As a relative newcomer to the House, I would love to take a great deal of time to dazzle your Lordships tonight with an erudite address on the necessity for this amendment. Sadly, from my point of view, all the points have been made, and in a far more erudite fashion than I could make them. I have nothing to say, except that I support the amendment 100 per cent.
However, I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, introduce—certainly, for the first time in my hearing—the issue of public interest immunity. I have long heard the arguments adduced against intercept evidence being used on the ground that to do so would display to the opposition, so to speak, all the methods that the Security Service and others use. I would have thought that public interest immunity would have covered the majority of that. In any case, as has just been said, criminals will continue to talk on the telephone, knowing that the product of that is used for intelligence purposes.
I will not detain your Lordships any longer; I support wholeheartedly what has been said and have supported it for the past 10 years. It is interesting to see the tide not just turning but running strongly in favour of this proposal.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dear
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c305 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:07:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382790
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382790
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382790