Counter-Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I am not suggesting—I am sure that no one really imagines that I am—that the judge in these circumstances should sit as an examining magistrate. Nor do I suggest, and nor would the effect of this amendment be, that the judge could spell out what the questions should be. When my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan says that there is perhaps not a great deal of difference between what I am contending and what the noble Lord is accepting, I venture to disagree. There is a great deal of difference. It seems to me still to be essentially important that the judge should indicate the areas—I am perfectly happy with that word—in which the further questioning should take place. I thought that the word ““matters””, the original word and clearly intended to cover areas proposed by the Government, was a sensible word. I still think that ““matters”” is a sufficiently sensible word, but it means areas rather than individual questions. On that basis, I should like to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether Amendment No. 7, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 130. Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 7, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, disagreed to accordingly. [Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, not moved.] On Question, Amendment No. 6 agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 9 to 14 not moved.] Clause 24 [Post-charge questioning: Scotland]: