Terrorism Bill

The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the two-stage nature of clause 3. The police, who will be properly accredited, will say, ““This is on your website and we would like you to take it down.”” People can properly refuse to remove such material, but it means that they cannot then take advantage of the defence that they did not know about the material and could not therefore endorse it. It does not mean that someone is guilty of an offence, but simply that they cannot take advantage of a defence that is designed to protect people who genuinely and innocently did not know that the material was on their website. It puts them on notice that the material is on their website and that they had better take it down or they may be prosecuted. However, the prosecution would still then have to prove every element of the offences in clauses 1 and 2. The person will have their legal protection, but they will not be able simply to say that they did not know about it, because they will have been put on very clear notice by the police officer concerned. These amendments have not been asked for by the internet industry, which does not feel that it is rulable as a result of these provisions. We have been in discussions with its trade body—the Internet Service Providers Association. It welcomes the setting out in the provisions of a clear notice-and-take-down model. It had several concerns which we sought to address and which were discussed in the other place. However, at no time did the industry ask for the change that the amendments would make—that is, to bring in judicial oversight.