Clause 8
Counter-Terrorism Bill
12:45 pm
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
How can the hon. Gentleman get the nod from people who are not in the room? Under our parliamentary terms, there is nobody here at all, save for the Clerk, the Chair and Hansard staff.
There is a similar provision, in terms of a dispute over ownership, in the 2001 Act. In that regard, the police make the determination. I am fairly comfortable with that, but I take seriously the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. I will have a look at the matter, not least in the context of getting the police out of what may be an invidious position. If the Police (Property) Act 1997 were included to dispel or determine such disputes, that might be better. For now, I am broadly comfortable with the clause as it is. As the hon. Gentleman implies, in the overwhelming number of cases, it will be absolutely clear, a matter of the record, or the dispute may be highlighted at the record stage. We can deal with it in that way. He made a good point, and I shall look at the matter further, but I am content with the clause as it is.
As I understand it, there is no provision to go beyond 48 or 96 hours for inspecting the document and dealing with all the detail, as inferred by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. It is not that there is a dispute about who to give the document back to. It is not the case that officers can say, “Oh, great, we get another period of time to explore the document further.” The clause is merely about including a provision that says that there may well be a dispute at that stage, and that it is for the police to resolve.
I will explore further the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and perhaps come back to the Committee on the matter.