Counter-Terrorism Bill

I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that it is called winding up, the aim of which is to refer to all the contributions that have gone before. Before I come to what, given the tenor of the debate, is fully accepted by all as the most serious matter—pre-charge detention—let me dwell on some of the other issues. As other hon. Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), have suggested, the inquest and inquiry clauses are worthy of greater scrutiny. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) will take the issue seriously in Committee because I have some sympathy with the thrust of what he suggested. The issue needs to be explored. Other contributors have, variously, either invoked post-charge questioning as the panacea or silver bullet—it most certainly is not—or had concerns about the very architecture around which post-charge questioning will happen. At the moment, the inference from the clauses is that PACE codes will secure the oversight. However, I say again that we want to get it right, so let us explore the issue further in Committee. I have some sympathy with the worries and concerns that oversight should not simply be an elongation of the rarely used principles of post-charge questioning already in the PACE codes.