---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I know that several noble Lords later in the debate will talk about the great anxiety in university libraries regarding Clause 2. I want specifically to ask the Minister whether the Government have looked properly at the problems for the few universities that have specialist departments for the study of terrorism. In a powerful speech at Third Reading, my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke took the terrorist threat very seriously. But he, as I think did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, suggested that the Bill adds little, if anything, to our present legal protection. He said,"““at heart I still suspect that this is gesture politics, padded out with measures to make it look more convincing””.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/05; col. 521.]" Whatever one thinks about the rest of the Bill, perhaps that is the cause of the problems of Clause 2. It is put in as padding, with insufficient thought of its side effects. The matter was first brought to my attention by a letter from the Vice Chancellor of the University of Strathclyde, in Glasgow, passed to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The noble and learned Lord is Chancellor of the university but, being a serving Law Lord, feels unable to speak on this somewhat controversial matter. There is great concern at Strathclyde that the wide and uncertain definition of terrorist publications in Clause 2 could lay librarians, and indeed the university’s governing body, open to a criminal offence. When I contacted the University of St Andrews, it had far greater worries. It has an institute for terrorism studies. Professor Wilkinson of that institute, I was told this morning by a distinguished expert on this matter, is recognised as the foremost non-lawyer expert on terrorism in this country. That is high tribute from a lawyer. Professor Wilkinson and the institute see to it that part of the university library at St Andrews is allocated specifically to material relating to terrorism. In that section are books, journals and video recordings of television programmes, including recordings of Arabic television stations’ programmes. In addition, the library is hoping to have deposited with it material from an organisation specialising in Iranian studies. All this is obviously a vital resource for important present-day study of what motivates terrorists, how they behave and how events may be shaped in the future. The problem at St Andrews is how, in the face of Clause 2, a librarian will know what material he can legally put into the library. The books and videos most enlightening to the researchers are likely to be precisely those described in Clause 2(2) as terrorist publications,"““or . . . information of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts””." Yet under Clause 2(1), it is a criminal offence to loan or enable others,"““to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication””," with a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment on indictment, or six months in Scotland on summary conviction. Should a librarian be charged with such an offence, under subsection (8) his defence would be, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, that he had not examined the publication, he did not suspect that it was a terrorist publication and he did not himself agree with it. In the terrorism section of the St Andrews library, a librarian would clearly have examined an item; it would not be in library if he had not. It might well be on the shelves because it was a terrorist publication: no defence there. On the third point, the Home Secretary has said categorically that those who simply transmit material that does not reflect their views cannot be caught by the Bill. The Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries, along with the British Library and others, have sought legal opinion on this matter. They are told that across all universities, it is likely that the librarian will find the defence in Clause 2 very difficult indeed to maintain. If that is so, I would have thought that at St Andrews it would be virtually impossible. When the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, replies to the debate, can she tell the House in responding to this important matter whether in the drafting of Clause 2 the Government have taken properly into account the particular position of libraries at universities which specialise in the study of terrorism? If she cannot give a certain response today, I would be grateful if she would write to me before we reach the Committee stage because I regard this as a very serious matter. I suspect that Clause 2 needs considerable amendment, and if the matter hangs on the redefinition of ““terrorism”” which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, is to produce in due course, what on earth is the University of St Andrews to do in the mean time?