I am grateful to the Minister for trying to clarify the situation, but I will let others in the House read the words on the amendment paper and reach their own conclusions. In my opinion, there is a serious concern that the definition is not wide enough and that there will be, as Amnesty International and others have said, a serious chilling effect on independent inquiry. Let us remember that it is already an offence under legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government to collect or record such information. Anyone behaving in a way to prepare for a terrorist act or to encourage such an act already, rightly, commits an offence, and there is a reason why, under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, viewing material, as opposed to collecting or recording it, was not made an offence—it is called evidence.
5.15 pm
Max Hill, the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, says:
“the Government and researchers have repeatedly asserted that there is no clear production line from viewing extremism or even being ‘radicalised’ into becoming an active terrorist.”
In summary, he says this new mode of offence is based on the premise of a one-way or conveyor-belt radicalisation to terrorism thesis that, in other areas, the Government argue does not exist. The Government are not even following their own argument or the evidence. It is not me saying that but the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
Max Hill particularly criticises clause 3. He warns that
“a principled boundary line as to the legitimate usage of criminal law is being crossed.”
He has also said that:
“Given a choice—given a free hand—I would be more likely to argue that it is not necessary to legislate in this way at all.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2018; c. 39, Q86.]
The Government-appointed independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is saying that we should not be legislating. The House should listen to the independent expert who has been assigned the task of advising us.
I will translate Max Hill’s very diplomatic legal language into what he is actually trying to say. I do not have to work very hard to read between the lines of this expert. He is basically saying that clause 3—and thereby Government amendments 2 and 4—is unnecessary and should be rejected. I hope the House rejects new clause 2, and with it Government amendments 2 and 4.