My Lords, this is within the context of civil proceedings. I am repeating the arguments that I made in Committee and today. This is an appropriate way to allow the High Court to determine the standard. It is still a civil standard; the court can look at different elements and decide which standard in the civil palette it is most appropriate to apply. These are preventive, not punitive, orders. This is therefore the most appropriate response.
For the reasons that I have given, the Bill provides an effective way of preventing serious crime, and the harm that it causes, while protecting the rights of individuals. However, that is not to say that we have not listened to noble Lords’ concerns and how they have been expressed. The second limb of the test is a question of judgment. Consequently, there would be no standard of proof as such; it would be a matter of a court making a judgment on how to deal with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, asked about cost. As a whole, the department has severe pressures on it, of course. In 2006-07, funding for SOCA was around £20 million, less than the provisional figures in the business plan. However, we believe that there are sufficient funds to enable SOCA to discharge its responsibilities with propriety.
We have taken note of the careful scrutiny thatthe Bill has received from your Lordships’ House, prompting us to bring forward a number of amendments. They will be discussed in their place, but it may assist noble Lords to know that Clause 5(7)—giving discretion to law enforcement officers to determine some partsof an order—is to be deleted and replaced with a much more tightly drafted provision. It may also assist the House to know that we propose to add a new clause to protect those who are subject to restrictions on the disclosure of information, such as a duty of confidence that would be breached by complying with an order.
I must resist these amendments for the reasons that I have set out, but I hope that the House feels that I have been able to provide some reassurance on the process that will take place in making an order and how that will give effective protection to the rights of the subject of the order.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c676-7 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:36:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392257
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392257
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392257