Terrorism Bill

My Lords, it is necessary to look briefly at how ““glorification”” has come to be in this legislation. It is defined in Clause 21 in these terms:"““‘glorification’ includes any form of praise or celebration””." Notice that it does not say ““comprises””, but ““includes””, which suggests that glorification is wider than any form of praise or celebration. That in itself indicates how vague the concept is. It appeared in the manifesto, as noble Lords have said. The Prime Minister, in his press conference in August, said that he was going to introduce anti-terrorism legislation to include an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism anywhere—not just in the United Kingdom. So you have a vague concept to apply to ““anywhere””. I have already pointed out that the Bill refers to acts of terrorism—past, future or generally. Nothing could be broader or wider than the way it has been put. This House was able to introduce amendments to try to tighten it up. We had already received a concession from the Government that intention was to be part of the glorification offence. This was the way in which the Home Secretary defined the offence on 15 February when he was considering our amendments:"““The offence will be committed only if someone encourages terrorism, whether directly or indirectly, including through the glorification of terrorism, intending to encourage it or knowingly taking an unreasonable risk that they will encourage it””.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/06; col. 1439.]" Your Lordships will notice again the word ““including”” through the glorification of terrorism and not ““comprising””. ““Comprises”” appears in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, Motion A3, which is an attempt to give some boundaries to that particular concept. In answering questions in another place on the same day, the Prime Minister said:"““The term ‘glorification’ is easily understood by members of the public and by juries””.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/06; col. 1415.]" The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has made the same point today. I do not believe it is true at all. The Prime Minister said that by weakening our law on terrorism at this time from what was proposed, we would send the wrong signal to the whole of the outside world. He said:"““Let us be quite clear that this is not only about the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats combining to take ‘glorification’ out from the offence; it is also about taking out any reference to glorification from the list of proscribed groups. That would mean that we could not proscribe people who were glorifying terrorism, unless it could be proved that they were actively inciting terrorist acts””.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/06; col. 1416.]" What he said suggests that he had not yet grasped the introduction into this legislation of the concept of intent or recklessness, of which the Home Secretary was talking later in the day in that debate. If the Prime Minister does not understand the ambit of the offence as it now appears in the Bill, what hope is there that a jury at some subsequent stage will understand how widely it is expressed? The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said that the criminal law is not about giving signals or sending messages. It is setting a firm boundary by which people regulate their conduct, knowing that if they step over it they will open themselves up to, in this case, seven years’ imprisonment. That is what it should be to regulate conduct. Vague expressions that have no meaning in themselves and that extend worldwide, throughout history and into the future, do not set a firm boundary. I urge your Lordships to support the amendments that have been tabled to the Government’s Motion.