AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 82 (Hansard, 5 July 1995)

§ Lord Macaulay of Bragar
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82A as an amendment to Amendment No. 82. This amendment is linked also with Amendment No. 83C and seeks to substitute the word "relevance" for the words "substantial value". I do not believe that the amendment is very happily phrased. The message which the amendment seeks to spell out is that to allow a search of any place under a warrant and to take anything which is of "substantial value" in a criminal investigation is far too wide. What is taken should be of relevance and substantial value. Perhaps the Government will look again at that. Otherwise a police officer searching for, for example, drugs may enter a property with a warrant and clean out a house and take everything, subject to hire purchase and so on. It may be better if we insert the word "relevance" to indicate that a police officer cannot just take everything from the house. I beg to move.

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, the new clauses as introduced by Commons Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 closely follow the disclosure provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 and the powers applicable to England and Wales contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 Act and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.
These new clauses introduce very strict measures for the seizure and disclosure of material to the court as part of an investigation into whether somebody has benefited from an offence. Those measures are tempered by the requirement that for material to be seized or disclosed under the new provisions, it must be of substantial value to the investigation.
A requirement for the material to be only of relevance, as proposed by the amendments, would substantially widen the seizure and disclosure powers beyond the existing provisions in both Scotland and England. I am satisfied that those powers are sufficient for the investigation into the proceeds of general crime and I see no reason why they should be wider than the existing powers in the drug trafficking legislation or the equivalent powers in England and Wales. I hope with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Macaulay of Bragar
My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. On this side of your Lordships' House, we have no desire to impede the investigation into drug trafficking offences and the profits coming from that. I tabled the amendment in order to prevent a policeman from entering a house and taking everything from it, whether or not it is of relevance. However, I shall read with interest what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 82A.