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

I agree, but unless it is excluded, one cannot say for sure that it will not happen. The PACE code seems to be heading in that direction. Let us suppose that a trial were adjourned for some reason. The trial judge could allow questioning to go ahead because there was time for it. The only way to prevent that for sure and ensure that the rules are kept is to include a provision in the Bill. That is why we also want to provide that the judge should review the transcript of the examination of the suspect, because the judge can then check whether the parameters laid down when he or she gave consent have been properly followed. That would effectively mean that the whole process would be subject to judicial supervision, which is what Lord Carlile and the eminent professors seem to recommend and with which we agree. We should not leave those fundamental and essential safeguards to the uncertainties and vagaries of a trial judge, who may react in a different way. To conclude, we certainly welcome the introduction of post-charge questioning. There is a considerable measure of agreement about the safeguards. We need in particular proper judicial authorisation and fair maximum time limits to avoid oppressive questioning and the risk of no fair trial, which would be the case if new clause 4 were not accepted.