Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 9:"Page 5, line 43, at end insert—" ““(   )   Nothing in this section shall apply to a transmission which is excluded from a criminal sanction under the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2013).”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that we shall have only a short debate on this point and I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. This amendment has been tabled in order to try to get an assurance from the Government. I understand that the Internet Service Providers Association has been having discussions with the Government. Internet service providers are keen to ensure that the protection given to them under the e-commerce regulations 2002 should not be overridden by the Bill. Those regulations implement a European Community directive that is binding on the United Kingdom. However, the ISPA is still not satisfied with the assurances given on the application of the e-commerce regulations, although its concerns have been met on a number of other issues. The protections offered by the directive are essential to ISPs in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister answer questions which, if the answers are right, would have the effect of giving the assurances we seek? First, do the Government accept that exemptions from criminal proceedings under the e-commerce regulations should not be overridden by the Bill? Secondly, it appears not to be clear in the Bill that those exemptions do in fact remain in full force. Do the Government believe that the exemptions are not overridden by the Bill or, if they intend to deal with the problem at all, will they do so in some other way—and if so, how? In particular, are the Government contemplating secondary legislation—and if so, on what basis? I should add that the concerns of the ISPA also extend to the possibility of forfeiture of members’ servers under Clause 28. If that happened, it would be disastrous for an Internet service provider. My own view is that a court would have no power to do this and therefore I have not tabled an amendment on the point. However, the ISPA would be comforted if the Minister can confirm that this is also the Government’s view. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c212-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conduct ICT EU law Exemptions Libraries Internet Electronic commerce Journalism Protection Police Powers Prosecutions Proscribed organisations Publications Terrorism Stop and search Training Encouragement of terrorism
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk