Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I want to explain why I certainly support Motion A. To remove all references to glorification from the Bill is to remove a clear signal from this Parliament that glorification of terrorism is unacceptable—not just the commitment of terrorism, or direct and indirect incitement of it, but glorification as well. As my noble friend Lady Scotland explained, UN Security Council Resolution 1624 of last September, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, spoke, was sponsored by the UK. I have always said clearly that the UK sponsored that resolution and strongly supported it, but it was passed—it is a UN Security Council resolution, whatever went on during the drafting, which goes on in the drafting of every UN Security Council resolution. You never know whose hand is in which word or phrase but, at the end of the day, it is what is agreed that matters. That resolution is very clear. It states:"““repudiating attempts at the justification or glorification . . . of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts””." I do not understand people who have difficulty with the meaning of glorification. I tend to think that only lawyers could find it a subject of debate. People on the proverbial Clapham omnibus or on the streets of Glasgow certainly know exactly what it means. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of glorify is,"““describe or represent as admirable, especially unjustifiably or undeservedly””." To those who say that present laws on incitement cover the ground, I say that there is a small but significant area that is not covered. To my mind, that is best illustrated by one placard that I saw on my television screen in the now infamous recent London demonstration mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. That placard mentioned, ““The Magnificent 4””, a reference to the 7 July bombers. I do not think that you need to be a lawyer to know that it would be very difficult to bring an incitement charge on that, but it sure is glorification. To those who say that reaction to that demonstration is a bad basis for advocating a charge of glorification, I say that I spoke in favour of the inclusion of glorification in the Bill in my Second Reading speech, as many of us did, last November, so it is no knee-jerk reaction, certainly on my part. The independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said of the government proposal on glorification in the Bill as it came to this House last time, and as it will be if Motion A is carried tonight, that it,"““is a proportionate response to the real and present danger of young radically minded people being persuaded towards terrorism by apparently authoritative tracts wrapped in a religious or quasi-religious context””." He believes that it is human-rights compatible, as he states in paragraph 23 of his report of last October. To those who have spoken of the provision applying to praise of Robin Hood or the ANC, I say that the government wording makes it absolutely clear that only those who seek to encourage others to emulate terrorist acts, ““in existing circumstances””, will be covered. It is crystal clear that the legislation is about glorification that encourages others to commit terrorism in today’s context. Furthermore, any prosecutions would need to be approved by the DPP.