---

Business of the House

First, all hon. Members would expect to see the law of the land upheld. I am sure that that is true of the Liberal Democrats, although sometimes—if I may speak frankly to the House—the hon. Gentleman chooses which laws he believes should be upheld. In this case, legislation that is widely supported in this House requires that an application be made before a demonstration can be organised. That legislation has worked remarkably well. Since it came into force on 1 August, there have been some 63 applications for demonstrations; those have been granted and demonstrations have taken place perfectly properly. In the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers—in rather hysterical terms, as ever—such an application was not made. There was no good reason for not making an application, other than simply to challenge the law. There is a strong tradition in western democracy of people seeking to challenge laws with which they disagree, but of course, those people recognise that the consequence of doing so is that they then face criminal penalties. That is precisely what happened in this case. The Government will have to study this morning’s decision by the Law Lords extremely carefully. We do not in any way condone the use of torture, and a complex decision of this kind obviously needs careful analysis. But again, I hope that all hon. Members will support the Government and me in saying that we as a country must use effective measures to deal with the threat of international terrorism. I hope that that applies even to the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman will know full well that there is no exact definition of rendition. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has written to the US Secretary of State on the question and has received a full and detailed response. I hope that both my right hon. Friend’s statement—and, indeed, that of the US Secretary of State—is a very full explanation of the position.