Clause 25 - Rights to enter and inspect premises
Vehicles (Crime) Bill
10:00 am
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
I think that the Committee will readily understand the purpose of the amendments. I reiterate at the outset what should be apparent to everyone who reads the Bill. Clause 25 relates to the right of a constable or authorised person to enter and inspect premises. That does not seem an unreasonable power, and precedents for it exist in a great many measures. It is essential that the intention of the Bill can be made effective in practice, and if a police constable or other authorised person has reason to believe, and, presumably, good grounds to suspect, that illegal activity might be taking place, it is essential that he should be empowered to inspect and investigate. About that there is no disagreement.
As the Under-Secretary, and, I am sure, you, too, Mr. Wells, will be aware from the substance of the Second Reading debate, members of the official Opposition expressed anxiety—I cannot remember whether that anxiety extended to Liberal Democrats—about the apparent inconsistency of treatment in the clause of registered registration plate suppliers and of those who are not registered. To avoid doubt and being contradicted by the Minister, I say at the outset that I am fully aware that under the Bill all registration plate suppliers will be obliged to be registered, and that those who are not registered violate and contravene the Bill. Nevertheless, the central point—suspicion of wrongdoing—is the same in both cases, and my hon. Friends and I found that inconsistency of treatment curious. Specifically, we thought it peculiar that, for the investigation of someone who was registered as a registration plate supplier, it would be in order for a constable or other authorised person to enter and inspect premises at a reasonable time without a warrant. However, if the constable or other authorised person proposed to enter and inspect the premises of someone who was not registered as a registered plate supplier, that constable or other authorised person would require a warrant.
My point, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—who is still, I regret to say, suffering from the effects of the aforementioned bite—was that that seemed unfairly to discriminate against someone who was properly and lawfully registered, and effectively to favour, or at least to be a little soft on, someone who was not registered. That seemed curious.
For that reason—I am doing my best to explain a simple point as succinctly as possible—it seemed worth while to table amendments to tease out the Government's thinking. I say without embarrassment or apology that my hon. Friends and I tabled two amendments that contradict each other. That was quite deliberate. In the name of consistency and mutuality of treatment, we suggest that either both registered and unregistered registration plate suppliers should be capable of inspection at any reasonable time by a constable or authorised person only possessing a warrant or they should both be open to inspection by a constable or other authorised person who does not possess a warrant. That would at least ensure equal treatment. Rightly, the principle of non-discrimination informs much legislation and the general attitude of political parties towards the conduct of human affairs.
I thought it courteous to write to the Minister in advance for the elucidation and edification of those who did not attend our proceedings on Tuesday. I emphasise that I am not referring to any ordinary Minister of State. It is important to put it on record again that he was referred to in The Guardian on Monday as ``the man with a mission'', described by John Kampfner as ``an arch-operator'' who might be the next leader of the Labour party.
I endeavour to be a courteous fellow in all circumstances and I thought it particularly appropriate to mind my p's and q's in that context. So I wrote to the Minister on 5 January. I apologised to him for not signing the letter myself. I was in Israel at the time, so it was signed on my behalf. I said:
I am writing ahead of the first committee stages of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill.
I emphasised in my letter that on Second Reading I had stated my concern about Clause 25 and said:
I believe this places a greater burden on legitimate businesses who comply with the law, rather than on those plate suppliers who operate whilst unregistered.
To resolve this conflict I have tabled two amendments to encourage discussion about the issue. The first amendment requires the authorities to hold a warrant before entering either registered or unregistered premises, while the second allows them access without notice—
or warrant—
to either establishment.
My purpose in tabling these two probing amendments was to find a satisfactory solution to what I see as a problem in the clause as it stands. I thought that the Minister should be aware of that before the debate.
We have proposed a solution. Amendment No. 26 requires that the authorities should have a warrant before they enter registered or unregistered businesses. Amendment No. 27 states that they may enter either business ``at any reasonable time''. Of course that means that they may do so without a warrant.
Some people might think that it would be sensible, in order to maximise the efficacy of the Bill, to allow entry for inspection at any time and without a warrant, that that would be proper and that we should agree to it. Others will say, ``No. It should be necessary, to safeguard the rights of the individual, to secure a warrant in advance.'' As it is not a deeply partisan matter, I am happy to vouchsafe to the Committee that, in general terms, I am of a libertarian bent. So the Minister will not be surprised to know that, as I am rather suspicious of the use of overweening authority by agents of the state, I believe that in these circumstances constables should require warrants. I jealously—and perhaps zealously—guard the privacy of the individual and the right of freeborn Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen and Northern Irishmen in the United Kingdom to go about their lawful business unmolested by the avaricious appetite of state officials. Others, who are less concerned about that, think that constables should be able to go about their business at any time and that a warrant should not be necessary. I prefer the requirement and use of a warrant in both cases, although it may well be that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee hold a miscellany of views on the subject.