We need your support to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can continue to hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Clause 4

Part of Counter-Terrorism Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 12:00 pm on 29th April 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office 12:00 pm, 29th April 2008

Of course I agree, having just made that point myself when I was intervened upon at length. In that context, it is entirely reasonable, as the element that we seek to amend suggests, that the constable must provide the copy

“within a reasonable time from the making of the request.”

Again, I think that that provision is entirely appropriate. As the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield was in part suggesting, I would have thought that good police practice would be that that copy of a record of the seizure would be forthcoming as quickly as possible. Given the nature of the timing, I would absolutely resist a provision that it be provided within six hours because I do not want—this is important for the individual concerned—a situation where six hours becomes the norm, when the copy of the record of seizure might be very important for the individual to carry on his normal, lawful business. I  would resist that proposed change, because the notion that provision within six hours may well become the norm rather than contemporaneous or more instant, as the clause suggests, is more than appropriate.

We will accept amendment No. 81, as it is entirely reasonable. However, I ask the Committee to resist amendment No. 58 and all that it suggests about the copy of the record and not the copy of the document.