My Lords, the amendment concerns the use of search and seizure powers in circumstances where potentially no one has been charged with any offence. It would ensure that the power was used only in circumstances where it was appropriate to do so. In the other place, the then Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, accepted that, ""the powers are potentially invasive and intrusive and that the police and others must exercise restraint and caution when using them".—[Official Report, Commons, Policing and Crime Committee, 12/2/09; col. 453.]"
However, at the same time, he expressed a doubt about needing to include a requirement in statute for law enforcement agencies to act in a way compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights on the grounds that they are automatically required to do so and that including such a provision would risk casting doubt on other pieces of legislation where such a requirement was not expressly included.
At the same time, the Minister undertook to review the proportionality test and that is the subject of my question. What is the Government's position on this proportionality issue? I beg to move.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Neville-Jones
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 October 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c589 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:31:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586346
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586346
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586346