---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 102A: 102A: Clause 101, page 76, line 18, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert— ““( ) An interim violent offender order— (a) has effect only for such period as is specified in the order, and (b) ceases to have effect (if it has not already done so) at the appropriate time.”” The noble Lord said: The amendment would amend the period in respect of which an interim violent offender order may be in force. The order could be made for a fixed period of any duration but could not be renewed after this time. Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 deal with the same issue, albeit taking a different approach. Interim violent offender orders could not remain in force for more than two weeks and could not be renewed after that time. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, by his amendments, seeks to ensure that interim violent offender orders are not used as a substitute for full violent offender orders, and nor would they be operable indefinitely. We have had a lot of discussion about the purpose of an interim order, which is to provide short-term and immediate protection for the public while the decision on the main application is being made. I shall set out exactly why it is important to provide immediate protection and why the period for which an interim order can be imposed should not be overly restricted. There will inevitably be occasions when there is a delay to a decision being taken on the main violent offender order. Her Majesty’s Courts Service has indicated that such a delay will typically be at the request of the individual in respect of whom the application has been made in order to secure sufficient time to consider the application fully or to enable attendance at the hearing. This could result in the postponement of a hearing by weeks, or even months, and therefore a possible gap in public protection for the same period. The length of adjournment will obviously vary on a case-by-case basis. The Courts Service has indicated that in the majority of cases it is likely to be in excess of two weeks. However, it has also advised that the court will know the exact time period for which an interim order should apply according to the length of adjournment granted. On this basis, government Amendment No. 102A requires that interim violent offender orders be made for a fixed period of time as specified in each individual order, or until a decision on the main order has been taken, if that is sooner. It also removes the provision to renew interim orders. This will ensure that interim violent offender orders are not used as a substitute for full violent offender orders and that they cannot be applied indefinitely. Other government amendments we have considered today will ensure that an interim order will be made only when the court is satisfied that the application for the main order is likely to be successful. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the House and that the noble Earl will feel that we have made a considerable move in his direction and will be able to withdraw his amendment.