Terrorism (Detention and Human Rights)

Again, I shall not go down there. We could revisit that, but we are not going to listen and do things in the interests of consensus and be lambasted for it. I want to make two further points about legislation. Clearly, where the review ends up and where the demand for legislation ends up will, in part at least, determine the nature of any subsequent consolidation—that is not to weasel out of a promise. For example, if there were a Bill in March or April and all the elements that I have described, including some of the most contentious previous legislation, were aired and discussed significantly during the normal parliamentary process, it would not make sense to reopen the matter by way of consolidation half a Session later. Lord Carlile said clearly—I believe that everyone agrees—that everything should be consolidated. Hon. Members here today have suggested in various ways that we should revisit some of the issues that have already been discussed in previous Acts, and that may happen in a subsequent Bill. The Government will have to take a view on whether the substance of another terrorism Act is sufficient in revisiting the matter and giving Parliament an opportunity to examine other elements, if the Bill is as extensive as that—I simply do not know at the moment—and whether there should be a subsequent technical consolidation or a balance between the two. I can honestly tell the House that that door is being left open and is almost predicated on the nature, substance and depth of any Bill, if there is a Bill. I am very clear that public scrutiny, if possible, at the start of a terrorism Bill would not be sufficient for the purposes of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon in wanting scrutiny on any proposals. If we decide that there should be legislation, we would want to get that under way sooner rather than later, but I take the point that some pre-legislative scrutiny, albeit post-introduction scrutiny, might be in order. We have discussed letting the broader public know what may or may not be in a Bill, and I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about semiotics, symbolism, how we do what we do, and his pertinent point about going to Parliament to ask it to do things in this area in such a way. I shall take those points to heart and reflect on them.