Terrorism Bill

I listened to the Minister and I understand the amendments that have been accepted. I wrote down his words, which were ““purposes of terrorism on entering the base””. There were many occasions during the Greenham Common women’s camp when women climbed over or cut the fence and entered the base to paint flowers on nuclear missiles and hang drapes on tanks—entirely peaceful things. Under the Bill, anyone who climbed into the Aldermaston site and painted something on the walls to the effect that they believed that nuclear weapons were dangerous, illegal and immoral and that this country should adhere to the non-proliferation treaty would not be accused of criminal damage or trespass, as at present, but would become terrorists, potentially detained for 90 days without going to court while questioning took place, and might then receive a long period of imprisonment. What kind of message does that send? I am sure that the Minister has many friends who belong to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and have been active in the peace movement all their lives, as have Members on both sides of the House. Are we advancing anything by designating as terrorists people who, by their very nature, are opposed to violence, terror and the existence of nuclear weapons, and who in many cases are equally opposed to nuclear power? I honestly do not see the point of the clause standing part other than gratuitously to criminalise a large body of people who act for entirely peaceful purposes and who have brought about significant political changes. That is simply not a sensible way to proceed. It will further alienate large sections of the population who do not want to be alienated, but do want to engage in serious political debate about the morality of nuclear weapons.