---

Terrorism Bill

The complexity of this matter must already be very clear. It is certainly clear to me. I do not pretend to have the definitive answer except that, unlike my noble friend Lord Waddington, I am inclined to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kingsland and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. Clarity in the criminal law is extraordinarily important. I have been affected by the letter which all of us will have received from—and maybe we shall hear more of this during the debate; and I find it difficult to express the words correctly—Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain. It points out the very complex world in which we are seeking to enter with the concept of glorification of terrorism. Clause 1(1) applies to a statement that is likely to or would be understood,"““by members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission . . . of terrorism or . . . offences””." Quite a lot of the members of the public to whom it is published will understand one thing and some, who are rather more inclined towards terrorism, will understand another, which constitutes the mischief that the clause is seeking to achieve. Hizb ut-Tahrir makes the quite compelling point that much of the language that some people see as encouraging terrorism is the normal, everyday language used by those who deplore what is happening in Palestine or deplore the Iraq war. Whatever views one may take on those matters, in a free society it is very possible—and ought to be possible—to express those views. I see real danger here. We need as much clarity as possible about what precisely is the offence. For that reason, I support ““would”” rather than ““is likely to””, but we shall have to continue to look at all the wording.