Those are matters of fine judgment and I do not want to consider the provisions that we discussing in that way. We have some straightforward provisions that would notify providers that material was unacceptable and that they should remove it, tell them that they could choose to ignore the notice but that, if they did so, they could not avail themselves of the statutory defence that they did not know about it. The provisions from the other place would elevate this matter to too great a level by seeking to have judicial scrutiny of the process. The internet service providers have not requested that; they are happy with this process and feel that it will help to reduce the amount of such material available. This is a practical and common-sense provision, and I ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendments and to approve the original wording of the Bill.
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.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
442 c1479 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 16:03:47 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305042
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305042
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305042