| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Amendments (a) and (b) agreed to.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1664
Terrorism Bill
Lords reasons for insisting on amendments and disagreeing to Commons amendments, considered.
Lords reasons: 5A, 11A, 31A and 34C
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 5, 11, 31 and 34 and insists on its Amendment 34B but does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 28 and proposes the following Amendment in lieu:—
No. (a), in 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—
(a) the glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or such offences; and
(b) a suggestion that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.'. —[Mr.Charles Clarke.]
2.45 pm
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this we will consider the following: leave out from "following" to the end and insert in lieu amendment (b), in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'( ) for the purposes of this section, "indirect encouragement" comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'.
Amendment (c), in page 6, line 24, at end insert—
'(8A) The reference in subsection (8) to something that is capable of being understood as an indirect encouragement to the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Clarke): The effect of my motion is simple. It effectively reinstates the wording that this House has previously decided on and rejects the attempts of the other place to remove all references to glorification from the Bill. I can be brief in my remarks because I set out in detail what was wrong with the amendments made by another place when we last discussed the issue on 15 February, and I do not intend to return to that debate.
I am pleased to say that one objection to those amendments has been removed. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has perhaps realised that his assertion that he was
"not wholly persuaded by the argument that listening cannot encompass reading."—[Official Report, 15 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 1435.]
is not really sustainable. I accept that today's amendments from the Opposition parties do at least seek to remedy the weakness that we reflected in the debate that we had last time, but the reference solely to "listener" was not the only thing that was wrong with the amendments.
The amendments from the other place are defective because instead of containing an exemplary description of what "indirect encouragement" could be, they provide an exhaustive description. In other words, the
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1665
offence is limited so that it is committed by making available to the public a statement directly encouraging terrorism, or a statement indirectly encouraging it but only by actually describing it in such a way that the listener will infer that he should emulate it. To put that simply, the use of the word "describing" in the Lords amendments means that the Bill would not catch, as the original wording would, glorification, praise or celebration of an act of terrorism that does not actually describe the act. Although the amendments that have now been tabled by the Opposition parties do not rely on the word "describing", the same type of objection still applies to them. The use of the word "comprises" makes them exhaustive.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): Instead of using the word "describe" our amendment uses the phrase "referring to terrorism". Can the Home Secretary give me an example of when glorifying terrorism would not have to make a reference to it as an activity?
Mr. Clarke: The point that I was making is that the amendment seeks to provide an exhaustive description, which, in my opinion, does not meet the original position put forward by the House. That is precisely why we think that the amendments made in the other place and the amendments tabled by the Opposition should not be accepted here.
The removal of the reference to glorification, which appears to be the purpose of the amendments made in the other place, appears to be the position of the official Opposition, although it is difficult to be sure. On Tuesday, the official Opposition tabled amendments jointly with the Liberal Democrats that included the word "glorifying", but by yesterday those amendments had been replaced by Conservative amendments that do not make reference to glorification. In the other place, those on the Conservative Front Bench urged their colleagues not to vote against the Commons on those points. No doubt we will receive some clarification on that from the Opposition spokesman.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Clarke: I will, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that I will not give way to him again in this speech because he will be making his own speech later in this short debate.
Mr. Grieve:
On the whole, I am genuinely trying to see whether I can reach a consensus with the Home Secretary. For that reason, I considered whether it would be possible, within the restricted ambit of the word "comprise", to give the Prime Minister his "glorifying" word, so that his ego would be satisfied, but after I had put the amendment down on the blues— I take responsibility for this—it seemed to me, for the very reason that I gave to the Home Secretary, that I could not think of a single example of when glorification would not involve a reference to terrorism. One cannot glorify something without referring to it. In fact, in lawyers' language, the word was otiose and surplusage
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1666
and I have no business tabling an amendment that includes something that is completely unnecessary and serves no purpose whatever.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that explanation. Trying to help the Prime Minister's ego is a new task for Opposition spokespeople. I am delighted that they are diverting their energies to that.
What of the Liberal Democrats? No one—including them, probably—has any idea where they stand. On Tuesday they were with the Conservatives in accepting "glorifying". On Wednesday they had parted company from the Conservatives, but today they are back with the Conservatives and opposing "glorifying". It is such typical behaviour from the Liberal Democrats that perhaps it is not worth considering.
The case for including glorification is strong. It is a clear and well understood English word that captures better than any other word some of the conduct that we are trying to deal with in the Bill. As I have said, I imagine that that is why the press have picked up and focused on the word. They know what it means and they know that their readers understand it. It was and, I hope, will be perfectly clear in the Bill for the sake of the courts. It is also a word that the nations of the world were prepared to accept last September when they voted to adopt UN Security Council resolution 1624, which features that word. We should uphold it in Parliament.
As I have also pointed out before, in light of the attention given to the issue of glorification, if we were now to remove it from the Bill the courts would be fully justified in reaching one obvious conclusion—that Parliament did not intend glorification of terrorism to fall within the scope of the encouragement offence. If any hon. Members doubt that, they might like to read a judgment given by the Lords of Appeal only last week. In the course of his remarks, Lord Bingham of Cornhill said:
That clarification, given in the case Regina on application of Gillan and another v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and another, which was given on 8 March, should cause all of us to be clear that if we take out the word "glorification", there will be understanding of that in the court when the legislation comes through.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |