Viscount Hailsham:

Moved by Viscount Hailsham

447: After Clause 185, insert the following new Clause—“Support for terrorism: intention(1) The Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 12 (support) after subsection (4), insert—“(4A) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.”.(3) In section 13 (uniform and publication of images), after subsection (1B), insert—“(1C) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.”.”

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 448. In respect of Amendment 447, I am glad to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I am happy to say is in her place.

The purpose of these two amendments is to ensure that individuals can be prosecuted under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for the offence of supporting an act of terrorism only if the acts alleged are, in substance, acts that support terrorism in the sense that ordinary citizens support that concept. Amendment 447 would make explicit the intent required—namely, that the act alleged was done with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism. Amendment 448 would provide for a defence when no such intent existed. The amendments are quite clearly in the alternative. I prefer Amendment 447 but I would understand if noble Lords preferred Amendment 448.

What I suggest is profoundly unsatisfactory and unjust is the present law. Consider the demonstrations that we see in the streets and squares of London, with hundreds of citizens holding placards that read, “I support Palestine Action”. Consider that these individuals are often elderly and retired folk, mostly self-evidently respectable and usually without much knowledge of the secret workings of Palestine Action. Now, they may be self-indulgent, and some indeed may accuse them of being naive, but are they really guilty of supporting terrorism in the sense that most of us understand that concept?

I suggest that these people are using a form of shorthand to demonstrate their Opposition to the policies of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. If they stood outside the Israeli embassy and shouted, “Down with Netanyahu”, or words to that effect, they would be doing no more than they are entitled to do, and I do not think the use of the shorthand, “I support Palestine Action”, however ill-advised the use of that phrase may be, makes them guilty of an act of terrorism.

There are at least three serious objections to the law as it is now framed. First, it is a serious restriction on free speech. I do not refer to the European convention, although that may be engaged in this instance; I refer rather to the long-established rights of citizens to demonstrate and express their views. That is a right to be restricted in only the most compelling of cases.

Secondly, to use the law in circumstances that offend the common sense of the ordinary citizen brings the whole body of criminal law into serious disrepute. The spectacle of the elderly and retired being arrested in the circumstances we have all witnessed for allegedly terrorist acts clearly has such an effect. Then consider the consequences for the individual concerned if convicted of an offence under Section 12. The penalties are as follows: on indictment, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years, or a fine, or both; on a summary conviction, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

But leaving aside the nature of the penalties, consider the impact of a conviction. It is wholly disproportionate, I suggest, to the nature of the offence. A person convicted of an offence under the terrorism legislation would have the greatest difficulty in travelling to America, especially at the moment. They might even be arrested by ICE; they might even regard it as lucky if that was all that happened in the hands of ICE. Their employment prospects too would be gravely prejudiced. A conviction for an offence under terrorism legislation could also have the gravest of social outcomes.

I suggest that these consequences should not follow an act of sitting in Parliament to express a view—which I happen to share—that Mr Netanyahu and his Government are guilty of war crimes. The amendments I have tabled, both of them, are intended to address this injustice, and I commend them to your Lordships’ Committee.

I am really thrilled to be supporting the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, because obviously he is so sure of everything he says that I must be doing the right thing. I will deal with Amendments 447 and 448 slightly differently, because they are different. I support Amendment 447 because it directly responds to how the law is currently interpreted by the courts. The Supreme Court has made it clear that someone can be convicted without any requirement to show that they intended to support terrorism. The offence is about the suspicion of others, not the intention of the person charged.

That might explain the law as it stands, but it also exposes the problem. Under this interpretation, people are criminalised not for what they mean to do but for how their actions might be perceived or might be used symbolically by other people. The court accepted that this interferes with freedom of expression but concluded that the interference was justified because Parliament chose to prioritise disruption and prevention. This amendment asks Parliament to look again at that choice. Criminal law normally punishes intentional recklessness. Here, however, we are dealing with offences that can be triggered by clothing, images or symbols, with no need to show encouragement, promotion or support in any real sense. That is a very wide net, and one that risks catching protest, journalism, art, research or sheer provocation.

The Supreme Court has told us plainly that if this is to change it must be done by Parliament. That is exactly what this amendment does. It ensures terrorism Laws target people who genuinely seek to assist terrorism, not those whose conduct just creates an appearance or a reaction. I obviously feel very sensitive about this, being a serial protester.

On Amendment 448, the Terrorism Act gives the state some of its strongest powers, and rightly so, but with powers that strong, we should be very careful about who gets caught up in them. Amendment 448 follows directly from the same Supreme Court judgment and addresses its practical consequences. The court accepted that Section 13 interferes with freedom of expression but held that the interference was justified because the law was clear and because Parliament had chosen that. It is all our fault. That leaves people prosecuted under these provisions with very little room to explain themselves. If you carry or display something and it falls within the scope of the offence, your purpose largely does not matter.

This amendment introduces a basic safeguard—a defence for those who can show that they did not mean to encourage, incite or enable terrorism. The Supreme Court emphasised foreseeability that people should be able to control their conduct if the law is clear, but foreseeability alone is not the same as fairness. A system that criminalises without regard to intent places an enormous burden on lawful expression and legitimate activity. By putting a defence on the face of the statute, Parliament would make it clear that these offences were aimed at genuine support for terrorism, not incidental, critical or contextual engagement with proscribed organisations.

My Lords, Amendment 450 seeks to amend the current Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. I declare that I am an officeholder in the APPG on Counter Extremism, a member of the APPG on Terrorism and Security and, probably most importantly, a victim of terrorism.

For 20 years this year we have had a criminal offence of glorification of terrorism, but under the current Section 1 there is a very high bar to meet, as the person making the statement of glorification has to intend that a person hearing the statement would be encouraged to emulate the terrorism being glorified. The glorification of terrorists or their organisations is certainly not confined to my part of the United Kingdom but rather is a threat to the security of the nation as a whole. Recently, on the streets of some of our major cities, we have seen proscribed organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah lauded and that has had and will continue to have its consequences, particularly around radicalisation of our young people.

As someone who has lived with and through terrorism, I am always alert to anything which would encourage it and bring back those dark days of intimidation, murder and mayhem. Unfortunately, over the years since the cessation of IRA violence, there has been a strategy from Sinn Féin to lionise and put terrorists and their actions on a pedestal. There are many examples of Sinn Féin politicians, many of them senior figures, attending commemorations and celebrations for the lives of those who sought to murder their neighbours. In the interest of time, I will not bring any examples of that, because I have done so in the past in this Chamber, but suffice to say that apart from the pain which it causes to their innocent victims, it also seeks to normalise terrorism as a legitimate way to bring about political change.

The retraumatisation of victims is unforgivable and needs to be called out on every occasion, but public acts of commemoration also send a very clear message to young republicans that what these young men—and they were usually young men, and in some cases 16-year-olds, sent out to murder—did was in some way honourable. It glamourises what they did. To young impressionable people who have little knowledge of the life experience of the brutality of the IRA, it makes them sound like heroes, which they patently were not.

The often chanted, “Ooh ah up the Ra”, is a symptom of the continuing glorification of dead terrorists. It is, to some, a cultural chant, but nothing could be further from the truth. If we allow people, including those in positions of authority, to glorify terrorism in the way which, for example, the current First Minister of Northern Ireland does, then it normalises and sanitises terrorism and, in a cyclical way, will lead to young people being radicalised again. Witness those young people on our streets supporting the actions of Hamas, for instance. Many of them know little about the Middle East but think it is very hip and trendy to support Hamas because they hate Israel.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If all you know about the IRA is that it took on the Brits and the First Minister says they were a great bunch of lads, then you can be forgiven for thinking that “Ooh ah up the Ra” is a grand wee chant. Those young people know little of the devastation, murder, intimidation and barbarity of the IRA because it is not something that is talked about by their First Minister.

As regards the current provisions, there have been no prosecutions under this section, to my knowledge, in Northern Ireland. When I asked the Minister a Written Question on this issue concerning England and Wales, he indicated on 2 December that there had been 52 prosecutions in England and Wales since 2011.

In 2023 the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, looked at this part of the legislation and decided that Section 1 did not need updating. With respect to the KC, I would argue that it needs change so that glorification of terrorism—in other words, glorifying the acts of a current proscribed terrorist organisation—in and of itself should be a criminal offence.

Mr Hall looked at this legislation in 2023, before the onslaught of support on our streets for Hamas; perhaps in this context he may need to look at this issue again. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, in his current review of public order and hate crime legislation, could also look at this issue.

In the meantime, I submit that change is needed for the following reasons. First, defeating terrorism is about not just militarily defeating the organisation but not allowing the narrative of those terrorists to be justified. Unfortunately, with the continued glorification of the IRA by senior politicians and others, there is a deliberate attempt to rewrite what happened in Northern Ireland. It was an unjustified, bloody, murderous terrorist campaign—nothing more and nothing less—and those of us who grew up with threats and the attempted murder of members of our family will not allow that to happen. We need society as a whole to recognise it as well. I urge noble Lords not to utter the phrase, “Yes, but it’s Northern Ireland and that’s all very difficult”. It is really not difficult. Whether you were a loyalist terrorist or a republican terrorist, you were a terrorist: someone who went out with the sole purpose of murder. Of course, the same is true of other shades of terrorists today.

Secondly, as I have already pointed out, there have been no prosecutions in Northern Ireland under the current Section 1. Why is that the case? Policing across the UK should be without fear or favour and certainly should not allow political bias or fear to enter decision-making. Unfortunately, there have recently been examples of political decision-making by police chiefs in the West Midlands and Northern Ireland.

Last week, two former chief constables of the PSNI gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Select Committee in the other place. Sir Hugh Orde and Sir George Hamilton were chief constables who took independent operational decisions. Despite policing in a very political environment, they made, as far I and many others are concerned, decisions based on policing considerations alone. They were not always popular with all the politicians, but that should never be the primary focus of a chief constable.

The two chiefs recounted instances when they had taken policing decisions and rejected attempted political interference. For Sir George, that was around the murder of Kevin McGuigan in 2015 and for Sir Hugh it was the Northern Bank robbery in 2004. On both occasions the political classes in London—and, disgracefully, Dublin—were interfering in the policing of Northern Ireland. They were trying to pressurise the two chief constables into not calling out the involvement of the IRA. They both resisted. I am very glad they did. It did not make politics in Northern Ireland any easier at that time—I remember it very well—but it was the truth. How sad then that their successor Simon Byrne decided to give in to political pressure when it was applied to him.

Unfortunately, some police chiefs do not feel strongly enough about implementing Laws that may be seen as picking a side. I regret to say that some police chiefs, and indeed prosecutors, instead of applying the law without fear or favour, may be too timid and not want to rock the boat in taking a prosecution that may fail or may upset politicians or “communities”. The question is: how do you test whether all the elements of an offence are present if you are not willing to take it before the court? This amendment deals with those issues, I hope, as it removes the emulation part from the offence, and therefore makes it easier to prosecute.

Thirdly, I indicated at the start of my speech that I am an officeholder in the APPG on Counter Extremism. If we do not amend the law as this amendment seeks to do, I fear that the continued glorifying of terrorism will radicalise and lead more of our young people into terrorism. At present, there is a lack of legislation to capture extremism, but if we allow the glorification of terrorism to continue unabated, it will continue to grow, along with all the problems that it causes in our society.

Fourthly—and finally, noble Lords will be glad to hear—what sort of society do we want to live in? Do we want to allow the continued glorification of terrorism and all the inherent problems that will bring, or do we want to send a signal from Parliament that terrorism is, was and always will be wrong?

We need to stop the harmful normalisation of terrorism. I hope this amendment goes some way in doing that. Terrorism wants to put a wedge between those from different backgrounds. It wants to bring fear to ordinary citizens. In all its forms, it must be defeated. I hope that there will be support around the Committee for this amendment.

My Lords, I r support Amendment 450 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. Like the noble Baroness, and many others in this Chamber, the legacy of terrorism is not merely an abstract term for me. It is not a sentence on a piece of paper. It is a real legacy that still affects people to this very day. It is remembered in empty chairs at the dinner table, in empty pews at church, physical and psychological scars, and in communities still working hard to build trust after decades of fear. In that context, the glorification of terrorism is not simply offensive but harmful. It reopens wounds, undermines reconciliation, and sends a message that the suffering of victims is somehow secondary to a warped narrative of heroism or resistance.

The noble Baroness’s amendment addresses a serious gap in our legal system. At present, the offence of encouraging terrorism includes the glorification of terrorist acts only where it can be shown that such glorification encourages others to emulate that conduct; in other words, the prosecution must demonstrate not only that terrorism was praised but that the praise was likely to inspire imitation. Of course, I fully support that extent of the existing legislation, but the threshold should be raised further to account for the rampant glorification of terrorism.

We know that radicalisation and normalisation do not operate only through direct instructions. People are rarely told in explicit terms to copy an attack. Instead, extremist messaging often works by celebrating past acts, portraying perpetrators as martyrs or heroes, and presenting violence as justified or necessary. That justification that there was no other way than terrorist acts came from the lips of the First Minister, Michelle O’Neill.

Over time, that steady diet of praise and romanticisation of violence can shift perceptions, especially among the young, making the step towards active support for violence feel less extreme and simply a culmination of calculated indoctrination. In Northern Ireland, we have witnessed at first hand how cultural and political narratives can remake paramilitary violence into something that is lauded and, disgustingly, admired.

References to paramilitaries appear in murals, slogans, music, and online spaces, endlessly. Everywhere we look across Belfast, in our schools and universities, in shops and on street corners, there are daunting inscriptions of acclaim about the IRA. We even have an entire political party that is yet to find it within itself to admit that IRA terrorism was wrong.

This amendment is so important because we have to think of the future and our younger generation, who now chant “Up the Ra” carelessly, believing it to be an act of rebellion and resistance. They look to their political leaders, who tolerate this: indeed, they encourage and applaud it. Let us pause for a moment and think about that. They may not be glorifying terrorism with a view to directly inciting others, but they are normalising it so radically that it would make it acceptable for someone to engage in terrorism, believing it to be morally right after years of repeated misinformation and miseducation. Yet for victims and their families, these are reminders of the bombings, shootings and intimidation, not symbols of pride.

This is a very personal and touching amendment because, like the noble Baroness, I and my loved ones were victims of terrorism too. For a moment, I take you to two young people, a young girl of 21 and her brother of 16. That day she was engaged to be married. She went to get her engagement ring and, of course, she was excited to show her engagement ring to her aunt and to her loved ones: this was wonderful. The future was her oyster and the future was wonderful. They left to show the engagement ring. Some family members joined them in the car. As they went down the road, they were stopped because they were told by another person that there was a car over the hedge. They went to help and noticed the car had its nose into the field, but there was no one in the car. Somebody said, “Just watch, there could be a bomb”, and as they walked from that scene, the car blew up. Those two young people, aged 16 and 21, were blown to bits.

How do I know? I was the one who was sent to the morgue to identify them. That girl was a beauty queen but, as I said before, there was nothing beautiful that day in what I saw. The 16 year-old lad did not even get on to the slab. His few bits were lying on the floor and I was not allowed to look. But then they did pull it back to show just a few bones. That was all that was left of the lad, a boy of only 16. This is reality. Their mother died of a broken heart shortly after that. I understand why. But who really cares? Who really cares except those who carry the burden, day after day.

Then they hear “Up the Ra” as a chant by young people, encouraged by their political leaders, who think that it is acceptable and normal. That is why we have broken hearts. So when I say to noble Lords that this amendment is necessary for the safeguarding of our younger people and the safety of our future, and to prevent the further glorification of terrorism, know that I say it with the full emotion of remembering everything that terrorism took from my life and the many people who would be here today if it were not for it.

Even when there is no expressive call to take up arms from individuals who glorify, the effect can still be to sanitise a campaign that caused immense suffering to all of us. If a statement stops short of urging others to replicate violence, it may fall outside the offence. That creates a loophole where the celebration of terrorism can circulate freely, so long as it is carefully worded. This amendment would remove the requirement to prove the encouragement of emulation and recognises a simple truth: glorification itself can be dangerous.

The same principle applies to contemporary terrorist organisations across the world. Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are associated with serious violence against civilians and are proscribed under UK law, yet we continue to see instances where their actions or symbols are publicly praised or celebrated without an explicit call for others to follow their example.

This amendment would not criminalise discussion, analysis or criticism of past events. It would not prevent historians, journalists or communities examining the causes and the consequences of conflict. This distinction is between explaining or debating terrorism and praising it. Leaving this loophole in place risks sending the wrong signal that, so long as no one says, “Do it again”, the public celebration of terrorist violence is acceptable. It is for that reason that I support this amendment.

