 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Counter-terrorism |
Counter-terrorism |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Mick Hillyard, Committee
Clerks
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 29 April 2008(Morning)[Mr. Edward O’H ara in the Chair]Counter-Terrorism BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HouseCTB 05
Coroners’ Society of England and Wales —
Supplementary
10.30
am
The
Chairman:
Following last week’s oral evidence
sessions under my co-Chairman, Mr. Bercow, I welcome Members
back from the opulent surroundings of Portcullis House to the more
familiar territory of the Committee corridor and the more familiar
business of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. I trust that we shall
apply ourselves to that task with the required discipline. I have a
couple of announcements to make before we start. Members should feel
free to remove their coats, as it is important that you all feel
comfortable. I remind the Committee that money resolutions and Ways and
Means resolutions relating to the Bill are available in the room for
Members.
Clause 1Power
to remove documents for
examination
Mr.
Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I beg to move
amendment No. 51, in
clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 6 to
11.
May I welcome you
to the Chair, Mr. O’Hara? As far as acoustics are
concerned, the fact that it is much easier to hear people in this room
than it was in Portcullis House says something for our Victorian
forebears, so it is rather pleasant to find ourselves here, even
without the modern facilities.
Clause 1 will give a power to
remove documents for examination. I say to the Minister at the outset
that I have tabled some amendments to clause 1, all of which are
probing and, I hope, will provide the Committee with an opportunity of
seeing and understanding what the Government intend to do in that
area.
It is a
rather long-established principle of English law that the right to the
privacy of one’s papers is sacrosanct, except where statute or
the necessities of bringing prosecution give the state power to seize
documents. That was established long ago in the case of Entick
v. Carrington, which is the sort of case that one learns about
as a law student and is thereafter permanently engraved on one’s
memory. As I recollect, that case involved a Secretary of State, Lord
Halifax, who seized an individual’s papers. The courts came down
fairly strongly against him in the 18th century, arguing that papers
were some of the most important things that an individual could
possess. In a country that is governed by the rule of law and where
documents may be of
importance for legal reasons if for nothing else, it is easy to see
where that principle originated. It is also enshrined in the European
convention on human rights, certainly in respect of the clauses that
outline the rights to property and privacy with regard to private
documents.
When
trying to seize material that is linked to terrorism and successfully
bring prosecution, I fully accept that that rule needs to be tempered.
The nub of the matter on which I seek the Minister’s
clarification is this: what extra powers do the Government seek other
than those in ordinary criminal law, which already gives the police the
power, under a warrant, to seize documents that might be connected with
the commission of an offence? It seems that the Government’s
intention in clause 1 is, in those areas where it might be necessary,
to seize documents to ascertain whether they are of a kind that can
then be seized for the purposes of prosecution.
When one looks at subsection
(1) in that regard, one will see that three of the provisions cited are
linked to the Terrorism Act 2000. I am sure that the Minister will
correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the 2000
Act already made provision for that type of preliminary seizure for
ascertaining whether a document was linked to terrorism. In those
circumstances, the first probing amendment that I tabled for the
Committee’s consideration questions whether it is necessary for
those three provisions to be covered. Can the Minister explain that a
little? I dare say that he may, at the same time, take the opportunity
to explain more about the general thrust of the clause, and we can then
go on to consider the amendments that we have tabled on other aspects
of the
clause.
The
Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing
(Mr. Tony McNulty):
I join the hon. and learned
Gentleman in welcoming you, Mr. O’Hara, to the
Committee. I also concur with him in welcoming everybody to this room
rather than to the dainty little room in which we had the public
evidence sessions. It is a pleasure to stand to speak. With your
indulgence, Mr. O’Hara, we are moving close—as
I promised last week—to a session for the Committee on intercept
as evidence and coroners. I think that it will be on 7 May, which will
hopefully be convenient for all Members who wish to avail of
it.
I entirely agree
with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s opening remarks about the
principle of law and the privacy of papers. I hope that we will show
that that concern is reflected in this set of clauses. I also hope that
we will show that the reason for this and other clauses, which is not
simply to enhance or grow the police’s capability to seize
papers, but to seize papers to then ascertain whether the police have
the right to seize them, is the correct focus. However, it might be
useful—as he implied—if I talk a little about the clause
and then come back to the amendment, because that will put matters into
context, with a commensurate reduction in my ramblings on a clause
stand part
debate.
