---

Terrorism Bill

I did not say that the noble Baronesses based their arguments on a point of principle. Indeed, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, said expressly that she was not against the admission of intercept evidence as a matter of principle. But, as I understood the speeches of both noble Baronesses, they said that at the moment they believed that domestic intercept evidence in British courts was unacceptable. That is the context in which I use the expression ““absolutely””. I respectfully suggest to both noble Baronesses, and to others who reflected their views, that those views have to be balanced against certain important constitutional traditions. The consequence of that absolute ban is that we are unable to prosecute certain individuals in the courts who ought to be prosecuted because they breach the laws that we have on terrorist activities. We cannot prosecute many of these people because intercept evidence is inadmissible. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, shaking her head. Does she suggest that if there were no ban on intercept evidence, and that intercept evidence were introduced in every case, we would not increase the number of prosecutions that we have against individuals for terrorist offences? Is that the suggestion of the noble Baroness?