---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 84:"Page 41, line 28, leave out ““unjust”” and insert ““inappropriate””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have been tabled to provide further protection to libraries with regard to the search, seizure and forfeiture powers in Clause 28. As your Lordships will be aware, the clause sets out the power to seize and forfeit terrorist publications; the Bill also sets out an appeals process against forfeiture described in Schedule 2. Under that process, it is possible for those from whom publications have been seized to ask a court to consider whether forfeiture publication is just. If the court finds that it is not, it can instruct that the publication be returned. We in the Government are satisfied that the basic mechanisms of this procedure are appropriate. However, we have given further considerations to these provisions, in the light of changes to Clause 2. This amendment, prompted by those changes, will give further protection to the interests of libraries, for example. That is because publications could conceivably be seized from libraries because of the actions of particular librarians. As a matter of interpretation, it might be the case that the publications in question were indeed terrorist publications, but it might be appropriate to return them if, for example, the library in question was a copyright library and the individual librarian was no longer employed there. The change from ““unjust”” to ““inappropriate”” will allow the court to consider all such issues and to order publications to be returned in such circumstances. In other words, it should enable the court to consider a wider range of issues than would be permitted if the term ““unjust”” was retained. I hope that your Lordships’ House will agree to these welcome changes. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.