Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Eatwell (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 December 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

As chairman of the British Library, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for her kind words about the character and work of the library. In addressing this amendment, I would first like to point out that it refers only to the British Library. By its terms, it excludes the other legal deposit libraries. Only the British Library has a legal obligation to collect everything, whereas the other legal deposit libraries have the right to collect material but do not have to. In other words, they can choose from copyrighted material what they collect. So this amendment refers only to the BL. However, I am in a dilemma because the British Library, as I pointed out at Second Reading, and its staff are entirely behind the Government in their attempt to attack the causes of terrorism and the encouragement of terrorism. We therefore do not seek any form of special treatment. I acknowledged at Second Reading that there might possibly be a rogue ill-intentioned individual working at the British Library who should be prosecuted under the terms of the Bill for disseminating material or whatever it might be—the offences listed in Clause 2(1). But, of course in what I said, once again the Government’s inability to provide any coherent answer whatever to the questions that have been raised on the issue of intent—other than they want to ensure that those who are culpable should be caught, which surely is not an answer unless they can show that incorporating intend would allow those who are culpable to escape—leads us to table amendments which would exempt institutions like the British Library from the terms of the Bill. I am afraid that the issue of intent undermines this clause time and time again and is the reason I am sure that the noble Baroness has been so kind as to suppose that the activities of the British Library should be exempted from the terms of the Bill; but, as its chairman, I recognise that it should not.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c657-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Crimes of violence Crimes against property ICT Jurisdiction Incitement Fines Libraries Internet Journalism Police Prosecutions Publications Sentencing Universities Terrorism Training Research Students Academic freedom Propaganda Encouragement of terrorism Bookshops
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk