Member

The “special attention”—that phrase is in her amendment—needs to be covered by the Bill and by allowing Parliament to decide whether national security has been protected. The flexibility of our procedures here enables things to happen such as—here I am repeating myself, but I cannot repeat this often enough—meetings or consultations on Privy Council or similar terms. That would enable one of us in this House to stand up and say, “Well, I’ve had the advantage of a meeting and I’ve seen all the people who are most important at these things and have the highest level of security clearance. I can tell your Lordships that I think there will be no national security issue with putting this structure between Parliament and the headquarters of the Security Service”. I cannot begin to understand why the Government are resisting this common-sense approach to a serious issue that—again, I am repeating myself—may end up with me one day having to stand up and say, “I told you so”. That is the last thing I want to do.