Powers of Entry etc. Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 12: 12: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause— ““Powers of entry: future primary legislation (1) Any provision regarding powers of entry in any public bill introduced into Parliament after this Act has received Royal Assent shall meet the requirements of subsection (2). (2) The requirements are that— (a) the circumstances in which a power of entry may be exercised are clearly specified, (b) the person who has power to authorise the exercise of any such power shall be clearly identified, (c) the procedure for authorising the exercise of a power of entry shall include requirements that— (i) written authorisation is required for the exercise of such a power, (ii) such authorisation shall state clearly the legislation which contains the power of entry, and (iii) a copy of the written authorisation shall be given to the person or persons whose premises are entered.”” The noble Lord said: The balance between the authority of the state and the civil liberties of the citizen has been at the heart of political controversy since the earliest times. The number and shape of the steps on the route between perfect liberty and total tyranny have never been symmetrical. My noble friend Lord Selsdon’s excellent and much needed Bill goes to the heart of one of the practical and identifiable steps: the statutory right of the representatives of the state to enter the premises of the citizen. That the balance has for a long while been tipped the wrong way is beyond dispute, at least among those who unite in rejecting democratic centralism, which celebrates the supremacy of the state. To retreat from where we have already reached will be hard. My amendment merely seeks to limit the rate at which we are progressing in the wrong direction. The assessment of the impact of legislation in terms of cost, numbers of public employees and human rights has been established for some decades now, but we still provide for powers of entry in current legislation with little debate and less definition wherever the bureaucrats anticipate the possibility of the frustration of their aims. My own quis custodiet? starting point is that, in general, powers of entry should always be invigilated by others. If the police need a magistrate’s warrant to enter the premises of others, so should every other official intruder. However, I recognise that in the complicated society we have created, where inevitably, if unpredictably, the multitude of rules and regulations need enforcement, we may need to spell out in a recognised format the conditions under which they may be exercised in each Bill which comes before Parliament. Those affected by the exercise of powers of entry must be informed by what legislation, by whom, on whose authority and for what purpose the powers are to be used, and an official record of their use must be left with the citizen affected. I hope that in the great majority of cases, inquiries and inspections can be made by prior arrangement and agreement with the citizen. When this is possible, powers of entry will not need to be used and thus my amendment will not apply. This should apply to most visits by inspectors concerned with health and safely, environmental protection, building regulations and so on. However, there are areas, such as checking functions of trading standards officers, where, by definition, unannounced visits are essential. In all such cases a copy of the written authority should be provided and left with the person whose premises are to be visited. I recognise that my amendment implies additional parliamentary debate of any fresh legislation that includes powers of entry. That is all to the good. I believe that what I propose will provide valuable reassurance to our citizens, who are bewildered and worried by the powers of the bureaucracy and who have sometimes suffered from officious, discourteous or disproportionate use of such powers. I beg to move.