Terrorism Bill

I understand that very real point, but if the 9/11 attacks had taken place when there was no one in the World Trade Centre or in the aeroplanes, the symbolism of the attack on property would have none the less been profound, as it would have been in an attack on the Pentagon or wherever it might be. I do not dispute my right hon. Friend’s central point, which is that we need a different definition in the Bill than in other Bills. I understand that; his point is well made and I accept it for the purpose of the discussion. But simply to exclude property altogether raises certain questions that need to be addressed. Another suggestion is that only attacks on civilians should constitute terrorism. Again, I understand that; it is a logical point. However, I have to put to the Committee that there are definitional problems. Do the police count as civilians? What about off-duty soldiers who happen to be wearing their uniform? What about British soldiers currently serving in other parts of the world? I acknowledge that I do not solve those problems merely by referring to them, but they are real and they need seriously to be addressed.