Clause 11
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm
Vernon Coaker (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
Mr. Benton, I have pointed out the number of times we agreed with the Opposition in the House of Lords and amended the Bill accordingly. We tabled an amendment on armed robbery, which we included in the schedule. The schedule was voted against, even though it included something that the Opposition wanted. I was about to say something reasonably positive to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I get scoffed at—my confidence is seeping away as we continue.
On amendment No. 107, the civil procedure rules provide for notice to be given to the proposed subject of an order when an application for an order has to be made. Under those general rules, the notice period is usually three days. I am afraid that—this is where I differ with the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I cannot support the idea of acquiring a notice periodof 56 days because I believe that that would be impractical. It could have the perverse effect that, where an order could prevent an immediate harm, law enforcement and the applicant authority would have to wait nearly two months before they could seek an order in the High Court. The people who might be harmed by the serious criminal behaviour that the order is designed to prevent would want us to accept that such a delay in preventing harm was inappropriate.
I am confident that, as part of giving effect to the overriding objective, an adjournment could be granted, if to do otherwise would cause injustice. However, with regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment, we will consider what an appropriate period of time would be. It might be that three days is too short, although we feel that 56 days is too long.We want to consult the applicant authorities andother authorities. We would like him to withdraw the amendment, with my commitment that we will look at the issue. However, to be clear, we think that 56 days is too long.