Terrorism Bill

My Lords, it is precisely for the reason that the right reverend Prelate referred to that we object to the use of this word ““glorification””. Why should it be left to the courts to interpret words like this? Why cannot this Bill set out quite clearly what it intends to punish with a sentence of imprisonment of up to seven years? I do not know what glorification means in Glasgow, but let us look at what it means in the Bill. Clause 1(4) states:"““For the purposes of this section the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which . . . glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences””." It does not attempt to be an exhaustive definition of what is indirect encouragement and it refers to acts committed at any time in the past and in any place in the world. Turning to Clause 21, we actually have a definition of what glorification is. This definition does not apply to Clause 1; it applies only in relation to Clause 21:"““In this section . . . ‘glorification’ includes any form of praise or celebration””." So the definition of the word ““glorification”” here is not meant to be comprehensive—simply an example is given. We therefore come back to the point that the word is used to refer to acts committed at any time and in any place in the world, whether going back 2,000 years or moving 2,000 years into the future, and ““any form of praise””. Nothing could be vaguer than that. I follow what was said by the right reverend Prelate: we ought not to pass criminal legislation that leaves it to the courts to decide what the definition means and, further, leaves it to the Attorney-General to decide whether in a particular case a prosecution should be brought or to a chief constable to decide that in a particular case an inquiry should be launched. That is why we have tabled these clear definitions in my noble friend’s amendments, which would not leave it to the courts but would allow this Parliament to decide what the criminal law should be.