The draft Terrorism Bill was published in October, in the wake
of the London bombings, and was instantly controversial – due to
provisions dealing with the detention of terrorists, the
criminalisation of those planning or preparing a terrorist act and
the prohibition of the encouragement or glorification of
terrorism.
Website owners and ISPs are also affected by the
proposals, which deems them to endorse prohibited material if,
without reasonable excuse, they do not take down or modify the
material once notified by a constable.
But critics are concerned that this imposes too great a
restriction on free speech – and gives too much power to the
police. The Lords have therefore introduced an element of judicial
oversight.
"I entirely accept the principle that where there is something
on the internet which is transmitting material from a website which
is indeed truly terrorist related – I entirely accept that it
should be removed,” Lib Dem spokesman Lord Goodhart told the Lords,
according to the Times Online.
"It is simply a question that the police should not have
authority which would enable them to go round removing any
material, which they had the slightest suspicion could possibly be
of some interest to somebody for terrorist purposes," he added.
The peers also tightened the definition of “unlawfully
terrorism-related” material to cover material “likely” to be
understood as encouraging terrorism, rather than the previously
broad reference to material that could encourage terrorism.
The amendment, which was passed by the House of Lords by 148
votes to 147, was the second time in 24 hours that the Government
had lost a motion by only one vote. On this occasion the critical
vote could have been provided by Home Office Minister Baroness
Scotland of Asthal, who is responsible for pushing the legislation
through the Lords.
She had left the Chamber because of a ‘family emergency’,
according to reports.
