Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am very concerned by my noble friend Lord Harper’s amendment to extend the Bill’s definition of terminal illness to include simply the one word, “injuries”. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, may propose to ensure that those who have suffered an industrial injury are not deprived of their rightful compensation. I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said on that, but I disagreed with his general thesis that the Bill should be extended to include all other injuries, because that could take us in a rather dangerous direction.

We all know that some injuries are awfully catastrophic, relentlessly painful and leave no prospect of meaningful recovery. For those individuals, the desire for control over the timing and manner of their death is understandable and deeply felt. If the law permits assisted death for terminal illness, it is in some ways emotionally coherent to ask why a grievous and irreversible injury that will inevitably lead to death should be treated differently. I think the amendment from my noble friend and the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is born of a humane impulse: to extend compassion to a group whose suffering can be as severe as that of the terminally ill. However, compassion must be married to clarity and caution when Parliament contemplates measures that permit an irreversible outcome. Extending the definition to “injuries” raises serious legal, clinical and ethical problems. I will set out the principal flaws and risks that I see flowing from the proposed change.

First, the term “injury” is legally and clinically vague. What counts as an “injury”? Does the word encompass acute trauma, chronic sequelae, surgical complications, other serious harm, or the long-term consequences of an earlier wound? Without precise limits, the category could sweep far beyond the narrow cohort the amendment’s proponents intend. Vagueness at this threshold invites inconsistent application and litigation.

Secondly, I suggest that the proposed threshold—that the injury be “reasonably expected to result in death”—is problematic. Prognosis after severe injury is often uncertain, as it is with terminal illnesses, and can change with treatment, rehabilitation and time. Modern trauma care, reconstructive surgery and rehabilitation can alter trajectories in ways that are difficult to predict at the bedside. Using “reasonably expected to result in death” without a clear evidential standard hands clinicians wide discretion and risks premature decisions made on the basis of an evolving clinical picture.

Thirdly, there is a real danger of premature decisions in acute settings. Many catastrophic injuries occur in emergency contexts where prognosis is evolving and where immediate stabilisation, surgery or intensive rehabilitation may change outcomes. Allowing assisted death on the basis of an early prognosis risks decisions taken before full treatment options have been explored and before the patient has had the opportunity to adapt to new circumstances or to benefit from specialist rehabilitation.

I will not talk about civil law and compensation, because that has already been expertly covered by my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. My noble friend also mentioned the coronial and investigatory consequences which arise, so I will not elaborate on those.

There is a “slippery slope” argument here. Once “injuries” are included—just that one, simple word—pressure may grow to widen eligibility further to chronic disability, psychiatric consequences or non-combat trauma. Experience from other jurisdictions shows how initial expansions can lead to broader reinterpretation over time. Parliament must be wary of opening a door that cannot easily be closed.

The clinical complexity of catastrophic injury demands multidisciplinary expertise. This is not one GP giving an opinion here. Assessing such cases properly would require trauma surgeons, rehabilitation specialists, pain teams, psychiatrists and a whole range of different medical specialities. The Bill’s processes must ensure that such expertise is mandatory before any irreversible step is taken, otherwise we risk decisions being made without the full range of clinical knowledge that these cases demand.

In conclusion, if Parliament is to consider injuries within scope, it must do so with surgical precision, so to speak. It needs narrow definitions, higher evidential standards, mandatory specialist review, and explicit protections for families and compensation rights; only then can we balance mercy with the safeguards that such irreversible decisions demand. I urge the House to reflect carefully on the human impulse behind this amendment and on the legal and clinical realities that make adding it to the Bill as currently drafted—with just one word, “injuries”, as my noble friend proposes—deeply problematic.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I return us to Amendment 829, to which I put my name and which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I added my name because I share experience with the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Sandhurst. We have all seen cases in which a potentially huge claim arises under the Fatal Accidents Act which will provide a family with a payment for their dependency on the deceased for many years to come, so these are very substantial claims.

Probably all three of us have done cases for both claimants and trade unions on the one side, and for insurance companies on the other. Insurance companies are very business-like and accurate, but they are not social services organisations. One question they ask their counsel—particularly their leading counsel, their KC—in such cases is, “Are we liable to pay? Is there a point we can make, saying that it does not arise because the death was caused by some other means?” There have been many cases in which novus actus interveniens, which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, referred to earlier, has been cited as a reason for not paying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Well, there we are: we know that the noble Lord adheres to the cab rank rule.

