Violent Offender Order debate

Last covered here in January - my article on the growth of using civil orders to prevent crime may also of interest - they were debated in the Lords last night as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Well, the BBC says,

The government also suffered another defeat on the bill, relating to violent offender orders.

The Tories, backed by the Lib Dems, asked for a detailed list of what exactly the imposition of such an order would mean for the recipient.

Home Office minister Lord West said there was no one single solution, so an exhaustive list of conditions would not be appropriate as courts would be able to “exercise their discretion”. But the amendment was carried by 127 votes to 116, a majority of 11.

But it doesn’t make clear what that amendment was (there were a number)! Annoying.

Of course it’s difficult to tell from Hansard (even using the excellent Public Whip). Why is politics so sometimes so inaccessible?

But as far as I can tell, VOOs made it to third reading.

A highlight:

Lord Judd (Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Interfering with the liberty of the subject to the extent envisaged in these provisions is unthinkable. As a young politician three or four decades ago, I would never have believed that this House would be seriously considering moving quite deliberately to administrative law and deserting the whole basis of our system.

We used to criticise other countries for having adopted systems of administrative law, and we held our system up as the model for the world. I have been containing myself this evening, but I have reached the point at which I have to say that I am deeply troubled by what is happening.