Interception of Communications (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I spoke to Sir Swinton Thomas after—I stress that—he spoke to my noble and learned friend and he is happy for the substance of what he said to be made known to the House. In fact, I believe I have a duty to the House to inform it about what his views are, which my noble and learned friend has refrained from doing. Sir Swinton is the current Interception Commissioner and has made his views fully and strongly known to both of us. I propose to continue from where I was stopped. Sir Swinton went on to inform us that whereas it is accepted that it is now virtually impossible to prove that ““A”” is talking to ““B”” on a mobile phone, which is what terrorists and criminals use, with IP interception itself will become much more difficult and proof impossible. He told both of us that that renders the Bill sterile. With regard to the extract from his annual report, he again informed us of the nature of the terms of the statement in paragraph 17, which has been read out. He also said that the bland words he used in the statement represent the results of lengthy and painstaking investigations and inquiries, particularly by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. We were both informed that the unanimous conclusion was that the abolition of the exclusion rules would be damaging to their work and, even if the material could be proved, its evidential value would be minimal, if it had any. He added that his view is that the disclosure that is now sought would do untold damage, especially to law enforcement and intelligence, and substantially increase the risk to us all. I therefore deemed it essential that this House should know of the harm that this information might result in if it was disclosed. For that reason, and with distinct sadness, I have risen to resist what my noble and learned friend seeks to do.