Terrorism Bill

There is a difference between expressing support for people’s actions and that further step where a person makes the statements that they intend or are reckless about and that they know are likely to encourage others to engage in acts of terrorism. That is what the provision is aimed at and it is perfectly proper to bring it into effect. Some Members have suggested that the provisions are unnecessary. If that were the case, we would not have included them. They provide the courts with a useful guide as to the type of conduct that Parliament wants to cover in the new legislation. Moreover, if they were to be removed at this stage the courts could interpret that as meaning that we did not intend such conduct to be covered. If the provisions were removed, I am concerned that courts could consider that acts of glorification, celebrating, exalting and praising terrorism were not the type of behaviour that should be covered under direct or indirect incitement. They are an important illustration to the courts of the type of behaviour that we want to cover. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides an analogy—albeit on a difference scale—that helped me to understand the clause, as the Act includes a description of the type of conduct involved in harassment. When the concept of harassment was introduced, it was new to the courts, so the Act described the type of conduct that would be covered, to assist and guide the courts in interpreting that criminal offence. This provision is certainly similar because it would tell the courts that we are considering behaviour that glorifies, celebrates or exalts terrorism and that it should be included in direct or indirect incitement in accordance with clause 1, so it is very helpful indeed. Any suggestion that praising Robin Hood would fall into that category is very far of the mark.