Clause 4
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
6:00 pm
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
I understand my right hon. and learned Friend’s concern about breaching the privileged relationship that must exist. Nevertheless, the principal objection levelled against the use of intercept evidence is that its disclosure would reveal to our enemies——to those who are being surveyed——the methods being deployed in that surveillance by the intelligence services and others.
Assistant Commissioner Hayman dealt with that when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. He said that he was initially unsupportive of the use of intercept evidence, but that he had now moved. He felt that the other side were well aware of the methodologies, and he described the argument as lightweight. He went on to deal with the next objection to the use of intercept evidence. None of the objections is trivial. The next objection is that a tremendous logistical burden would be placed on the authorities if vast amounts of evidence had to be transcribed, but he said that if an investigation was focused and precise, that need not be the case.
All the issues will be examined in the committee of Privy Councillors, assuming that it goes ahead. Will the Minister tell us whether it will, and the reason for the delay? I do not know whether the delay is because of the change in regime, or because the Government are having difficulty accepting the suggestions from the Leader of the Opposition about the committee’s composition. It is important that we understand those concerns and receive the reassurance that the committee will be open-minded about the way in which it reviews the evidence.
In the circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect us to accept the withdrawal of the provision rather than its amendment, with all the safeguards that we could discuss today, before we know even whether the review is going ahead or on what basis.
Several hon. Members rose—