments is twofold. First, it allows for a person to be convicted summarily; and, secondly, it removes certainty from the proposed sentencing framework. The clause as currently drafted does not allow for summary conviction. This represents the serious nature of the conduct we are attempting to capture. If someone is participating in a form of conduct because it aids his intention to carry out a terrorist act, that is in our view a very serious matter. We cannot see how summary conviction for such conduct would reflect the severity of such activity. The amendments also change the current drafting on penalties for conviction on indictment.