Clause 1
introduces a power for the police to remove a document for examination
to ascertain whether that document can appropriately be seized. The
police can remove the document to another place, such as a police
station, and retain it there until the examination is complete. The
power is limited to documents found during a terrorism-related search.
The power gives the
police lawful authority to take a document away for examination, to
determine whether it can be seized. Hon. Members can work out for
themselves examples of where that might be appropriate.
The police can already seize a
document found during a search where they have reasonable grounds for
believing that the item is authorised by the search power or warrant,
has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence, or is
evidence in relation to an offence. The power is to cover situations
where no reasonable grounds exist. For example, where the police have
conducted a search and find a document in a foreign language, they will
not have been able to demonstrate fairly that they have reasonable
grounds for believing that it might be
evidence.
The power
was first suggested by the Northern Ireland Office following the
expiry, in July 2007, of a similar power that applied only to Northern
Ireland and allowed the removal of a document to ascertain whether it
contained information useful to terrorists. The police support the new
power being extended to the whole of the United Kingdom and to allow
examination of whether a document is evidence of wider terrorist
purposes. People will understand that clause 1 establishes that
principle, and elements of the clause detail the time frame for
ascertaining whether seizure is appropriate, as do other clauses that
we will discuss in relation to other
amendments.
The point
of the power is therefore to allow the removal of documents to
ascertain whether the threshold for seizure—usually reasonable
grounds for belief—is met. If the police found a document in a
foreign language, they would need to remove it for translation before
an officer could form the reasonable grounds for belief that the
document was a terrorist publication, for example, and seizure of the
document could take place. Without that power, the police may not be
able to take possession of documents that might amount to significant
evidence of a terrorist threat. The power may be used only when a
search is carried out under the terrorism-related search powers of
clause 1(1). Those allow for documents to be seized, but apply
thresholds for such
seizures.
The
amendment would limit the power to documents found under the searches
listed in clause 1(1)(d) to (f): searches for evidence of the
commission of weapons-related offences; searches in relation to control
orders; and searches for terrorist publications. The searches under
paragraphs (a) and (c), which would be removed by the amendment, fall
into two categories. The first category includes section 43(1) and (2)
of the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows for the search of suspected
terrorists before and on arrest. Both searches allow for seizure on
reasonable suspicion. It is important that the power to remove
documents is attached to those powers, for the reason already given
that the current threshold for seizure might not be met for a document,
the initial nature of which is entirely
obscure.
The second
category includes the search power under paragraphs 1, 3, 11, 15, 28
and 31 of schedule 5 to the 2000 Act, which allows for searches that
take place as part of a terrorist investigation. Other than the powers
under paragraphs 28 and 31, which relate to Scotland, those powers are
covered under part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act
2001.
David
T.C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): The Minister is making a
compelling case. However, if the power to remove documents that might
be written in a foreign language is necessary to investigate terrorist
offences, will the same power not be necessary to investigate organised
crime, which is also international? Why is there a disparity between
the proposals for terrorism legislation and the current legislation for
organised
crime?
Mr.
McNulty:
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill relates
only to terrorism. He makes a fair point, and I am not sure whether the
matter was covered in the serious and organised crime legislation from
last year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and
Frome says from a sedentary position that it was not covered, but I
will double-check
that.
The
power under the clause is needed in addition to existing powers because
effectively we are lowering the threshold for removing documents for
examination. That will allow the removal of documents not only that the
constable is authorised to search, but that might turn out to be
evidence of terrorist involvement. As hon. Members know, we are
lowering the threshold only momentarily. We will come on to discuss the
timing. It is important not only that the clause stands part, but that
it stands without the amendment. I hope that I have explained broadly
the new power to remove documents, why I think the clause should
prevail and why the amendment should
not.
The
Chairman:
Before I call the hon. and learned Member for
Beaconsfield to reply, I judge that in responding to the amendment the
Minister in effect gave a clause stand part argument. I therefore give
notice that I shall move clause stand part formally. If hon. Members
wish to comment on the clause, they should do so during this
debate.
