---

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2006

My Lords, I too support the amendment and echo what has just been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. It is most unsatisfactory that we do not have the opportunity to debate such serious erosions of liberty. I thank the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord who described in detail the way in which this legislation was debated with such concern a year ago. They described the concern that was expressed in this House about what it meant for us to pass legislation that did not comply with our great traditions and which flew in the face of international human rights. For us to do that it was crucially important that opportunities were provided to ensure that we did not slide complacently into an acceptance of the unacceptable. For us to be placed in a situation today where we are not able to do anything and where there is no opportunity for us to remind the nation and our people why liberty matters and why this is such an affront is something of concern, I hope, to all of us. This House was absolutely at its best a year ago. While people may in many ways have supported aspects of that legislation, the nation admired the fact that the House stood up to pressure to push through legislation without the appropriate level of debate on a matter as serious as this. Unfortunately, one can be left only with a feeling that this House is being slighted in what it was calling for at that time, and that that also flies in the face of our democratic traditions. Not only are we seeing the rule of law undermined but we also are seeing democracy undermined because debate is absolutely at the heart of our democratic processes. I want to remind people that having control orders means that on the lowest standard of proof—merely on suspicion—we will take away many of the things which we all hold dear. Opportunities to be with others, to go out of one’s home, to take the air will be limited considerably and, as has been described, when put together, some of those controls on behaviour inevitably mean a deprivation of liberty. Further, there is no access by the accused person—the person suspected—to the evidence. Their own lawyers do not have access to the evidence, which is the suspicion on which the Home Secretary bases his decision to have control orders put into effect. The special advocate is something that we really should have the opportunity to debate again in this House. To call such a person—albeit someone skilled and a member of my own profession—an advocate is a denial of what the role of advocacy is all about. The whole purpose of advocacy is that on behalf of your client you are able to contest the allegation made and to do it acting as—if you like—the spokesperson for that person and to challenge evidence in a way that they would do themselves were they able to and versed in the law. The special advocate has no such possibility. Having had access to the evidence, the special advocate is denied the opportunity of speaking with the person who is going to be subject to the control order. To call such a lawyer an advocate for the person is a corruption of language as we know and understand it within our system of law. I am deeply saddened by the way that this has developed. Like others, I hope that we have the opportunity to express our view by way of a vote. I do not know whether that is intended but I would welcome a Division on this issue.