UK Parliament / Open data

Terrorism Bill

Proceeding contribution from Hazel Blears (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 15 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill 2005-06.
I understand my hon. and learned Friend’s point. I do not know how many people share the same problems, but I think that the internet industry is content with the provisions as we have set them out and feels that they strike the right balance. It is not looking for extra judicial oversight or for an appeal process. We must get the balance right between being able to take swift action on a very fast-moving medium—the internet—and ensuring that people can still avail themselves of the proper defences to any prosecutions that might be brought but cannot avail themselves of the defence that they did not know about the material if they have been put on notice. That is a sensible and straightforward provision. As I said, there is also no immediate penalty for failing to comply with a notice. In those terms, there is no need for an appeal process. If we want to prove offences under clause 1, we have to prove intent or subjective recklessness. In addition, there are the provisions on the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the hurdle of the public interest. I talked about hurdles at great length when we debated this legislation in the past. I am concerned to ensure that there are safeguards. I do not want provisions that lead to arbitrary prosecution, but I think that these provisions are appropriate. The amendments tabled in the other place would make them much less effective. If we are going to say that there needs to be judicial oversight of such material by a High Court judge, as suggested, that would give the issuing of one notice, which merely notifies and requests the person to take down material, the same amount of judicial scrutiny as the continuing detention provisions. I genuinely think that in this case we have got the balance right, with a specially trained special branch officer who works with the anti-terrorist unit, and is used to dealing with these issues, going to the service provider and saying, ““This material is there, you ought to take it down, and if you don’t you can’t avail yourself of the defence that says that says you didn’t know.”” It is a very straightforward issue, and with the greatest respect I think that Members are making heavy weather out of it.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
442 c1477 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top