Terrorism Bill

rose to move, as an amendment to Motion A, Amendment A1, leave out from ““House”” to end and insert ““do insist on its Amendment No. 31, do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11 and 34, but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 34B and 34D in lieu, and do propose Amendments 34E to 34J in lieu— 34E Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—       ““(   )   For the purposes of this section ““indirect encouragement”” means the making of a statement which does not expressly encourage the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences but which is likely to convey to persons who become aware of the statement the inference that they should commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.”” 34F Clause 2, page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert—       ““(   )   For the purposes of this section, matter that is likely to be understood by a person as indirectly encouraging the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism means any matter which is likely to convey to that person the inference that he should commit, prepare or instigate such acts.”” 34G Clause 3, page 6, line 24, at end insert—       ““(8A)   The reference in subsection (8) to something that is likely to be understood as an indirect encouragement to the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences includes anything which is likely to be understood as conveying the inference that persons becoming aware of that statement, article or record should commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.”” 34H Clause 21, page 19, leave out lines 29 to 39 and insert— ““(a)   include the indirect encouragement of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences (as defined in section 20 of the Terrorism Act 2006); or (b)   are carried out in a manner which ensures that the organisation is associated with statements containing any such encouragement.”” 34J Page 19, leave out lines 41 and 42”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Terrorism Bill is now coming back from the other place for the second round of ping-pong. I have put down a series of new amendments in lieu. They have not been put down because of any intrinsic merit, but to make it clear that while we wish to get rid of the references to ““glorification”” in the Bill, we are also anxious to avoid deadlock. We have no wish to force the Government to use the Parliament Act on a Bill that contains a number of useful anti-terrorist provisions, even if we were in a position to do so, which I doubt we are today. I note in particular the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who regularly attends when there is likely to be a serious vote from the Conservative Benches. We remain deeply concerned with the Government’s insistence on including ““glorification”” in the Bill somewhere or somehow. I briefly want to explore why the Government want it and whether there is any reason for doing so beyond saving face following their commitment to making the glorification of terrorism an offence. There are two possible interpretations involved in including references to glorification in the Bill in the form that the Government have done. The first is the meaning most likely to be applied by the court—that glorification is simply given as one example of the way in which terrorism can be indirectly encouraged. It does not, therefore, extend the meaning of indirect encouragement. If so, it follows that no one will be convicted who would not have been convicted simply on the basis of indirect encouragement even if there was no express reference to ““glorification”” in the Bill. In that case the references to ““glorification”” would be harmless, but also pointless. The second interpretation is more seriously worrying—that the references to ““glorification”” add something to the meaning of indirect encouragement that would not be there otherwise. So people could be convicted of an offence that would not have been an offence within the ordinary meaning of the words ““indirect encouragement””. If that is the correct interpretation, it follows that there is enormous uncertainty about the effect of the Bill. One would have to consider what is the meaning in the context of ““glorification””, and what is the meaning in the context of the word ““emulate””. How can it be possible to justify treating as a criminal offence glorification that does not in the ordinary meaning of the word amount to indirect encouragement of terrorism? Would that not be an unacceptable restraint on freedom of expression? If the second interpretation is correct, the references to glorification would not be harmless; I believe that they would be unacceptable. In moving her Motion, the Minister has not made the position altogether clear and I hope that she will be able to give a more direct answer to my questions when she winds up. If she is saying, ““You have nothing to worry about because glorification here is simply given as an example and it does not extend the meaning of indirect encouragement of terrorism””, that would of course be welcome. The trouble is that, even so, it is not for her to decide on the interpretation. The inclusion of references to glorification make the second interpretation possible. As long as that is a possibility, many people will fear that any statement that they make will be an offence under the Bill if, for example, it expresses sympathy with the activities, past or present, of others that fall within the extremely broad definition of terrorism, even though that statement carries no inference that anyone becoming aware of it should go and do likewise. Because of the possibility that that could be the case, the inclusion of references to glorification is not just unnecessary but harmful. The Government should recognise that and accept the removal of the references. I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, Amendment A1, leave out from ““House”” to end and insert ““do insist on its Amendment No. 31, do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11 and 34, but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 34B and 34D in lieu, and do propose Amendments 34E to 34J in lieu.—(Lord Goodhart.)