---

Terrorism Bill

The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, made reference to the views of Sir Swinton Thomas. I, too, have some experience of intelligence matters, as I am sure that they know. I was the first Interception Commissioner. I, like Sir Swinton Thomas, come from what has been described as both backgrounds—the intelligence background and the criminal law system background. What I remember most vividly from my time as Interception Commissioner was, in a sense, the attitude of the intelligence services, which I fear is still their attitude. I was not even allowed to refer to the number of warrants that were issued by the Foreign Office or the Home Office. I was told that untold damage would come if those figures were mentioned and that people would be able to deduce something from those figures. I was not even allowed to refer to GCHQ: it did not exist. If I referred to GCHQ the heavens would fall in. So when I am told now that untold damage will flow from something which seems to me almost self evident, that in at least some cases intercept evidence should be admissible, I am a little cynical. Underlying all that has been said against the amendment is the thought that if some evidence cannot be admitted, and of course I accept that some evidence should not be admitted, it follows that no evidence should be admitted. That seems unacceptable and simply does not follow as a matter either of common sense or logic. We are told that we are not talking about old-fashioned telephone tapping here, but we are. That is not all we are talking about, but we are doing so in part. I still see no reason why evidence of an old-fashioned telephone tap, such as evidence of old-fashioned bugging, should not be admitted in court. In the end I come back to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. If other countries can do this, and it is accepted that in general they can even with some differences between them, I must ask the question: given the will to do it, why can we not do so? I am only comforted by what the noble Baroness said in the course of her reply, which I will read with great care. She pointed out that at this moment the Government are considering the evidential opportunities of intercept evidence. Apparently those will be available by the end of the year, and I hope she is right. For some 10 years I have been waiting for this, but always one is told that there is something at this particular moment which goes against it. Now we are waiting for something which may happen in two years’ time. I am very grateful that the Government are considering this. In the mean time, I beg leave withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.