---

Terrorism Bill

I am going to make a slightly different point from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but it is within the same sphere of interest. It is true, as the Minister says, that, as a consequence of the issue of the notice, the person to whom it was issued need not comply; but that puts a severe onus on that person. If that person does not comply, and carries on because he thinks that what is in the statement is perfectly innocent, he deprives himself of the defences under Clause 1(7), as the Minister said earlier in a slightly different context. Who is going to be prepared to take that risk—especially in circumstances where the overall responsibility for deciding whether prosecutions are made lies in the hands of the DPP? I respectfully submit that this is a wholly appropriate situation where a judge should be engaged before a notice is issued. The Minister said that this would delay the process, but that is true wherever a judge is involved, whether in matters of the Internet or general criminal procedure. The fact that going to the judge delays matters is, in my submission, neither here nor there. The question is whether a judge should be involved, and in our view—I share entirely the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—a judge must be involved.