Terrorism Bill

That is true. A host of cases might be caught, or might not. The point of judicial oversight is to confer an extra level of security to any decision that is made. If a notice is served, an internet service provider will inevitably remove material that is cited as being unlawfully terrorism-related, because it will not be in the provider’s interest to risk the cost, the fight and the possible prosecution for the sake of something about which, ultimately, he may not care very deeply. He might not be caught for non-compliance with the notice, but he would be caught under the provision relating to an endorsement being seen to have been given if the material were not removed within two days, and would be exposed to prosecution. Obviously, service providers would fight shy of that. No wonder they are not complaining to the Minister; I do not think they can. Accepting the notice and removing the material is the line of least resistance. The judgment on material thought to be unlawfully terrorism-related becomes crucial. The Bill refers to the opinion of a constable. I am impressed by the sudden escalation of the qualifications of that constable to the level of special branch, with authority to give particular guidance; but the Bill uses the word ““constable”” nevertheless. While I have the greatest respect and admiration for our police officers, the usual remit of the police is to submit those suspected of law-breaking to the judiciary for their decision. Under the Bill, a constable will be the arbiter. There is a history surrounding the opinions of police officers, particularly in respect of issues of this kind. We know that stops under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 resulted in a 300 per cent. increase in the number of stops after ll September. We know of the disproportionality relating to stop and search and stop and account. To my personal knowledge the Met have worked hard to eradicate such tendencies from their police officers, but that disproportionality persists. But even when a constable’s discretion—which is vital to police work—is used, it is used to bring a suspect to justice. The constable is not supposed to act as judge and jury. Moreover, the likely consequences of making the constable, through his ““opinion””, the final arbiter over what is unlawfully terrorism-related may expose the police to public criticism or ridicule should the ““opinion”” be obviously and substantively wrong, and subject them to unwanted publicity. The same would apply if a provider took his case to court and won—although, as I have said, I doubt that that will happen. The police would become vulnerable if required to make a judgment that a police person is not trained to make, and which it is not appropriate for him or her to make. The police have enough to contend with. Their role should be to bring offenders to justice—to submit to a judge those who, in their opinion, deserve a notice to remove material from the web. Judicial oversight would afford some protection to free speech, and to police officers who would otherwise be charged by the Government’s edict with an inappropriate power to decide. Accepting the Lords amendment would have merely a time consequence, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said. We are talking about a delay of a few hours, not about going to court. The measure is akin to an arrest warrant rather than a court hearing, so the Minister’s argument is somewhat specious. Judicial oversight would lend weight and seriousness to a decision to issue a notice to remove such material, which can only be a good thing; such extra protection has to be a worthy thing. The added benefit is that in referring cases to judges, constables would have more time to weigh the decision being taken; as a result, they would not refer cases so lightly. Constables themselves would consider whether a particular case was worthy of judicial oversight, which provides an extra protection. We all understand what the Government are trying to do, but we must ensure that we do not in any way become like those authorities and Governments around the world whom we judge so harshly for their censorship and lack of freedoms. The safeguards that we propose are relatively minor, but they are necessary.