This report considers the respective roles of ministers, Parliament and the judiciary in the arrangements proposed specifically in the provisions of parts 2 (detention and questioning of terrorist suspects) and 6 (inquests and inquiries) of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Whilst the Committee does not criticise the process by which the Bill’s proposals have been developed they do have concerns relating to the outcomes that have been reached. They look at the basic constitutional questions of: what should the maximum permitted time of pre-charge detention be (given the Bill’s proposed increase to 42 days)?; and who should be empowered to authorise such detention?The Committee notes that the European Convention on Human Rights requires that those arrested shall be informed ‘promptly’ of the reasons for their arrest and of any charge against them, and then be brought ‘promptly’ before a judge (article 5 (2) (3)). They advise that if the House approves the time limit set out in the Bill, it will do so in the knowledge that the question of compliance with Convention rights is likely to be heard and ultimately determined by the Courts. They also feel that the decision making scheme set out in the Bill is too elaborate and complex.The Committee continues with examining the Bill’s part 6 proposals to permit the Secretary of State to issue certificates requiring an inquest to be hld without a jury and proposed arrangements for appointing and removing ‘specially appointed coroners’. They state that, in their view, Ministers should be required to apply to the court for a non-jury inquest, rather than being empowered to determine without any judicial oversight that there will be such an inquest.