---

Terrorism Bill

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for his amendment because it enables me to explain Clause 4 in greater detail. As has already been explained, Clause 3 does not create a new offence or give the police the power to remove material from websites. Rather, it provides a means by which the police can serve notices on those who host information on websites requiring them to remove or modify statements which the police reasonably believe encourage terrorism or are useful in the commission or preparation of terrorist activity. Under Clauses 1 and 2, which create the offences of encouragement to terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications respectively, a person who provides an electronic device such as a website host has a defence to the offences in those clauses if he can show, among other things, that a statement or publication did not express his views and did not have his endorsement. It is an element also of the defence in Clause 2(8), which applies whether or not a person is providing or using an electronic service, that the matter in the publication did not have the defendant’s endorsement. The effect of Clause 3 is to deem a person providing an electronic service to have endorsed a statement if he has received a notice under Clause 3 and has failed to comply with it. If the person is accused of an offence under Clause 1 or 2, the effect of Clause 3 is that he cannot take advantage of the defence of non-endorsement in Clauses 1 and/or 2. These notices require that the person on whom the notice is served ensures that the information is not available to the public within two working days of receipt of the notice. Previously, the text referred only to ““days””, but the Government changed it to ““working days”” to make it clear that people who receive these notices should not be penalised if they fail to respond over weekends. Clause 3 does not create any new offences; rather, 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 Clause 1 (5) and Clause 2(8) or (9). Clause 4, to which the noble and learned Lord’s amendment relates, sets out the method by which a notice may be served. It simply provides that a notice may either be served in person to the individual to whom it relates or may be served by recorded post or delivery. The use of the postal service in the serving of a notice is not a new provision. It is an accepted fact that the postal service is a trustworthy means of transmitting legal documents and notices. I remind the Committee that all sorts of legal documents, from summonses and notifications of legal duties such as jury service right through to electoral polling cards, are delivered safely by post. The amendments would remove the possibility that the police may issue a notice under Clause 3 by recorded post, which would create a disparity between serving a notice under this Bill and other notice-serving provisions that exist. It would also significantly reduce the flexibility of such a system, and could foreseeably increase the cost of doing so, requiring that a constable is sent on lengthy trips to serve a notice that could far more efficiently and cost-effectively be delivered by recorded post. I contend that these amendments could create an illogical disparity between notices served under Clause 3 and any important legal notices served under other legislation. There appears no logical reason for restricting the issue of notices in that way, and precedent stands against it. So on those terms, I suggest that the noble and learned Lord withdraws his amendment.