Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 March 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Let me say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, that I agree with the spirit of the amendment, which would ensure a means of amending or discharging an order, but the amendment is not necessary because we have already made provision for this in Clauses 17 and 18. We believe that those clauses ensure that we avoid a situation where an order becomes unreasonable by virtue of no longer being relevant. Perhaps I may say with respect that the noble Lord’s amendment would make the scheme in relation to these orders impractical, because it would place an obligation on the applicant authorities to apply for a variation or discharge of an order where there has been a change of circumstance which makes the order or particular terms of it no longer necessary, but that change of circumstance may be in the peculiar knowledge of the individual who is adversely affected or constrained by the order. It would mean that when the applicant authority did not make such an application because it was not aware of the change of circumstance, it would be in breach of a statutory obligation. Clauses 17 and 18 emphasise the need for the authorities to come back in relation to these matters where appropriate. The party to the order-making process who is best placed to determine whether there has been a change of circumstance relative to the order may well be the third party themselves. Where such a change has occurred, the Bill provides a means for them to apply to the High Court, as the noble Lord has directed. Under Clauses 17 and 18 it is open to the relevant applicant authority to make an application for variation or discharge at any time, regardless of whether there has been a change of circumstance. Further, the relevant applicant authority will keep the orders under review and make applications when appropriate. That, I think, is really what the noble Lord wants to ensure. What we have provided for here is to ensure that the person who knows of the change is in a position to apply for a variation or discharge. If that person happens to be the individual affected by the order and there is a change of circumstance, they can make the application. If the relevant applicant authority comes to the view that either there is a change in circumstance or some other reason why the order is no longer appropriate—it may not have been a change in circumstance for the individual but, asthe noble Lord has alluded, some other relevant circumstance may make it appropriate—it can apply to have the order discharged. Further, as I have said, we will keep this under review.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 690 c805
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal proceedings Crime prevention Crime Charities Companies Crown Prosecution Service Firearms Environment Exemptions Insolvency Pollution Property Mental health Poaching Registration Serious Fraud Office Robbery Serious Organised Crime Agency Angling High Court Northern Ireland Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Serious crime prevention orders
- Legislation
- Serious Crime Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:35:00 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385236
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385236
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385236