Terrorism Bill

We must decide how to proceed. We can leave the Bill as it is—I shall return to that possibility in a moment—or we can opt for a whitelist: a list of countries where actions of force will always be treated as terrorism. That would be a political decision, I think that it would be an improper decision, and it would certainly be impossible to justify against a background of law. We can only ask ourselves what is the real vice against which we are striking. I think it is the deliberate targeting of civilians. My amendment, like those tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), is designed to restrict the definition of terrorism for these purposes—that is, overseas terrorism—to actions against civilians. Our drafting may be imperfect, but we are currently dealing only with concepts expressed in statutory language. Ministers may tell us that we need not worry because the Attorney-General is the filter and there can be no prosecutions in respect of this class of terrorism without his approval. The hon. and learned Member for Medway dealt with that rather effectively, but I want to make a further point. The decision on whether or not to prosecute over terrorism overseas is not a legal decision; it is a political decision. In effect, it creates the whitelist. In this context, the Attorney-General is a Minister and his decisions will reflect not a legal but a political judgment. I do not believe that we should legislate for prosecutions only to follow a political judgment. I hope that the Home Secretary and his colleagues will think again about whether we can somehow restrict the definition of terrorism so that we strike only at that which is deeply offensive and do not find ourselves outlawing the freedom fighter or those who wish to support him—as many right hon. and hon. Members have done in the past, and will doubtless do again.