Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2007

My Lords, I support everyone who has spoken today, except my noble friend, who supports the activity of the Government. I hope she will realise that all sections of this House are entirely disquieted by this proposal. It is not usual for my noble friend, me and many others to conclude that the Government are offending civil liberties. It should have been stated more firmly that the Government face a huge dilemma: how to deal effectively with terrorists. Although that is a very important issue, the Government have come to the wrong conclusions. My noble friend Lord Judd, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and everyone who has spoken in this debate, do not take the threat of terrorism lightly. Essentially, by undermining the democratic process, are we playing into the hands of exactly those who seek to undermine that process? This question is fundamental and has not been answered at all by my noble friend today. It gives me no pleasure to come to this conclusion. On the whole, although there are exceptions, the Government behave very well about civil liberties, but I am very concerned about this issue. Far from coming to the same conclusion—that terrorists will succumb to the threats that my noble friend has outlined—I do not think that they will. They will be reinforced by the arguments which she has deployed. I hope therefore, although I am not very confident, that she will have second thoughts. I do not know what goes on within the confines of the Home Office. I should like to believe that the arguments which have been heard today are heard there by some whom I will not mention. But this House should assert—and if we are in a minority, that does not matter—those fundamental laws and rules which are essential to a democratic society.