Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I can see the fear, but I am advised that it works thus; so far, there have only been difficulties where the business has failed to and/or refused to comply reasonably. For instance, there are those who say, ““I am not my brother’s keeper: if I provide this service to an individual and they use it for nefarious practices—whether that is drug-smuggling, people-trafficking or anything else unbeknown to me—that is not my business””. It might also be claimed, ““If I receive a great deal of money for converting a car, which is used for nefarious practices, that is not my business, because I am entitled to get as much money as I can for services that I supply””. Where there is a refusal to take on board the consequence of that activity, it would be reasonable to apply for an order to ensure that that individual at least apprises the authorities of who the customers are. In some cases with which we are dealing, the business will say, ““I don’t know the name of the person or receive any money in written form. I receive it in cash, and there is no way at all that I can help””. In those circumstances, the Serious Organised Crime Agency certainly thinks that impropriety needs to be addressed, if we are to curtail criminal activity. It has been claimed that the conditions are oppressive. Noble Lords will know—because we have been debating them a great deal regarding actions taken under SIAC—that if conditions are applied that amount to house arrest, a derogation from the Human Rights Act would be needed. We have no derogating orders in this country; therefore any condition attached by the court would have to be HRA-compliant; otherwise, I am sure, it would be struck down. I can certainly write to noble Lords to give further and other such cases that we are dealing with and that may assist. Indeed, Sir Stephen Lander was able to explore many of those with us last night, but, as I have explained, it would not be proper for me to further explore them in the open forum of your Lordships’ House.