Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2010

My Lords, I am grateful to all speakers in this debate. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that if my amendment fails, these Benches will be very happy to support his. I thought at many times that the logic of what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said would mean that she would support the Government. Perhaps it was a half-and-half speech and, in her eyes, we have drawn, which leads to the proposed abstention. I thank the Minister for the assurances that he gave. I take what he said very seriously, and I by no means dismiss the points that he made. He reminded me of the 2,000 people under surveillance. I cannot resist commenting that that suggests to me that the resources required for a handful more cannot be quite as great as we are being led to believe. We take terrorism very seriously but our objections, which I will not go through again in view of the time, have not been met. However, I shall comment on one point that the Minister made in his winding–up speech. It sounds a little as though the Government have fallen into a temptation to impose control orders not on the balance of probabilities. Then if, or indeed when, conditions are broken, an offence is automatically committed, which means that the individual—against whom there is no evidence that can be used—finds himself imprisoned under that parallel route. We have taken a good deal of time, but it is right that we do so. We are not persuaded. I wish to test the opinion of the House. Division on Baroness Hamwee’s amendment. Contents 49; Not-Contents 57. Amendment disagreed.