Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2007

My Lords, I beg the noble Lord’s pardon. He will know that a decision was also made in the Supreme Court on Friday. Whether the special advocate should have additional issues is a matter of some interest. Of course we will look at that and take it into consideration. It is perhaps important to acknowledge that there is an implicit acceptance that the special advocate procedure might have a certain degree of utility and support. I of course hear the issue of how prosecution is addressed, and confess disappointment at the lack of belief that the Government are energetically pursuing it. I assure your Lordships that it is by far the easier course if the evidence is there to prosecute. We have an independent Crown Prosecution Service andpolice who are undertaking that. One must of course take their advice into account and, in effect, be bound by it. The Government, as noble Lords will know,do not prosecute matters themselves. Post-charge questioning has also been raised. We are looking at it, as we are looking at a number of other issues. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, says that, notwithstanding the JCHR report only having been lodged yesterday, I should make a full exposition of the Government’s position today. I know that the noble Lord seeks to lure me into it, but I am obliged to resist that temptation, although I am certainly more than happy to give an outline of where we are. The noble Lord will know that, by the normal processes, we have a little time to consider and digest what has been said, and show the committee the respect that their report deserves before responding. On other occasions, the Government have been severely criticised—I am trying to remember whether that was by the noble Lord—for precipitously responding to a report without giving it mature and considered reflection.