Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

moved Amendment No. 38: 38: Clause 22, page 17, line 1, after ““A”” insert ““member of Her Majesty’s forces or a”” The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the breadth of the powers of entry on to premises. The Bill provides the police or a member of the Armed Forces with a power to enter premises, including a vehicle, without a warrant if he or she considers it necessary, "““in the course of operations for the preservation of the peace or the maintenance of order””." A police officer requires authorisation from an officer of at least the rank of superintendent, unless it is not reasonably practicable to obtain such authorisation. There is no equivalent requirement for authorisation by a senior officer where the power is exercised by a member of the Armed Forces. The power to enter premises without a warrant is very broadly worded and contains no objective standard. The Government’s reasons for that are the same as in relation to the provisions that we have already considered: introducing objective words into the formulation of the power would impair operational effectiveness because it would introduce uncertainty into the scope of the power; and officers may be prevented from taking decisions which are operationally necessary because they are not certain whether a third party will consider it to be reasonably necessary. The Government also claim that oversights and safeguards exist, even with such a subjectively worded power, in that the officer’s factual basis for believing the action to be necessary can be tested in court, and it would be open to a court to find that it was not necessary or that he did not believe it to be necessary. In the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, however, judicial control over subjectively worded powers is significantly weaker than where the definition of the power contains an objective standard such as reasonableness. We recommend that the power of entry in Clause 22 should be expressed in objective terms, such as where the police officer or member of the Armed Forces reasonably considers it necessary, in order to reduce the risk of the power being found to be incompatible with Article 8 of the convention. We also recommend that there be an equivalent requirement of authorisation by a senior officer where the power is exercised by a member of the Armed Forces. The amendment is therefore to be taken with Amendments Nos. 39 to 42, dealing with the same matter, to which I have just spoken. I beg to move.