Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My Lords, I can certainly make this much short and sweet: I accept without qualification the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd. That could perhaps suffice, on the basis that this is the seventh time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has made his intercept-as-evidence proposals in the past two years, and the third time during the course of the Bill. However, it right for us to bear in mind what has been said so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd in support of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. It has been suggested that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are perhaps no longer in touch, or up to speed, with the current position. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, also has real experience in this field, but that cannot quite be said about my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd or fairly said about those who now put forward this argument on the Government’s behalf. Given the history of these debates, I can do no better than refer the House to the comprehensive and detailed response I gave on the Government’s behalf on 7 March, Hansard cols. 308-314, and again on16 March, Hansard cols. 990-995. We concluded then—as on every occasion we have considered and responded to the proposals in detail—that we are unable to utilise the material as the noble and learned Lord has sought. The proposals are not only seriously flawed but actually dangerous because, as I have explained, they provide none of the safeguards that we and others have recognised as crucial and have been working so hard to develop. Our position reflects that of the key stakeholders in the debate, which is measured and sensible. Until we find a method of delivering change in a way which protects our ability to fight terrorism and serious crime effectively, the Government cannot support a change in the law. Again, therefore, we oppose the proposals. My response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in our previous debate was tothe assertion that intercept as evidence would be particularly effective against terrorism. I gave figures from the Australian Telecommunications Interception Act 1979. The most recent, for the year ending30 June 2005, showed that intercept was not adduced in any terrorist prosecution. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, I then went on to deal with these other figures.