Protection of Freedoms Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 17 and 18, and Government motions to disagree.

[James Brokenshire]

The amendments would provide that powers of entry may be exercised only with the agreement of the occupier of the premises in question or on the authority of a warrant, unless the authority using the power

“can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought.”

That restriction would be disapplied where the power of entry is being exercised by a trading standards officer, a constable or a member of the Security Service, or in pursuance of the protection of a child or vulnerable adult.

We are sympathetic to the objective underpinning the amendments. We all agree that powers of entry, particularly as they relate to peoples’ homes, should be subject to proper safeguards, but we believe that the blanket approach taken by the amendments is misconceived and, as such, could hamper legitimate enforcement activities and put lives at risk. The amendments are predicated on the basis that there has been an unacceptable proliferation in the number of powers of entry—some 600 such powers were created by the previous Government—and that in many cases there are insufficient safeguards attached to such powers. The Government share that analysis, which is why we have included the provisions in chapter 1 of part 3 of the Bill. The problem we have with the amendments is not their objective, but the blanket approach they adopt, even if it provides exemptions for a small number of specific bodies. We judge that such an approach would simply not work. One size, in this case, does not fit all, and the fact that the amendments include limited exemptions serves only to demonstrate that the approach taken, while it might appear superficially attractive, is incapable of withstanding close scrutiny.

In adopting the blanket approach of requiring in all cases the consent of the occupier or a warrant, the amendments fail to differentiate between powers of entry that support routine enforcement activity and those powers that protect the public from serious crime or from threats to life and limb.