Counter-Terrorism Bill

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I am glad to hear that the design phase is coming to an end. It will be helpful to be able to see the work programme that he has agreed can be put in the Library. I hope that the further phase of work on what I would perhaps regard as the operational regime does not take too long. Any indication that the Minister can give us regarding the timetable for that would be helpful, as that is the key to bringing intercept evidence into use in court. We entirely agree with the Government about the need for care, but the admissibility of intercept evidence would help the legal process. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights has noted, its absence is, "““the single biggest obstacle to bringing more prosecutions for terrorism””." The Crown Prosecution Service is clear that the use of intercept evidence would lead to more guilty pleas and fewer abortive trials. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions was told in Australia that prosecutors who do not use intercept evidence in terrorist cases are not being serious. I would not put it in quite those terms, but the point itself is serious, as this can assist the judicial process. The situation in this country is the more anomalous, given that intercept evidence is admissible in organised crime cases. Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and look forward to receiving further information on the timetable. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to.