---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. My reactions to what she has said are mixed. I start with my most favourable reaction; I accept that there is a necessity for some form of provision to try to control repeat statements. We would not therefore want to move the amendments which would completely delete the provisions relating to repeat statements. As regards the remaining provisions on repeat statements, again, before reaching any conclusions, I feel it necessary to discuss them again with the Internet service providers. To turn to the points with which I do not agree, I remain entirely unpersuaded by the Minister’s response to Amendments Nos. 53, 54, 56 and 57. The test for what is unlawful terrorism-related material should be that it is something that is likely to encourage terrorism. I found the idea of such material going via a children’s programme totally unrealistic. That does not touch the issues here at all. The nature of the material has to be considered. If it genuinely encourages terrorism, then it does not matter what programme it goes out on—it can properly be blocked. In those circumstances, it is inappropriate to say that something needs only to be capable of being understood as encouraging terrorism. This is an issue on which I shall be interested in the views of the Internet service providers, but it seems that, quite apart from their views, this potentially infringes freedom of speech. This is a matter that I shall certainly want to look at again very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 50 not moved.]