---

Terrorism Bill

I find myself in agreement with everything everyone has said so far in the debate. Indeed, I hope that I find myself in agreement with what I am about to say. The primary offence of Clause 1(4) lies in its uncertainty. I doubt whether it passes the Article 7 test in the European Convention on Human Rights. An individual has a right, before he does something, to know whether what he is about to do is within or without the law. If you apply that principle to the text of subsection (4), it is impossible for somebody to predict, at the outset of the statement, whether at the end of making it he will or will not have committed an offence. The subsection is riddled with expressions that are vague and incapable of definition. Even when the Bill tries to define expressions, such as ““glorification””, it obfuscates rather than clarifies. Clause 20(2) states that,"““’glorification’ includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly””." I should be most interested to hear an explanation of what that means if the noble Baroness feels so inclined. Having said that, I readily admit what I said earlier that, provided it is expressed much more narrowly and precisely, there may be a role for an offence of indirect encouragement. To that end we have tabled Amendment No. 111, which is by no means our final thinking on what a definition of ““indirect encouragement”” might be. It is a first attempt in Committee to try to find our way through the labyrinth. The amendment would be inserted at page 18, line 14, which would define ““indirect encouragement”” as a,"““statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it””." I concede that that has its faults; but at least it has the merit of simplicity. It includes all the necessary ingredients that an offence of indirect encouragement might require. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will tell me what she thinks about it.