Counter-Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 130A: 130A: Clause 85, page 62, line 7, at end insert ““unless ownership of the premises referred to in paragraph (b) has changed since the order requiring access to be granted was made, or other circumstances have changed such that it would no longer be within the controlled person’s power to grant access.”” The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment to see whether the Minister agrees with me that, as the clause is drafted, a constable who suspects that a controlled person has absconded may force his way into that person’s home or any other premises to which the controlled person has ever been required to grant access under the order. The difficulty with the proposal is that it does not foresee any point at which the premises may, for example, have changed hands; the premises may for ever be subject to this legislation, while the person who was the reason for access being granted has long since moved. Although it is hard to foresee any circumstances in which an officer would wish to enter premises that the controlled person had long since left, can the Minister assure me that the restrictions in new Section 7C(5) are tight enough to prevent the warrant being inappropriately used after it has been legitimately granted but when it no longer applies to such premises? I beg to move.