This group includes a number of amendments to the sections of the bill that deal with general enforcement powers and the powers of entry and search. The enforcement powers and associated safeguards in that area of the bill generally achieve the policy intent, but I acknowledge that those provisions could be clarified or improved in some areas. The amendments that I have lodged attempt to do that.
From my discussions with a number of committee members over the past few days, I believe that these amendments, and those in groups 6 and 7, provide reassurance that the provisions in the bill on enforcement will be proportionate, clear and include appropriate safeguards.
Amendment 11 strengthens the test for an enforcement officer to take action using the general powers under section 17 by changing it from “appropriate” to “necessary”. That applies
“for the purpose of preventing or ending the commission of ... a ‘Championship offence’ ... or ... in connection with proceedings, or anticipated proceedings, in respect of a Championship offence.”
The strengthening of that test mirrors the strengthening of the test for when an enforcement officer may seek assistance from another person, which is proposed in an amendment in group 6.
Amendment 15 adds a new provision to section 19 to make it explicit that search and entry by an enforcement officer may take place without a warrant
“Where permission is given by the occupier (or another person with the authority to do so)”,
such as an owner or tenant. That was previously implicit in the bill’s provisions.
An equivalent amendment in group 7 makes it explicit that the use of reasonable force under section 20 can take place only when no permission is granted.
Amendment 16 makes it clear that an enforcement officer’s powers of entry and search under section 19 do not extend to authorising that officer to
“search an individual, or ... access data stored electronically”,
such as on a smartphone or a laptop. That was already the policy intent, but Ross Greer raised concerns about those matters. I hope that the amendment provides the reassurances that he was seeking with regard to those important limits on an enforcement officer’s powers.
Amendment 26 adds to section 23 a requirement for an enforcement officer to provide evidence of their identity, in addition to evidence of their authority, when they are requested to do so. That is intended to ensure that businesses and members of the public understand by whom enforcement action is being taken and the powers under which officers are acting. That type of provision can be found in other legislation, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and it is expected that many enforcement officers will be used to enforcing that act’s provisions.
Amendments 14, 19 and 25 provide additional signposting across the enforcement sections of the bill to make it clearer that those sections should be read together to fully understand the scope of and restrictions on those powers.
I understand that amendments 3 and 4, in the name of Mike Rumbles, seek to address some points that were raised during stage 1 about the scope of enforcement officers’ powers. They do that by limiting the powers of entry and search to when an enforcement offence is being committed.
Since the stage 1 debate, I have met Mike Rumbles to discuss the bill and, following that conversation and the amendments that I have lodged, I hope that he no longer intends to move his amendments, as my amendments in this group and the other groups that deal with enforcement powers address his concerns. I thank Mike Rumbles for his engagement on these matters, and I would welcome confirmation from him that he does not intend to move amendments 3 and 4.
In conclusion, the range of amendments on enforcement powers in this group and others that we will discuss later in today’s proceedings address the points that committee members raised during stage 1. I believe that, in doing so, they improve the substance and clarity of the enforcement provisions.
I move amendment 11.