I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and I agree with him. I suspect that Cheltenham will continue to do the job anyway, and that a constable in some police force will get a phone call telling him to go down the road to enact a take-down order. That will not make for good policing, but it will cause police resources to be used up. For example, a terrorist group may want to take an officer off duties involving surveillance or running an agent. All it need do is to put up an inflammatory website, and that officer’s time will be taken up with the ensuing take-down order rather than with trying to intercept information or interdict the terrorist organisation.
I hope that when the Minister sums up she will describe the expansion of the special branch role, and give details of the cost implications for the police force of placing on a constable the requirements set out in the Bill. Also, I hope that she will introduce more robust safeguards to ensure that the ““constable”” referred to by the Bill does not become merely any probationer or officer who happens to be on hand when a take-down order is required.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ben Wallace
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 15 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill 2005-06.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
442 c1485 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 16:03:27 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305050
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305050
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305050