Terrorism Bill

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and all those who are concerned about this provision. Like the Minister and all sensible people in this House, I wish to see every decent action taken against terrorism to make it less likely, and to curb those who want to participate in it. However, I am very nervous about the Government’s proposal, which will leave our police in great difficulties. The use to which such material is put is in the eye of the reader and the mind of the beholder. I trust that all Members believe in the rule of law, peaceful and legal protest and democratic action, not in violent or terrorist action. It is quite possible for us to read histories of recent or past events, of freedom movements and people who have gone beyond the rule of law in what they thought was a just cause, without them inciting us to do the same. To us, even if the cause was right, the means were wrong, and we read such histories with condemnation in our hearts and minds. It would be quite possible, however, for others to read such histories without that strong framework. One could argue that such histories incited them to do likewise in that cause, or in a cause that they regarded as similar. At what point does legitimate history, comment and reporting end, and incitement and the writing of dangerous material begin? I would have been much happier to support the Minister this afternoon, had she been able to say how serious a problem this is, what kind of material she does—and does not—have in mind, and how many such instances we might be talking about. If she is saying that she knows of websites that contain outrageous material that is having an impact on a limited number of people, who are then using them to develop a terrorist mentality and to share intelligence with one another, that is one thing, and an argument that I can understand. If, however, she is saying that all manner of websites could be out there that could cause this problem, that is very different. My worry is that the latter is the case, and that the Government are taking a scattergun, very general approach that will place newspapers, opinion-formers, commentators and others in a very difficult position. They will not be sure whether their material could be struck down, or what processes they could use to defend themselves. The suggestion is very good and because we wish to prevent terrorism by all sensible means, we will not try to prevent the Minister from extending the powers of the state in this way in order to have some control over internet material. However, in order to reassure all those involved in legitimate reportage, history writing or internet communication that they are not being targeted, a senior judicial figure should be involved in such cases. That would also provide an added protection for our constables. The Minister said that we are talking about a very limited number of specially trained people—people who need remarkable language skills and judgment in trying to distinguish between the different types of material that I have sketched out today—but in fact, the Bill states that any constable could deal with such matters. That places too big a burden on constables, and might lead to pressure being put on them by people who see websites that they do not like, and who think that this could be a route to getting them closed down. I therefore urge the Minister to think again.