Yes, it certainly is, but it is also subject to the question of what is the appropriate rule of law. The law—for example, on the right of abode, and in relation to the question of section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971—is what Parliament has decided is appropriate for the circumstances at the time. However, times have moved on and the circumstances are different. I have heard lawyers—I am one myself, and a former shadow Attorney-General—talk over and over again about the rule of law without asking this question: what is the rule of law based on? What circumstances does it apply in, and is it still relevant? We amend Acts of Parliament the entire time. This Bill and temporary exclusion orders are a new step forward, and they are a change in light of current circumstances. Looking across the Chamber, legislation relating to Ireland as it was in the days of the troubles was part and parcel of changes made at that time, and changes have been made to that legislation since. The answer is: liberty, yes, 100%, but not in circumstances where those who are prepared to perpetrate atrocities are allowed to get away with it.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Proceeding contribution from
William Cash
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 January 2015.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
590 c192 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-05-22 08:40:34 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-01-06/15010649000050
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-01-06/15010649000050
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-01-06/15010649000050