Terrorism Bill

We have considered them, my Lords, but it is clear, from what has been said both in this House before and in the other place, that we do not agree. Consideration yes, agreement no. The alternative expression before us now sends no such clear message. Thirdly, as it passed through this House, the offence in Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill included a provision that referred explicitly to glorification. If it does not appear in the final text of the Act, one conclusion is obvious: it will be presumed that the offence was not intended to cover glorification, and we believe that would undermine both the legal effectiveness of the offence and its effectiveness as a deterrent. Taken together, the three major reasons I have outlined mean that we must not insist on our amendments, but should accept the alternative amendments that the other place has offered in lieu of them. Even now, we should proceed on the basis of consensus.