---

Terrorism Bill

My noble friend will know that I am not entitled to rely on information in relation to any current cases because those issues may be sub judice, so I shall try to answer his question more generally than as it relates to the events of 7 July. It is clear from articles recovered from various incidents, such as videos and tapes, that they appear to have played a part in encouragement and indeed in the facilitation of those who would seek to perpetrate acts of terror. We cannot avoid that conclusion. Indeed, if one looks back over the evidence produced and the report prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the other evidence brought before committees considering terrorism, we can see that the promulgation of these matters appears to have played a part—and by no means an insignificant one—in the way events then unfolded. We are faced with that not as a technicality or a possibility but as a real issue to be grappled with appropriately. I also refer to Clause 21 because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, signalled his intention to oppose that clause, too. Organisations that glorify terrorism create a climate in which terrorism is seen not just as acceptable but as something to be emulated. This is clearly something we would seek to prevent and that is the purpose of Clause 21. It is important to note that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, in his independent report on the proposed legislation said of this clause that:"““extending the list to include the organisations envisaged in the clause is a proportionate limitation on the freedom of association in relation to the greater public good”” ." The Government’s position is clear: if an individual can be prosecuted for making statements that glorify terrorist acts, which others could reasonably infer as encouraging emulation of those acts, then organisations ought to ““walk the line,”” too. What is sauce for the goose, we say in this instance, should also be sauce for the gander. We believe that a strong case exists for the creation of these offences and that there is a clear case to include them. We do not believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, contends, that it introduces uncertainty; nor do we believe that the Article 7 test is not met. We believe, that by virtue of strengthening the Bill in this way—and I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for his comment about being ““greatly comforted”” by that—we have dealt with the whole issue of intent by introducing the question of specific intent and subjective recklessness. Those two factors mean that the glorification offence has to be dealt with within that context. In terms of proof, it is clear that that offence is much stronger than it would otherwise be. I understand what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, means when he says that it is ““all caught now”” by encouragement and so a specific species of encouragement is unnecessary; it could simply be expunged. I have already identified the reason why we say ““no”” to this: it a manifesto commitment and, just as importantly, it is an exemplar of how the power should be used. It makes it clear that it should be used to deal with specific current matters that are not retrospective, so the worries about Robin Hood and all those other merry men that have been trailed out need not concern us at all. I understand that this issue has caused concern, but we believe that there is sufficient merit to allow it to continue.