Terrorism Bill

The hon. Gentleman is right. This went to the heart of the debate in the other place. Lord Morris of Aberavon, a previous Labour Attorney-General and a person of great distinction who has always been a robust supporter of what the Government have generally been attempting to achieve, said: "““This part of the clause is vague, uncertain and unnecessary. It would make it extremely difficult in practice for a judge to be able to direct a jury.””" He went on to say that, under the definition that the Home Secretary wants, "““‘glorification’ includes any term of praise and celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly””." He went on: "““I wrote to the Minister, and she kindly replied that she did not feel it would be appropriate for her to prepare draft directions to a jury or to place any example directions in the Library. That was because any directions would have to be related to specific cases under consideration. I have not sat as a recorder for a few years since the age of 65 when the previous Lord Chancellor declared that that was enough. He may well have been right. All recorders—presumably all judges—are supplied with a book of draft directions which are in general and are applied almost every day by judges across the land. The argument that directions would have to be related to specific cases under consideration does not hold water.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2006; Vol. 677, c. 576.]" That encapsulates the problem that glorification will pose. The Government would do well to heed what not only Lord Morris, but many others, including previous Law Lords, said in the course of the debate—and they were seeking to be conciliatory. Lord Ackner, who is not usually a friend of the Government, said: "““My Lords, I agree that subsection (3) must clearly go, for the reasons which have been fully explained. However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that this is no matter of principle but one of drafting.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2006; Vol. 677, c. 580.]" They were genuinely trying to help the Government, who have closed their ears and eyes to what they have been told. Consequently, this House is in danger of passing law that is unworkable.