Clause 23.—(POWER OF ENTRY.) (Hansard, 17 January 1967)

§ Mr. Peart
I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 24, line 9, at the beginning to insert: 'For the purpose of obtaining information with respect to any matter which is of concern to the Commission'. 193 When we discussed Clause 23 in Committee, we accepted the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and said that we would see if it would be possible to limit the purposes for which these powers could be used. We have looked at this matter again, and we propose to limit the purposes for which these powers can be used to the obtaining of information on matters which are of concern to the Commission. This is very close to the wording suggested by the hon. Member, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Stodart
We had suggested that this should be inserted at the end of the subsection, but we are perfectly happy to have it at the very beginning, and we are grateful to the Minister.

§ Mr. John Mackie
I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 24, line 20, to leave out 'has power to enter under' and to insert, 'enters by virtue of'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
With this Amendment we are to discuss. Amendment No. 31, in page 24, line 20, to leave out 'A person' and to insert 'An authorised officer'.

§ Mr. Mackie
Subsection (2) of Clause 23 would permit authorised officers of the Commission, when exercising their powers of entry, to take in with them such other persons as may be necessary. Subsection (3), if amended by Amendment No. 32, would provide powers of inspection for both the authorised officers of the Commission and the accompanying persons.
Amendment No. 31 does not seek to omit the first of these provisions, that relating to powers for authorised officers of the Commission to take other persons in with them when entering premises, but it would have the absurd effect of preventing these accompanying persons from inspecting livestock, meat and other things when they got there. It would, therefore, prevent these persons from playing their part under Clause 23.
We explained in Standing Committee —cols. 572–3 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—why we thought it necessary to provide for the possibility of persons accompanying authorised officers. Without going 194 over the whole discussion again, I will summarise the points then made. I emphasise that we are not suggesting that anybody should be enabled to enter premises, but we do think that it will sometimes be necessary for an authorised officer of the Commission to take with him someone else who will act as a witness—perhaps an expert one, but not necessarily so—who will provide corroborative evidence in any subsequent legal proceedings that may be necessary. On previous experience in the Ministry, we know that this is sometimes necessary in order to obtain expert advice, to provide a witness in urgent cases, or to permit a local officer to accompany a headquarters officer.
The alternative would be to authorise a large number of Commission officers to enter premises, a step we would regret, and to make these authorised officers work in pairs, which would be a waste of public money. What we propose is simple and has worked well in previous cases. This is why we wish to provide these powers and why we oppose the Opposition's Amendment No. 31.
Amendment No. 32 is concerned merely with a drafting flaw which was raised by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) in Standing Committee—col. 575 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. As the Bill is at present drafted, there is some doubt whether it actually gives powers of entry to the persons accompanying authorised officers. Consequently, when subsection (3) refers to persons having power to enter under this section there is some doubt whether this is wide enough to cover the accompanying persons as well as the authorised officers of the Commission. The Amendment should clear up any doubt. The revised wording refers to persons entering by virtue of this section and this clearly applies to both authorised officers of the Commission and any persons they may take in with them.

§ Mr. Godber
The Parliamentary Secretary has shown the danger of an Opposition putting down Amendments in some instances. He has not accepted what we suggested but has gone in the opposite direction. Had we left things as they were, he would probably not have put his Amendment down and we should 195 have achieved our objective. It shows that, perhaps, we have been too persistent in trying to press our case.
We on this side are very nervous about the additional persons. We do not dispute that authorised officers should have any access that is necessary. By our Amendment we have sought to bring it back to the authorised officers. The Minister has rejected this and we have his Amendment now which makes it abundantly clear that any other person who is taken in by an authorised officer will be able to carry out any inspections he himself thinks necessary, whether he is instructed to do so by the authorised officer or not. That is how I understand it. I am, therefore, even less happy than before the Amendment was moved.
11.45 p.m.
We have felt all along that the powers of entry which are being proliferated in various ways should be given with the greatest reluctance. While we accepted that they should be given for an authorised officer, we are not at all happy at their extension to other people. We cannot welcome either the rejection of our Amendment or the initiation of the Government's Amendment. Both these things operate against our wishes. We do not think it necessary to give these wide powers of inspection to unrestricted other persons.
The previous subsection merely refers to them as such other persons as may appear to the authorised officer to be necessary". It is a very wide category. The authorised officer can take with him in this way anybody he likes to take, and anybody who he takes in will then have powers, because he will have entered by virtue of this section", to inspect any livestock or meat or…any price lists or price marks, labels, tags or tickets or any other displays of prices of meat for sale. Anybody who is taken by an authorised officer will be able to do this.
This is extending the Clause unnecessarily widely and I can only deplore what the Government are doing in this 196 regard. It would have been better had it been left as it was. We wished the Minister to make a firm restriction. He has not made a case for this extension and I can only regret that he has felt it necessary to move his Amendment.