Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 1: 1: Clause 1 , page 1, line 5, leave out ““order”” and insert ““Organised Crime Prevention Order”” The noble Baroness said: The objective of the amendment is to ask the Minister to clarify some of the confusion caused by the consultation paper that preceded the drafting of the Bill and which may have undermined the usefulness of some of the responses. What kind of people have the Government decided the courts and police are no longer capable of tackling via the normal criminal justice system? I am aware that the Minister made it possible last night for noble Lords to hear a briefing by those in charge of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I sent a representative to the meeting and I have seen a note of it. I am sure that the meeting was very helpful to those who were able to attend. The director and the chairman of the Serious Organised Crime Agency gave their own views about what kind of people they might be able to target. I also understand that they gave the examples on the basis that they would be subject to Chatham House rules, because specifics were being given. Certainly against the background of some of the arguments with the BBC and the Guardian this week, I wholeheartedly support the proposal that we should not reveal any of those details on the Floor of the House. I would never myself wish to undermine a police operation and a successful criminal prosecution. We need to know what kind of people the Government are giving up on in terms of criminal prosecutions: who, they feel, are suitable only for subjection to a serious crime prevention order. We will have debates later on what kinds of crimes are being considered; I am asking now, what kind of—we would say—criminals? The consultation paper New Powers Against Organised and Financial Crime was published in July 2006. It was directed that responses be sent to the ““organised crime consultation team””. The executive summary refers to plans to introduce a ““serious crime prevention order””, but Chapter 3, which deals with consultation on this proposal, is suddenly headlined ““Organised crime prevention orders””. We then switch back again, a page or so later, to the use of the term ““serious crime prevention order””. But in the questions put to respondents—for example, questions 7 and 8—the Government return to the term ““organised crime prevention orders””. What kind of criminals and crime are the Government really asking respondents to consider appropriate for this kind of order? It certainly did not appear crystal clear from the consultation paper. What are we expecting to deal with as we consider this Bill: serious crime, organised crime, or serious and organised crime? If it is intended that the order should affect only those involved in organised crime, why not say so consistently? What was the rationale behind the confusing use of different terminology at different times? It is important to know that from the start, because the changes that the Government propose in Part 1 are significant. I note, too, that the proposals relate to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. My noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour and the Duke of Montrose may wish to ask questions about the potential impact on Scotland. As ever, I defer to them on matters relating to Scotland. The report of the Select Committee on the Constitution set out clearly the challenge that lies ahead as we scrutinise Part 1. It said: "““A broad question for the House is whether the use of civil orders in an attempt to prevent serious criminal activity is a step too far in the development of preventative orders. Whether or not the trend towards greater use of preventative civil orders is constitutionally legitimate””—" a matter on which it expressed doubt—serious crime prevention orders, in their view, represented an incursion into the liberty of the subject and constituted a form of punishment that cannot be justified in the absence of a criminal conviction. That challenge has guided how we have approached our consideration of Part 1. I made clear at Second Reading that it is vital that the Government—any Government—should protect the British public from those who do their utmost to encourage serious organised crime and profit from it, while taking great care to stay at arm’s length from those crimes. They are a danger to all of us but their hands never appear dirty in public. We know it is difficult to take measures to protect the public from such people, but we know it is vital that we should. However, the methods we adopt must be proportionate and effective, without undermining our system of law and justice. The Select Committee’s report makes it clear that we should consider whether the Government’s proposals in Part 1 would undermine that system of law and justice. The best weapon against serious criminals is to track them down, charge them and prosecute them. My first reaction when I read Part 1 was that it looked like bad policy and bad law. We are sceptical about the Government’s proposals but we are concerned that we should give them a full, fair consideration. We have therefore tabled a significant number of amendments to Part 1 to give the House the opportunity to examine both the principle and the practice likely to underpin the imposition of serious crime prevention orders by our courts. Our objective is to give noble Lords the fullest opportunity at Committee stage to scrutinise whether these new civil injunctive orders are a step too far or whether there are grounds that can be put forward on which they should be tolerated. The answers we will receive from the Minister during our deliberations on Part 1 will inform our approach on Report. I beg to move.