July 2007

How often have you heard people complain that the rights of criminals are put before the rights of victims?  How many times have you heard the demand that something ought to be done?  And what would happen if the authorities suspected a terrorist outrage was about to take place but did nothing to stop it?

Over the past few weeks I've been helping to take the Serious Crime Bill through its committee stage in the House of Commons.  One of the key proposals is the introduction of Serious Crime Prevention Orders.  These civil orders, imposed by the Courts, will protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by a person in serious crime.  Acting to prevent a crime before it takes place is not entirely new.  Anti Social Behaviour Orders place restrictions on troublemakers to prevent crime and disorder from happening in an area.  Football Banning Orders stop hooligans from travelling to matches to cause trouble.  And, more seriously, control orders place restrictions on terror suspects who might otherwise get involved in terror attacks.  Serious Crime Prevention Orders seek to extend powers to intervene to prevent serious crime such as firearms offences, arms trafficking, drug offences, people trafficking, prostitution and child sex offences.  Of course it would be hoped that the evidence was there to arrest and convict serious offenders but when this is not always possible Crime Prevention Orders will seek to prevent the crime.  Breaching the civil order will be a criminal offence.

Prevention orders are controversial.  Some argue that suspects' rights must be protected - after all they have not been proved to have committed any offence. But what about the rights of the potential victim and the wider public?. Civil liberties legislation dates back in part to the days when individual rights had to be projected from the fascist state.  The challenge now, certainly in terrorist cases, is to protect individual and democratic rights from fascist individuals and groups.

I know how important tackling crime is to my constituents.  I know they support effective action including biometric ID cards.  I also believe I know where they stand on the balance between the rights of law breakers and law abiders.  My job as the Home Office Whip has allowed me to press those views at the heart of government.  And that's something I intend to continue to do.