My Lords, it is always an honour to follow both the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. Their personal experiences—my family has not been directly affected—are a salutary reminder to this Committee that the choices that we make on this issue are not academic debating society-type issues. They are choices that have very real implications in the real world.

With the amendments in this group, we face a fork in the road. While two of the amendments may be very well intended, I say with respect to those who tabled them that they would take us down a dangerous and wrong road. The third Amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and others, would strengthen our Opposition to terrorism.

Terrorists and terrorist organisations, whether they are. in a Northern Ireland context, republican or loyalist, or in other contexts Islamists, far-right extremists or a whole range of other bodies, do not just appear. It is right that we do not judge terrorism on the basis of its ideology, but on the basis of its actions. That has been the position that this House and others have taken when deciding on proscription for terrorist organisations. They do not appear simply out of the ether. No one becomes convinced of a particular issue and, that night, picks up a gun or a bomb and goes out and carries out a terrorist act; it is a long process. It is a situation in which people get converted to a position of extreme ideology and extreme action out of that. It is a position in which the message is that the particular terrorist actions that are being carried out are normalised. They are presented as the only alternative way to sort out a problem. A lot of that is based on the surrounding language.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, introducing this group, said that he did not see a distinction between somebody saying, “I oppose the Netanyahu Government” and “I support Palestine Action”. With respect, I think there is a deep distinction. One is expressing a political opinion and the other is supporting a proscribed organisation. In a Northern Ireland context, it is the distinction between someone saying, very legitimately, “I am an advocate for a united Ireland” and somebody saying “I support the IRA”. There is a clear-cut distinction and we should draw that distinction.

If Amendments 447 and 448 were to be agreed, we would create an absurd situation. We could have platforms where people get up and urge people to support ISIS, Hamas, the Real IRA or other organisations. None of those things are supporting an individual act of terrorism, but they are clearly drawing people in. They are, if you like, the gateway drug into terrorism. As such, we would create a very dangerous situation where we facilitate in particular young people from different backgrounds becoming radicalised and bit by bit being drawn into that terrorist world.

It is critical for the past, the present and the future that Amendment 450 is put forward. On the issue of the past, we know, and we have heard from the last two speakers, of the real impact on and the real hurt for victims of terrorism, from whatever source they come. When someone gets up and eulogises the terrorists of the past, they create great hurt for those families, whether in the situation indicated by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, or, for instance, if someone on a platform was to praise Hamas on 7 October, or refer to those who were involved in the attacks in 9/11 or Bondi Beach as some sort of martyrs for the cause. All those things are deeply hurtful to the families and the victims.

However, there is an even stronger case for the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, which is the implication for the future. We have young people from a range of communities who do not remember and who have not had that lived experience of what terrorism means in practice. Whether it is the 9/11 bombings or the period of the Troubles for 25 years, those young people will not know what happened within those.

Whenever mainstream politicians get up and praise those in the past, they open the door to those who want to continue terrorism now. To take the Irish republican example, if someone is, in essence, saying that what happened in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s was justified, someone recruiting for a republican organisation or a loyalist paramilitary group will say, on the one hand, “Our aim in the 1970s was Brits out”—that was supposedly the only alternative. “Our aim remains that today, so come and join us and be involved with us”. That is something that is all pervasive and not simply theoretical.

Two years ago, there was the horrendous shooting of John Caldwell, a police officer in the Mid Ulster area. This was someone who was attacked by dissident republicans when he was helping to coach young people playing football. He had life-changing injuries and was very fortunate to survive. However, when the police went into an area to detain two of the suspects, there were cheers from the surrounding young people, not because of the arrests but in support of those who committed the attack.

We must close this loophole and face up to the situation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, support for terrorism should be wrong on a timeless basis. Terrorism was wrong. Terrorism is wrong. Terrorism remains wrong into the future. It is about time that the law caught up with that and implemented it to ensure that we have the most robust systems to counter terrorism through the law.

My Lords, Amendments 447, 448 and 450 could not be more different, but they seem to show two sides of the same coin.

Dealing first with Amendment 450, I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has said. It is absolutely appalling that people should glorify terrorism in any way. We listened to some painful stories of what had happened during the Troubles. However, this is not a Northern Ireland issue. Having listened to three people from Northern Ireland, as an English woman who was formerly married to a man from County Down, now deceased, it is important to point out that this happens in the rest of the United Kingdom.

There are people in this country who support ISIS; there are people who support Hamas, and there are other groups that are not so well known that may well be supported. Whether it be the appalling acts of the IRA or the equally appalling acts of Hamas—whether the genocide is or is not does not seem relevant at the moment—there should be no glorification. I hope that the Government will listen to this, because, although it is promoted largely by those from Northern Ireland, as I have said already, it is equally applicable to the rather parts of the United Kingdom.

Looking at the other side of the coin, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Weir. The sort of people who are going out on the streets, particularly in London, to support Palestine Action, could not be more removed from the terrorists and the people glorifying terrorism. A lot of very decent, naive—as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, called them—and, in many ways, foolish people are going out because they do not like what happens in Gaza. We get a great deal of coverage, rightly, about what is happening there. That creates a situation in which decent and very often elderly people are going along and behaving very stupidly, but they absolutely are not terrorists.

I wonder whether the Government were all that wise to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. It is an abhorrent organisation, but I really do not think it is within the ambit of terrorism as we normally understand it—but we are stuck with it because it is now the law. However, that does not mean that everybody who is foolish, naive and stupid enough to go out on the streets, very often in bad weather, to yell out rather stupid slogans are themselves terrorists. I am not sure that it brings any praise on the country, and particularly the Government, to have huge numbers of these people arrested. What on earth is going to happen to them? We look rather foolish with this, and I hope that the Government might look with considerable sympathy particularly at Amendment 447, which is the one that I would support.

