Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving me that comprehensive reply, but it does not satisfy me, as it does not recognise the criminal nature of the proceedings. The whole purpose of the rule against hearsay is to prevent people being convicted on evidence that they cannot actually cross-examine. Hearsay means that the person on whose statement the prosecution relies cannot be cross-examined or questioned. It is apparent that under the provisions of the Bill it would be possible for a police officer, for example, or a member of the investigatory services to go into the witness box and say, ““I was told this by X””, and there is no way in which to challenge that. The consequences on the individual facing the order are, nevertheless, severe:he can be subjected to a serious crime prevention order, which has the potential for enormous restrictions on his freedom of communication, travel and everything else. Whereas the House of Lords was prepared to accept hearsay evidence for anti-social behaviour orders, we are in a completely different league here. It is for that reason that I seek the opinion of the House on this issue. On Question, Whether the said amendment(No. 37) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 115. Clause 34 [Proceedings in the High Court]: [Amendment No. 38 not moved.]