---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the amendment but I am afraid that I remain totally unpersuaded by her arguments. To begin with, although I accept that in many aspects of the Bill the insertion of an intent or recklessness test in Clause 2 makes a difference and is helpful, I do not think that it makes any difference at all to this problem. First, as soon as the Internet service provider is given the notice, it knows exactly what is going on. Secondly, and more importantly, it might make it easier for the Internet service provider to defend the case if it sought to do so but the Internet service provider will not do that. Frankly, I am wholly sceptical of the idea that market forces will press the Internet service provider to defend notices of this kind. All its interests are in doing nothing of that kind. Far from Internet service providers acting as protectors of freedom of legitimate speech, I have to say that in all the discussions and communications that I have had with the Internet Service Providers’ Association—I understand this and do not criticise it at all—it has shown no interest whatever in this group of amendments. So I think that that is an unrealistic basis for saying that the amendments are not necessary. Nor do I believe that there is likely to be a significant delay. What the police would have to do in this case is similar to the need, in many cases, to obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant, for which they now have to go to a judge. Admittedly, the amendment requires a slightly higher level of judge—a circuit or High Court judge rather than a district judge or a magistrate. But I do not think that the police have a great problem with delay in getting warrants and I do not see why, where a case is made out, they should have a delay in getting permission to serve a notice here. It is also true that the application for the notice will be heard in private, so the first that the client of the Internet service provider whose material is blocked will know of it is when the block happens, which is exactly what will happen anyway. There is always a possibility of finding another service provider or something of that kind, but that will not be affected by this group of amendments. I have every respect for the police and I am sure that they would not—certainly not consciously—abuse their powers here but, as we have seen from other countries, there is a real risk of abuse of powers. It is plainly desirable that, before they go out and serve a notice, the police should be made to think twice about whether they really need to do that, and the best way of doing so is to say that they have to go to a judge to ask for permission. Having said that, at this time of night I am not proposing to press the matter to a vote and therefore I will ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, but I think that this issue may well come back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 48 not moved.]