Terrorism Bill

rose to move, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from ““House”” to end and insert ““do insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and 34; and do disagree with Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B proposed by the Commons in lieu.”” The noble Lord said: Clause 1(4) of the Bill as it emerged from the House of Commons provided in complex, convoluted language that glorifying terrorist acts should be treated as the encouragement of terrorism if that glorification is in terms which encourage people to emulate the glorified acts. That provision was removed and replaced by a much simpler and clearer definition of what is meant by ““indirect encouragement”” in Amendment No. 5, which did not contain the word ““glorification””. Amendment No. 5, as I recognise, has defects. They are defects which could have been, and could be, easily corrected by the House of Commons accepting the principle and sending back to us an improved version. The House of Commons has, however, chosen to put back the reference to glorification in Clause 1(4) and, indeed, everywhere else in the Bill. That, I believe, is entirely wrong. I believe it is wrong because the reference to glorification is not only unnecessary but useless. I cannot imagine any case in which a prosecution based on glorification would succeed, but a prosecution based simply on a law treating indirect encouragement as an offence would fail. There is here no loophole that needs to be filled. The Commons version saddles us with an elaborate, confusing and unnecessary provision. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out—in my view absolutely rightly—glorification, which is defined in Clause 20 as including any form of praise or celebration, wholly lacks the necessary legal certainty. But this use of the word ““glorification”” is worse than useless because it causes unnecessary damage to freedom of speech. It will lead to self-censorship. The definition of ““terrorism””, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford pointed out, is extraordinarily wide. It remains wide and we certainly cannot assume at this stage that it will be narrowed by any future legislation. It may be; it may not be. The present position is that someone wanting to write a book, an article, or a film or television script about the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916, and doing so in a way that was sympathetic to the rising, might fear that that could be regarded as calling for a return of IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland as an uncompleted job. It may of course be unlikely that the Director of Public Prosecutions would give leave to prosecute. It may be unlikely that prosecution would lead—if there was a sensible jury on the case—to conviction. But the fear is there, and it has a chilling effect. The reference to glorification is also a matter of particular concern to the Muslim community of the United Kingdom and its groups. Many places where terrorist acts are now being carried out are part of the Islamic world; I am thinking in particular of the West Bank and Gaza, Iraq, Chechnya, and Kashmir. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support terrorism in any of these places. It is also true that, in some or most of these places, some terrorists have been guilty of actions which are repulsive to decent human beings, but people in this country must be free to debate the issues which give rise to terrorism there. It must not be a criminal offence to argue that at least some of the objectives, if not the methods, of terrorists in these places are in fact justified. The Government say that it is not the intention of the Bill to stop this argument, but the inclusion of references to glorification will make many people who, for example, support independence for Chechnya or the end of Israeli occupation of the West Bank fearful that in doing so they will be glorifying terrorism and committing an offence. ““Glorification”” will stifle debate that is not only legitimate but important in this country. Why is it that the Government are so obsessed with outlawing glorification? The answer can only be described as being to save face—their own and that of the Prime Minister. He said that glorification must be made a crime and it was put into the manifesto, along with condoning terrorism. ““Condoning”” was rather rapidly dropped and has not since reappeared, for reasons which are pretty obvious. It also became obvious that glorification, as a freestanding offence, would be in itself an absurdity. The definition of terrorism is so wide that it extends to the actions of   Robin Hood and his merry men or the War of American Independence. If glorifying these were to be a crime it would make such radical organisations as the Daughters of the American Revolution criminal organisations. The Government therefore backed down half-way and made glorification a sub-species of encouragement instead of an independent species of its own. At that point, the Government should have recognised that all that was needed here was a simple offence of direct or indirect encouragement of terrorism, an offence which we accept as necessary and which we support. But the Government had become so committed to glorification that they had to stick it in. Your Lordships’ House should stick to the decision to remove references to glorification. We now have the worst of both worlds: we have statutory provisions which add nothing to security but which will restrict freedom of speech. Your Lordships are offered three alternatives to the Motion that has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. One is the one in my name; the second is in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The differences between us are insignificant. It is only that he would accept the removal of Lords Amendments Nos. 15 and 32 and the inclusion of Commons Amendment No. 34A. Amendments Nos. 15 and 32 do not remove references to glorification, and we do not need to insist on them or to object to House of Commons Amendment No. 34A. That being so, if he wishes to press his Motion A2 to a vote, as I understand he does, I would beg leave to withdraw Motion A1 and support him. Motion A3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is another matter altogether. If it was adopted, it would remove the reference to glorification in Clause 1(4), but retain the references to glorification in Clauses 2(4), 3(9), 20(2) and 21. I cannot see the point of an amendment that would do that. Deleting one reference to glorification would annoy those who think that it should be in the Bill; leaving four other references in the Bill would annoy those who think that it should not be in the Bill. It appears to me that Motion A3 has no point and, unless the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is extremely persuasive, my recommendation to my noble friends would be to abstain if he was to move it following a defeat of an earlier Motion. In spite of the persuasive arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on this occasion your Lordships’ House should send this matter back to the House of Commons for one further consideration, and we should not accept the government amendments that were reintroduced by the House of Commons. Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from ““House”” to end and insert ““do insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and 34; and do disagree with Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B proposed by the Commons in lieu.””.—(Lord Goodhart.)