Mr.
Grieve:
I have no objection to that course of action.
During discussion of the coming amendments, we will be able to look at
the subsequent detail. The Minister has outlined the principle of the
clause and I am content with that. As I indicated at the outset, I will
not resist the clause in its
generality.
The
Minister has made some important points and I come back to one,
although it may feature in the next group of amendments. As I
understand it, he has acknowledged that we are dealing with the removal
of documentation with no requirement of even reasonable suspicion that
it is terrorist-linked. Effectively, this is a blanket power in a
terrorism search to remove anything until the authorities—that
is, the police—have satisfied themselves that it is not
terrorism-related and therefore not open to seizure.
It seems to
me that that raises several issues to which we can return in a moment,
and that is why I will not labour my remarks at this stage. First, is
removing the reasonableness test that normally applies warranted? Could
it not be argued that if one goes into a place where one starts
collecting material, and one has a reasonable suspicion that there is a
terrorism-related matter concerning those premises, it probably is
reasonable to remove documents which one cannot immediately identify?
Therefore, removing the reasonableness clause might be going too
far.
10.45
am
My
second question, to which I shall return under the next group of
amendments, concerns the absence of time limits. The third
matter—I raise it now because I am conscious of the fact that I
did not table an amendment on the issue—is about allowing the
individual whose papers have been taken to retain a copy, which does
not appear to be expressly provided. The more I listen to the Minister,
the more I begin to think that the provision of a copy might well be
one of the key things that the person concerned ought to be
doing.
If it has not
been shown that such papers are terrorist-related, and if the
individual concerned has not been arrested—because, otherwise,
other powers would kick in—the Minister must guard against legal
challenges. I can well foresee a charge being mounted by a person who
argues that his private papers have been seized when there is nothing
wrong with them, and that quite a long time afterwards he has still not
heard whether the police are going to hand them back. From the
Minister’s point of view, the danger is that if those documents
were required for some legal purpose, claims for damages could be made
against the police and the Government if the Government have not got
that right.
I shall
come back to those details again under the next set of amendments. I
thank you for your indulgence, Mr. O’Hara, in
allowing me to stray a little bit on the generality of the clause, but
it seems to me that those are the key issues. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘(2) Where a
constable who carries out a search to which this section applies finds
a document that he has reasonable grounds for believing is one that may
be seized, he may remove the document to another place for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the document is one that may be seized and
retain it there until the examination is
completed.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 8, after
‘may’, insert
‘, if he has reasonable grounds
for believing that a document may be seized,
and’.
Mr.
Grieve:
I will try to avoid repeating myself. This
amendment deals with the very wide power as it is described in
subsection (2) which
states:
“A
constable who carries out a search to which this section applies may,
for the purpose of ascertaining whether a document is one that may be
seized, remove the document to another place for examination and retain
it there until the examination is
completed.”
On
the face of it, this is a blanket power for a constable who comes
across any document, the contents of which cannot reasonably be
ascertained by looking at it immediately. That would include, for
example, a document in a foreign language that he cannot read or, for
that matter, any document that may be encrypted on a computer. The
constable could take it away and retain it until such time as the
examination is completed. There
is no time limit and there is no requirement of
reasonableness in respect of the seizure actually taking
place.
I should
therefore be grateful if the Minister could deal specifically with the
issue of the reasonable grounds and whether it is required to be put
in. Amendment No. 57 would alter subsection (2) to
read:
“Where a
constable who carries out a search to which this section applies finds
a document that he has reasonable grounds for believing is one that may
be seized, he may remove the document to another place for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the document is one that may be seized and
retain it there until the examination is
completed.”
I find it
difficult to see how the introduction of the notion of reasonable
grounds would create problems for the police in such a setting. The
police might go along to a house and find a document in Arabic which
may be either an al-Qaeda wish list of the things they would wish the
individual to do in this country or a bill for a restaurant in
Peshawar. If the constable cannot himself read what the document says
that must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is one that may
be seized. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would explain
why the concept of reasonableness appears to have been taken out of the
section.
Mr.
