Pharmacy Order 2010

My Lords, there are three things I want to say in reply in support of my amendment. First, the Minister suggested that if an inspector were to enter premises without a warrant and was turned away, that would not by itself be a criminal offence. I believe her to be wrong about that. The terms of Article 10 are quite clear. Article 10(1) says that: ""An inspector, on producing evidence"," of who he is, ""may, for the purposes of the exercise of a function conferred on the inspector by article 8 … enter any registered pharmacy or other premises at any reasonable hour"." That is a right given to him by Article 10(1). Article 12 says that: ""Any person … who intentionally obstructs an inspector exercising functions under article 10 or 11 commits an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine"." Nothing there suggests that it is necessary before a criminal offence is committed for the inspector to get a warrant. There it is: a right to enter, without a warrant, obstruction of which is a criminal offence. That is an outrageous piece of legislation. The fact that it has been in place since 1968 in a primary Act of Parliament does not make it any less outrageous; that makes it worse. It has sat there for years, providing the precedent for repetition in other instruments—I hope not in other primary Acts, but there may be some—and I respectfully suggest that it is time this was recognised and stopped. I entirely accept the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—that there will be times when inspectors need to get into premises quickly without the owner or occupier knowing. That may happen. The fact that it has not happened within the past 10 years, as seems to be the case, does not mean that it may not happen in future. If that is the position, the inspector should get a warrant. The owner of the premises does not know: warrants are applied for ex parte, without notice to the owner of the premises. It is no justification for allowing entry without a warrant; a court should control that situation. The regret that this Motion invites the House to express is one that is long overdue. I beg to move. Division on Lord Scott of Foscote’s amendment. Contents 21; Not-Contents 44. Amendment disagreed. Motion agreed.