3rd reading in the Lords
- Speaker
Lord Lloyd of BerwickCrossbench- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 1:
- Time
- 15:09
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Howarth of NewportLabour- Quote
- My Lords, briefly, the new amendment that has been tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, deserves the most constructive consideration, simply on the principle that if—it is no longer part of this Bill but it is part of the Government’s intention—we are liable to take actions that may be necessary and in the public interest to curtail civil liberties, it is even more important, if it can be, than it otherwise would be, that we should be utterly scrupulous in ensuring that the manner in which people are detained and the manner in which legal proceedings are taken against them should match the highest possible standards. The safeguard that the noble and learned Lord proposes in the substance of his proposal must be right. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to respond in a constructive spirit.
- Time
- 15:09
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Quote
- My Lords, the Government absolutely accept the substance of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is trying to achieve, and we have had considerable negotiations and discussions about this. We accept that there is a need for an independent commissioner for terrorist suspects. It is a lot more difficult actually to achieve these things than when one is an admiral achieving something in the Navy. Trying to get all the people together, and trying to get them to agree to all the various bits and pieces, whether it is the Crown Prosecution Service, what exactly happens in Scotland and Northern Ireland, whether we need something in the regions, aspects of the judiciary; there are a whole raft of things to be debated. Although initially, being a slightly hasty naval type, I thought we should be able to get something down, I accept that it is important that we do not legislate in haste and do not get this wrong. I absolutely make a commitment that we intend to go down this route. Given that, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment. I thank the noble and learned Lord for pursuing this initiative, which he first talked about with me some 12 months ago. It is an important measure, and it is an issue that the Government believe is of value. Certainly, even if some people do not think it is, the perception is very important, and it is of value. I give a commitment that we will do something. I cannot promise exactly which bit of legislation we will fit it into. If I did so, I would probably get it wrong. We are absolutely committed to doing something, and on that basis I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
- Time
- 15:09
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Lloyd of BerwickCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 44 [Offences to which this Part applies: offences having a terrorist connection]:
- Time
- 15:09
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord West of SpitheadLabour- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 2:
- Time
- 15:09
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord West of SpitheadLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 3:
- Time
- 15:09
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord West of SpitheadLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 4:
- Time
- 15:09
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Myners)Crossbench- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 5:
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord West of SpitheadLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 6:
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening to me on that matter and for coming forward with an improving amendment. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord West of SpitheadLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 7:
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord West of SpitheadLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 10:
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord MarlesfordConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 11:
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord SelsdonConservative- Quote
- My Lords, as the noble Lord who introduced the Powers of Entry Bill after some 15 years’ work, it behoves me to intervene. I did not wish to do so in this Bill, but by some strange act of cunning, new powers of entry have suddenly appeared to go with the 1,137 powers of entry that have so far been identified. I thought that I had reached an agreement with the noble Lord, Lord West, that this Bill, which is passing through the House with great support, would not push this matter to the limit, but that jointly with the Home Office we would sit down and identify all the Bills that give powers of entry for an official to go into a person’s premises and search, seize and effectively spy without a warrant. I have a problem in that I do not want to oppose the Bill, but the moral feeling within me says that I cannot possibly support yet another power of entry without warrant without going through the process that I thought we had agreed with the noble Lord, Lord West. I ought to declare an interest because with the help of the Home Office, we have set up a mixed public and private Bill team that is gradually identifying more and more powers of entry from different Ministries. Responses to the questions I have asked over time reveal that the problem is that government departments do not know what their powers of entry are. The Home Office team, a good one, is trying to find them out. I spoke to a member of the team the day before yesterday to say that I was going to be almost forced to intervene in this matter, and he said that the team was getting on but was still failing to get responses from various government departments about what those powers of entry are. I shall not repeat the concept of the Bill or its details, but I refer noble Lords to the enormous schedule that was produced jointly with the Government. All we said was that there should be a code of conduct when people seek to go into people’s premises, and that they should not go in without a warrant or a court order, except by agreement and during certain periods of the day. It pleases me much that the President of the Board of Trade is in his place because he will be well aware that the original council of trade became the Board of Trade. In 1918, when there were certain rules for co-operation and regulation, these matters were discussed. In 1702, the Bishop of London became a member of the council of trade; he was later