---

Terrorism Bill

I begin by accepting entirely the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, that the amendment should refer to the High Court of Justiciary rather than the Court of Session. Moving on to the substance of this matter, of course I accept that it will be open to a service provider who receives a notice to argue that the material it is transmitting is not terrorist material and that no offence is committed. The problem really is that no service provider is ever conceivably going to challenge that. The loss from complying with the notice is minimal whereas the potential cost of objecting to it is enormous. There will be the prosecution, the legal costs and everything of that kind, which will run potentially into tens of thousands of pounds. I think that one has to accept that in the special circumstances of what one is dealing with here, if there is no judicial intervention there is absolutely no realistic check whatever on an abuse of power by the police. I understand the reason why judges may not wish to get involved in this, but who else can? It seems to me that judges are far and away the most appropriate people to take that decision. There will not be a hearing. All the police will have to do is to provide what is basically prima facie evidence to show that there is a good case for taking the material off the website. One would expect that as a rule that would be acceptable. But we need a check for the occasional case where it is an abuse of power. The judicial role here as I envisage it is not a hearing. It is not a trial, and nothing that the judge says will predetermine the result of any decision of the court in the unlikely event that the Internet service provider does refuse to comply with the notice. What I envisage here is something that is more appropriately the kind of decision taken by a judge when authorising the issue of a warrant than an actual decision at a trial. So it is not, I think, an enormous burden on a judge. It is not an enormous burden on the police to make out their case. But we need in these circumstances a check on abuse of power by the police. The Government have not come up with an argument that persuades me either that this is unnecessary or that there is an alternative to the proposals in our amendments. This is plainly one of the issues to which we will wish to return at later stages of the Bill. But, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 54 to 61 not moved.]