I am quite sure that no apology was needed for what was plainly a slip in a detailed speech made without reference to lots of notes. But the point is an important one, because the protection of the interests of the United Kingdom is free-standing, and the point that almost every noble Lord who has spoken has made is that, because they are defined, there is no clarity at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about opacity. It is not just opacity; it is that no one can know what is criminal. The prosecutors are there to decide what they will charge—certainly with the consent of the Attorney-General where that is required. However, where they make that decision, the jury is left with an impossible position. The judge is bound to direct the jury properly, under the terms of Chandler—that the interests of the United Kingdom are effectively what the Government of the day determine those interests to be—and the offense is left effectively without any clarity at all. That is our objection. I take it a little further, but it is an objection that illuminates the danger of going down that path. It is unjust not to have clarity about what behaviour is criminal, particularly where the sentences are so serious. It is also damaging to public confidence in the criminal law itself if prosecutors and defenders cannot know what is criminal and what is not.
4.45 pm
I quite accept that I cannot be, and am not, wedded to the particular words of our amendments. They struck me as capturing what I believe the Bill to be
about. However, we need to find a clear definition that is about national security, dealing with threats to national security, which may well be economic security and health security, howsoever defined. We need definition if we are now going to introduce offences that are applicable to every person, across a wide range of activities, and expect convictions upon them. That said, and in the hope that we will look for further clarity in the remaining stages of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.