My Lords, I have listened to the noble and learned Baroness’s very fair presentation of the two sides of that argument. However, we cannot know, because we have no evidence, what the deeper, inner views may be of those people she referred to, who are leaving an event or a protest, or whatever. It is perfectly plausible that they may attend a demonstration but that their views are more extreme than those exhibited at the demonstration. I would therefore be a little bit cautious about not accepting that glorification is the door-opening to the more sinister motives that people can have. We know, from the extent of antisemitism that we have seen in our streets and from what is preached in mosques or liked on social media, that there is a fairly sinister trend in the glorification of terrorism.

I am very sorry, but I have not entirely understood whether the noble Baroness is disagreeing with me on Amendment 450 or Amendment 447.

I think possibly a bit of both, but Amendment 447 is the one that I would disagree with her on more.

I find it extraordinary that glorification of terrorism can be supported in any way; it just seems abhorrent. In relation to Amendment 447, I am not entirely objecting to the police arresting people, because they may well arrest people when they are not sure, but if there be a great many people whom the police would recognise as not likely to be supporting terrorism as such, I hope that those people would be released pretty quickly from the police station.

My Lords, as always, the rational logic of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has been very helpful in untangling this issue. She has summed up some of my concerns and things that I am not sure about.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has brilliantly articulated her worries about the glorification of terrorism and how it normalises terrorism into everyday life. I think that is valid. She notes that this is based on little knowledge, and little knowledge can be very dangerous. Whatever one thinks about Northern Ireland —and I assure noble Lords that at this end we do not all agree—it was a bloody conflict, and it is not to be treated lightly. Those who simply reduce it to slogans in the way that was described do not know what they are talking about.

In support of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my concern is that when we get proscription legislation wrong, we also rob the notion of terrorism of its power to shock, of its content, and the danger is that we relativise it and trivialise it. I think a huge amount of damage has been done by putting Palestine Action into the same category as Hamas or ISIS. Even though Palestine Action, as has been described, is an obnoxious or objectionable organisation and should be held to account under the law when it uses criminal damage, I do not think it is a terrorist organisation. Putting those self-indulgent OAP protesters or students into the same camp as Hizb ut-Tahrir calling for jihad or those hate preachers I quoted earlier, for example, seems misplaced. It turns what I consider to be numpty protesters into some sort of heroes in their own mind, and it has captured the imagination.

If you go to universities, you now find that people think that anyone who supports Palestine Action is a free speech warrior who we should all get up and support. They do not understand why I, as a free-speecher, am not supporting it. The problem is that they now all think that terrorism is sitting on a road and saying, “I support Palestine Action”. If only terrorism were sitting on a road and shouting, “I support Palestine Action” or wearing a badge. That is not the content of terrorism, and there is a lack of knowledge about what terrorism is. If people think those people are terrorists, we sell young generations short by them not understanding what we are up against and what the problems are. Proscribing organisations, which is a very important weapon to use in a particular way, is one thing; treating those who simply are vocal in their support of that organisation, as has happened with Palestine Action, can just mean that we conflate slogans and words with terrorist actions or violent actions and empty them of any horror.

The difficulty is that I am torn. When I hear Bob Vylan, Kneecap or those student groups shouting “Internationalise the intifada” or strutting their stuff and cosplaying their support for barbarism, it is sickening and I want something to be done. Listening to the moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, you can see that that is what you might want to tackle. It is just that I do not think proscribing Palestine Action did that, and we are now paying the cost for having inappropriately used proscription of an organisation to devalue what we mean by terrorism.

If we no longer have young people in this country who have lived experience of terrorism—sadly, young Iranians do, for example, so let us not concentrate entirely on ourselves—they think going on a demo outside a prison fighting for the hunger strikers inside is as bad as it gets. They do not get it, but I do not think we have helped them get it either, which is why I am nervous about saying that glorification of terrorism in that context should be against the law, because we have to be very careful about what we are making illegal.

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the Amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, which I signed. I do so, paradoxically, as someone who has written in the Daily Telegraph, of all places, against the proscription of Palestine Action. My argument was that there is a difference—this is to address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner—between the intent of the protesters and the nature of the organisation.

There must be some common-sense way of differentiating between a violent organisation such as Palestine Action and Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, al-Qaeda and so on. In fact, a way has been proposed, because the noble Lord, Lord Walney, produced a whole report for the last Government suggesting that organisations such as Palestine Action be subject to certain sorts of orders that would separate them out. But that raises the question: what about Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, the IRA and so on?

Suppose someone gets up in a mosque and says, “Victory to the martyrs, globalise the intifada” to an audience that does not always differentiate between Jews and Israelis. That does happen. Such a person is, I suspect, wide of the wording in the amendment from my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. They are not actually encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism, unless I have misread the amendment—and I have to confess to not being a lawyer—but they are doing something. They are creating a kind of miasma that can end with what we saw at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester.

These are very difficult issues. On the one hand, there is a genuine free speech issue. I think I understand where my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are coming from. On the other hand, we have to think more and more about a darkening context, which those in this Chamber from Northern Ireland have experienced in Northern Ireland and many of us are fearful of seeing here. We are now in very difficult territory, which is why I signed the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.

My Lords, I want to contribute briefly, because we have had some powerful speeches and important contributions. Wherever you stand on the issue of Palestine Action and the arguments around that, one thing that we are all agreed on, as we have heard in this debate, is that the glorification of terrorism is wrong and should be outlawed, because it retraumatises victims and legitimises violence in the eyes of young people today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has done a great service in raising this issue and tabling this Amendment. It is particularly focused on Northern Ireland, although, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, it is absolutely an issue across the United Kingdom. The thing that concerns me, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, referenced, is the inconsistency in approach by the prosecuting authorities and by the police in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom in relation to this whole area. Whatever law we may pass or whatever amendment we may put in place to strengthen the prohibition on the glorification of terrorism, what effect does it actually have in reality when it comes to the victims seeing people who are carrying out these acts of glorification and speaking in terms of glorification? Will we actually see a difference in prosecutions and effective action against those who perpetrate these crimes?

