| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he confirm that his Motion A3—as it does not insist on Amendments Nos. 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and 34—would mean that four of the five references to glorification therefore remain the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is quite correct. From our point of view the crucial clause is Clause 1(4).
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I speak as one whose vote on this matter is still essentially up for grabs. That may not be the case for everyone in the House. I listened extremely carefully to what the noble Baroness said and was sorry that, by her remarks about terrorists going to paradise, she seemed to imply that the legislation was solely about Islamic terrorism. I accept that that was not her intention, yet it could have been heard in that way.
We cannot know what outrages there may be in future, but at present the victims of Islamic terrorism here in this country are mercifully few against those of our own home-grown northern Irish terrorism. I have long been concerned that it has seemed impossible to take proceedings against Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness, who have glorified terrorism and still do that. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, sniffing when we have all seen those two gentlemen standing at military-style funerals with hooded gunmen firing in celebration of the terrorist. If that is not glorification of terrorism, it would be rather difficult to define what is. If those gentlemen continue to glorify terrorism and terrorists, does the noble Baroness feel that they would be caught by the provision of her legislation?
Furthermore, the Minister spoke of the problems of references in the amendments which were passed by this House to "the listener"; she also mentioned placards. I presume that she was trying there to bring to our minds the recent Islamic march in London and the grossly offensive placards seen there. Yet I understand that it would have been possible, under existing law, to bring prosecutions against those carrying the placards. Is my understanding right? Would it have been possible to bring prosecutions and if so, why was it decided not to bring them? If we are to give powers to proceed against the offence of glorification of terrorism, we would want to know whether the Government were going to use them or have them only as an eye-catching initiative.
If placards are to be brought into the legislation, what about the murals on the walls of Belfast and Londonderry which glorify both republican and loyalist terrorism? Would the creators of those murals be likely to be found guilty of glorifying terrorism? Would it make any difference to the likelihood of their
28 Feb 2006 : Column 149
prosecution and conviction whether we accepted the Minister's proposals or those of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart? Before I finally decide into which Lobby I should go, I would be interested to hear the noble Baroness's reply.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: 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".
4 pm
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,
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.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness appreciates that in the subsection to which she has just referred, the offence is said to include,
"every statement which . . . glorifies the commission or preparation of such acts or offences (whether in the past, in the future or generally".
Whereas the original draft clauses from the Home Office included a 20-year limitation, there is now no limitation. To take Irish terrorism for example, as I was discussing in Dublin this weekend, Irish terrorists are inspired by events that happened in the late 1790s to commit terrorist acts at the present time.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to subsection (4)(b) and,
"a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances",
which is exactly what I said. Furthermore, any prosecutions would need to be approved by the DPP in cases of domestic terrorism or by the Attorney-General in cases of overseas terrorism. Only prosecutions that are in the public interest would be brought.
Those who glorify terrorism will be prosecuted only if they do so in a way that encourages others to copy these acts in today's circumstances. I should add that on the criteria for the proscription of terrorist groups, which is another very important part of the Bill, specific safeguards are in place, including parliamentary approval subject to affirmative procedure and appeal rights. The power of the Home Secretary to proscribe terrorist organisations is very far from being unfettered.
I think it is very important for this House to send out a clear signal that no one, by carefully avoiding direct incitement, can continue to encourage others, especially the young, to commit terrorism. I support Motion A in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall make a totally different and very small point. I was very concerned by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said about the difficulty of things not being precise enough to make it possible for the Crown Prosecution Service to recommend that a case should be brought. I have in mind what happened in Oxford on Sunday, when a young man of 16 and some students did what no one has really done so far;
28 Feb 2006 : Column 151
they condemned and resisted those people who have been terrorising Huntingdon Life Sciences and trying to prevent the university having a very necessary and valuable scientific laboratory in which animals are used.
It seems to me that it would be disastrous if glorification was so vague that those people could not be caught. I want to be reassured, as I am by my noble friend Lord Kingsland's Amendment No. 34C, that the provision is spelt out so carefully that there can be no possible reason why those people, if they are caught and identified, cannot be prosecuted.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |