I appreciate the clarification in respect of amendment No. 16. I seek further clarification regarding the other amendments in this grouping. I think amendment No. 14 is included.

In amendment No. 13, I suggest the insertion of, “For the avoidance of doubt, non-violent expressions of solidarity or support for actions taken in relation to matters of international law shall not be construed as glorification for the purposes of this section.” Amendment No. 14 would insert, “for avoidance of doubt, the distribution or publication of materials in relation to historic or contemporary resistance to colonial occupation or exploitation, shall not be construed as glorification for the purposes of this…

The problem, which the Minister has still not answered, is with where the interpretations overlap. It is one thing to outline how the legislation is envisaged to be used, but the point is that the text continues to describe how it relates to incitement. The question as to actions that are offences will come up again. This is a direct question because I am genuinely not clear on this. I am absolutely open in this regard. As I read it, the legislation relates to not just actions in this State, but those in other stat…

I move amendment No. 10: In page 5, to delete lines 34 and 35.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 5, line 34, to delete "(including by praise or celebration)".

I move amendment No. 13: In page 6, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: "(c) for the avoidance of doubt, non-violent expressions of solidarity or support for actions taken in relation to matters of international law shall not be construed as glorification for the purposes of this section.".".

I move amendment No. 14: In page 6, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: "(c) for avoidance of doubt, the distribution or publication of materials in relation to historic or contemporary resistance to colonial occupation or exploitation, shall not be construed as glorification for the purposes of this section.".".

I move amendment No. 19: In page 9, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(i) the insertion, in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a), after “terrorist-linked activity”, to insert “, other than activity described in section 4A(a)(ii)”,”.

I move amendment No. 20: In page 10, line 15, to delete “of itself”. Amendments Nos. 20 to 24, inclusive, all relate to my concerns about how the Bill can impact the ability of people to freely protest. Amendment No. 20 seeks to strengthen the provisions that protect people involved in protest against prosecution for terrorist offences under section 6(5) of the 2005 Act by removing the words "of itself" so that the section would read that engagement in protest, advocacy or dissent, or in any strike, lockout or othe…

While the scenario the Minister gave is the intention to set off a bomb, which comes into the different question of there being a whole other set of offences there in terms of intent to endanger life and so forth, the scenarios are things like criminal damage to property. Criminal damage to property is the kind of thing such as vandalism, which technically comes under criminal damage to property. Of course, it is our duty in all our laws to protect life and so forth where there is a danger to a population or an int…

There has been a quite a strong misrepresentation of my position, which I was actually quite clear on when I spoke. I would like that to be clarified. I did not suggest that people should be free to do whatever they want for these reasons. I was very clear that these are criminal offences, they should be prosecuted as criminal offences and persons who engage in them do so in the knowledge that they are committing a criminal offence that comes with the penalties that apply. I said that on about four occasions in my …

Let us not use the graffiti example. Let us use the examples that are in the courts at the moment in the UK and Germany, which relate to damage to a weapons system. If somebody damages a weapons system that is about to be used in violation of international law for the performance of war crimes, they may well be prosecuted because they have damaged property. Should they be labelled as terrorists because they have tried to take action to compel a state not to bomb and not to deliver arms? In the real world those are …

The cases are in Germany and the UK.

Different legal systems, but I am saying, as the Minister described, they are cases of substantial criminal damage that are being done with an intention of compelling a government not to take an action, which is trying to compel governments not to allow arms to be used in a context of genocide. How does that not fit the kind of language the Minister is setting out here? Is there not a risk of that in that regard? I am not asking whether they should be prosecuted or whether these are offences. If they are being labe…

I am pressing it.

I move amendment No. 21: In page 10, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(c) the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (5): “(5A) For the avoidance of doubt, criticism of a state that is breaching international law shall not be constitute grounds for inferring that the person is doing an act with the intention of— (a) seriously intimidating a population, (b) unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or (c) seriously …

I move amendment No. 22: In page 10, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(c) the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (5): “(5A) For the avoidance of doubt, opposition to the occupation by a state of a territory without legal basis shall not constitute grounds for inferring that the person is doing an act with the intention of seriously intimidating a population.”,”.

I move amendment No. 23: In page 10, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(c) the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (5): “(5A) For the avoidance of doubt, it shall not be considered intent to unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act where such performing or abstaining from performing of the act is necessary to comply with international law.”,”.

I move amendment No. 24: In page 10, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(c) the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (5): “(5A) For the avoidance of doubt, it shall not be construed as intent to destabilise the economic structures of a state where such destabilisation would arise from the fact of that state’s breaches of international law.”,”.

I would like clarity from the Minister on what is envisaged. This is a new offence of unlawful interference with information systems or data. I note that it does not specify public information systems or public data. Could that include interference with corporate information systems? It is a little bit vague what is envisaged by that. I may suggest on Report Stage that there would be more of a clear process for when new offences are being added to the schedule.