When I speak to victims, they of course remember the events that have particularly affected them—we have heard the very powerful speeches by my noble friend Lord McCrea and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and all of us in this House from Northern Ireland have either personally experienced acts of terrorism against them or know people who have. The victims want that remembered. They want justice, of course, but they also want not to be forgotten. They want a consistency when it comes to those who glorify these terrible atrocities and acts of violence. They want action to be taken as appropriate, and when they see things being said and done, and nothing happens as a result of it, they lose faith in government, in politics and in democratic processes, and that is why people turn to other means that they think will get something done about such action.

It is very important that we have proper and appropriate Laws in place against the glorification of violence or terrorism right across the United Kingdom. What I would ask for is consistency on the part of the prosecuting authorities and the police to take this matter more seriously than they do and have a common approach throughout the United Kingdom.

My Lords, I want briefly to express my sympathy in support of the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. The Minister will recall that, some months ago in Grand Committee, we discussed the noble Baroness’s amendment on this question of the glorification of terrorism. I absolutely respect the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and others about ambiguity, which clearly exists in some of these contexts, but for the issues that the noble Baroness talked about, there is no ambiguity—“Ooh ah, up the Ra” means only one thing. There is no ambiguity either in Kneecap—the word itself refers to glorification of a sadistic paramilitary act. When I spoke that day, many Members in the Room had not heard of Kneecap. Since then, Kneecap has become much bigger. I understand completely the difficulty the Minister has now in concluding, but I wish to convey to him this problem. Since we spoke that day, the glorification of terrorism has not abated or weakened; it has actually increased. Entire communities are getting locked into this, and that is a problem that faces this House.

My Lords, briefly, I know this might sound as though it is a Northern Ireland debate, but it is not. I respect and accept the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, saying that this is an issue in England and Wales and more broadly. But we have experience of it—maybe more experience than others, or we may think we have. I stand here having served in the home service security forces in Northern Ireland for 18 years. Colleagues were murdered and friends were murdered. I carried their coffins. What is more, I have seen the devastation of some of those families in the aftermath, when some people lauded those terrorist acts. We see the rewriting of history and the glorification of terrorism—they taunt the families.

To prove that it is a much wider issue than Northern Ireland, back in 2014, two people were jailed for the glorification of the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. So I accept that it is a much wider issue than Northern Ireland, but I want all noble Lords to understand the experience that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and others have of the Northern Ireland situation and what we have seen.

I had a friend murdered back in 1985. That evening, going past their house, people were stopping and jeering and applauding that murder. Is that not the glorification of terrorism? I do not care whether it is the glorification of a terrorist, terrorists or terrorism—to me, it is all the same. If you are glorifying terrorism, that is wrong and should not be allowed. That is the rewriting of history. Even now, we have the taunting of young people because their grandparents, uncles or other family members were murdered. That is wrong and it cannot be allowed to continue. That is why I support Amendment 450.

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 447 and 448. I also support the spirit of Amendment 450, with one reservation, which I will explain, and which maybe the Minister would have taken in any case.

As far as Amendments 447 and 448 are concerned, I have spoken in several debates about the scope of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the way it works, in particular because of the breadth of the offence under Section 12 of support for a terrorist organisation and the offence under Section 13 of wearing an article or uniform, and the publication of images, as arousing suspicion of support for a proscribed organisation. I spoke, from the point of view of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, about the unnecessarily broad scope of those sections as they stand, and in support of our amendment seeking a statement about the right of peaceable protest in this Bill.

My immediate concern arises, as it arose then, out of the arrest of some 2,700 people at peaceable protests against the proscription of Palestine Action. I take the point entirely that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, made, that we cannot dig into the minds of those protesters and work out what their motivation was and then create some kind of thought crime that covers their position. What we can do is consider what the right of peaceable protest is and what price we pay for it. It is quite clear that this is not about the rights or wrongs of the proscription of Palestine Action. In supporting these amendments, I am solely concerned, as was the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with the right to protest and the consequences of the way that the Terrorist Act 2000 works, branding peaceable protests as an offence against that Act, and branding as terrorists protesters who have done nothing more than carry banners or publicly express the view that the proscription is wrong.

I quite agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that there is a massive distinction between the exercise of that right, however foolish those protesters, or some of them, may be and however much we may disagree with them, and branding them as terrorists and comparing them with those who are actually carrying out terrorism, which is, I suggest, not justified. It is not, of course, confined to protests in connection with Palestine Action, but the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made was also that the consequences for those who have been arrested, be they elderly retired people or students on the threshold of their career, are, in his words, wholly disproportionate. Those are words with which I entirely agree.

Some of those arrested have been charged. The charging process is nowhere near complete, and, as I understand it, the charging will go ahead so long as the proscription lives—the proscription is, of course, the subject of challenge. But if those arrests proceed inexorably to conviction then those people convicted will be branded as terrorists. As for the sickening nature of the slogans they may shout, “Globalise the intifada” to me can mean only one thing, and that is killing Jews for being Jews, and I speak as a Jew, and the phrase, “From the river to the sea”, is wholly unpleasant and has only one meaning. But for students to sit down and listen to and then repeat those slogans at a peaceable protest does not mean that they support acts of terrorism. It means, as the noble Lord said, that they are opposing, and opposing with force, some of the actions of the Israeli Government and of Israeli soldiers in Gaza, which have been, as the British Government and most western Governments have said, absolutely appalling themselves. It does not mean that they are terrorists. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, is right, as I said, that we cannot go into their minds to see what their motivation is, but we have to tailor the criminal law to actions, combined with a mental state.

