Schedule 1
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
5:00 pm
Vernon Coaker (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
Do you know, I am absolutely terrified of getting the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency wrong? I am going to write it in big letters. In response to what he said, I should like to say that I believe that prostitution and keeping a brothel are serious offences. It is right that they should be listed in the schedule and that, in relation to such an offence, the High Court should be able to consider whether a serious crime prevention order is appropriate in the circumstances.
The schedule is based to a large extent on schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which sets out “lifestyle offences” in which serious criminals regularly engage. In developing the list for the purposes of this legislation, we also thought about other serious offences against which it might be suitable to use the orders. Two criticisms of the orders have been made. The first questioned why we did not include offences against a person, which I think we dealt with in a previous discussion. The second criticism related to environmental offences. The hon. Member for Taunton, among others, raised that point. Those offences were included on the recommendation of the Association of Chief Police Officers lead for wildlife and environmental crime. Environmental crime, such as the poaching of fish or dumping of waste, can cause both ecological and economic harm to local communities. Ecological harm, in particular, is the perfect example in which prevention is most assuredly better than a cure, which makes the orders a potentially valuable tool. The inclusion of environmental offences is extremely important.
I recognise that it easy to make a debating point of sorts by saying that a serious crime prevention order will be made against anybody who takes one fish from the lord of the manor’s river or trout farm. In response, I say that we are talking about serious crime. As we all know—I said it this morning and Lord Dear said it—chucking an explosive into a pond is more serious than taking the odd fish, although that is illegal as well.
The Government amendments relate to two areas where we think it is important for the orders to be an option. In response to a helpful suggestion from a colleague of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs in another place, Baroness Anelay, we agreed that we could consider adding robbery to the schedule, where it is committed with a firearm or offensive weapon. There is no specific offence of armed robbery, but we believe that parliamentary counsel’s drafting of Government amendments Nos. 24 and 29 meets the commitment that we made in the other place. I hope that those Government amendments meet the concerns of Baroness Anelay, and that the hon. Gentleman will not press amendment No. 23.