---

Terrorism Bill

I thank the noble Lord for explaining how he believes this provision could or should work. Perhaps I may explain why I do not think that his amendment is necessary. To do that, I will have to clarify the purpose and effect of Clause 3, which I hope will help to make things clearer. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for accepting that international terrorists use the Internet to disseminate and exchange information. Internet sites are used by radical groups advocating terrorism. They play a major role in the radicalisation of young and impressionable persons. Indeed, there is significant evidence to suggest that those responsible for the attacks in London in July were influenced by extremist messages that they found on the Internet. Clause 3 is designed to enable the police to address that problem. The clause provides a means by which the police can serve notices on those who host information on websites, requiring them to remove or to modify statements which the police reasonably believe constitute something that encourages terrorism or is useful to the commission or preparation of terrorists. However, it is important to recognise what this clause does not do. It does not create a new offence and we do not wish it to. Nor does it give the police the power to force people to remove material from Internet sites. It provides that if a person fails to comply with a notice which has been served he will no longer be able to argue that material on a website does not have his endorsement and, therefore, will not be able to take advantage of the defences in Clauses 1(7), 2(8) and/or 2(9). We think that is right. The notice is not intended to be a notice to a person not to commit an offence; it is a notice that there is a statement that possibly comes within those offences. The person can comply or not. If that person does not think that the statement constitutes an offence under Clause 1 or Clause 2, the person can simply ignore the notice. The only sanction for not complying is that, if subsequently prosecuted, the person would not have the right to claim that he did not endorse the statement. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right to point out that many providers post information on their sites, but have no idea about the content. Quite often they are appalled when that content is brought to their attention. It is right to note that in those circumstances, a number of providers have recorded shock and alarm. So this is a way of identifying for them that there may be material on their sites which falls into that category. The effect of the amendments would be to convert Clause 3 into a separate, stand-alone offence. We are not sure that that is either desirable or necessary. In providing a notification procedure under Clause 3, we simply recognise the fundamental point that those who control websites can be totally unaware of the content placed on their sites by others. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord would create a stand-alone offence for what we think would be no apparent gain. We are not trying to catch people who unknowingly have allowed their facilities to be used; we want to give them notice so that they can act if they deem it appropriate to do so because they do not agree with the posted content. Under the current drafting, if a person thinks that a notice that has been issued requires the removal of information which the person does not consider constitutes an offence under Clauses 1 or 2—I remind noble Lords that conduct which does constitute an offence under those clauses is of a very serious nature indeed—they need only to ignore the notice. Nothing else flows from it. If, however, they do think that the material constitutes an offence, they ought either to remove it or to amend it. If the statement is not removed and the police think that it constitutes an offence, the police can then prosecute. That is what is required under the present drafting. We cannot see what this amendment would add. I should also like to point out that in our constructive discussions with representatives of the Internet industry, there has been no desire on their part to alter Clause 3 to make it into an offence. I see no apparent gain in accepting the amendments. The industry is perfectly content to assist us with this. It is comfortable with the phrasing of the provision. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.