| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments seek in different ways to limit the scope of the powers in proposed new Section 453A, and, I would argue, to restrict the likely effectiveness of the provisions.
Proposed new section 453A provides powers for inspectors and investigators to require access to, and to remain on, premises that they believe are used wholly or partly for the purposes of the business of the company they are investigating.
It can be critical to an investigation for inspectors or investigators to be able to gain access to company premises or to other premises where records of the company are held or its business is carried on. In many cases, that access is gained with the consent of the company under investigation. But there are a number of investigations each year where the progress of the investigation is frustrated by the delaying tactics of the company or its officers. In those cases, the ability to get on to the company's premises and to meet the people involved will enable the inspectors or investigators to exercise more effectively their powers to require the production of documents and information under Sections 434 or 447.
Bearing that in mind, perhaps I may take each amendment in turn. Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 seek to limit the powers in new Section 453A so that they can be exercised only during "normal office hours". But it is very difficult to be certain about what are "normal office hours". Whose normal office hours are we talking about: those of the company under investigation, or those of businesses generally? Companies have widely differing hours of business; for example, although many companies may trade between 9 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., a company operating a call centre that wants to reach people at home might trade during weekday evenings.
I assume that the intention is that the powers should be exercisable only during the normal business hours of the company under investigation. Some companies do not have normal or regular hours of business at all. Further, it is the company itself that determines what are its normal hours of business, and some companies might vary their hours precisely in order to frustrate an investigation. So it is highly undesirable to attempt to limit the powers in that way.
However, we have sought to place a sensible limitation on the times when those powers can be exercised. We have provided that the powers can be exercised only at reasonable times. That is an important safeguard. A visit to premises at a time of day when a company that has regular trading hours is not trading is unlikely to be regarded as taking place at a reasonable time. But the circumstances will determine that. We cannot make hard and fast rules.
Amendment No. 96 seeks to control the amount of time that an inspector or investigator can spend on premises to which he or she has gained entry under new Section 453A. The apparent intention is to provide that an inspector or investigator can stay for a month at most, unless he or she is authorised to stay for longer by the Secretary of State.
I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary. The first line of subsection (2) qualifies not only paragraph (a) of that subsection but also paragraph (b). So, although an inspector or investigator can stay for as long as he or she thinks necessary to further his or her investigation, the inspector or investigator cannot remain on the premises at any time that is not a reasonable time. The inspector or investigator will have to leave when it ceases to be reasonable for the company or other occupier to have him or her there. I suggest that, in most circumstances, that will happen in a matter of hours rather than days or weeks.
By providing expressly, as this amendment seeks to do, that an inspector or investigator cannot stay for more than a month without additional authorisation, we would be implying that it could be perfectly reasonable in many cases for an inspector or investigator to remain on premises continuously for a month. That would be undesirable. It would weaken the safeguard provided by the "reasonable times" test.
Of course, an inspector or investigator may visit the same premises on more than one occasion. But the company is protected because the inspector or investigator will need to have the necessary grounds to
require entry on each occasion. I should add that I do not think it would be desirable to have any specific limit on the amount of time which inspectors or investigators can spend on premises. The "reasonable times" test is a real safeguard, but it also allows each case to be judged on its particular circumstances.Amendment No. 97 seeks to exclude people's homes from the definition of "relevant premises" in new Section 453A. "Relevant premises" are the premises to which an inspector or investigator is to be able to require access under this new section. As the new provisions stand, an inspector or investigator will be able to require access to any premises which he or she believes are used for the business of a company under investigation, including premises which are used both for that purpose and for other purposes too. This includes residential premises—for example, a director's home—if the inspector or investigator believes that these premises are also used for the purposes of the company's business.
It is important that inspectors and investigators should be able, in appropriate circumstances, to have access to residential premises used for a company's business. In practice, the companies which are investigated under Section 447 are predominantly small and it is under Section 447 that the overwhelming majority of company investigations are carried out. Many small companies use the home address of, for example, one or more of their directors as their registered office or trading address, and this address may be the only place where documents relevant to an investigation are kept. Indeed, in some cases the company's only business premises may also be residential premises.
