I will reflect on that. Let me leave the Minister with two thoughts. Prejudicial evidence could be left in if a witness was making a recording and said for example, ''I know that Michael Wills; he is a funny bloke. I know him; he is not to be trusted.'' That would clearly be prejudicial, although it does not mention previous convictions or other obvious prejudicial matters.

The second consideration is that one of the benefits of having pre-recorded evidence in court is that everybody knows what is coming up. One of the reasons that one of the most famous trials of last year did not succeed was that the key witness in the Damilola Taylor trial did not say what she was expected to say. That happens in many cases. The evidence falls short of being proof and the case is much weaker as a result. One of the benefits is that one knows what they will say because one has seen the evidence and the film beforehand. It seems that there is every advantage in having as much of that stuff as possible agreed, because it will save the court time in

not having to listen to arguments between lawyers and not having to send the jury out to argue about the evidence. However, without agreement on both sides, there could be arguments about whether all or part of the film should be included. That would undermine the advantage of the earlier process. I shall reflect on the Minister's comments, but we must ensure that we gain, in terms of improved criminal justice, without the disadvantage of triggering a whole set of other complications that would not save time in the long run. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.