Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, further to my noble friend's original Question, is the noble Baroness happy that, two years later, we still have a Lord Chancellor?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: asked Her Majesty's Government: When they expect to receive Sir Patrick Brown's report of his review of the business appointment rules, which was announced by the Prime Minister in July 2004; and whether they will publish the report; and What plans they have for any amendment of the business appointment rules; and What plans they have for the future work of the Advisory Committee on Business...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the answer that the Minister has just given mean that the Labour Party does not accept responsibility for the actions of its candidates? Surely, that is nonsense.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, if a person in the position of the Home Secretary makes the kind of remarks that he made about the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, which have apparently no basis in fact at all, surely it is courteous for the government Front Bench to accept that and to apologise. I had the great privilege of being a junior Minister in the Home Office when Mr Maudling was Secretary of State and he...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, while fully accepting, understanding and agreeing with the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is trying to achieve, I am concerned about some of the wording of this particular amendment, and whether it is obtainable as the noble Lord has expressed it. As a general question, does the noble Lord consider that the preliminary hearing is a control order proceeding?...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, earlier this afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in answer I think to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, said that the comment that this Bill was being rushed did not benefit from being repeated any more. Of course I accept that, from time to time, Oppositions complain in both Houses that Bills are being rushed. What is important here is not that the Opposition may have claimed...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I entered the Chamber not intending to speak in this debate, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, perhaps I may say that, curiously enough, he and I, on different sides of this House, existed in the same chambers together for many years. That kind of compromise is what is needed at this moment. I believe that it is possible to achieve a Bill which is necessary for the short...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I find myself slightly concerned with the amendment. I understand entirely and agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said. Clearly, there must be a power to arrest someone where in the end there will be no ability to try him. I realise therefore that he cannot be told on his arrest the evidence on which he has been arrested or the sources from which that evidence comes. If...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: When I rose to my feet an hour and forty minutes ago to move a modest amendment of a few words, changing the burden of proof in one area of the Bill, I did not realise it was going to lead to such a wide-ranging debate. Much of that debate has not even referred to the burden of proof on which my amendment was based, but has gone on instead to the whole issue of whether those orders that...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: To my mind, the Lord Chancellor has not answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The noble and learned Lord said that we have to make a distinction because the distinction is clear in the convention itself. But Article 5 states that everyone has the right to liberty. On what basis is the Lord Chancellor saying that a curfew, or a refusal to allow someone to work somewhere...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: moved Amendment No. 47: Page 3, line 26, leave out "on the balance of probabilities" and insert "beyond reasonable doubt"
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: As the Minister will remember, this issue was debated last Thursday. However, as this amendment is tabled for today, and a number of other amendments are grouped with it, I shall move the amendment and speak to it briefly, but I shall withdraw it at the appropriate stage. We are dealing with the power of the Secretary of State to make orders that derogate from the liberty of the individual....
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may ask a question about the amendment on the burden of proof. At the moment, it is right that, in the Bill as it stands, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting someone. Later the Bill says that under a derogating order, he may make a control order imposing an obligation that is incompatible if he is satisfied on the balance of...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: It would have been helpful if we had had a little longer to study the amendments rather than receiving them all yesterday.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I was not backing off. I still believe that it would be better to have the criminal burden of proof. I was facing reality. Faced with amendments by both Front Benches that chose balance of probabilities, I said that at least if we got something on the face of the Bill about the burden of proof that would be an advantage. Of course I would like people to go the whole way, but I am being realistic.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am very grateful to the Minister, doing her best as ever to be helpful. On the substance of what she said she was extremely helpful in setting out the steps that are taken. But none of that is written in the Bill. I cannot see, particularly from the fact that those steps are taken, why there should not be a clear recognition in the Bill that before such an application shall be made, whoever...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to reply individually to the mini-debates, or whether he would rather hear various people moving their amendments and then reply at the end.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 10. Although I said earlier that I was totally confused, the situation has been made considerably clearer by the last, very long intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am now a little wiser, as well as being better informed. I am still concerned that there is no method in the Bill that starts the whole process. I accept that...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I was just coming to that. I have put it as high as the criminal burden of proof because I was equating it with those criminal cases where people end up in prison and, on this occasion, may end up under house arrest. I realise that I am in a minority on that issue and I realise that my—I was going to say "elders" but I had better say—"youngers" and betters on both sides believe it should...
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Assuming that this amendment is passed and, therefore, the other amendments cannot be taken, will the noble and learned Lord deal with one of the questions that I asked; namely, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should assure himself that the conditions exist in which a fair trial would not be possible before an application is made?
