Charities Bill [HL]

I want to be helpful in this.   I thank the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Hodgson. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, also for his point on identification. Clause 26 provides the commission with an important new power to enter premises and seize documents and information under a warrant issued by magistrates. I have done enough of these sorts of debates on lots of other Bills to alert me to the general concern that your   Lordships’ House always—quite understandably, quite   rightly—expresses in these circumstances. In our scrutiny of the Bill during the last Session we spent some time debating this new power—to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, alluded. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made that point too. As a result we included in the reintroduced Bill several safeguards to the provision, and made other improvements to it. Clause 26(5) provides that the person authorised to conduct the entry and seizure must, if required to do so, produce the warrant and documentary evidence that he or she is a member of the commission’s staff. Subsection (6) provides that the person authorised by the commission to carry out the entry and seizure must make a record containing details about that entry and seizure, including information about any documents or devices of which he or she took possession. Subsection (7) provides that a copy of this record must be given to the occupier or a representative if that is so required. I noted the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord   Swinfen, that perhaps under subsection (6) names should be recorded or provided of who was conducting the seizure and we will give that some thought. The reason that this clause gives the occupier the right to ask for these things rather than putting the commission member under a duty to provide them without being asked, is that the commission member may not know who the occupier is. The point here is that the occupier of premises means the person legally entitled to occupy them, for example as a freeholder or under a lease or licence. It does not mean the person or persons who happen to be there when a member of the commission staff enters. The commission may not know or be able to find out who the legal occupier is—as is often the case, particularly in the case of powers exercised by other agencies. If it does not know who the legal occupier is, it is not reasonable to place the commission under a duty to produce something to the occupier. The Bill as drafted leaves it to the occupier, or to someone acting on his behalf, to identify him or herself and require the production of the documents. These amendments would ensure that persons authorised by the commission to conduct the entry and seizure give a copy of the record to the occupier or to someone acting on the occupier’s behalf before leaving the premises. Amendment No. 42 goes further by requiring a copy of the record to be left on the premises should they be unoccupied. As drafted, these amendments are not acceptable to us because we would want to be sure that the requirements were capable of being put into effect; it is a practical consideration. But I have considerable sympathy with the general thrust of the amendments—basically to ensure that a copy of the record is given on request to the occupier or his representative before the commission member of staff leaves the premises, and where it is practical to do so. There may be circumstances in which it is not practical. We would like to consider these points further and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and we may return at Report with an amendment which gives practical effect to what the noble Lords are seeking this afternoon. With that, I hope that noble Lords feel confident enough to withdraw their amendments.