Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11, 31 and 34, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34B and 34D in lieu. In moving the Motion I join with all of those who send their deepest sympathy and condolences to Lord Ackner’s family. I will say a few words about the amendments to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We turn today to the question of whether the offence of encouraging terrorism in Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill should include a provision relating explicitly to the glorification of terrorism. We have already debated the question extensively, so I shall try to be brief, even telegraphic, for the benefit of noble Lords opposite. The reasons that the Government seek to include explicit references to glorification are clear. First, it is necessary to tackle those who inspire others to become terrorists by glorifying terrorism. It is a sad fact but there are those who would be recruited to terrorism through its glorification. In ensuring that this offence includes a reference to the glorification of terrorism, this Terrorism Bill will send a strong message—a message that the press and the public and would-be terrorist proselytisers understand—that we will not tolerate those who glorify terrorism with a view to encouraging terrorist outrages. Secondly, because of the clear danger that arises from the glorification of terrorism, the Government made a commitment to the electorate to tackle it. The electorate voted for this Government on the basis of that manifesto. Thirdly, in tackling the glorification of terrorism we will be reinforcing our commitment to the aims and aspirations of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624, which referred to the ““glorification”” of terrorism. The nations of the world were clearly prepared to accept the word when they voted to adopt a resolution that incorporates it. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the ingenuity of his drafting in respect of the latest group of amendments that he has tabled, but by omitting any reference to glorifying or glorification they do nothing to deal with the points to which I have just referred. I will speak at greater length on the need to tackle those who would encourage terrorism through glorifying it, but we are all familiar with the strength of those arguments. Indeed, the arguments are so strong that, on Tuesday 14 March, amendments were tabled for consideration in the Commons which would have inserted alternative formulae for the disputed passages but would have used the word ““glorifying””. The amendments were tabled in the names of both Opposition parties. Though they were subsequently withdrawn, it does suggest that the objections to glorification are not as strong as some of the rhetoric suggests, as does the fact that noble Lords opposite on the Conservative Front Bench—with a couple of unexplained exceptions—abstained during your Lordships’ last vote on this issue on 28 February. I should remind your Lordships of the point that I made when we last discussed this issue. In the oral Statement made in another place on 2 February, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a commitment to publish a draft terrorism Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the first half of next year. That Bill will of course cover matters such as control orders and the outcome of the review of the definition of terrorism being carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. However, it can go further than that and provide an opportunity to look at all of our terrorism legislation. The phrase my right honourable friend used on 2 February 2006 (at col. 483 of the Official Report) was ““pruning and close examination”” of our terrorism legislation. That could, of course, provide an opportunity to see how the glorification provisions have worked and whether any amendment to them is required. I know that noble Lords opposite asked me to undertake to do that on the last occasion. I was happy to indicate that, but I am even happier that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary underscored the comments made by me during the debate on this issue in the other place. Rather than developing the arguments about the glorification provisions themselves—which, if I may say so, have been repeated on so many occasions that the words ad nauseam come to mind; but I could not course say that because your Lordships’ contributions are always so delicious to enjoy—I should like to offer some observations about the constitutional position of this House and the relationship between this House and another place. This House, as I mentioned recently when we were discussing another Bill, should function as a revising Chamber. It can ask the other place to reconsider certain provisions in proposed legislation. No one can doubt that there are occasions when legislation is made significantly stronger by the scrutiny it receives here. But this House should not seek to oppose the will of the elected Chamber for too long, or on too weak a basis. I should remind your Lordships that when the other place’s wording was overturned on 28 February, the majority against the Government in your Lordships’ House was only four. Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s Front Bench, as I indicated, did not vote on that occasion. It then returned to another place. It is worth reflecting on the passage of these provisions in the other House. There have been four votes on this issue in another place. In Committee, on 2 November 2005, the other place supported the glorification provisions by a majority of 16. On Report, on 9 November 2005, it voted for glorification by a majority of 25. At Commons consideration of Lords Amendments on 15 February, it voted for glorification by a majority of 38. Most recently, at the second Commons consideration of Lords Amendments on 16 March, it voted for glorification by a majority of 59 votes. So, there is a trend that one sees clearly established there. Each time the Commons has voted on this, the number in favour of including provisions on glorification has gone up. The other place has reconsidered this matter and has strengthened its position. It is now time for us to listen to the views of the elected House. At this point, I should perhaps invite your Lordships to remember what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said in our debate on 28 February. I know that the noble Lord always chooses his words with care. He said that,"““on this occasion””—" that is the last occasion—"““your Lordships’ House should send this matter back to the House of Commons for one further consideration””.—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 144.]" The other place has now had the advantage of that ““one further consideration”” and, in the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be able to tell us that he is true to his word and, although we can have an interesting debate, this will end here today. That was my hope and expectation, so I was a little surprised to see the amendments that he was asking us to consider, but I know that the noble Lord does not like to disappoint. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that the matter should be sent back to the other place. The other place has had that further consideration. I for one am glad that it has done so. The arguments in favour of referring to ““glorification”” are in the Government’s view totally convincing and the constitutional duty of this House to listen to the other place is equally clear. We believe that following the last vote on this, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made it clear that he was interested to hear about the undertaking, to see how it would go. I hope that with this fulsome explanation I have entirely satisfied him, to such an extent that he need not trouble to rise from his seat, if we divide on this. He and all those on his Benches can sit in great comfort while the Bill goes through safely on its way to another place. With that, and in great expectation, I beg to move. Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11, 31 and 34, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34B and 34D in lieu.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)