I beg to move amendment No. 139, in

clause 45, page 22, line 8, after 'records', insert

'which he reasonably believes to be relevant to the investigation'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 140, in

clause 45, page 22, line 11, at end insert 'reasonably'.

Amendment No. 141, in

clause 45, page 22, line 12, at end insert

'for the purpose of the investigation'.

Amendment No. 142, in

clause 45, page 22, line 13, leave out from 'but' to third 'it' in line 14 and insert 'only if'.

Amendment No. 143, in

clause 45, page 22, line 16, leave out from 'but' to second 'it' in line 17 and insert 'only if'.

This clause deals with the powers of fire and rescue authority employees on premises that they have entered. The amendments would add a reasonableness test to the exercise of those powers.

Amendment No. 139 would limit the powers over documents to those that the employee, the authorised entrant, reasonably believes to be relevant. At present, there is no restriction and the authorised officer can inspect and copy any documents or records on the premises or remove them from the premises. I cannot see any qualifying provision anywhere that they must be relevant or reasonably believed to be relevant to the investigation or other matter under way.

Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 refer to the powers of inspection and testing and, again, would limit those powers to matters reasonably considered necessary to the investigation. That does not seem to be over-restrictive or unexceptional and, bearing in mind the Minister of State's extreme caution in our discussion a few minutes ago about creating wider powers, I should have thought that he would want to be clear that the powers that can be exercised are directly relevant to the investigation or matter in hand.

Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 would change the limitation on power to remove items from the current provision in the Bill, which is a blanket permission to remove items or take samples from items with the restriction only that it should be not so as to destroy the item unless necessary, to a more general restriction that there should not be such a power unless it is necessary. As I read the clause, a sample can be taken or an item can be removed so long as it is not destroyed or damaged, unless it is necessary to do so. However, the unless-it-is-necessary test should apply to removing the item in the first place. That is what the amendments seek to ensure, and I look forward to the Under-Secretary's comments.

Amendments Nos. 139 to 141 seek to clarify when the powers provided by the clause may be used. The amendments are unnecessary because the powers themselves are exercisable only for the purpose of investigating the cause of a fire or fire spread pursuant to the power of entry for that purpose provided by clause 44(1). The authorised person must act reasonably in any event because those powers are for the purpose of investigating the cause of a fire or fire spread. There is, therefore, no need to limit the power in the way intended by the hon. Gentleman.

The effect of amendments Nos. 142 and 143 would be to remove the power to destroy or damage an article or substance while taking a sample or dismantling an article, which is provided by the words

''not so as to destroy it or damage it''

in subsection (2)(d). A fire investigator must be able to investigate a fire properly by dismantling an article and taking samples, and that may, of necessity, involve some damage. However, the clause provides that damage to property may be deliberately inflicted only when it is necessary, which, by virtue of clause 44, means that it is necessary for the purpose of the investigation. We are describing all those powers in relation to clause 44(1), which is for the purpose of fire investigation. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will accept that his amendments are unnecessary.

I am not a lawyer, but I can readily see the Under-Secretary's point. However, it is not immediately obvious to me that, if an entry under the powers in clause 44(1)(a) or (b) is effected, the actions taken thereafter are limited to those that are necessary in pursuance of the original cause of entry, which is what the Under-Secretary is saying. Entry having taking place under those powers, there is then a blanket built-in presumption that every action taken, even if specifically authorised in different terms, has implicitly within the authorisation the caveat: in so far as it is necessary for the purpose for which the original entry was effected. That is not self-evident, but the Under-Secretary made that point.

I shall discuss the matter with the shadow Attorney-General, who will probably tell me that the Under-Secretary is right, even though his interpretation is not obvious to me. If I am told otherwise, the hon. Gentleman will hear from me in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.