Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ultimately that will be for the judicial authority to decide, but we are talking about a case in which, say, a computer has been seized and is in the possession of the police, but has not been decrypted. If the decryption comes after charge, it would be reasonable for that evidence to be put to the suspect. Similarly, if another suspect turns Queen's evidence and decides to confess, that is evidence that could not reasonably have been available to the police before. It is a question of common sense. We added that provision to our original intentions to cope with scenarios in which new evidence came to light that might have been available before, but could not have been put to the suspect for those sorts of reasons. That part of the new clause is clear. We wanted to provide for the presence of the defendant's lawyer, and the Government have accepted that in principle in the draft PACE code. It is an important safeguard that should be included in the Bill. We also want the interviews to be video-recorded, and I am pleased that the Government's amendments will provide to that effect. My right hon. Friend the Minister has explained that the exceptions that troubled me in new clause 18(2) were to cover Scotland, so I shall not press that point. New clauses 4, 7 and 8 would require the judge to review the transcript and provide that there should be no questioning after the start of the trial. The Government appear to agree with the second point, but say that that should be up to the trial judge. Our view is that such a safeguard should be included in the Bill, primarily to ensure that the rules are followed. It should not be left to the uncertainty of how a trial judge may react. For example, if a case is adjourned—