Charities Bill [HL]

I have an amendment in this group—Amendment No. 42. However, before speaking to it, I must say that I support what the noble Lord said about his amendments and the timing of the whole matter. We discussed these draconian powers at an earlier Committee stage of the earlier Bill, on 14 March. I am extremely grateful to the Government for having accepted the spirit of those earlier amendments. Subsection (6) of the new section requires that the,"““authorised person must make a written record of—""(a) the date and time of his entry on the premises;""(b) the number of persons (if any) who accompanied him  . . .""(c) the period for which he . . . remained on the premises;""(d) what he  . . . did while on the premises; and""(e) any document or device of which he took possession while there””." Subsection (7) qualifies that by saying:"““If required to do so, the authorised person must give a copy of the record to the occupier of the premises or someone acting on his behalf””." We wonder whether the wording of the subsection is sufficiently direct. My amendment would rewrite it so that it stated:"““The authorised person must supply a signed copy of the list to the person from whose possession it was taken or who is acting on behalf of the occupier, or where the premises are unoccupied must leave a record on the premises””." That would ensure that a written record would not only be made but handed over to the relevant person when entry was made to premises and documents seized. As drafted, the Bill would not require that such a record be handed over. There is a statutory obligation proposed by the Bill that all the documents removed must be returned as soon as reasonably practicable, and if no proper record of what is removed is handed over there may be uncertainty and difficulties in causing them properly to be returned under this provision. This is of particular concern where the items removed—computers or disks, for example—contain information about other organisations or the personal and private business of the owner which could be of no possible relevance to the commission’s concern but of considerable importance to the owner. It is also quite possible that when items are removed, a person, such as a security guard, acting on behalf of the occupier will have no knowledge that they are entitled to ask for a written record of items taken. For all these reasons we believe that it is not merely desirable but essential that there should be evidence of the items removed by the commission, given at the time to the relevant person, so that it will remain properly accountable for its stewardship of the property taken. We propose that there should be a provision that a copy of the list should be handed to the person in charge of the premises from which they were removed by the member of the commission’s staff responsible for so removing them. I conclude by saying that we are returning to transparency and accountability. As has been much discussed—and as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said—the commission’s powers are being significantly increased, and an increase in power needs to be balanced by an increase in accountability. This amendment would achieve this balance and I hope that the Government can see the force of it and will be able to accept it.