Counter-Terrorism Bill

This is a probing issue, and one to which we may return on Report. I am not clear why it is necessary to amend the definition of terrorism in the way proposed. Can the Minister conceive of a circumstance in which a ““racial”” cause is not already encompassed within the phrase ““political, religious or ideological””? The term ““racial”” is not substantive with regard to motivation or end, as are the terms ““political””, ““religious”” or ““ideological””. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who proposed the change in his report in March 2007, said that he believed that it was covered by current law, which, frankly, is good enough for me, but that it would ““send a positive message”” as well as achieve ““some””—some—““increase in legal clarity””. I am not convinced of this. It is bad legislation to add unnecessary categories. Will the Minister say where he thinks he should take this added word? Finally, given that we do not yet have an internationally agreed definition of terrorism, will the Minister say what efforts the Government are making and what progress is being made to secure one?