Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Perhaps because I am a Conservative I am a believer in conventions. If a convention appears to work and not require further amplification, I am loth to interfere. The Government, of course, have been good at interfering with conventions and disposing with them in the dustbin of history, and that is regrettable. It is worth noting that the Lord Advocate is somewhat unusual in that she has survived a regime change in Edinburgh. She has also survived a slight and subtle, but significant, change in her constitutional role. Given what the Lord Advocate has said so emphatically, I would be loth to interfere. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, and perhaps I can reassure him by saying that if there were to be a serious difference of view on an issue of the kind we are discussing, it would create a mini constitutional crisis and the House would have to return to the issue. The smooth running of constitutions depends not only on our getting a series of rules right. If an established relationship is so clear and self-confident—at both ends—that no one has ever seen a problem on which there has not been a meeting of minds, I would be loth to interfere with it.