Ben Wallace: Q No, would you say that was terrorist content or extremism content?
Ben Wallace: Q So a magazine written by al-Qaeda, claiming to be by al-Qaeda, which gives a theology about kufr and attacking everyone else, is inherently a terrorist publication?
Ben Wallace: Q I understand the issue about extremism content, but when it comes to terrorist content, surely there is a crossover to the paedophile streaming and viewing?
Ben Wallace: You should just watch them; you will see people being executed in the background. I would guess that is harm.
Ben Wallace: GPs are not covered by the Prevent duty.
Ben Wallace: Q Thank you very much for coming today. May I ask your view of clause 1, which is obviously the part of the Bill that talks about expressions of support, and the challenge around that? Critics have used the phrase “thought police”. Obviously, we are trying to grapple with the threat from inspiring—people who do not specifically stand up and say, “Join ISIS”, but...
Ben Wallace: Q I want to follow on from the previous issue of the person collecting the materials and the three clicks. I do not know if you heard my question to Max Hill, which was that given that section 58 of the 2000 Act is well established, has been used and has not been struck down by challenge in a European court setting, if instead of defining by three clicks it was to explore simply adding in...
Ben Wallace: Q To reflect on section 58, when we talk about collecting electronic records or making a copy, we do not qualify that by saying that the definition is that it has to be longer than 10 seconds long or it has to be an hour long. We do not do that already; we do not seek to narrow it there.
Ben Wallace: Q Can I go back to the clause pertaining to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000—the streaming clause or the three clicks provision? The original section of the Terrorism Act 2000 is very clear: it is about collecting material, which can include a record which is electronic. Back in 2000, broadband was pretty slow, if it worked at all, so most people watched things by down- loading;...
Ben Wallace: Q If we all agree that streaming is a problem and is a modern reflection of how people are viewing things, would another solution to your worries be simply to amend section 58? The first line of section 58 says: “A person commits an offence if (a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind—” so that in and of itself is an offence with a reasonable excuse defence...
Ben Wallace: Are you happy with section 58 of the 2000 Act as it stands?
Ben Wallace: Q But as it stands at the moment, it can be an offence on its own?
Ben Wallace: Q If you were to just amend subsection (a)— “A person commits an offence if…he collects or makes”— and added “, or streams”, would you be satisfied with that? Would that address the issue we are getting at?
Ben Wallace: Q Could that already be the case for academics downloading, recording or collection information under the existing section 58?
Ben Wallace: Q And it has not been struck down by any of our courts?
Ben Wallace: Q The Government are always being probed for judicial discretion. There is the idea that we have a tendency to be too prescriptive and want to encourage judicial discretion. Is that not, a bit like the appellate guidance that you talk about, a place for judicial discretion?
Ben Wallace: Q In your earlier replies, you talked about how an individual who was detained could have a conversation without legal advice or compromising themselves. It is right, is it not, that in this environment such a conversation would not be admissible in court, under the grounds of the stop?
Ben Wallace: Q What are those exceptions?
Ben Wallace: Q Let us take perjury. Whenever any of us goes to the airport, a passport control person will ask us, potentially, where we are going or where we have been. They will question us, won’t they? They have the power to do that.
Ben Wallace: Q Do we have a right at that stage—because this is all about being at the border—to ask for a lawyer then?