Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 47, page 23, line 11, at end insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (1) shall come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.’.

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 47, in clause 179, page 101, line 1, after ‘section’, insert ‘47(1),’.

Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

The amendment would insert a subsection to which we have referred before. Introducing the measure by statutory instrument would allow time for reflection. We are still not convinced that it is wise to embark upon this course,  when we are yet to see the working out of the 2005 rules. Because we have misgivings, and because there is still a lot of uncertainty, we want to allow more time for reflection. The House should have the opportunity to vote before it introduces a procedure that potentially has significant ramifications for the rights of individuals.

John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)

Quite simply, if the hon. Gentleman wants to see how the 2005 rules work out before putting this part of the Bill into effect, we will have to wait for a number of years. It may not be just the end of this year, but the end of next year before we see the first of the applications under the new rules. If he wants to see the rules work out, we will have to wait a lot longer. Despite his velvet presentation, the amendment would drive a coach and horses through this part of the Bill.

Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

We need to consider not only the way in which things work in practice, but the need for sensitivity, which the Government should recognise. The right of entry into someone’s home, for example, is a significant interference with their legal rights, such as their rights under the European convention on human rights. The Government are anxious to comply with that convention, which should not be ignored, save on the most compelling grounds. That is why a provision that allows an intrusion into someone’s private property, albeit for justifiable purposes, should not be brought into force without the House being able to vote on it. If it became apparent that there would be a delay in seeing how the 2005 rules work out, we need not wait for that. It is that interference—perhaps I should have stressed that more in my earlier argument—with the rights of the individual that concerns me, but I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.