I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I agree with the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the need for certainty in this and allied areas of the law. With regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to my amendment, by talking about ““if possible”” I intended to refer not to the possibility of disclosure but the possibility of the subject of the order providing an answer. I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness that it would be wiser to omit the words, ““if possible”” to avoid ambiguity.
This is a simple but vital issue. Should the Secretary of State be able to impose these restrictions on an individual without telling him why? It is not just a question of fairness. Nothing is more likely to undermine public confidence in a TPIM than for the Secretary of State to make such an order without telling people why. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the Opposition Front Bench, is not yet persuaded to support my amendment. His position, as he articulated it, appears to be at odds with the ruling in AF which makes it very clear that the duty of disclosure applies irrespective of national security concerns. I am also sorry that I have not yet persuaded the Minister that this matter should be in the Bill. I am still concerned that on a matter as vital as this, it is not good enough simply for the Bill to state that Ministers must act in compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, welcome though that is. It is desirable to address the question of disclosure, which has led to enormous quantities of litigation in the past and will inevitably lead to much more litigation in the future if we do not address the matter specifically. It is highly desirable that this matter is put into the Bill in clear, unambiguous terms. We will no doubt return to this matter on Report but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 38 withdrawn.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Pannick
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 19 October 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c342-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:22:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_775151
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_775151
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_775151