David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I agree with the
hon. and learned Gentleman that the reasonableness test has already
been applied in respect of the warrant for the initial search, and
therefore it is reasonable to suppose that a constable may reasonably
suspect anything that is found and may wish to remove it. However, does
he see any compatibility in this part of the Bill with the PACE code B?
The two seem out of kilter. His amendment, and that in my name and that
of my hon. Friend, would put the Bill back into
conformity.
Mr.
Grieve:
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The Bill
is out of kilter, and that is precisely why I wanted to highlight the
issue. While I am conscious that we are dealing with terrorism and that
people have anxieties about terrorism—that is why we have a
Counter-Terrorism Bill to give special powers—every departure
from the ordinary processes of criminal law gives me a slight shiver,
and I need good justification for such departure. My hon. Friend the
Member for Monmouth correctly raised the point, “If terrorism,
why not organised crime?” The answer is that for organised crime
you still have to have a reasonableness test. Organised crime in many
ways impacts severely on the well-being of the citizens of the country.
That is why, when I come across something of that sort, I ask myself
whether it is for the Government to justify the departure from the
reasonableness test because, on the face of it, it is difficult to see
how the test will provide any sort of fetter or inhibition on the
ability of the police to do their job in that
context.
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): I welcome you,
Mr. O’Hara, and I am sure that we will have a
constructive exchange under your chairmanship. I welcome the fact that
the Minister started by offering the briefing on intercept and coroners
matters.
It
is difficult to follow the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield,
who has carefully set out the reasons for amendment No. 57. The wording
of our amendment No. 1 is identical to that in
amendment No. 57. The
crux of the matter—as the hon. and learned Gentleman set
out—is the reasonable grounds for believing that a document may
be seized. A number of members pointed out that without the test of
reasonable grounds the Bill would be out of kilter with existing
legislation. I hope that the Minister will explain why he believes that
that is justified, and whether the test—if it were
included—would impose any constraints that the Committee may
not be aware
of.
Mr.
McNulty:
On that point, yes it would, because the thrust
of the amendment negates the clause. Members need to
understand—as I am sure that they do—that this is not
about fishing. It is not a carte-blanche—PACE and everything
else aside—for the police to go fishing just because it is a
terrorist case. I urge members to read the set of clauses carefully. It
is about allowing seizure where there are no reasonable grounds, for a
period of only up to 96 hours. The hon. and learned Member for
Beaconsfield was wrong to say that there is no time limit. That period
is precisely to ascertain whether the police can establish reasonable
grounds, given the obscure nature of the document, to seize it in the
normal legal fashion. That is all. The Committee needs to read all five
interlocking clauses, which go through other points that the hon. and
learned Gentleman made about copies and all the other elements,
including the record of seizure and legal privilege. In that context,
reinserting “reasonable grounds” would make the five
clauses a nonsense and negate them entirely. This power is about the
temporary removal, in these obscure situations, of reasonable
suspicions, grounds for belief and the other assorted reasons why
police can seize a
document.
I
take the point that the document could be a restaurant menu from
Peshawar, al-Qaeda’s latest top 10 or something else. However,
these measures are about refining and clarifying the law. I do not
accept the point half made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that on
reasonable grounds, the police can take whatever they like in any
circumstances. We are discussing a temporary, limited power to seize
documents, the origin and content of which are obscure, take them to a
police station, translate them and establish whether they can
appropriately be seized on reasonable grounds. I accept everything that
has been said about privacy of
papers.
The amendment
would negate this power entirely. I say in the nicest way possible that
the hon. and learned Gentleman should take the shiver out of his spine
because it is not appropriate. This measure is not a sledgehammer
cracking through the rule of law in any way, shape or form. He should
be aware, as he clearly was not from his introduction, that there will
be time limits and that clear records must be kept. Everything
interlocks across the five clauses. Where appropriate, PACE and
guidelines will be amended and discretion will still depend on the
reasonable and temperate manner in which the police must exercise their
powers.
I
assure the Committee that this power is not about weakening the legal
grounds for seizure, other than saying in reasonable circumstances,
“We have come across certain documents. We think that they may
be important to this terrorism case, but we do not know. We cannot on
any reasonable grounds seize them legally. Let’s have 48 or 96
hours”—as one of the later clauses says—“to
ascertain that. We can then either return them or seize them legally on
grounds of reasonable suspicion.”
