Counter-Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 142A: 142A: After Clause 97, insert the following new Clause— ““Intercept evidence (1) The Secretary of State shall, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, report on the progress of the implementation committee set up following the Privy Council Review of intercept as evidence. (2) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the report of the implementation committee, bring forward legislation to implement the recommendations of the Privy Council Review of intercept as evidence.”” The noble Baroness said: Given the hour, I shall endeavour to be brief. These are probing amendments concerning intercept evidence, but ones that I hope the Government will feel able to accept. In January this year, the report of the Privy Council review of intercept evidence, which was chaired by Sir John Chilcot, was published. When the review was announced, the Prime Minister said that he, "““favoured the principle of using intercept material as evidence in criminal cases—if—but only if—a way can be found to do so while protecting the higher interests of national security””." The review concluded that it should be possible to find a way to use intercept evidence in a manner that protected the interests of national security. It set out nine conditions to that effect, and recommended that further extensive work be done to see if those conditions could be met. The Government accepted that. At the same time the Prime Minister said: "““The Chilcot team have made it clear to me that the necessary work should be led by an implementation team within government; and that that team should move ahead comprehensively and quickly””." It is that particular point that I am interested in. The Prime Minister announced that an implementation team would be formed within Government, overseen by a steering group and advised by a cross-party group of privy counsellors to produce a detailed implementation plan. Since then the Government have not, at least on their own initiative, updated your Lordships’ House or indeed another place on the progress of that implementation team. In response to a Written Question from me in July the Minister said: "““A work programme has been drawn up and endorsed by the steering group … This is now being taken forward. Subject to the Chilcot tests being met, we would hope to bring forward legislation in due course””.—[Official Report, 22/7/08; col. WA 267.]" I suppose the question is: how due is that course? The first part of the amendment would require the Government to update your Lordships’ House and another place on the progress of the implementation team within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Indeed, I would hope that that period could be reduced. Perhaps the Government will now take it upon themselves to keep your Lordships’ House updated on the work of the implementation committee. Will the Minister place in the Library of the House a copy of the work programme referred to in his Answer? It would be helpful to know what he reckons the timetable is and when we might be likely to see the committee’s report, and it would certainly be helpful to see the guidance the committee has been given. The second part would require the Government to bring forward legislation to implement the recommendations of the Privy Council review within six months of the implementation team reporting or concluding. Obviously this is dependent on the outcome of the work of the implementation team and whether the Chilcot tests can be met—which, I trust, they can. Assuming those tests can be met, will the Minister accept this part of the amendment? That leads me to one last point. Is there really a willingness and a desire across government to use intercept evidence while protecting the interests of national security, which is our shared objective? That desire and that will seem to be a crucial prerequisite for the success of the implementing team, so I would be interested to have the noble Lord’s response to these various points. I beg to move.