replaced by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am proposing to introduce a new Bill to reintroduce the Board of Trade because it had within it all His—or Her—Majesty’s Secretaries of State, members of the Privy Council and others. When the Minister replies, will he urge all the Secretaries of State to whom I have addressed questions over the years to produce, as a matter of urgency, the schedules giving their departments’ powers of entry because surely they should know what their powers of entry are. I feel much more relaxed knowing that the President of the Board of Trade is in this House. He is the supreme arbiter and has the right to call upon those people to deliver the information we require. However, until that happens, I am obliged, with great regret, to support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Thomas of GresfordLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in questioning what the local weights and measures authority has to do with terrorist-financing and money-laundering. I note that under Clause 20(3): “An officer may exercise powers … only if the information or document sought to be obtained as a result is reasonably required in connection with the exercise by the enforcement authority for whom the officer acts of its functions under this Schedule”. For which enforcement authority does the officer of a local weights and measures authority act? Is it, under Clause 18(1), the Financial Services Authority? I would not have thought so. Is it the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? I would not have thought the local weights and measures authority would have anything to do with them. Is it the Office of Fair Trading? Possibly, but in what circumstances is it envisaged that it would be involved in terrorist- financing and money-laundering? Is this not just a wide spread of powers without any thought about the circumstances those powers can be used in? I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister about exactly what the Government have in mind.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Lloyd of BerwickCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister will be able to provide an example of when an enforcement officer would need to make an entry under Clause 20 when it would not be possible for him to obtain a warrant under Clause 21. Unless he can give a solid example, I shall feel compelled to vote with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MynersCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, on Report, I explained in some detail why this amendment was tabled at a late point and gave context to the work of the financial action task force, the global body representing 34 national bodies and many bodies representing regional groupings. I drew attention to the minutes of the meeting of that task force in October and anticipated likely developments at its next meeting early next year. I pointed out that we felt that the change in the constitution and character of the group meant that, at times, we would not necessarily wish to await a decision by the FATF, but would want certain powers to move unilaterally. We discussed at some length on Report why these amendments have been included in this Bill. It was an informed discussion. The Government listened carefully to the views of noble Lords and have reflected that in the amendments that we have tabled today. I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in relation to the amendments that he has tabled; let me attempt to respond to them. This provision has been included as it is necessary for a number of reasons. First, it is consistent with our attempt to replicate the compliance and enforcement procedures that currently exist in regard to our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorist financing regime. We have been eager to achieve as much consistency with this regime as possible, which would help firms and supervisors in management of compliance. Secondly—and importantly—the ability of enforcement officers to enter without a warrant could be useful in the successful investigation and enforcement of breaches of directions. We checked that supervisors wish to retain their existing range of enforcement powers for these new provisions, and have acted on this basis. It was considered necessary to have a full range of powers, given the risks involved in terrorist-financing, money- laundering and proliferation. I have no desire to take unnecessary powers, but entry without a warrant may be necessary—for instance, in circumstances where giving notice might result in the destruction of relevant documents or important evidence. It is also worth highlighting that this enforcement power cannot be used as a supervisor sees fit, but is subject to the important safeguard that it may be employed only if the information sought is reasonably required in connection with the exercise by the enforcement authority of its functions. I believe that that should provide protection for the butchers of East Anglia. In addition, I note that the power to enter premises without a warrant is not unusual in legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, advises us. Similar examples can be found, to list a few, in Section 162 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 118C of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and Section 14 of the Food Standards Act 1999.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Thomas of GresfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, who decides whether the entry is reasonably required without a warrant? Under paragraph 21, if it goes before a magistrate, the magistrate decides if it is reasonably required, but who decides under this paragraph?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MynersCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, the decision on reasonableness would be made by the enforcement agency. There is provision to appeal against that if the individuals involved judge that it is unreasonable. For these reasons it is clear that Parliament has granted a number of rights to intervene without warrant.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord SwinfenConservative- Quote