We have heard three very cogent speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Frost, Lord Carter and Lord Taylor, about the suffering point. If we look at the discussion we have had this afternoon, we now have a clear and stark difference between assisted suicide based on suffering and assisted suicide based on choice. I agree entirely with the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Taylor: the public expect this Bill to be dealing with suffering. The public understand this Bill to be dealing with great suffering. They understand that the choice to have one’s life ended is based on great suffering, although it does not say so in the Bill. That must be clarified by the sponsor.

On the other side of the argument, we heard a very eloquent speech from my noble friend Lord Pannick, with whom I have a lot of sympathy. It is not generally known that, as he said, he has very personal experience of the issues arising from this Bill. However, the choice he is suggesting comes very close to being a choice for anyone who is seriously ill, not just someone who is seriously ill with an expectation of death within a certain limited period, whatever that happens to be. I fear that those of us who, like the noble and learned Lord the sponsor, are trying to reach the end of our process in the House of Lords on the basis that there will be a Bill, so it must be the best it can be, are not focusing on what choice really means.

We are talking about informed choice, accurate choice, if we can achieve it. I bear in mind very much what my noble friend Lady Finlay said. We are talking about a protective choice: the duty of the state to protect the citizen, even when they are making a choice. We do not, as citizens, have unlimited free choices in what we do; therefore, protection is important. It must be a morally sound choice, because that is part of our polity. We do things that are morally sound, and the Government protect us from those which may not be. It must be a choice founded on medical and scientific integrity: and there is the rub, going back to the points my noble friend Lady Finlay made about the uncertainty of the scientific and medical integrity of what is proposed.

For those reasons, I support the amendments that are focused on choice. I will mention three other amendments that I also support. The first is Amendment 76, which is not in my name but in that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, but he is not able to be here for the latter part of today’s proceedings and I agreed to mention it at his request.

Amendment 76 would do something very simple. In Clause 2(1)(b), it would add one word, “direct”, so that a person is terminally ill if, in the amended paragraph (b), their death as a direct

“consequence of that illness or disease can reasonably be expected within six months”.

It may not be the perfect word, but it is about facts and the consequences of those facts. I agree very strongly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that if there is to be a death of someone through the assistance of a third party, which is what the Bill is fundamentally about, then it cannot be just a consequence, or one of the many consequences, of the illness. It has to be the, or at least a, major consequence of the illness. That is the purpose of that amendment: there has to be a bond, as it were, between the illness or disease and the death which ensues.

The next amendment is Amendment 93. It suggests leaving out Clause 2(3) altogether as it lacks clarity as to when an assisted death would be permitted. The subsection says that

“treatment which only relieves the symptoms of an inevitably progressive illness or disease temporarily is not to be regarded as treatment which can reverse that illness”.

What if the relief that is provided for an inevitably progressive illness provides not only relief from the symptoms but extra time to the person who is suffering from the illness or disease? I argue that if it allows extra time, the individual concerned will be having a new experience: they will be seeing what can happen if their symptoms are relieved. They need to discuss with their medical advisers whether they can have that relief of their symptoms again and whether it will prolong their life if they do. The relief may cause a fundamental change of heart by the individual. Therefore, I do not believe that there should be any possibility of the six-month period being elongated in any way by that relief. Indeed, I believe that the period should start again if such relief is given so that the person concerned can have an informed choice.

The third amendment is Amendment 96, which suggests leaving out Clause 2(4), which says:

“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder (or both)”,


followed by an important further sentence that I will not read out because of time. This subsection fails to deal with the proportionality between the disease, which is the terminal illness, and the disability or mental disorder, or both, from which that person also suffers. It is a complex little conundrum, but a very important one. I believe that proportionality needs to be clarified so that the Bill can be the best possible Bill we can have.

We have much still to learn about the issues that have been under discussion. I invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to consider these carefully and present some draft amendments to us before we meet again in a week’s time.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I seek a cast-iron assurance from the Government Whip that those of us whose speeches will be delayed till next Friday are recorded by the Government and will be allowed to speak. That is all I want to say at this stage. We want an assurance that we will be allowed to speak next Friday if we delay our speeches from today.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Debate between Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Blencathra

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Deech’s amendment, I of course recognise the very considerable and determined efforts of my noble friend Lord Verdirame, who sought to persuade the Government to accept the amendment made by your Lordships’ House when the Bill was before us previously.

I have some questions for the Minister, but before I ask them, I want to thank him for his very heartfelt and obviously extremely genuine and clear statement of what he sees as the purpose of the learning centre. I totally accept what he said as being his view. My questions relate to the use of the word “inappropriate”. I take it that the use of that word reveals that the words that my noble friend Lady Deech seeks to insert in the Bill—or, indeed, the words originally inserted by your Lordships’ House—are not in any way out of scope of the Bill. It is a matter of choice, of taste even; it is not a matter of law or legislative practice.

