Powers of Entry etc. Bill [HL]

We have not worked out exactly what the legal back-up will be. On identity, all officials exercising a statutory power of entry are required to provide evidence of their authority when entering premises and to confirm their identity. Of course, confirmation of their identity will be much easier when they have ID cards, but I am sure that they will voluntarily wish to obtain them. In considering the amendments in their totality, it might be helpful if I set out what has been achieved to date, which was touched by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. The Prime Minister, in his speech on liberty on 25 October 2007—he may have been in cahoots with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, or have spoken to him—referred to the importance of understanding what powers existed and how they are exercised. In July 2008, we completed the initial stage of the process, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, in publishing for the first time a list of powers of entry associated with statutory powers, along with details of who could exercise them and of rights and safeguards. I, too, was quite amazed by the number that existed; I had absolutely no idea that there were so many—it has been mentioned that 1,208 are contained in 296 statutes and 286 statutory instruments. It was quite remarkable. The fact that we now have them all laid out is good; I am glad that the Prime Minister talked about it; and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for his single-minded approach to ensuring that it was done. It is essential that the power of entry, as with any enforcement power, achieves the right balance between the need to enforce the law and ensure public protection and to provide sufficient safeguards and rights to the individual. As noble Lords are aware, each power of entry is subject to individual parliamentary scrutiny, as I have mentioned. This means that the entry power is considered within the context of the wider primary or secondary legislation, which is an important safeguard. To require that each new entry power is considered within the context of a powers of entry Act as well would diminish that safeguard and cause a degree of bureaucracy. With regard to the safeguard, each power of entry and any associated enforcement powers should be proportionate to the nature of the breach or issue of public protection. Again, applying a common set of provisions as set out in a powers of entry Act would disapply the proportionality test. Additionally, it would not allow account to be taken of any specific investigative requirements associated with a particular power of entry. On the question of bureaucracy, any proposed entry power that sought, for effective enforcement purposes, to differ from the provisions from a powers of entry Act would require consideration both under that Act and under the legislation in which it was being introduced. This would not only result in consideration being given twice but would also require the new power to be listed in a separate schedule to this Bill. It would need to be listed separately because the criteria for exercising the power would be different from that contained in the powers of entry Act itself. The approach is a recipe for confusion—an unintended consequence, I am sure, of the draft Bill. The introduction of the Bill, in this amendment, would mean that existing statute would be subject to amendment without any consideration by Parliament on either the efficacy of the change or benefits that it would bring or the operational impact on individual enforcement agencies. The provision of the Bill means that even the routine power of entry for inspection purposes would require a magistrate’s warrant. The noble Lord has not submitted any evidence to show why this might be necessary nor given any indication of the benefits or costs associated with the approach. Such a broad-brush approach to existing Acts and statutory instruments helps to illustrate the potential significant disadvantages of adopting the Bill. I turn to the new clause. The Bill is about powers of entry, clearly, and while the purpose of such entry may be to investigate offences or suspected breaches of the law, the proposed amendment would significantly extend the aim of the Bill to deal with the investigation and evidence-gathering process. The amendment is therefore outside the scope of the Bill. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, PACE, and the accompanying PACE codes of practice provide the core framework of police powers and safeguards around stop and search, arrest, detention, identification and the interviewing of detainees. Section 67(9) of the Act states: ""Persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard to any relevant provision of ... a code"." The provisions of the PACE codes therefore already apply to those agencies that are tasked with the duty to investigate offences. It is a statutory requirement on each enforcement body and their responsibility to ensure that authorised officers exercise their powers in compliance with the relevant requirements of each code. The method of identification should remain a matter for the individual agency in order to assist the owner or occupier to understand the agency or organisation that the person represents. A single point of issue would diminish an additional important identifier for the public. Instead, we are proposing in the powers of entry code of practice the minimum information and the format that agencies should issue to authorised officers. This will include photograph, name, logo and authorisation to act on behalf of the agency. We aim to publish a public consultation document later this year that will set out proposals for raising public awareness, increasing accountability and improving the quality of communication, a point touched on by the noble and learned Lord in his comments. This will include a draft code of practice on the powers of entry for enforcement agencies other than the police service and security agencies in the exercise of the powers of entry, inspection, search and seizure. We aim to require that when any new or amending powers of entry are put before Parliament for consideration, the sponsoring department will be required to comply with the code of practice, as I have said, and will set out the need to consider, first, the justification for the powers, proportionality and impact of their use; the rights of and safeguards for the owner or occupier of the premises, and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and other speakers that these ancient rights are crucial to our nation; alternatives to using entry powers; the guidance, training and competency of those to whom powers would be granted; the complaints procedure; reporting and scrutiny mechanisms of the powers; and communications and public access to all the relevant data, something that a number of speakers have covered. As I have indicated, the conduct of the investigation after powers of entry have been exercised is not a matter for such a code but is instead subject to the application of PACE codes where relevant. I have just had a note from the Box about codes of practice. I shall see if my response was wrong. No, effectively my answer on that was correct, so I am very pleased about that. On the basis of what I have said, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.