Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My Lords, the objections raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, are remarkable if one looks at the schedule that goes with the proposed new clause. Under that schedule, an application to introduce intercept evidence can be made only bythe prosecution. It seems a little unlikely that the prosecution will try to introduce evidence that the security services say must not be introduced, but let us assume that the prosecution does so. The Secretary of State would have to apply to the court for the evidence to be withheld. Obviously, the successorof the noble Baroness, Lady Park, would, in certain suitable circumstances, ensure that such an application was made. Will the court really overrule the Secretary of State when he says that the evidence, if admitted, would damage our security services? With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, their objections are fanciful. I cannot understand, and the noble Baroness has given no example, how this procedure is all right in other countries, particularly America, but not here. She can hardly say that we have greater trouble with al-Qaeda than the Americans do. If the Americans, Australians, Canadians and others can manage, it is totally possible for us to do so. In spite of the powerful character of the objectors, therefore, I hope that the House will recognise that they have not advanced any argument other than to say, ““It never happened in my day and it ought not to happen now””. Everyone accepts that the amendment would solve a lot of the problems with the Bill. Most of the justification for making these strange orders is, ““We can prove it but we cannot prove it in court””. If we allow the evidence to be produced in court, that problem will not arise.