Secondly, I invite the Minister to answer the question: does what he has said in any way bind a future Government or even bind the trustees? I suspect that it might be possible to bind the trustees, but not a future Government, but only by expensive litigation, which would be extremely distasteful on this subject, if in the future they chose to change the approach of which the Minister has spoken.

Of course the Bill is about changing planning arrangements for Victoria Tower Gardens—that is necessarily part of it—but it is slightly absurd to suggest that the Bill is just about property, given the basic purpose of having a memorial learning centre in the gardens. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there is a memorial and a learning centre, which has the one aim that people will go there—in my view, it is too small and in the wrong place, but I cannot debate that now—to learn about the Holocaust, the Shoah, what happened to Jews in the Second World War, what built up to that Holocaust and to learn the lesson. That is the only purpose of spending many millions on this project.

What is wrong with stating in the Bill the purpose of the project? Those of us who have a personal, a family, background which makes us very close to this proposal, as I have, do not want to see that limited desire for the purpose to be stated in the Bill to be rejected by the use of a vague adjective like “inappropriate”.

I have huge misgivings about why this is being put in Victoria Tower Gardens, what is being put there and whether it will be secure. I absolutely reject the notion that one should be concerned about the current Middle East situation in deciding the words that should be put in the Bill. That, in my view, is unprincipled and should not be allowed to endure.

I earnestly say to the Minister, who is much admired in this House—and I share in that admiration—that he should listen very carefully to this debate before pitching into something that is unacceptable to a very large number of people who have close contact and concerns about this proposal.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in this important amendment.

I should say first that I respect 150% the honesty and integrity of the Minister; I trust him 100%, but I do not entirely trust the Government to deliver on this. I thank not just the two Labour Peers who were on the Committee but all those Peers from all sides—the other Labour Members, Cross-Benchers, Lib Dems and Conservatives—who raised many concerns about all aspects of this memorial.

The one thing we were united on was that it had to commemorate the Holocaust—the Shoah—and antisemitism. What concerned us during the Committee was that on many occasions when we pushed the question, “Will this be purely about the Shoah?”, we did not get a categorical answer that it would be. We had many reports from other organisations suggesting that it could include Rwanda, Pol Pot, Darfur and others. Those were horrible genocides, I know that, and we have seen some horrible genocides around the world since the end of the Second World War, but they are not the Shoah, and the memorial should be purely about that.

The noble Lord was right: it would be perfectly in scope of the Bill to insert the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. To reject that on the grounds that it would be inappropriate is rather flimsy. When I was chair of the Delegated Powers Committee and we saw the Government taking extraordinary powers to pass regulations, the Government always said, “Ah yes, but we don’t intend to use them”. The intention is irrelevant; it is what is in statute law that counts. Putting this into statute law would guarantee that it was enforced.

The Minister said, if I remember correctly, “Oh, people could challenge any requirement in a statute”. If people can challenge, with difficulty and judicial review, words in a primary Act of Parliament, then how much easier would it be to challenge a letter from the Government to the administrators or the trustees? That seems ripe for judicial review, whereas a statutory requirement would not be.

That is all I wanted to say. As I say, I entirely trust the Minister and his noble intentions, but I do not trust the Government to be able to deliver on this, either through negligence or a deliberate act on their part. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is absolutely right in seeking to put this in the Bill.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Debate between Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

We will deal with this issue more extensively in the third group of amendments, but perhaps it would help to quote from page 11 of the National Audit Office report, which sets out all the organisations in charge of trying to run this project. It says that the Treasury is:

“Responsible for allocating funding for the programme. Treasury approval is required at different stages as per the Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan … As a condition of the funding, the Department must seek further Treasury approval if the programme is forecast to use more than half of the approved contingency”.


Another box also says that the Cabinet Office must give approval as well.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

It is the Baldwin concordat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The noble Lord mentioned the shoebox. Is he aware that, if I remember correctly, the Holocaust Commission wanted a campus of between 5,000 square meters and 10,000 square metres, but in an Answer from my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on 12 April to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the department said that the Adjaye bunker would be just 3,258 square metres? The Answer went on to reveal that 48% of it will be completely unusable, made out of risers, ducts and unusable space, leaving a mere 1,722 square metres for the learning centre. That is about four or five times the size of this Room—some campus, is it not?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I absolutely agree and I will try to finish within the 10 minutes, and I believe that there is going to be a vote in a moment anyway. I believe that if the Minister were to listen to the witnesses available in your Lordships’ House, we would have a different conclusion. I promise the Minister, not because I know it but because I know it in my bones, that if we were allowed to build a Holocaust learning centre elsewhere, with the subvention that is already promised by the Government, we would have no difficulty in raising the money for an establishment that would rival the great POLIN museum that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned.

