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

As I understand it, “describe the document” is an appropriate way of laying out the record, because that would cover, as we have suggested throughout our debate, a multitude of sins. “Describe the document” would cover a description of the document sufficient so that both the police officer who seized it and the person whose document it was recognise that that is the document that they are talking about, which is entirely reasonable. When seen in the context of all the other elements of the record, it is an appropriate record of the withdrawal of the document.

Remember too that the measure deals with the removal of a document for a short period of time to establish whether there is indeed reasonable suspicion to seize it lawfully. In that context, this is an appropriate record. I would resist any attempt to restrain, codify or prescribe what the description should be, but it should clearly be a description that both the police officer and the person whose document it is understand and recognise as an appropriate description of the document.

Where are we now?