Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 2.

Clause 47 introduces interim serious crime prevention orders as part of the wider regime of serious crime prevention orders established under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Interim serious crime prevention orders are designed to protect the public while a full serious crime prevention order application is considered. The Court can impose an interim serious crime prevention order within hours, imposing a range of conditions and restrictions to disrupt further criminal behaviour. For example, anyone suspected of being involved in people trafficking or other serious crime could face bans on travel, using the internet and mobile phone use.

Interim serious crime prevention orders will allow enforcement agencies to act swiftly to prevent, disrupt or restrict serious offences before they occur. These are the counter terrorism-style powers that attach to the Bill, and they are about disruption and prevention. It is not about waiting until the harm has happened and then arresting people for causing it; it is about trying to prevent the harm from happening in the first place. Interim crime prevention orders will allow enforcement agencies to act swiftly to prevent, disrupt or restrict serious offences before they occur, stopping offenders from reorganising or destroying evidence. This clause allows without notice applications, enabling interim orders to be made without the individual present, if notice could undermine the order’s effectiveness.

Additionally, given that this is a powerful tool, clause 47 provides key safeguards, including the requirement to serve notice of an interim serious crime prevention order within seven days, and to allow individuals to challenge the order in court via the appeal process, or on application to vary its terms or discharge. This is not without precedent; interim orders are successfully used in areas such as sexual risk and modern slavery, where the urgency to protect the public justifies temporary restrictions or requirements on individuals. Clause 47 will enable the National Crime Agency, the police and other law enforcement agencies to act more quickly than current powers allow to protect the public from serious criminals, including those who are engaged in organised immigration crime.

Schedule 2 introduces a series of consequential amendments to the Serious Crime Act 2007 to extend existing provisions to interim serious crime prevention orders. These amendments ensure that interim serious crime prevention orders are governed by the same legal safeguards and processes as full orders. Key provisions include extending protection for individuals under the age of 18, granting the right to make representations in court, and aligning rules for the duration, variation and discharge of orders. The amendments also apply to bodies corporate, partnerships and unincorporated associations, ensuring accountability if they breach an interim serious crime prevention order. Schedule 2 ensures that interim serious crime prevention orders have the same effective safeguards as serious crime prevention orders, while strengthening the legal framework for preventing serious crime.

Clause 47 introduces a new provision for interim serious crime prevention orders. These allow the High Court to impose immediate restrictions, pending the determination of a full serious crime prevention order application. The Court can do that if it considers that it is just to do so. Can the Minister explain a little more by what process the Court will decide whether it is just? Is the criterion that it is necessary for public protection?

Proposed new section 5F of the Serious Crime Act makes provision for without notice applications. That is where the application for an interim serious crime prevention order, or the variation of an interim serious crime prevention order, is made without notice being given to the person against whom the order is made, in circumstances where notice of that application is likely to prejudice the outcome. Subsection (2) of proposed new section 5F makes provision for the Court to allow the relevant person to make representations about the order as soon as is reasonably practicable. Can the Minister explain whether that will always happen after the order is granted?

The High Court will be empowered to impose an interim serious crime prevention order if it considers it just to do so. In other words, it is not an evidential test, because the Court does not apply a standard of proof. Rather, it invites the Court to impose an order before it has heard and tested all the evidence in instances that require fast-paced action to prevent and disrupt serious and organised crime. It is therefore an exercise of judgment or evaluation. There is a precedent for this approach in interim sexual risk orders and interim slavery and trafficking risk orders, which are currently a feature of the system and work reasonably well.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.