Terrorism Bill

I am delighted that the Government have moved the amendment. I had read the text as it stands and, indeed, had drafted an amendment, but I then discovered that the Government had got there first, whereupon it did not seem necessary to table such an amendment myself. The Bill as drafted is deeply ambiguous about whether the provision would apply to the area outside the perimeter fence that was subject to the current restrictions. As I understood that the Government wanted to restrict things in that way, I am delighted that they have made it clear that that is not their intention. As for the questions that were asked earlier, my recollection—I may have this wrong—is that the definition involves effective and substantial entry, so that touching the fence would not constitute entry, but cutting the fence with wire cutters and starting to crawl through it almost certainly would, apart from the fact that the criminal damage to the fence would enable one to be instantly arrested. As for climbing over, when one is on top of the fence is the point where one would be caught by the provisions. It may be of interest to the Committee if I add that the key case is called R. V. Collins, which is well known to all law students. It concerns a naked young man, wearing only socks, perched on top of a ladder that was resting on a house that he was about to enter as a burglar. The subject matter tends to cause a great deal of hilarity, and the judgment itself—I am happy to give the reference to any hon. Member who may wish to have it—is very amusing indeed, even if the background circumstances are rather less so.