Clause 1
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
It is the business of Parliament to safeguard the rights of the citizen. Of course we trust the courts to act justly; we need to set out the criteria by which they will have to implement the order-making power. Incidentally—we will come to this shortly—this Bill does not provide any proper criteria of any kind to guide the courts. That is why I tabled amendments, one of which includes the word “proportionate”, which the hon. Gentleman has just used, which does not appear in the Bill as drafted. As the hon. Gentleman used my word, I hope he will support my amendment, because it reflects exactly the policy that he is articulating.
The truth is that it is the business of Parliament to safeguard the liberties of the subject; the courts have an important role to play, but the plain fact is that if you give power to anybody there is a risk that it will be abused. That is why, as a matter of principle, we should give the minimum power that has to be extended in a democratic society for the good of society. I am not in favour of giving powers that are capable of being abused.
I return to my point: the Bill creates the power to make draconian orders in respect of trivial offences—or things that are not offences at all. That being so, how can we remedy it, other than having a stand part debate and excluding clause 1? It is a matter for the Chairman, Mr. Bercow, but I hope that we will have lots of stand part debates on clause after clause. One very important step is to ensure that the courts cannot make these orders unless they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the criteria are made out.