David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

Clause 13 allows intercept evidence to be used in coroners’ courts, although only in certified cases. I welcome the breakthrough that the clause represents in principle—it is the first time that intercept evidence  has been made admissible in an English court. It would be helpful in other debates, such as those on 42-day detention or control orders, if intercept evidence were to be made admissible. The difficulties that are said to exist before putting intercept evidence into court seem to me to be greatly exaggerated. Other countries manage to do it, not without some difficulties but effectively none the less. I think that evidence from bugging is allowed, but intercept evidence is not. It is slightly odd that civil liberties should be restricted to protect evidence that the security services seem to have no intention of ever using.

Given the vote on clause 11, I am concerned that clause 13 will link the acceptability of intercept evidence with the absence of a jury. Although I welcome the clause in principle, I want to put it on the record that I do not accept that link. I will not be bound in any future debates to accept the point that intercept evidence could be used further only in the absence of a jury. That does not follow.