Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 April 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.


Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 95B: 95B: Clause 96, page 72, line 12, after ““conditions”” insert ““as specified in section (Provisions that orders may contain)”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to a new topic in the Bill. Much has been said both on Second Reading and in Committee about the unsatisfactory legal status of VOOs and, in particular, about the confusion between the civil and criminal principles that they engender. I do not propose to reignite that debate at this late stage in the proceedings, so I shall address the reasons for our amendments as briefly as I can. On the amendment that I am moving, the Government have conceded that there should be some indication in the Bill of what a VOO might comprise. We welcome that concession but think that it does not go far enough. We believe that there should be a clear and detailed, if not wholly exhaustive, list of what receiving a VOO implies, amendable by an affirmative order. A good example of our thinking is given in Section 1(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, where there is a list that, if not exhaustive, nevertheless contains specific provisions. That is the kind of thing that we have in mind for the VOO section in the Bill. On a separate matter, the Government have their Amendment No. 101A and we are particularly concerned about subsection (2)(d) of the proposed new clause—the limitation on, "““associating with any specified group or organisation””." We disagree with the power to impose a VOO to prevent a person from associating with a specified group or organisation. The freedom to associate is a fundamental right, as the Government know well from their political history. If the Government consider that some groups pose a risk of serious violent harm to public safety, they should take appropriate steps. Much has been said in your Lordships’ House on whether VOOs exceed the limit of civil preventive orders and are punishments. Without a clear indication of what a VOO is or is not, the danger of straying into the area of punishment becomes that much more likely. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c1546-7 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Data protection Criminal proceedings Crime Armed forces Crimes of violence Court orders Burglary Journalism Offenders Protest Newspaper press Religion Religious buildings Freedom of association Self-defence
Legislation
Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk