I take the noble and learned Lord’s point. He has not actually got an amendment down on this at the moment so we have not been thinking about that precisely but certainly we would consider having a look at that if the noble and learned Lord wants to come back to it on Report. I can see that Clause 40(2)(d) is where he wants the ““shall”” to come in.
The very simple point I am making is that not all powers of entry can be treated the same. Some powers of entry relate to the investigation of criminal offences or to a breach of regulation, but others do not. I would argue that it would be counter-productive in this instance, and indeed might prove unworkable in the case of powers of entry derived from European legislation, to seek to overlay a blanket requirement along the lines proposed in these amendments.
That is not to say that these types of safeguard do not have a place, and that is why we support the wider use of warrants whenever powers of entry are exercised. We also support the principle of consent in most cases—although obviously there are cases where consent would not be appropriate—and the removal of a power to enter people’s homes unless it is fully justified and accompanied by a magistrate’s warrant. I am trying to indicate that we need to consider the most appropriate approach on a case by case basis, and I think that Clause 40 allows us to do just that. The list of possible safeguards set out in subsection (2) includes a large number set out in paragraphs (a) to (k). These include a requirement for judicial authorisation and a requirement to give notice of the exercise of a power of entry and so on. I could read through the entire list. We consider that a targeted approach appears to be the preferable course of action on this occasion. The safeguards that apply best in most cases are specific to the type of investigation or inspection required and to the legislation conferring particular powers of entry.
I do not know if my noble friend Lord Selsdon wants me to go on to deal with his amendment or whether he is going to speak to it.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 December 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c379-80GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:17:46 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_795632
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_795632
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_795632