Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 39: 39: After Clause 35, insert the following new Clause— ““Disclosure of information in accordance with orders (1) A person who complies with a requirement imposed by a serious crime prevention order to answer questions, provide information or produce documents does not breach— (a) any obligation of confidence; or (b) any other restriction on making the disclosure concerned (however imposed). (2) But see sections 11 to 14 (which limit the requirements that may be imposed by serious crime prevention orders in connection with answering questions, providing information or producing documents).”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as part of the consultation process for and following the Green Paper, my honourable friend Vernon Coaker met several stakeholders, including Liberty, to discuss the planned provisions for the Bill. Liberty raised the concern during that meeting that the subject of an order could be placed in an invidious position by being subject to conflicting obligations—for example, an obligation to disclose a piece of information under the provisions of an order that might conflict with a contractual duty of confidence. We do not want these orders to affect pre-existing restrictions such as these, but equally we do not want to provide a gap whereby serious criminals could seek to create such restrictions to frustrate the court’s order. As a result, we thought it best to provide a protection for the subject of an order so that he or she would not be liable for any breach of a restriction on the disclosure of information occasioned by complying with an order. The amendment provides for the efficacy of the orders while offering important protectionsto the subject of the order. I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships. I beg to move.