Thank you, Mr Streeter. I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but we are in opposition, which is a difficult and cold place. We do not have the officials that the Minister has. The principle is that we believe there should be an examination of the right of appeal on any decision that has taken. The purpose of amendment 17 is to place that argument before the Government so that they can say whether they believe there should be any right of appeal or whether they believe that 14 days or 30 days is sufficient, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and that there is no need for an appeal as it would not resolve the issue. It is inherent in any decision of this seriousness that an individual should be able to challenge a decision on the grounds of mistaken identity or the grounds of loss of service in a court.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hanson of Flint
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 December 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
589 c1178 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-05-22 08:13:33 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-12-15/14121545000056
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-12-15/14121545000056
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-12-15/14121545000056