Clause 17
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
11:30 am
Vernon Coaker (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful contribution, which goes to the heart of the debate. My hon. Friend and all hon. Members would defend civil liberties. We understand that, but—this is part of the reason for the Bill—in certain circumstances it is necessary for the victim’s civil liberties to be given a little more precedence than those of somebody who is causing harm to a community and may cause it harm in the future. That is my hon. Friend’s point. It will be very difficult for us to explain to our constituents if we pass a measure in Parliament that prevents the court from doing something which could prevent harm to them in the future. My hon. Friend’s powerful speech reminds the Committee and all hon. Members that there is a difficult balance to strike between the rights of the individual subject and public protection. We are trying to strike that balance and we ought to remember the civil liberties and rights of the victim as much as we sometimes remember those of the perpetrators of crime. It makes sense to include something in the clause to anticipate an earlier order or provision ceasing to be in force.
I can understand, to an extent, why the hon. Member for Taunton tabled the amendments, but I hope—although, given the debate, I am not that hopeful—that he will accept that they are unnecessary. He seeks to provide a protection to subjects of orders so that the orders are not renewed unreasonably on expiry.