Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Andy Hayman concluded by saying that the fact that we did not allow the use of intercept evidence made us"““look a little bit foolish that everywhere else in the world was using it to good effect.””" His views on the matter were quite clear. As I mentioned, almost every other major country uses intercept evidence to some effect. In the United States, it is used in nearly all counter-terrorism and organised crime prosecutions and is often the decisive evidence in relation to prosecutions. The Government have not had a coherent view on this issue. In his statement on control orders last month, the Home Secretary said that the Government had been looking at allowing the use of intercept evidence in court for a considerable time but that"““both Opposition Front-Bench teams know that the disadvantages so far outweigh the advantages that what they are suggesting meets with complete opposition from our security and intelligence services. They are the front line, charged with the national security of this country. Consistently, time after time, they have made it clear…that they are opposed to that approach.””—[Official Report, 24 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 1432.]" The Chancellor, however, has recently briefed journalists that he favours the use of intercept evidence. Judging by the Minister’s comments—and his remarks from a sedentary position—I wonder how open minded the review that the Prime Minister has conceded following the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) will be about the use of such evidence. Therefore, we must examine the premise of the review. We are grateful that the Government have now accepted the proposal on Privy Council terms. The committee of Privy Councillors that looks at this issue should be a cross-party committee and it should be balanced—there should be no overall control by one party. No one serving in Government should be on the committee; its members should be Privy Councillors with expertise in the issue. The committee must report well before November, in advance of First Reading of the new counter-terrorism Bill, to allow time for provisions to be incorporated in it, if necessary. Crucially, there must be a presumption that the Government will accept the recommendations the committee makes once it has examined all the evidence and arguments and taken account of any concerns that those in the intelligence services might continue to have. If the committee finds that the use of intercept evidence is necessary, the Government should accept that. We want to be sure that the Prime Minister, having accepted the proposal, will set up a committee that looks objectively at the evidence. That is why I view the Minister’s remarks and the Home Secretary’s previous remarks on this issue with some concern. In view of that, we should not give up the provisions on the use of intercept evidence that Lord Lloyd added in Committee. We need at the very least to have reassurances on how the Privy Council examination of the use of intercept evidence will be conducted and its terms of reference before we can allow the view of the other place to be overturned.