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

I, too, want to start my comments by thanking the Minister for what he has taken on board from the concerns that were expressed in Committee. I am sure that other Opposition Members have had the experience of serving in Committee when a range of amendments have been tabled, many of which are perfectly straightforward, and none has been taken on board. Here, we have an example of some having been taken on board and the Government coming back with their own proposals. From that point of view, it has been a positive experience. It is clear that there is almost universal consensus that post-charge questioning is necessary, but there is also almost universal consensus on the limits of its effectiveness. The Minister has said that it is not a silver bullet, and all Members in the House and who were in Committee would agree, because terrorists are inclined not to respond to questions. Post-charge questioning should be part of the panoply of tools or measures that are at our disposal to tackle terrorist cases. I am pleased to say that, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, the Liberal Democrats can support all the amendments, from the proposals tabled by the Government to those tabled by the official Opposition and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government's proposals create a system of safeguards over post-charge questioning, including judicial oversight by justices of the peace after the first 24 hours and video recording of the interview. The Conservatives have tabled a group of amendments that involve an application to the Crown court, which can then judge the legitimacy of the case and set out conditions. The Minister described those amendments as creating a burden, but there are clearly cases where it is worth creating a burden because a contribution is made. Members often bemoan the number of forms that the police have to complete, but there are some good reasons why some of those forms are completed. They create a burden, but they make a positive contribution. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) eloquently set out why, if there were a burden, it would be strictly limited.