---

Terrorism Bill

My instructions from our Chief Whip were that we would seek to make rapid progress today—and we have done very well—and that we would endeavour to reach Amendment No. 116. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that he has concerns about that. Once I have sat down, having dealt with this amendment, I propose to confirm with the Chief Whip the progress we are intending to make, and take what further advice I can on the agreement between the Chief Whips from the other parties. That was my understanding of what was sought to be achieved through the usual channels. I would like to deal briefly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Essentially, I think what the noble Lord is asking is, ““Why is Clause 9(4) excluded from the definition of ‘public’ in Clause 23?””. Clause 23 provides a definition of ““public”” for the purposes of the Bill. However, Clause 23 does not cover the reference to ““public”” in Clause 9(4), and that is because the word in 9(4) is intended to be interpreted in a much more general sense than elsewhere in the Bill. So, for an offence under Clauses 9, 10 or 11 to be committed, the radioactive material in question must create a risk to the health and safety of the public at large. That is why we have used a different definition in those clauses. The noble Lord might not be satisfied with that explanation, but that is the explanation behind it.