Clause 10
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
2:45 pm
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
The amendments are designed to give greater protection to third parties who are affected by these orders. As suggested in an earlier debate, third parties can be affected, as they may have dealings with a person who is the subject of a serious crime prevention order, and their rights will have been prejudiced bythe order.
The Bill enables third parties to make representations under three circumstances: when the original order is made, when there is an application to vary it, and when there is an application to discharge it. I entirely agree with the proposition that third parties who are affected should have an opportunity to make representations. However, looking at the Bill itself, I find no criteria that would enable the court to determine whether to accede to the representations made by third parties.
The Government are clearly conscious of that point. If one looks at paragraph 3.6 of the Green Paper on page 37, they address the question of what thirdparty rights should be. It refers us to the European convention on human rights: to article 8 on privacy and family life, and to article 1 of the first protocol, which deals with interference with property.
However, I think that we should be more precise. When we are dealing with a matter of this importance the Bill should make the criteria absolutely plain. Therefore, I am trying to incorporate in the Bill a requirement that the order should not be made by the High Court unless it would be fair to the person making the representations, and was proportionate—having regard to the interests of that person and to the public interest—and that similar criteria should be brought into play, mutatis mutandis, on the other two applications to vary and to discharge.
In fact, that would do little more than what the Government say in the White Paper that they want to do. However, I am very reluctant to rely on the convention, because it is expressed in general terms and is not, in my view, sufficiently explicit in the protection that it gives the third parties, and is, therefore, not an adequate safeguard. I very much hope that the Committee will place in the Bill something that would constitute a more effective safeguard for the rights of said parties, whose interests might be quite seriously prejudiced.