My Lords, just to revert to my original path, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the burden of proof. We think that for the orders a balance of probabilities is appropriate. The only question I seek assurance on is that if any individual were to be either imprisoned or fined, it would be under the provisions in Clause 23—and my understanding is that under that clause the criminal standard of proof would be necessary. Providing that one has that assurance, we do not object to the burden of proof in the relevant parts of the Bill with respect to the order.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 30 June 2015.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
762 c2029 Session
2015-16Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-07-14 12:26:14 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-06-30/15063056000042
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-06-30/15063056000042
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-06-30/15063056000042