I finish by saying that if the noble Baroness will allow me to say so, and she knows that I love her dearly, I thought she was a little unkind to some members of the Committee. I do not believe that anybody is ill motivated about this in any way. I believe that, unfortunately, they are just wrong and should recognise it.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Blencathra

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra [V]]

My Lords, despite his eloquence, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, since I am opposed to Amendment 15.

The Government have repeatedly underlined the point that this is emergency and temporary legislation. It should not be used as a Trojan horse to ban smoking outdoors for the anti-smoking fanatics. Even the Labour Party’s amendment is not as extreme as that and does permit for some consultation. Initially, I did not understand the ambivalence but, as my noble friend Lord Balfe reminded us in the first group of amendments, it is just indulging in rhetoric. Labour says it cannot support the government amendment, but it seems it will not vote against it. It says that they are holding the Government to account and pressing them hard, but it is not voting against it. This is the sort of irresolute, sitting-on-the-fence opposition I would have loved as a former Whip.

At the moment, smokers use outside tables—perfectly correctly, since they are banned from being inside. There is no danger whatever from passive smoking outside. Those who confess to being worried about the public health impacts of smoke inhalation should ban toxic diesel buses, which are far more dangerous than someone having a fag at a pavement table. There are legitimate arguments for and against smoking outside but, if extremists and ASH want to bring forward a ban on smoking outdoors, there must be proper consultation, proper debate and subsequent legislation—not this sneaky back-door attempt.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I mean what I say when I say that it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He always speaks in primary colours, so we know exactly what he means. But on this occasion, I am afraid that he and I are, not for the first time, going to disagree with convivial cordiality.

I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has made a considerable effort to come towards those of us who support Amendment 15. I am afraid that I am always suspicious of clauses in statutes—especially for temporary legislation—which are peppered with the word “reasonable”. There are so many “reasonable”s in these amendments that it gives a clue to what is in reality a key to confusion. I believe that Amendment 15, moved so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and supported by those who signed the amendment with her, does not commit any terrible act which would put any economic interest—including that of the tobacco industry—at any real disadvantage. We need to bear in mind that it applies not to existing open-air spaces outside pubs and restaurants, because they are not newly licensed premises under the Bill, but to licensed sites.

Why is it so important? We are dealing with a double problem: not merely health damage caused by the exhalation of tobacco smoke but the real danger of the exhalation of coronavirus with that tobacco smoke, if the people smoking are suffering from coronavirus or have the necessary symptoms. The draft guidance makes it clear that many of the licensed venues will effectively be largely enclosed and partly covered—[Inaudible].

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Blencathra

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra]

The noble Lord makes a very good point about the sunset clause, which might reassure many of us in this House and perhaps in the Commons, but I do not think it would reassure the masses outside, who are concerned about the so-called snoopers’ charter coming back. If a sunset clause introduced all the flawed measures—and they were flawed in nearly every clause of the draft Communications Data Bill—some would be concerned that that sunset clause would be added to a year later, amended and put in again and again. Once those flawed measures were on the statute book, I would have little confidence that any Government would wish to remove them. After a huge battle, when they had got them on to the statute book, why would they go back and rewrite it? Perhaps I am being slightly too cynical there.

We would do enormous damage to the cause of getting a proper rewritten RIPA if we went ahead with these new clauses today. Of course my noble friend is right: I would be subject to enormous criticism if, by opposing these amendments today, there were some terrorist incident in the next 18 months that could have been prevented if the Security Service had access to some Facebook pages that my noble friends’ amendments would have facilitated. However, I am more concerned about the long-term damage. If we go off at half cock with these clauses today, we may create a climate whereby it may not be possible to bring in a proper, rewritten RIPA in a few years’ time. Everyone agrees that RIPA needs to be rewritten; it is long past its sell-by date. We need a really good new Bill, and these new clauses should not be part of it—with all due respect to my noble friend.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow such a cogent and interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who has immense knowledge of this area of work as a result of his chairmanship of his committee, which produced an excellent report. I will return to what he said presently.

