Information Scotland The Journal of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland ISSN 1743-5471 Issue contents | Journal contents | About the online edition of the journal February 2006 Volume 4(1)

Taking a stand against the Bill

Major library organisations have united over their concerns about the implications for libraries of the Government’s new Terrorism Bill. Gordon Hunt clarifies the issues.

“We are not seeking comfort; we are seeking a major protection for the freedom of speech and expression in this country.”
Baroness Williams of Crosby.

In response to the terrorist attacks on London on 7 July 2005, the UK government introduced a new Terrorism Bill. The Bill seeks to increase the ability of the Government to fight terrorism. It includes new offences of encouraging terrorism and disseminating terrorist publications. It also proposes the highly controversial extension of the period during which terrorist suspects can be detained without trial.

The key concern for libraries is within Clause 2 of the Bill, which makes it an offence to provide for loan any item that could be defined as a terrorist publication. The Bill’s explanatory notes confirm that libraries are included in this. In fact, the possession of such a publication could in itself be an offence under the act. The definition of a terrorist publication also causes concern as the Bill defines it as being “likely to be understood” by someone reading it as “direct or indirect encouragement” to commit a terrorist act.

This means that it would be very difficult for a librarian to judge whether a particular publication would have the effect on a reader of encouraging them to commit a terrorist act, since a book will have a different impact on different readers.

The Bill does contain what are called “statutory defences” for anyone prosecuted under the legislation. These include the defence that the library had not examined the content of the publication or had “no reasonable grounds” for suspecting the publication might be a terrorist publication or that the library had not “endorsed” the publication.

However, the fundamental problem with the Bill as drafted is that the burden of proof is on the accused. In other words, if a library or librarian is prosecuted under this law they would be deemed guilty unless they could prove their innocence by using the defences in the Bill. This reverses the traditional burden of proof in UK law.

The British Library, the National Library of Scotland, SLIC and CILIPS took independent legal advice on the potential impact of the Bill on libraries and librarians. This advice confirmed their concerns that the legitimate activities of a library could constitute a criminal offence under the Bill, that it would create uncertainty on what material a library could safely hold, that judgements on what is a terrorist publication would be very difficult to make and that it would be very difficult for an accused librarian to prove the statutory defences applied to them.
In an unprecedented collaborative effort, the major library organisations of the UK, including the National Library of Scotland, CILIP and CILIPS, SLIC and the academic library collaborative groups, led by the British Library, came together to lobby for changes to the Bill. This ad hoc group has been meeting almost weekly since late October last year to co-ordinate the sector’s response and attempt to influence the passage of the Bill.

In the Commons stages there was support for our case from a number of MPs, however the debate was dominated by the high profile proposal to increase the period of detention without trial which resulted in a defeat for the Government. This defeat raised hopes that amendments to the Bill were possible.

The stages in the House of Lords have been more fruitful. Many Peers have been supportive of the libraries’ position, led by the Liberal Democrat group, who have tabled a number of amendments. Significant contributions have been made in debate by the British Library Chair Lord Eatwell and Baroness Williams (Shirley Williams) who has been a vocal supporter of the library case.

The Report Stage of the Bill was held on 17 January. The Government had conceded after the earlier Lords debates that some strengthening of the defences in Clause 2 would be appropriate. The Liberal Democrat group tabled amendments to introduce a test of intent into Clause 2, and at the last minute the Government also tabled an amendment to that effect. The Liberal Democrat amendment was passed together with the Government amendment to strengthen defences in Clause 2. A week later, the Government proposed an amendment to be introduced in the Commons that would “tidy up” the Bill and maintain these changes, giving the library community the comfort it requires. There is no doubt that the lobbying of both the library and academic communities has had a significant effect on government thinking in this area and has played a significant part in securing these amendments.

The library community has been at pains to point out that it supports the need to combat terrorism. However there was a danger that the Bill will have a serious though unintended impact on us. Libraries have a key role as trusted information providers and the information we hold will be vitally important to those studying and fighting terrorism. It is important that we work to prevent that role being compromised by the poor drafting of a Bill. It is to the credit of librarians as a profession that we are able to act together and at short notice to make our voice heard.

Gordon Hunt is Director of Customer Services, National Library of Scotland.

Information Scotland Vol. 4(1) February 2006

Information Scotland is delivered online by the SAPIENS electronic publishing service based at the Centre for Digital Library Research. SLAINTE (Scottish libraries across the Internet) offers further information about librarianship and information management in Scotland.