---

Terrorism Bill

As I understand it, that is because there have been no such cases where the intelligence agencies have been able to so disaggregate the facts that substantive matters of evidence have been able to be put before the court in that way. That is the position. I assure the noble Lord that this is not anyone trying to be obdurate or difficult. Our clear preference, whenever possible, is always to be able to prosecute, always to have substantive evidence put before a court and always to get a conviction, if a conviction is possible, merited and just. That is always the preferred course. But, as I have said on a number of occasions, we simply do not have the means of putting intercept evidence before a court in a way that enables us to do it safely. We have taken the view, which it is not a view that we have come to easily, that it is not appropriate to admit that evidence. For those reasons—all the reasons given by everyone who has spoken against it—that we remain opposed to its inclusion.