I do not know how many of your Lordships have had the opportunity to watch the remarkable German film, “The Lives of Others”, which depicted the dangers that the Stasi brought on its whole country of a society bedevilled by surveillance at every level. It is a lesson to us all. Surely we all start from the position that any unnecessary surveillance and invasion of privacy by surveillance, interception of communications or looking at metadata that illegitimately affects the rights of individuals must be avoided. That is certainly the position that I start from. I think that almost everybody in this House starts from that position, whether or not they agree with these amendments, which I support.

The fact is that there is a gap in the capacity of the relevant services at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, with his great experience of the police, illustrated very clearly. That gap has not been filled. I am not sure why it has not been filled, or why the Government are so reluctant either to take on board these amendments or to produce an alternative. I hope that it is not party politics. My plea to your Lordships, whether they belong to a political party or not, is not to allow party political considerations to interfere in an issue about national security, which surely must be judged only on the merits and without political prejudices taking part. That is certainly my approach to this matter.

We heard during the course of the very helpful opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord King, that for the country to be safe, a very limited number of relevant authorities, for a limited purpose, should have these powers. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as he so often does, put his finger on an important aspect of the amendments: we are not asking that these amendments should endure for ever; we are simply filling a gap that exists until the sunset clause comes into effect. That gives plenty of time after the election in May for both Houses of Parliament to reconsider these matters and to produce what may be more enduring provisions.

There is one peculiarity about what has happened in recent months. In July in this House, both the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, referred to the fact that the Home Office—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said this earlier—had been very co-operative in considering and dealing with his committee’s criticisms of existing proposed legislation. As he reminded us just now, and as he said in the House in July, it had accepted 95% of the changes recommended by his committee. The noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Armstrong, told us at that time that they had seen a draft Bill, and they put that on the record. Nobody else has seen that draft Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said at that time that he had seen a draft Bill that by no stretch of the imagination could be called a snoopers’ charter. Those were his words. I see him nodding in agreement.

It is my view that the Government should now produce that draft, amended or replacement Bill so that we can see what was offered, and so that if they object to the provisions in these amendments we can come back next week and table amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others have agreed are not a snoopers’ charter, meet requirements and fill the gap of which I have just spoken. Indeed, if that draft Bill was made available, and we were able to consider it, and possibly table amendments by next Monday, there may be no need to reconsider matters after the general election, although, speaking for myself, I would still prefer to see a sunset clause requiring an affirmative resolution of both Houses so that we could be sure that what had been enacted was fit for purpose and was safe.

I close by, I regret, repeating something which I said a few days ago in your Lordships’ House, because I think it merits being repeated. I absolutely congratulate whoever thought up the term “snoopers’ charter”. Rather like the term “poll tax”, it was a piece of branding genius. Unfortunately, unlike the term “poll tax”, it does not remotely accurately describe what was being suggested. It presupposes malignancy in that distinguished service that has served this country so well and that was recently headed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who I am glad to see in his place opposite. The term “snoopers’ charter” implies that the noble Lord would rub his hands in the morning and say, “Now let’s have a look at Alex Carlile’s shopping list and credit card purchases—oh, and who he’s been calling and what internet sites he has been on, because it would be fun to know what he’s been up to”. That is simply a caricature of what the Security Service and the police do.

Today, some figures have been published on the number of people who have gone to take part in violent jihad in Syria in recent months, country by country. I will not trouble the House with the full table, but it is alarming because it shows that there are other countries in the European Union and elsewhere from which violent jihadists have gone in greater proportionate numbers than even the United Kingdom—the Netherlands is one example—although the United Kingdom figures are alarming. When the successor to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, Mr Parker, who has given us his warning on these matters, gets up in the morning, they are the kinds of people he is concerned about. They are the kinds of people to whom attention is given in attempting to ascertain the metadata and, as a result, their movements.

Your Lordships will recall that as a result of the Paris incident, it was revealed, as the newspapers rather naively put it, that the wives of the two brothers involved had communicated about 50 times with one another on their mobile phones. I doubt very much that it was the wives who had been communicating, although certainly their mobile phones had been used for the purpose of communication. I venture to suggest that if that information, given the history of those two brothers, had come to the attention of the Security Service here and had been acted upon—and, of course, those are two important ifs; I do not mean to criticise the French services, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Evans, would confirm are generally very competent indeed—it is just the sort of information that could have prevented an attack in the United Kingdom. However, there is a gap and it needs to be filled.

I close by saying to the Minister that if he is not prepared to accept these actually rather restricted amendments, which have been offered in good will to try to protect the national security of this country and the safety of its citizens, let him now tell us what alternative the Government have agreed to so that we can now deal with this issue once and for all, without darning the sock.