---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 62:"Page 6, line 17, leave out ““capable of being”” and insert ““likely to be””" The noble Lord said: This is the last of the group of amendments to be moved by me on Clause 3. It concerns the definition in Clause 3(8) of how one defines a statement which is ““unlawfully terrorism related””. Under the Bill, a statement is ““terrorism-related”” if it is capable of being understood as the encouragement of terrorism. Surely, that is not a stiff enough test. It should be raised to be something that is ““likely to be”” understood or even ““would be”” understood. All sorts of statements are capable of being understood as encouragement, but many are unlikely in practice to be so understood in normal circumstances or by people likely to receive the statement. This test triggers the power to serve a notice under subsection (2). To satisfy the Human Rights Act, measures of restricting freedom of expression, which Clause 3 clearly does, must be prescribed by law and be necessary in a democratic society. In Clause 3, we have an amazingly broad definition of terrorism-related material, which is applied on the basis of the subjective decision of a constable that the material is terrorism-related. The material is then sent to the Internet service provider, who has little interest in challenging the notice. Without the amendments in this group, it is impossible to say that the test meets the standard of being prescribed by law. It is arbitrary and in breach of Article 12 of the Council of Europe convention. It goes far beyond what is necessary in a democratic society. In those circumstances, I beg to move.