---

Terrorism Bill

We have to look at whether there is evidence for the clause now. The clear evidence is that there is not. Noble Lords know that this Bill is likely to be replaced; we have a sunset clause and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is carrying out a review of the definition of terrorism. We have brought the Bill before the House to respond to the issues and emergencies that arose in July. Noble Lords will remember that we were going to do it in slightly slower time. There will be an opportunity to come back but noble Lords must look today at whether the issue is merited, what the evidence is and whether we should do it. This Government have the onerous burden of judging whether it would be in the interests of our nation and inviting the House to consider the facts as they now appear. That is the basis on which we now have to look at the provisions. It would be reckless—subjectively reckless not just objectively reckless, for which we would be justifiably held culpable—to go for what may seem a few potential quick wins in terms of a modest increase in the number of convictions of people not otherwise currently convicted or convicted for lesser offences, but with the risk of irreparable damage to an effective capability that has a direct impact on national security. We need to be sure that that change would work for the UK now and in the future. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.