- My Lords, the Minister said that one could appeal against the right of entry. If one can have entry without a warrant, where is the time to appeal?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MynersCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I believe the right of appeal would effectively freeze the outcome of the intervention. I would prefer to give noble Lords a complete explanation in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, gave us an historical perspective. He complimented my noble friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform with his former title of President of the Board of Trade. I note that he proposes legislation in that respect. I will leave it to my noble friend to comment in due course on whether he wishes to have either a new or an extra title. The more serious point about examining how the various rights should be reviewed and pulled together into a single document has merit and I will share that with my colleagues in government. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked when a weights and measures inspector might need to use the powers. I anticipate that it will probably be in connection with the enforcement powers of the OFT but, if I am incorrect, I shall write to the noble Lord and to all those who have participated in this debate. I now ask the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to withdraw his amendment.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Lloyd of BerwickCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I asked whether the Minister could give us one example of an occasion when the enforcement officer might need to use the powers under Clause 29. I think that the only one that he has so far given is if the person in question was on the point of destroying a document. Is that the only reason that the noble Lord has?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MynersCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his question. I believe that that right would be necessary in many circumstances which it is difficult to be precise about. It is in the nature of acting in an enforcement relating to terrorism, proliferation or money-laundering that one may have to move very swiftly. As was explained on Report, that is why we propose the powers. We would not wish them to be used lightly, but there are circumstances where we feel that the threat is such that it is appropriate to have them.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord SwinfenConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, the Minister told me that he would write to me with an answer. Unfortunately, this is Third Reading, so that would be absolutely useless. Perhaps he could tell the House how one can appeal against a right of entry when the entry is actually being effected, because that will often be the first time that the householder knows about it. There is no time for an appeal.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MynersCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I did not say that the right of appeal could frustrate the right of entry. The right of appeal would be after the right of entry had been exercised, to seek to challenge the grounds on which the entry was secured.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Mayhew of TwysdenConservative- Quote
- My Lords, as someone who has become increasingly worried as this short but very welcome debate has continued, I ask how the powers could be needed in connection with the Office of Fair Trading. How could that furnish relevant documents or important information, to use the description that the noble Lord employed a few moments ago?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MynersCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, the powers granted to the OFT to secure access to information and people are one of the conduits through which enforcement of the legislation is to be pursued.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord SelsdonConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. Has he by any chance read the Powers of Entry etc. Bill and the Schedule to it? Is he aware that I tabled the entire Bill as an amendment to the then regulatory reform Bill but agreed with the Government to withdraw it because they were treating the question of powers of entry very seriously? Therefore, I am at something of a loss to find that, without much knowledge, the Government are proposing a new power of entry that flies in the face of what we thought was a fair and just understanding of co-operation.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MynersCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for his observation. I am not familiar with the actions that he has taken, but will certainly ensure that I become so. I remind noble Lords that the powers we seek are to assist us in addressing very real and serious threats, such as making funds available to support terrorism or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That is the seriousness of the matter and why we are seeking these powers.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MarlesfordConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I am afraid that the Minister has had to bat on a pretty sticky wicket and that his explanation has not satisfied me in any instance. The 16 October minute, which I read and he has read, but most people will not have read, absolutely does not suggest that this legislation need be attached to this Bill. It could perfectly well have been attached to another Bill, which the business managers could have made as fast as they wished. It could then have been subject to proper scrutiny by Parliament. That is point 1. Point 2—there is no way in which I am seeking to deny the Government powers of entry. They have got it all under paragraph 21 of the schedule. The Minister makes no sense at all saying that having powers of entry without a warrant would make it less likely that someone could destroy the evidence, unless you are suggesting that the magistrate tips off somebody, “I have just signed a warrant for someone to enter your premises”, which would be absurd. The Government say that they already have all these powers in other legislation to do with money-laundering, but the whole point of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Selsdon was that there were far too many powers of entry without warrant. We understood that the Prime Minister himself had said that he wanted to reduce them. Here the Government slip in another one, in a shoddy manner, because it is cobbled together. There is no defence for the weights and measures chap. I wish the Minister would be honest about that—sorry, I did not mean to use that word. The Treasury Box obviously has been unable to produce any conceivable case where Mr Revett would be an appropriate target. I must test the opinion of the House.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord West of SpitheadLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 19:
- Time
- 16:04
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord West of SpitheadLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
- Time
- 16:04
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