Charities Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 58:"Page 26, line 31, at end insert ““, and the names of any such persons””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 58, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 60 and I hope it will be convenient if I respond in advance to Amendment No. 59, which is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Clause 26 provides a new power for a member of staff of the Charity Commission to enter premises and seize documents and other information where a magistrate has issued a warrant. The Bill currently requires the Charity Commission staff member who enters premises under the warrant to prepare a written record of particular facts and activities and of the items seized. If requested to do so he must give a copy of the record to the occupier, or someone acting on behalf of the occupier. However, the Bill does not currently specify when the record must be prepared or given. We have had generally a very healthy debate about this power. I think that it can fairly be said that we have already included a number of safeguards in response to understandable concerns that have been raised. These amendments further extend those safeguards. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, suggested that the record required by subsection (6) should include the names of the persons accompanying the person authorised under the warrant. We agree with that and have brought forward Amendment No. 58 to give effect to it. Amendment No. 60 responds to the concerns raised in Committee that the record should be prepared by the commission’s member of staff whilst he or she is on the premises and given to the occupier, or his representative, if requested before leaving the premises, unless in either case it is not reasonable or practical to do so. However, it is only fair to say that I have some difficulty with Amendment No. 59, which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It would place the commission’s member of staff under a duty to provide the record to the occupier, regardless of whether or not the record was requested. As I have said in previous debates, the reason this clause gives the occupier a right to ask for the record, rather than putting the commission member under a duty to provide it without being asked, is that the commission member may not know who the legal occupier is, and therefore would not know to whom the record should be given. The Bill as drafted leaves it to the occupier or someone acting on his behalf to identify himself or herself and to require production of the record, which, under our Amendment No. 60, the commission member would be required to provide prior to leaving the premises. It is because we believe that this practical difficulty could arise, and in the knowledge that our government amendments will further strengthen the safeguards in this clause, that I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, when he moves his amendment, considers the position again and withdraws the amendment. I beg to move.