---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 53:"Page 5, line 17, leave out ““, in the opinion of the constable giving it,””" The noble Lord said: This group of amendments raises an important issue which has been insufficiently discussed. Clause 3(2) would allow a constable of technically any rank, although it would no doubt be a constable of at least moderate seniority, to give a notice to an Internet service provider requiring it to block the transmission of something which the constable in question thinks is terrorism-related. As I have said previously, it is not the notice which blocks the transmission but the action of the Internet service provider. Blocking an Internet transmission is self-evidently a serious interference with freedom of communication. As we all know, the Internet is an unparalleled method of transmitting information and opinions around the world. A number of countries with oppressive regimes therefore try to control Internet services to block what we would regard as legitimate and, in many cases, even highly desirable transmissions. Those countries are known to include China and Saudi Arabia, and, no doubt, a number of others as well. We must therefore be very careful about going down that particular path. We recognise that some power to ensure that terrorist websites are blocked is needed but, to ensure that this is limited to what is necessary, the police should have to get leave from a judge to serve a notice. I am not suggesting that there should be a hearing on that application—or anything in the nature of a full hearing—or that the ISP to which the notice is intended to be delivered should be notified in advance, so there would be no significant delay. But the judge should have the power to tell the police that they have not shown a prima facie case and cannot serve the notice. The police may therefore think twice about asking leave to serve a notice when there is real doubt about whether the message in question really is a terrorist message. Those issues are covered by Amendment No. 53, which makes the test whether the message is a terrorist message objective rather than the view of the constable by removing any reference to the ““opinion of the constable””. Amendments Nos. 56 and 68 lay down rules about applications for leave to serve the notice and the judges who can give that leave. One reason—and it is an important one—for providing judicial involvement in the process is simply that an ISP is not likely to challenge the notice because it has little or no interest in doing so. When the notice has been given, rightly or wrongly, no one else is likely to intervene. Therefore, as the Bill now stands, it puts into the hands of the police a powerful weapon that could be abused without there being any real prospect of any remedy being given. It is different from questions such as the blocking of obscene publications, when the involvement of a judge is not obviously necessary, because the concerns with freedom of expression are nowhere near as significant. The Committee should recognise that this power raises some very sensitive issues around freedom of expression and community relationships, and I believe that this is one of the most important issues in the Bill. I beg to move.