Mr.
Heath:
I agree with the Minister that changes to PACE will
be needed. It will be extremely helpful to the Committee if he
indicates whether he is prepared to make those changes by amendment to
primary legislation in the later stages of the Bill or to publish the
draft changes to the PACE code. That would give some reassurance to the
Committee on the point that he has
raised.
Mr.
McNulty:
That is an entirely reasonable point. Whenever
leading in a Committee, I have tried to ensure that whatever hangs off
the Christmas tree, such as subsequent codes of practice, guidance or
statutory instruments, is made available at least in draft or outline
form to the Committee. I give that undertaking. We will make clear the
amendments to PACE in the way that has been done since it was
introduced in 1984. I will eschew the offer of more primary
legislation.
Under the
PACE codes, the practice that will result from the adoption of the
legislation is that the powers should be used only in efforts to locate
evidence of offences connected with terrorism and officers should not
remove any more material than necessary. That will limit, in this very
serious area, the scope for the police to go fishing and say,
“It’s in French. Get the lorry round and we’ll
take the lot.” Members of the Committee have made an entirely
serious point about that. With your indulgence, Mr.
O’Hara, that is why subsequent clauses will put serious time
limits on seizure. In the first instance that will be 48 hours and, by
exception, it will be 96 hours. That is it. There will be no other
extension beyond that. Quite rightly, there are clauses about how we
will deal with documents that could accrue legal privilege. There must
also be a very clear record of the
seizure.
Given
the limited time, it is not appropriate to talk about copies being left
with the person whose documents are seized. The hon. and learned
Gentleman’s notion that this is for however long the police want
is simply erroneous if one reads the appropriate clause. There is, at
least in part, the reasonable notion that this might be just another
excuse to go fishing through the PACE codes. I take the point made by
the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome very seriously in that regard
and will seek to bring something forward, whatever else is added on to
the Christmas tree, at least in summary, if not in draft and if not in
full.
11
am
David
T.C. Davies:
The Minister is making a compelling case.
What happens if those documents are written in some obscure language or
some form of code that makes it difficult or impossible for the police
to come to an opinion about them within the allotted
period?
Mr.
McNulty:
Then we are back to the hon. and learned
Gentleman’s point. If there appears to be no significant reason
why they are written in some sort of cipher or encryption, we are back
on the territory of routine law. If they are written in Tolkienesque
runes and the guy is a plumber there might be reasonable grounds to
assume that he is seeking to hide information and therefore reasonable
grounds to seize them in the normal fashion. This is just about asking
whether further exploration of the document, be it encoded, in a
different language or in whatever form, will reveal whether it is legal
for it to be seized in the normal fashion on the basis of reasonable
suspicion. I think that that is eminently reasonable in that regard. I
was not knocking plumbers or Tolkien when I used that
example.
Mr.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con): If one has reasonable
grounds, why not seize whatever one
wants?
Mr.
McNulty:
That is entirely the point. As the hon. and
learned Gentleman says, very often there will be entirely reasonable
grounds. But we are talking possibly about encryption and certainly
about language where we think, “Hello, it’s in Arabic so
it must be suspicious.” But it could be no more than the duty
free list for a flight to the Gulf or the Urdu version of the menu from
the restaurant round the corner, which has kindly produced its menus in
Urdu as well as English. All this does is afford the police the
time—48 hours—to say, “I think, but I cannot hand
on heart say, with reasonable suspicion or an appropriate belief, that
this document is in accord with the warrant and the grounds for the
search in the first place. May I have 48 hours and no more to explore
that?”
The hon. and
learned Gentleman is right. It was in the 2000 Act, but only for
Northern Ireland. I had a nice chat with the hon. Member for Lancaster
and Wyre last night. He told me how he routinely used this law in some
of the searches in a professional context. That is fair and reasonable.
All we are saying is that the Government, with cross-party support, are
deconstructing the entire terrorist and security legislation framework
for Northern Ireland, given the peace process. But we would be remiss
and irresponsible if in the course of that process with our Northern
Ireland colleagues we did not ask whether there were any elements of
that security framework that would be useful and efficient in our
current broader threat of and fight against terrorism. This falls into
that
category.
