Counter-Terrorism Bill

I am sorry to interrupt, but I am very anxious that we have complete clarity across the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, with devastating effect, raised in his speech the issue of the principle of legal certainty: a common law principle that the citizen is entitled to know what the law is and what its limits are, especially where there is an adverse impact on the right to liberty. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the Joint Committee have said that it is not good enough to rely on a reading-in of safeguards by Law Lords in their judgments. On the face of the statute, the law should be sufficiently clear so that everyone knows what the law is and what its limits are. That is the thrust of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, with which I completely agree. It is a systemic problem; it is no use saying, ““We do not need to make changes because the Law Lords did this, that, or the other””. The two Opposition Benches are saying to the Government: ““Please make sure that the statutory scheme is clear and gives effect to what the Law Lords have required as a matter of procedural fairness””. Forgetting the detail of the amendments, surely the Minister would like to go away to think about that and see what amendments he could bring back to ensure that what the Law Lords have ruled is reflected in statute. There is an ancient English, as well as European, principle that legal certainty should be provided when there is a deprivation of liberty of the kind involved here.