I suggest that Amendments 447 and 448, in so far as they cover Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, are simple and elegant ways of redefining the offences under Sections 12 and 13 of that Act so as to provide defences for those whose conduct was not directed to

“encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism”.

That is an answer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. If the defence stands, then it is a defence to the charges under Section 12 or Section 13. If the defence does not stand and their action was directed to encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism, then they have committed the offence and will not have the defence. That is why I say that the noble Viscount’s amendments are simple and elegant: they allow a court to determine what the purpose was of any individual act.

Amendment 450 has been spoken to incredibly movingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the noble Lords, Lord McCrea and Lord Weir, and others. It is moving, eloquent and persuasive about the dangers of what the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, called lionising acts of terrorism. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was right to say that glorification of terrorism is always wrong. Those who have spoken, particularly those from Northern Ireland, spoke with knowledge, understanding and experience of the evils of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

However, we need to take this not just as an all-UK issue; we also have to look at it in the context of terrorism directed against abhorrent regimes elsewhere. The 2006 Act provides that statements are criminalised as glorifying the commission of terrorism offences only if the conduct that is charged is glorifying

“conduct that should be emulated by them in the existing circumstances”.

Let us call it generally the emulation exception. My only concern is that were that limiting provision removed then glorifying past acts of terrorism, which may have been a very long time ago, because it is not limited or defined, would be a very broad offence.

When legislating, we need to be very watchful to ensure that we do not draw the net too wide and criminalise acts that do not justify being criminalised. The acts of members or supporters of the ANC directed at upholders of the apartheid regime, even in this country, might have been said to glorify terrorism. In another contemporary context, there are many Iranians in the United Kingdom—there may be Iranian members of the regime—glorifying acts directed in favour of those who are protesting against and reacting to the brutality of the, frankly, murderous Iranian regime. Glorification of them may be wrong; nevertheless, should speaking in support of them be criminalised, and criminalised for an indefinite period when they may, in the future, be regarded as freedom fighters?

I completely agree with those who have spoken in favour of Amendment 450 that amendment is needed. However, I am not sure that simply removing the emulation provision is the way to amend the law to produce the result that is sought by those who have spoken in favour of the amendment, however far we may—and I do—support the motivation behind it. I just urge a note of caution.

Would it help the noble Lord if I were to indicate that if and when I bring this Amendment back on Report I intend to make it clearer that it is in respect of current proscribed organisations—in other words, terrorist organisations now? I accept the noble Lords’s point about historical context—it is an important point on which I have reflected during the debate—but if the amendment is brought back on Report, we could narrow the ground in terms of glorifying the acts of current proscribed organisations.

I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her Intervention. That would, or could, remove my concern about the Amendment about the glorification of past terrorist acts that may subsequently be seen as justified. I will certainly look at any modified amendment that the noble Baroness brings forward. Because I so strongly support everything that she and others have said in support of the spirit of Amendment 450, I would wish to support an amendment that dealt with those possibilities.

My Lords, this has been a vigorous and wide-ranging debate, dealing with very difficult questions. I thank my noble friend Lord Hailsham for his amendments. Regretfully and unfortunately, I have to disappoint him by stating that I cannot support them because I believe they would significantly weaken the effectiveness of our counterterrorism legislative framework at a time when the threat we face is persistent and evolving. In the words of my noble friend Lord Goodman, there is a darkening context.

The amendments would insert an intent requirement, where Parliament has deliberately chosen not to do so. Sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 created offences that were crafted to disrupt terrorism at an early stage to prevent radicalisation and normalisation, and to give practical assistance long before violence is carried out. That preventive purpose would be undermined if the prosecution were required, in every case, to prove a specific intent to encourage or to enable a terrorist act.

It is also important to be clear that the current law already contains safeguards, especially in the court process. Prosecutorial discretion, a public interest test and judicial oversight all ensure that these offences are not applied casually or indiscriminately. I entirely accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that these must be applied consistently. The suggestion that individuals are routinely prosecuted and tried without regard to context or fairness is not borne out.

On a different note, I support Amendment 450 from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. The glorification of terrorism, in all cases, is abhorrent. We have seen such glorification, from certain quarters, of the IRA and Hamas, which serves only to normalise such atrocities. I simply cannot add to the power of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and indeed by other noble Lords who spoke in favour of her amendment, which I simply cannot add more to, except to say that I support it and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, beginning with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

Proscription is one of the most powerful counterterrorism tools that we have. The UK’s proscription regime was established through the Terrorism Act 2000, which noble Lords are aware of, and there is a statutory process for it. Under that Act, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned with terrorism. An organisation may be concerned with terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Decisions to proscribe an organisation are not taken on a whim; they are taken on advice from the security services and significant Intervention from Home Office officials to examine the case. They are not taken lightly. They are ideologically neutral. They judge an organisation on its actions and the actions it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause.

I say neutrally that Palestine Action was deemed to be over the threshold of the 2000 Act and, on advice to the Home Secretary, to be an organisation concerned with terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed—this House and the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported that proscription—it is an offence to be a member of it, to invite support for it, to make supportive statements, to encourage others to join or support it, to arrange or address meetings to support it in furthering its activities, and to display, carry or wear articles in a way that would arouse suspicion that one is a member or supporter of it.

Amendments 447 and 448 from the noble Viscount would apply to the offences concerning support and the display of articles under Sections 12 and 13. For the same reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has given, these amendments would ultimately limit these important offences in such a way that they would become largely unusable in practice. I do not believe that that is his intention, but that would be the practical outcome. In relation to the offence of inviting support, it is already established that the offence requires a knowing, deliberate invitation to support. The changes proposed in the Amendment would mean an additional burden for the prosecution to overcome.

