Clause 48 - ENTRY TO PREMISES UNDER WARRANT
Consumer Credit Bill
10:15 am
Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)
Clause 48 deals with entry into premises under warrant. Clause 47 gives the OFT the power to require access to premises, but I presume that clause 48 is subsequent to that should the OFT be refused that entry. However, if the OFT has the legal power to enter premises, does it not naturally flow that it should be granted a warrant to enter should entry be refused? I wonder whether we are going a little too far.
I understand that there is a need to gather information in order to protect consumers, but would it not be better to allow the courts to draw an inference from a refusal to allow entry, rather than to give them the power to grant a warrant? If some of the wording of the clause had been different, I might not have wished to speak about it. For example, proposed new section 36D(3) states that a warrant gives an officer the right
''(a) to enter the premises specified in the warrant;
(b) to search the premises and to seize and detain any information or documents appearing to be information or documents specified in the warrant or information or documents of a description so specified''.
If the court has such a degree of detail, is there a need to enter the premises in the first instance? It also provides for the power
''to use such force as may be reasonably necessary.''
That alarms me. It is not clear who is allowed to use such force. Is it an officer of the OFT?
Perhaps I am getting into an area that I do not quite understand, but the wording in the Bill on the right to obtain a warrant and to enter premises alarms me. I wonder whether such officers will be of a certain description or given a certain legal right. I am troubled by that, and before accepting the clause, I would like an explanation of why it is felt that the courts should be able to issue such a warrant and, more particularly, why there is a need for some of the wording in the Bill.