Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 89: 89: Schedule 2, page 52, line 28, leave out paragraph 2 The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 90 to 92 as we reach the end of Part 1. The amendments make the applicant authorities take more effective control over decisions to go to court to obtain serious crime prevention orders. The Explanatory Notes state that there will be tight control over the process of applying for an order to be made. We question whether the procedure set out in Schedule 2 is sufficiently rigorous. We are using these amendments to ask the Minister to put on the record the process by which SOCA will propose that an application be made, which then goes through a period of scrutiny followed by application to a court. The schedule clarifies which authorities may make an application for an order: the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Paragraph 109 of the Explanatory Notes states that: "““A Director must expressly delegate his functions rather than it occurring automatically. This will ensure that the exercise of the powers is kept under tight control by the Directors””." But the drafting apparently does not give quite the crystal clear explanation that paragraph 109 seems to offer as an assurance. Schedule 2(2)(1) says: "““The Director may, to such extent as he may decide, delegate the exercise of his functions under this Part to a Crown Prosecutor””." In theory, that could mean that the DPP couldsimply give a general ruling on day one of the implementation of this Bill that, henceforth, all Crown prosecutors may make the decision to apply for an order. That would mean that no special overview was required or guaranteed by the DPP. I hope that the Minister does not foresee that situation, but we need clarity on this. I appreciate that a back-up provision intendedto give some reassurance is found in paragraph 3, whereby the Attorney-General will superintend the functions exercised by all the directors. Is it intended that the Attorney-General will review each and every application personally, or will he delegate his powers? If he delegates his powers, will his office automatically scrutinise each and every application coming forward from the various directors? The Government’s public estimate so far has been that approximately 30 orders a year are likely to be made; that has been culled from various press releases. Is that still their view, and on what have they based that assumption? I beg to move.