I have heard comments, including from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that belief in or support for Palestine Action should not cross that threshold. Amendment 447 would import a further mental element, requiring intention. That goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that it is at odds with the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person intended to encourage, incite, facilitate or otherwise an act of terrorism. To provide a defence similar to the effect for the prosecution to disprove would again undermine the core element of the offence.

Section 13 is currently a strict liability offence, meaning that there is no requirement to evidence the intent behind the conduct, again as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, mentioned. It is important that we say to the Committee that free speech is important. The right to criticise the State of Israel and to support Palestine is important. It is also quite right that, if people wish to say that they do not wish to see Palestine Action proscribed, that is also within the legal framework. It is a matter for the police, who are operationally independent, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to decide whether a crime has been committed. In particular, the CPS will want to consider, in charging an individual as opposed to arresting them, whether the prosecution is in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is a vital safeguard that prevents prosecutions from going ahead which are not in the public interest.

I have previously defended in this House the proscription of Palestine Action. The decision was not taken lightly. The police and the CPS have independent action, but I suggest that the noble Viscount’s amendment would, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, undermine the purpose of that. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, that those actions have been taken for a purpose. The threshold has been crossed and I suspect that, for those concerned with Palestine Action, more information will come to light as potential future prosecutions continue, which I think will show why those decisions were taken. We have a court case ongoing at the moment. I put that to one side, but that is my defence in relation to the noble Viscount’s proposals.

I turn to Amendment 450. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has been a victim of terrorism and I was very moved by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown. The noble Lords, Lord Weir, Lord Bew and Lord Dodds, the last of whom I know is very close to this issue, expressed their view about the glorification of terrorism. I do not get away from that. Some noble Lords will know that I have sat in rooms with police widows in Northern Ireland, looked them in the face and talked about the issues they have faced with the murder of their loved ones. I have been to places such as Enniskillen and met victims of the bomb there. I have met people who, even at this date, have not found their loved ones and relatives who have disappeared. I have met people from all aspects of this, who have seen their loved ones murdered in loyalist or IRA violence. I know—not to the extent of the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord McCrea—the impact of that and had to deal with it as a Minister in Northern Ireland. So I know the driving factor behind the noble Baroness’s amendment.

Let me first clarify the purpose of the encouragement offence in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act, which was introduced after the 7/7 attack. It is designed to act as a precursor offence and reduce the risk of future terrorist offences. The offence applies equally to statements made online and offline and applies where an individual is reckless about the impact of their statement. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, talked about his experiences. I understand that; I cannot imagine carrying the coffin of a workmate who has been murdered and I understand what is driving colleagues today. However, I say to them that the glorification element has been examined not just when the legislation was proposed but, as the noble Baroness said, following the 7 October attacks, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation examined clearly and independently of government whether a stand-alone glorification offence was needed—not just in 2023, but following the 7 October attacks. He concluded in his recommendations to government that there was no legislative gap and warned that such an amendment would cause serious concern for freedom of expression and risk infringing fundamental rights.

I note the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who asked how we celebrate, commemorate or note historic events such as the actions of Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in prison for what at the time was determined to be a terrorist offence. I hear what the noble Baroness said, but in its current form the amendment could make historical commentary, such as discussion of the King David Hotel bombing in the formation of the State of Israel, the assassination of Indira Gandhi or comments on Nelson Mandela, a potential offence.

I heard what the noble Baroness said about reflecting on that before Report, but at this moment in time I put it to her that we have a wide range of terrorism offences beyond the encouragement offence which may be relevant in addressing her concerns. For example, it is an offence to invite support for a proscribed organisation, to disseminate terrorist publications which encourage others to commit acts of terrorism or to possess anything which contains information that is likely to be useful for the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism. Non-terrorism offences may also be engaged, such as inciting, assisting or encouraging someone to commit crime as well as public order offences.

Ultimately, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, commented on this, it is possible for discretion by the police and/or the prosecution service to take action on those issues. I know from her demeanour now and her comments in the debate that she does not feel that that meets the mark, and that is why she is bringing this forward. I simply say to her that those organisations are independent of government. Finally, if there are charges, a court would make a decision about which offences are engaged.

I know that there is a lot of passion, real hurt and history in this. Everybody, from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, to all the colleagues here from Northern Ireland, has shared their lived experiences in today’s debate. I simply say to them that we have to be respectful of the situation we are in now. Everyone has the right to celebrate their culture, but they must do so in a respectful, lawful and incisive manner. The investigation and prosecution of alleged criminal offences, including those which glorify terrorism, are operational matters for the police but set out clearly in law.

I hope that the noble Baroness will not push her amendment now. I say to the noble Viscount that both Houses have spoken to date, and I share the view of the Opposition front bench that that is where we are on this. I have heard what the noble Baroness said about potential revisions of the proposals on Report. That will be a matter for the Committee to consider.

I am grateful for this debate today. It surfaces the great pain and hurt that terrorism causes. I ask the noble Viscount to not push his lead amendment today.

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, not least because I seem to have had the effect of uniting the two Front Benches in a common position so far as my two amendments are concerned. There is a huge difference between the glorification of terrorism, which is deeply offensive, and those who demonstrate their hostility to the policies of Israel by holding up a placard. I do not believe they are the same. In time, we must come to restrict the application of Section 12 of the Terrorism Act. That said, we have discussed it sufficiently for this evening, and I hope I will be forgiven if I withdraw Amendment 447.

Amendment 447 withdrawn.

Amendment 448 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.52 pm.