There are great benefits to an investigation in having access to premises used for the company's business. It speeds up the process of acquiring relevant documents and information, helps to avoid possible obstruction and enables the inspectors or investigators to get a clear picture of the company's activities. This can only help the effective uncovering of fraud and malpractice. "Premises" here refers specifically to that part of the premises used for business. So that issue is taken into account in that way. In the light of what I have said, I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 93 and not to move Amendments Nos. 93 to 97.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: As I understand it, the Minister seems to think that writing in "one month" undermines the safeguards that are built into the Bill; that the "reasonable times" test is better; and that there is no justification for concern about people's privacy.
The amendments came indirectly from Mr George Bompas QC, a very experienced company lawyer in this field. He felt quite strongly that the balance was being shifted the wrong way. I should like to read what the Minister has said, talk to Mr Bompas to see whether he feels we need to take the matter further—he obviously knows a great deal more about it than I do—and, if necessary, bring it back again at the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94 to 97 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to Part 1]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
- Page 53, line 35, at end insert—
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Thursday at 3.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing for public consultation proposed changes to the draft regional transport strategy (RTS) for the south-east. They follow the public examination into the draft RTS in July 2003 and the panel report in October 2003.
RTSs are an integral part of regional planning guidance (RPG) and the draft RTS for the south-east represents a revision to RPG9, as published in March 2001. On commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill the RTS will be part of a statutory regional spatial strategy (RSS).
Other partial reviews of RPG9 are at various stages in the process. In particular, a public examination into the Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy is imminent, and the Secretary of State's proposed changes for the Ashford growth area will shortly be published.
The RTS aims to achieve a transport system which progressively reaches the standards of the best in north-west Europe by promoting management of and investment in the system; rebalancing the structure and use of the transport system in favour of more sustainable modes; and supporting the regional spatial strategy, particularly managing and investing in interregional corridors and delivering urban renaissance and sub-regional objectives. This approach should also inform local authorities and other agencies in preparing relevant regional and local strategies.
Overall the panel considered the draft RTS to be broadly compatible with RPG9, with commendably focussed policies. The panel did, however, recommend many changes. Aspects of the strategy which the panel proposed changes to include the selection of strategic corridors (the regional frame), the ranking of priority projects in the investment frameworks, car parking standards, community and demand-based transport, and walking and cycling.
The panel supported the identification and development of regional transport hubs and connecting spokes as a core plank in the strategy. In place of the regional frame the panel identified the region's more important international gateways and interregional movement corridors. Alongside measures to facilitate urban renewal these elements were viewed as priorities for investment to deliver the spatial strategy.
The Government support these aims and are grateful for the recommendations of the panel. However, one change to the panel's recommendations is necessary to ensure the strategy and its components are more coherently focussed and provide transparent direction for the future development of the regional strategy.
A key issue for the region is the treatment of priorities. The panel proposed a priority list of 15 schemes, made up of nine heavy rail, one light rail, two bus and three road schemes. While we view establishing regional priorities as a key element in a future RTS, we were unconvinced that the panel identified the most important regional priorities.
More specifically, the criteria used to identify priorities and the way in which the criteria were applied did not fully reflect the draft government guidance, which was published after the examination concluded. Furthermore, the application of the criteria was not transparent and resulted in a priority list that was largely focussed on a single mode and failed to identify affordability issues.
The process of comprehensively reviewing RPG9 has already begun. As part of this work the regional assembly (RA) is intent on improving the evidence base by developing a robust approach to prioritisation, an activity that I am particularly keen to see progress on.
I have today written to the RA with the proposed changes indicating areas where views are particularly sought from interested parties. There will now be a public consultation period on the proposed changes, which will end on 21 May.
Copies of the relevant documents are available in the Libraries of the House and have been provided for all of the region's MPs, MEPs and local authorities.
"( ) An order under subsection (3) must not—
(a) amend Schedule 15C by specifying a person unless the person exercises functions of a public nature (whether or not he exercises any other function);
(b) amend Schedule 15D by adding or modifying a description of disclosure unless the purpose for which the disclosure is permitted is likely to facilitate the exercise of a function of a public nature."
Page 60, line 18, at end insert—
"A disclosure for the purpose of enabling or assisting a body appointed under section 14 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 (supervision of periodic accounts and reports of issuers of listed securities) to exercise functions mentioned in subsection (2) of that section."
22 Mar 2004 : Column GC263The Committee adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eight o'clock.
Written Statements
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page