---

Terrorism Bill

I certainly applaud the noble Lord, Lord  Elton, for his wish that the drafting of legislation should be clear and comprehensible. Nevertheless, I have to disappoint him and tell him that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendments. The first reason is that I do not believe there is any ambiguity in the parts of the Bill that the amendments seek to change. They all relate to the definition of terrorism and each relates back to the Terrorism Act 2000. Therefore, all the references concerned are clear on this point and there are helpful pointers to explain which sections of the Act the reader should look at. So I do not believe there can be any confusion. Secondly, I am afraid that making these changes would be technically wrong as well. The term ““terrorism”” is defined for the purposes of the whole of the Terrorism Act 2000, not just Section 1 of that Act as would be the implication of the amendments. The noble Lord will understand that. Section 1 may contain a definition of terrorism, as the words in brackets help to explain, but that definition applies to the whole of the 2000 Act, as it will to the whole of Part 1 of this Act. That is a subtle but important distinction. I think, as I indicated, that the amendments are well intentioned, but perhaps when the noble Lord reflects on them he will understand why we would encourage him not to press them.