| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 10, leave out from "within" to end of line 21 and insert "subsection (1A), if matter contained in it is likely-
(a) to be understood, by some or all of the persons to whom it is or may become available as a consequence of that conduct, as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; or
17 Jan 2006 : Column 603
(b) to be useful in the commission or preparation of such acts and to be understood, by some or all of those persons, as contained in the publication, or made available to them, wholly or mainly for the purpose of being so useful to them."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I was tempted to say "moved formally" on the basis that noble Lords have heard so much from me this afternoon that they understand the amendment and its purpose and they either agree or disagree with it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel): My Lords, I have to tell your Lordships that if Amendment No. 21 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 21A to 23 because of pre-emption.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 21A. At the time I tabled the amendment, it appeared that the Government intended to retain Clause 2(3). However, I now see that the Government have removed that subsection and replaced it with Amendment No. 21; so naturally I find myself in some difficulty in pursuing Amendment No. 21A.
However, I just want to observe—the noble Baroness kindly wrote me a letter about this—that the essence of my concern is still outstanding and it relates to the definition of "matter". In my submission, "matter" can mean only two things in Clause 2; and they are summarised very helpfully in Clause 2(7). "Matter" must be either the statement under consideration and how it is likely to be understood or the usefulness mentioned in subsection (5). Subsection (5) deals with the definition of information of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts.
I am not going to pursue my amendment now but I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness, either today or by means of a further amendment at Third Reading, could confirm that that is the scope of the definition of "matter".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall be happy to do that. I can certainly write to the noble Lord. I take it from the noble Lord's amendment that Amendment No. 21 is agreed to for reasons that are clear. I do not think that the noble Lord has any reason to be concerned about "matter" but I should be very happy to write in relation to that matter—forgive the pun.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 21A to 23 not moved.]
7 pm
Lord Lloyd of Berwick moved Amendment No. 24:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
17 Jan 2006 : Column 604
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 25 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 25:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 30:
Page 3, line 45, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "anything mentioned in subsections (1B) to (4)"
"( ) For the purposes of this section it is also irrelevant, in relation to matter contained in any article whether any person—
(a) is in fact encouraged or induced by that matter to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism; or
(b) in fact makes use of it in the commission or preparation of such acts."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 31 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 31:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 36 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 10, leave out from "proceedings" to "did" in line 20 and insert "for an offence under this section against a person in respect of conduct to which subsection (9A) applies, it is a defence for him to show—
(a) that the matter by reference to which the publication in question was a terrorist publication neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement (whether by virtue of section 3 or otherwise); and
(b) that it was clear, in all the circumstances of the conduct, that that matter"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, my brief says that if Amendment No. 40 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 41.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think there is an inadvertent error in the brief.
17 Jan 2006 : Column 605
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 40:
"(9A) This subsection applies to the conduct of a person to the extent that—
(a) the publication to which his conduct related contained matter by reference to which it was a terrorist publication by virtue of subsection (2)(a); and
(b) that person is not proved to have engaged in that conduct with the intention of making that matter available as mentioned in subsection (1B)(a)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 41:
"(e) that the publication to which the conduct related was received by a library in consequence of its obligations under the British Library Act 1972 (c. 54) or the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 (c. 28)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am delighted that the amendment has survived our procedure. The amendment is small but very important. I am very surprised that the Government have not embraced it. To put it very straightforwardly, its purpose is to exempt the British Library and the deposit libraries from the curtilage of the Bill. It is extremely important that that is done.
The British Library is a modern heritage. Therefore, in many ways it is a very important part of this country's future. Two very clear duties are laid on it. One is that it is a library of record, which means that every publisher, writer, and so on, in the country, has to deposit with the British Library every publication. In that sense, it is rather like the Library of Congress in the United States. It makes it one of the great libraries of the world. Under the provision of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003, that still holds good. However, the British Library Act 1972, which was passed before the British Library was built, but was planned, laid a very clear responsibility on the library to promote knowledge and education, the pursuit of truth, freedom of expression and many other highly desirable things.
It must be very clear from the discussions that have taken place in the House today and in Committee that there is considerable doubt about the responsibility of a library such as the British Library in terms of this legislation. It was made fairly clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that she is not clear what responsibilities rest on university academics and librarians. The British Library is in exactly the same position. It took legal advice before, it must be said, the noble Baroness moved the major changes that are a part of bringing in the concept of intent. However, at that stage—to be honest, it was not much affected by intent—the legal advice was that the British Library might well find itself in very great difficulties with this Bill. It might find that people were up before prosecutors because they were alleged, in some way, to be instigating or encouraging terrorism.
17 Jan 2006 : Column 606
In Committee, this matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who is the chairman of the British Library. Pursuant to having a very strong wish not to seem to seek special privileges for the British Library, he went along with the terminology at that time on the grounds that there might be a rogue librarian in the British Library and such a person should not be protected from the normal exigencies of the law. However, the word "person" can be interpreted both as an individual person and in the corporate sense as comprising a corporate person. On the basis of advice that he has received on the British Library being a corporate person, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has specifically asked me to say that he presses very strongly for the amendment that I am now moving because he believes that as a corporate person, the British Library and the deposit libraries, which include the national libraries of Scotland and Wales, should be exempted from the Bill. His reasons are that being under the Bill could be a major obstruction to the development of those libraries.
I am not sure whether all noble Lords are aware of the extent to which the British Library has been at the centre of the building up of a global network, which is increasingly influential and increasingly highly recognised in many parts of the world, not least in the part of the world that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester is so closely associated with in Africa and in other parts of the Anglican communion. It would be devastating if the British Library were to find itself stopped in its tracks in developing this network of extraordinary education and information facilities as a result of an incomprehension or misunderstanding of the purport of this Bill. I frankly thought that, by this time, the Government would have adopted the amendment and would have made it quite plain that, while the provision could not protect individuals, it would protect the corporate persona of the British Library and the deposit libraries.
I cannot put this too strongly: it can only be in the interests of this country that we encourage this development of the knowledge economy and knowledge society as a substantial part of where our future lies. I think that all of us recognise the astonishing contribution that the United Kingdom has made to the world of higher academic studies, research and scientific study.
For all those reasons therefore—and I had thought that I was pushing at an open door—I hope that the Government will carefully consider the matter before Third Reading. I am not about to press this amendment to a Division. If they thought about it, it would be clear that they could exempt these libraries from the purport of the Bill and everyone would applaud them for doing so. I speak to this amendment as strongly as I possibly can because the damage that will be done to the United Kingdom if we do not make such an exemption will be profound. Beyond the United Kingdom, the damage that will be done to the whole network of knowledge throughout the world will not be enhanced in any way by encumbering it with a Bill of this kind. I beg to move.
17 Jan 2006 : Column 607
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |