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

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, has said it all—at least, I thought that she had until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I sit in the same corner as them. Although I greatly respect the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, for the brilliance with which he conducted the Gulf War inquiry, I cannot support the Bill. I am not alone in resisting any proposal that could risk compromising intelligence collection and its methods. The Privy Counsellor Review Committee, which is clearly concerned that intercepted communications can never, at present, be used evidentially, recognises:"““It is important that making intelligence available for prosecution does not compromise the collection and use of intercepted communications for intelligence services””." The Interception of Communications Commissioner, who has been widely cited—including by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—the right honourable Sir Swinton Thomas, stated categorically in his 2004 report that he is,"““left in no doubt that the balance falls firmly against any change in the present law and that any amendment . . . would, overall, be damaging to the work of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies””." He recognised that,"““interception played a vital part in the battle against terrorism and serious crime, and one that would not have been achieved by other means””." We cannot afford to lose that means. Further, both the commissioner and the Privy Council believe that either the disclosure of the number of the warrants issued in the interests of national security would be against the national interest if it helped agencies hostile to the state to estimate even approximately the extent of the interception of communications for security purposes. Sir Swinton Thomas agreed with his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, that disclosures in that area would be prejudicial to the public interest. If they are as worried as that about disclosing only the number of warrants and the extent of the coverage, how much more must we be concerned about the content? The Intelligence Services Commissioner in his 2004 report, is equally opposed to public disclosure of the number of warrants issued to the agencies because that would,"““assist the operation of those hostile to the state if they were able to estimate even approximately the extent of the work of the Security Service, SIS and GCHQ in fulfilling their functions””." We already have several well informed and serious bodies studying the issue that are able to make a just balance. Of course there is a degree of concern that probably motivates the wish of the noble and learned Lord to make that delicate and hard-won material evidential for the sake of the human rights of the defendant. Sir Swinton Thomas cites the Investigatory Powers Tribunal as follows:"““Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence . . . There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as it is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security . . . or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others””." Let us remember that there are a number of issues involving human rights, not only the human rights of the man or woman on trial.