Terrorism Bill

My Lords, the point is that the legislation we are putting through the statute book will apply from now on. It is important for us to look at the context in which decisions are made, but it would be quite wrong to say that we should not take such opportunities as we have to address what is now a very clear and challenging issue. We have talked about it throughout this Bill: the whole issue of terrorism has mutated and we are now dealing with a particularly virulent form, which is significantly different from anything any of us has ever dealt with. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, and my noble friend Lady Ramsay. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that we believe we have a sufficiently high degree of precision. We do not agree with the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, or the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about vagueness. We believe that these provisions have substance. I certainly invite the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, not to press his amendment. We have a very clear opportunity to taste and see who is right about this. We believe, with due humility, that we are. We have also demonstrated very clearly throughout our response to this and other Bills that this Government listen. We understand that people in this House and the other place wish to protect the people of our country. We wish to do that in a proportionate way, consistent with our belief in human rights and the protection of the rights of the individual. We do not wish to take disproportionate measures that are unnecessary for the safe protection of our nation’s people. We believe that these provisions meet those tests. If we are proved wrong, we will have an opportunity to look at this again. Having asked the Commons—which we purport to acknowledge as the House with the final say—three times to think again, and it having told us with increasing volume that it disagrees, now is a time to rest and keep our counsel for another day.