---

Terrorism Bill

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the right relevant Prelate for their contributions in the debate, which has usefully focused on the important work undertaken by the British Library and deposit libraries generally. There is nothing in the Bill, so far as the Government are concerned, that would want in any way to undermine the importance of the work that those libraries undertake, the value of the collections they put together and the way they do their work. We fully appreciate the intentions behind the suggested drafting. I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, in particular about the wish and the will of those who work for the British Library not to be exempted from the effects of the terrorism legislation because of the important part that it plays in countering terrorism generally. I intend to be brief because many of the arguments that have been rehearsed this afternoon relate as much to this amendment as they do to previous amendments. The Government recognise the very special position of copyright and deposit libraries and we entirely appreciate the way that those libraries have lobbied us on this issues. The Government have listened to those arguments advanced in your Lordships’ House. We have listened to the arguments made in another place and outside the Chambers of Parliament. I know that my noble friend Lord Eatwell has had a lengthy discussion with the Home Secretary on these issues. We felt that the original wording of Clause 2 was appropriate, but we in government have, as has been made plain on many occasions by my noble friend Lady Scotland, decided to make further changes to provide comfort to those who do not share our view on how we see the legislation working. We propose to generalise the defence in Clause 2(9) so that it, like the defence in Clause 2(8), will potentially be available to everyone, not just to those who provide a service electronically. This would give libraries the protection which it has been argued they need, while also allowing for the possibility that there may indeed be, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, a rogue librarian—a remote possibility I think we all accept—who might abuse his position. We are convinced that this is a far better means of protecting the libraries than that which is set out in Amendment No. 43. It could be argued that although Amendment No. 43 is similar to Amendments Nos. 21, 45 and 83, which have already been discussed, in that it is clearly well intentioned, we think that it might not serve the function which I suspect my noble friend Lord Eatwell and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, intend, and that if we revise the defence as we have argued in the past, we think it should be unnecessary. I should also like to point out that the implication of the clause is that the mere stocking of a book by a deposit library is an offence. I would like to correct that. The possession of such publications is only an offence if it is held with a view to being disseminated as a terrorist publication. In addition, Amendment No. 43 could be positively misleading. It might suggest that libraries other than those referred to might not enjoy the defences in the clause which they should be able rigorously to deploy. The Government’s proposed changes—and I appreciate these changes are not before the Committee this afternoon—would avoid that pitfall. So, for those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Eatwell will be able to accept that we have met, or certainly are strongly committed to meeting, the intention behind their amendment and afford in particular the British Library, which is one of the greatest institutions of its kind in the world, the necessary protection it seeks. Having said that, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment today.