---

Terrorism Bill

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for tabling the amendment. His careful scrutiny of the Terrorism Bill has resulted in a number of very helpful changes and has made us think carefully about those amendments that we have not felt able to accept. I am not able to accept this amendment, although I appreciate the good intentions behind it. As your Lordships will know, legal privilege material is exempt from seizure in England and Wales, under Section 19(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and in Northern Ireland, under Section 21(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. These provisions have general application, including to material falling within Clause 27 of the Terrorism Bill. No equivalent provision exists with regard to Scotland, but none has been felt necessary. There is, in any case, an extra layer of protection in Scotland compared with England and Wales because the Procurator Fiscal has to apply to a sheriff for the warrant and then instruct the police on what is to be searched for. The terms of any search will be limited to items falling within the definition of terrorist publications. If a legally privileged document were to be seized in error, it would be returned by the Procurator Fiscal. Of course, as I have said, Clause 27 is relevant only to documents that could be terrorist publications. Almost as a matter of course, material subject to legal privilege could not fall within the definitions of terrorist publications. But, most importantly, if a privileged document were to be seized in error it could not be admitted in evidence as it is clear in Scottish law that communications between solicitor and client are privileged. The authority is of course a very recent one; it is McCowan v Wright (1852) 15 D 229. I am, I repeat, grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling this amendment. I hope that those who invited him to table it will be content with my full exposition on why it is unnecessary.