Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Much of what I was going to say has been said, so Members will be relieved to know that I will be blissfully brief. It is wise to treat any new Government law and order legislation with a degree of scepticism. We have heard already of the 3,000 or so offences that have come on to the statute book in the last 10 years, and of legislation such as the Criminal Justice Act 2003, of which large parts—constituting nearly a third, I believe—have never been brought into force or repealed. It is time to say to the Government that the effectiveness of an anti-crime strategy should be measured not by how much legislation they pass and put on to the statute book, but by how effective that strategy is in convicting criminals, and by the perception and reality of crime in our communities and constituencies. This is a very significant Bill that to an extent redefines the balance between giving new powers to the state—to the Executive, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said—and the erosion of civil liberties. Let us be clear: the introduction of a civil order is a significant shift in power from the individual to the state. The chief concern of many is the eroding of civil liberties. It goes without saying that, like everyone in this House, I want to see serious criminals arrested, charged and convicted, but my worry is that if these orders become law, investigations into such criminals will go so far, and then the path of least resistance will be taken. Too often, the path of least resistance will be to apply to the High Court for a serious crime prevention order. The Government assure us that these orders are just another arrow in the quiver of their law enforcement provision. My concern is that instead of being an add-on, they will be used as an alternative to proper judicial process. I am conscious that I am standing here surrounded by colleagues who are learned in the law, so I will be going down a difficult path in briefly examining the detail of the legalities of what the Government are trying to do. The Bill is still very loose in the parameters it sets. It contains a requirement that"““a person has been involved in a serious crime””," which suggests to us, in line with a common law definition, that an individual has to have been convicted of a crime before such an order can be sought. However, we know that that is not the case. The Bill in fact says that"““a person has been involved in a serious crime…if he…has committed a serious offence””" or"““has facilitated the commission by another person of a serious offence””," or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said earlier,"““has conducted himself in a way that was likely to facilitate the commission by himself or another person of a serious offence””," whether or not such an offence has been committed. We do not know the precise meaning of the phrase"““that was likely to facilitate the commission…of a serious offence””." That is a matter for the courts. It is clear that the legislation allows for circumstances where no crime has been, or is likely to be, committed. There is a further worry regarding the intent of an individual and the possibility that they had no knowledge that they were operating in a way that facilitated a serious crime. I shall not go through the Bill’s definition of serious crime—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough has done so—but there are gradations of such offences, and some are more serious than others. I do not intend, either, to go into the salmon fishing, trout poaching scenario that the Minister talked about earlier, not least because I would probably have to declare an interest. However, we cannot be satisfied with the extent of that definition in the Bill. It seems that the Government view law and order legislation as being roughly on the right track if it enrages the legal establishment. I do not consider the approval of organisations such as the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association as always necessary, but it is at least desirable to have their seal of approval; after all, these people do know what they are talking about. If the Government had listened at an earlier stage to such organisations and to the Select Committee, there would have been less need for a whole raft of amendments in another place. I will not repeat what the Law Society said about this provision, but is worth getting on the record what the Criminal Bar Association said:"““there can be no public policy that necessitates such a draconian course which rides roughshod over the legal principles upon which our criminal justice is based””." Those are serious words. People are right to say that the use of a civil process to impose a criminal liability is criminal justice by the back door. There are already such provisions on the statute book—we are starting to get used to this process—although I am not seeking to repeal them or to trash them this evening. Company directors’ disqualification legislation, football banning orders and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were all civil orders leading to a criminal liability; however, little of such legislation is on the scale of this Bill. The role of civil process is to provide a mechanism for resolving private wrongs where the public element of the wrong is absent. These orders are introduced as civil injunction orders, which means that the Government are taking us down a much more treacherous path. They are predicated on the notion that at some time in the future, a person will commit an unspecified criminal offence and needs to be prevented from doing so. That is entirely different from someone actually committing an offence, or encouraging, assisting or inciting another to do so. I want to touch briefly on the amendment in the House of Lords concerning gun crime, which the Minister swept aside as though it did not matter at all. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) and I are members of the Home Affairs Committee, and we have heard recent evidence about appalling situations in challenging communities where gun crime is an all too present danger. This is a really serious issue, yet the Minister swept it aside with a quote from the Association of Chief Police Officers saying that such legislation is unnecessary. Initially, I was amazed to discover that the amendment by Lord Marlesford was necessary; I thought that a provision in law already existed enabling the searching of people for guns. The amendment is about using technology against gangs and groups of young people to search them for firearms, which is a sensible option. If the police were concerned about it, I would take that into consideration, but when Lord Marlesford proposed the amendment he said:"““I particularly noted the enthusiasm of Assistant Commissioner Tariq Ghaffur of the Metropolitan Police, who has particular responsibility for safety on London streets.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2007; Vol. 691, c. 918.]" I hope that the Minister will consider that point. I am prepared to accept that the amendment may require more safeguards, as it is only a short provision. Despite grave concerns, I wish to give the Minister the opportunity to prove that the orders can operate without undermining our system of justice. It took 20 years to achieve the recent conviction of a Mr. Big, and I note that he was convicted, Al Capone style, of a fairly minor offence compared with some of the offences that people felt he might have been convicted of. We cannot treat this matter lightly, because there are some serious criminals out there whom we want to stop, and we must provide the police with all the means of doing that. But we cannot ride roughshod over the freedoms and liberties that have been fought for so hard and for so long. Today, some of my constituents visited the Palace and, like many visitors, they commented on the small size of the Chamber. People are always surprised that it is so small. I always remind them that Winston Churchill used to refer to this place as a ““little room””. He did not mean that pejoratively, but as a term of endearment. As he pointed out, this little room is the shrine to our liberties. He really understood that the liberties we guard in this place were hard fought for and should be protected. While we support any action that bears down on the most appalling criminals in our society, we do not do so at the expense of those liberties.