---

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

There is obviously a distinction but both involve one’s human rights. That is the importance. The noble Baroness may have noticed that when my noble friend Lord Sassoon noticed on the television that the noble and learned Lord was making these points, he came in to have a quick word with me to make clear what he had discussed, and I will try to convey those feelings to the House. I hope that I have understood what my noble friend whispered to me on the Front Bench, and I hope that the noble Baroness will accept it. As we also made clear, we believe that it is not just the view of the Executive that is crucial in these matters. That is why I quoted earlier the view expressed by the courts. It is consistent with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of MB, which the noble and learned Lord also referred to, in which the court said that, "““the Secretary of State is better placed than the court to decide the measures that are necessary to protect the public against the activities of a terrorist suspect””." In the same judgment the Court of Appeal also noted that the principle that the courts should pay deference to the Executive on matters relating to state security has long been recognised by the courts in this country, including the Law Lords, and by the European Court of Human Rights. As I said at the beginning of my speech—in asking, as it were, for something approaching to an Occam’s razor to be put to this argument—it is just getting it down to the simple question: who do you think is the appropriate body to make this decision?