Terrorism Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 5:00 pm on 7 December 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal Minister of State (Criminal Justice and Offender Management), Home Office, Minister of State (Home Office) (Criminal Justice and Offender Management) 5:00, 7 December 2005

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed, especially in relation to the issues arising out of the defences contained in Clause 2(9) in particular and the relationship that has to Clause 1. We covered to a large extent similar issues when debating other amendments earlier today, so I shall try to be brief.

I signalled clearly the major changes that we have either accepted or proposed to make to the offences in Clauses 1 and 2. I shall not repeat those, and I thank Members of the Committee who have expressed gratitude for the changes that the Government intend to make. On the specific issue before us now, the offence in Clause 2 does not involve intent and, as I explained, that is deliberately so. The Government want to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to tackle a particular mischief—namely, the dissemination of publications in context, which mean that they will either encourage terrorism or be of use to terrorists in practical ways. The Committee will not need reminding of the statements made during debate of the effect of disseminating such material, not least the effect of disseminating the al-Qaeda materials—manuals and matters of that sort—which have enabled and encouraged those who wished to commit acts of terror to do so.

We originally drafted the offence to focus on preventing that mischief. Together with the related power in Clause 27, the measure provided the law enforcement agencies with a tool to do that. We considered the safeguards in relation to Clause 2, and our initial view was that they were sufficient and that terrorist publications had to be defined by reference to their context. There was a defence specifically for libraries in Clause 2(8), and prosecutions requiring the consent of the DPP. As I have said, we listened carefully and looked at the further defence provided in Clause 9, which originally had a very limited purview. We thought it right, having listened carefully to the Committee's concerns, to extend those defences generally to everyone. I shall just deal with the question of what "to everyone" means.

During the debate that we had earlier, I concentrated particularly on the universities, booksellers and others about which noble Lords had spoken, but I made it clear that the provisions were to cover academics generally and those who teach and purvey information for philosophical and other debate. It is absolutely clear from those discussions, in response to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about his collection of materials, which he wished to disseminate to those who wished to fight fascism and terrorism, that they would not be caught by the provisions. Indeed, no matter how offensive we find the far-right statements of the BNP and others, as far as we are aware they still do not fall within the "terrorist" category to which these provisions primarily relate, although one has to look carefully at whether some of their publications do so. From the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, however, it was clear that he was not going to discuss those issues for the purposes of generating or encouraging acts of terrorism, but quite the reverse. I think, therefore, that he can rest easy in his bed.

Because of the concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere, we are proposing to expand the defence in Clause 2(9) so that it will apply to everyone. We are satisfied that this will still leave the offence in a workable form, but will also give those concerned about libraries, for example, the comfort they require. I need to emphasise, however, that there is still a mischief we have identified that needs to be addressed. I will explain why we are content with the new drafting we propose, but would rather not change the offence in the way suggested by these amendments.

We suggest that the mischief of disseminating terrorist publications has two elements: the act of disseminating the publications, which we want to prevent and discourage, and the question of culpability on the part of the person doing the disseminating. We all understand that some people who disseminate publications that may encourage terrorism or be of use to terrorists should be regarded as culpable, but that others—for example, those whose jobs require them to disseminate such publications—should not be so regarded. That is a clear line that, I think, we all agree should be drawn.

We are content that the current drafting, together with the power in Clause 27, allows us to target the act of disseminating terrorist publications, and satisfied that it allows the offence to capture those who are really culpable. Most importantly, we are also satisfied that it would not capture those who are not culpable, in the sense that they are not trying to do something we would all regard as wrong. Such people would avoid suffering under the offence itself, because they would avail themselves of the defence under Clause 2(9). Thus the offence, together with Clause 27, is still part of a package that can successfully prevent the unacceptable dissemination of terrorist publications, but will not capture those who should not be properly caught.

My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe explained the concerns that have been expressed in connection with the interrelationship between paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 2(9). I accept, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, that it is more difficult for Members of the Committee to consider the amendments while not having all the provisions before them. I will therefore do what I can to ensure that the position is clear.

I remind the House that paragraphs (b) and (c) are to be read together. The reason for that is that paragraph (b) provides that,

"the publication to which the conduct related, so far as it contained matter by reference to which it was a terrorist publication by virtue of subsection (2)(a), neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement".

The reason the "and" should then be included to refer to subsection (c) is that it provides that:

"it was clear in all the circumstances that the publication, so far as it contained such matter, did not express his views and (apart from the possibility of his having been given and failed to comply with a notice under subsection (3) of that section) did not have his endorsement".

That covers the situation. I will take librarians as an example.