---

Terrorism Bill

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, said, this issue was discussed in the interesting Second Reading debate on the Bill proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on the admissibility of intercept evidence. At that point, those who argued against the noble and learned Lord did so very much on the basis of how much intercept evidence has changed over the past few years. The point of my own experience has been that the intercept evidence that we are arguing about is not the admissibility of telephone tapping or the other means of listening in on conversations that might be described as ““bugging”” in the broadest sense. We are talking about the very difficult intercept evidence that has been gathered by those who work, often outside this country, often after very lengthy periods of familiarity in very hostile circumstances. The way in which that evidence is collected is extremely complex, lengthy and painstaking, and often those who gather it would be put at enormous and unacceptable risk of detection were it to be exposed. If that sort of evidence is made admissible, the people who have done that extraordinarily courageous work for us are put at very great risk—certainly of exposure and possibly of reprisal. It also puts that source of intelligence beyond our reach in future. When this was discussed on Friday 18 November, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale and Lady Park of Monmouth, who are both experienced practitioners and come from very different political traditions, had a remarkable coincidence of view on this very point. It is nothing to do with party politics or whether you believe in human rights.