Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart has put his name to Amendment 23, partly through his connection with Justice, which he will no doubt mention—the organisation Justice; I am not suggesting that other noble Lords do not have a connection with justice—and because of the intrinsic value of the amendment, which is one that Justice has suggested should be raised. This amendment would delete a large part of the definition of terrorism-related activity, which came from the 2005 Act, and replace it with the words in my amendment. The current definition is broad and includes the facilitation of, "““the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism””." That could embrace, for instance, innocent activities such as selling an ordinary household chemical that, unknown to the seller, is intended for use in bomb-making, or even perhaps acting as a legal representative for a terror suspect. The suggested amendment would restrict the definition to, "““the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism””,""““conduct … intended to encourage or assist””," such acts and conduct intended to help, "““individuals … evade … surveillance, investigation, or arrest””." The extent of the definition of terrorism-related activity has concerned people for some time. Of course, it has to be to defined adequately and appropriately, but I wonder whether we should not now be looking again at a tighter definition, which would not involve risk—that obviously has to be assessed—but that would not be so extensive that it could go well beyond what would be appropriate. I beg to move.