Terrorism Bill

My Lords, this debate has been brief and I accept that the issue is not as important as the previous one, which kept us going for two hours, but it is an issue whose importance has been seriously underrated by most people who have been considering the effect of this Bill. First, the noble Baroness takes what is perhaps an unduly optimistic view of the willingness of ISPs to challenge the notices served upon them. If I was running an ISP, my reaction would certainly be to say, ““If you are served a notice, don’t mess about, just follow it””. That is understandable and I put no blame on the providers. They are not doing anything wrong in taking that attitude. It makes commercial sense and they are not the protectors of human rights. Secondly, to leave this to the police is undesirable. The police are altogether too deeply involved in these matters. They will have a strong belief in the justification for the service of the notice they propose, will not look at it independently and will not have the broader picture in mind. It is therefore wholly appropriate to introduce a very limited judicial intervention. As I said, this would not be a hearing, but simply something analogous to the issue of an arrest warrant. That would be an appropriate role for a judge to play, as well as a highly desirable one. If that were not so, one wonders why it would ever be necessary for the police to get an arrest warrant. It is for exactly the same reason: there are of course recognised circumstances in which the police are allowed to make an immediate arrest without going first to a judge, but where an arrest warrant is required, that is so because some degree of judicial oversight is necessary to prevent the over-exercise of powers and abuse. In those circumstances, it is my wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 165. On Question, Motion B agreed to. MOTION C 25 Clause 3, page 6, line 17, leave out ““capable of being”” and insert ““likely to be”” 26 Page 6, line 21, leave out ““capable of being”” and insert ““likely to be”” 27 Page 6, line 23, leave out ““capable of being”” and insert ““likely to be”” The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27, but propose Amendments 27A, 27B, 27C, 27D and 27E to the Bill, and to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons’ disagreement with Lords Amendment No. 28, in lieu— 27A Page 6, line 17, leave out ““capable of being understood”” and insert ““likely to be understood, by any one or more of the persons to whom it has or may become available, ““ 27B Page 6, line 21, leave out ““capable of being useful”” and insert ““likely to be useful to any one or more of those persons”” 27C Page 6, line 23, leave out ““capable of being understood”” and insert ““likely to be understood by any one or more of those persons”” 27D Page 6, line 25, leave out ““capable of being”” and insert ““likely to be”” 27E Page 6, line 27, leave out ““capable of being”” and insert ““likely to be””