---

Terrorism Bill

I know that that is not the noble and learned Lord’s point. But it is remarkable that, none the less, those who had the practical experience of dealing with this agreed absolutely on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and I have been—I hope he will not take exception to this—birds of passage on this rather than dedicated professionals over a lifetime. Our view as birds of passage coincides with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—who sadly is not in his place this evening—reported to us, as my noble friend Lord Robertson said, about what Sir Swinton Thomas said about the disclosure. He said that it,"““would do untold damage ... to law enforcement and intelligence””," but—and this is the crucial point—"““substantially increase the risk to us all””.—[Official Report, 18/11/05; col. 1310.]" I accept that there may be a change that might be possible at some point in the future. But sadly, as matters stand, the priority is that of safeguarding information which we otherwise would not have. That information allows us to safeguard the security not only of those who undertake this very difficult task of intelligence gathering for us but, as importantly—more importantly—the people of this country. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, have said, ““You would not have to put that sort of evidence into court. You would do it only when it was appropriate””. But if we were not to put such evidence into court, all three noble Lords—great practitioners of their art—would say, ““Why not? Why have the Government not been able to put this evidence into court?””.