Mr.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): Given that the
warrant itself covers the reasonable suspicion, why are we producing
more and more tests within that search itself. Surely for all crimes,
whether it is terrorism or not, if there is reasonable suspicion to
search a property, what is wrong with getting the trucks in and going
through
everything?
Mr.
McNulty:
Because it relies on the word
“reasonable”. Hon. Members can work this out for
themselves. It is not in all circumstances reasonable to say that
because the constable cannot ascertain the contents of a document for
whatever reason—different language, runes, hieroglyphics or
whatever—by definition it must be reasonable to seize that
document lawfully. It could be an “Encyclopaedia
Britannica”, but in Arabic or French rather than English. That
is not meant to demean our officers: they do a splendid job, but are
not multilingual.
All
that this set of clauses does is set parameters within the rule of law
that state that the police should be afforded at least some
time—in this case, 48 hours, but that can potentially be
extended to 96 hours—to explore lawfully whether there is
anything in the
content that might give them reasonable suspicion to seize it, and then
they will keep it. If that is not the case, it should quite rightly go
back. I will resist the amendment, but it has been a useful exploration
of the thrust and substance behind the
clause.
Mr.
Grieve:
First, I must apologise to the Minister, who is
absolutely right. If he looks at amendment No. 58, which I tabled when
looking at the Bill in detail last week, he will see that it deals with
the length of time set out in the clause, so my apology to him is
fulsome—I was in Ireland until rather late yesterday evening, so
my memory of all the five clauses in my drafting last week is not as
good as it should be.
The Minister makes a persuasive
case on that point, and we will come back to it when we get to the
relevant subsection. On the general point about reasonableness, he has
provided me with considerable reassurance, and the fact that it
operated in that fashion in Northern Ireland also indicates that it
will not be misused. I want to reflect on this matter in view of the
Minister’s comments. I can see that there remains an argument
for putting reasonableness in, and I am not sure that it would have all
of the downsides that the Minister is anxious about. On the other hand,
I am also pretty well satisfied that what he is putting forward in this
context will not do much mischief, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Patrick
Mercer (Newark) (Con): I have decided not to move
amendment No. 80. When I was drafting it, I was under the impression
that during my service in Northern Ireland we had three days to hold
terrorist documents, but my memory is probably faulty. In view of what
the Minister has said and of what is coming up in clause 5, I suspect
that the amendment would be thoroughly unhelpful, unnecessary and a
complete waste of
time.
This is a probing
amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the
necessity of having subsection (4) in the form in which it has been
placed in clause 1. I assume it is because of an anxiety, but what is
the basis of that anxiety? If it were not included, the powers of
seizure could not start to operate at a time when the police had
subsequently decided that they wanted to seize the
document.
Mr.
McNulty:
As I understand it, that is entirely the case. As
I said earlier, all that clause 1 affords the constable is the power to
remove the document—rather than lawfully seizing it—to
another place for 48 hours, up to 96 hours, to translate it or do
whatever else he needs to do with it to ascertain whether there is
reasonable suspicion to seize it. Without that subsection, there is no
second phase to that process. Having removed the document and
established that there might be reasonable grounds for seizure,
subsection (4) is necessary to allow the legal process to continue so
that the seizure is lawful, as the honourable and learned Gentleman
suggested. It is worth reading out, because the obscure relativism of
the English is wonderful, although there are other examples in the Bill
that are real peaches. It
states:
“Where
a document is removed under this section a constable has the same
powers of seizure as if it had not been removed and any matters
discovered on examination after removal had been discovered before its
removal.”
That is
wonderful English legalese at it best, but its import is precisely as
the hon. Gentleman suggests. The 48 or 96 hours is a temporary step out
from the due process, to establish whether there are reasonable
grounds, etc. The seizure process needs to be ongoing, and all that
subsection (4) does is to confirm that the seizure is lawful or that
reasonable suspicion was not grounded and therefore the documents are
to be returned. It is as simple—in its language—as
that.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
C
hairman, being of the opinion
that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had
been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the
amendment
s
proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question,
pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand
part of the
Bill.
Question
agreed
to.
Clause
1
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 30 April 2008 |