Terrorism Bill

The word ““magnificent”” definitely is glorification. I would not put it past clever lawyers to get round saying that ““magnificent four”” did not mean anything about encouraging terrorism. Thirdly, there seems to be expressed a doubt about the meaning of glorification. We have heard it again and again, especially from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It seems to me that only lawyers have a problem about knowing the meaning of glorification, because in Glasgow we know very well what glorification means. I can never get over how lawyers can make something straightforward very complicated. Speaking on the phraseology concerning glorification in the Bill, as it came to your Lordships, the independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said that he considered it 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 also believed that it was human-rights compatible. That is from paragraph 23 of his report of 6 October 2005. I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said in his intervention. I just happen to think that the wording makes it very clear that it is about encouraging others to emulate terrorist acts ““in existing circumstances””. It seems to me clear that this legislation is about glorification that encourages others today to commit terrorism in today’s context. That probably will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, but that is where I diverge slightly from him. To take out glorification would send the wrong signal to the country at a time when it is important that Parliament sends out a clear signal that no one—by carefully avoiding direct incitement—can continue to encourage others, especially the young, to commit terrorism. I would ask the House to support the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland.