Terrorism Bill

It is unfortunate that, because of the way in which our debate on the Bill is ordered, we have come to this debate at this stage. I think that the Minister would have had an easier time this afternoon if we had resolved on a proper definition of terrorism from the outset. I have to say to the Home Secretary that it is clearly now the settled will of the House that a definition must be properly placed on the face of the Bill, because what is there is less than adequate. I do not know whether amendment No. 69, tabled by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) is perfect. It probably is not—but it is certainly preferable to what is in the Bill, and if he is minded to press it to a vote, my hon. Friends and I will support him. The question of a definition is complex; there is no getting away from that. Clearly any definition will relate to the way in which an organisation conducts itself, and others have already spoken about the distinction between attacks on civilian populations and attacks on a repressive army, police force or state security force. The other element that has to be considered in establishing the full and proper context is the nature of the regime against which the struggle is taking place. The regimes in Burma, Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan, for example, have been referred to repeatedly throughout the past couple of days of debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that such matters were often judged historically, and he is right. Indeed, the judgment taken historically is often very different from that which was made contemporaneously. The difficulty for the Home Secretary—and, indeed, for the Committee—is that we do not have that luxury. That is why it is important to get the best possible available working definition into the Bill. If that can be achieved, many of the reservations of my party about the workability of the Bill may well be answered.