Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


COMMONS AMENDMENT

474Page 76, line 13, at end insert--
("1976 c. 57.Local Government In section 25(8), the (Miscellaneous words from Provisions) Act 1976. "Without prejudice" to "inhabitants of its area)".
1978 c. 50.Inner Urban Areas Act In section 13, the 1978. words "section 137(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 or".
1985 c. 51.Local Government Act In Schedule 14, 1985.paragraph 13.
1985 c. 67.Transport Act 1985.In section 74(12), "section 94 of the 1972 Act or".
1985 c. 68.Housing Act 1985.Section 11A(4).
1986 c. 10.Local Government Act Section 2A.1986.
1986 c. 60.Financial Services Act In Schedule 16, 1986.paragraph 8(a).
1988 c. 9.Local Government Act Section 28.") 1988.

24 Jul 2000 : Column 144

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 474.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 474.--(Lord Whitty.)

AS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 474

474ASchedule 5, leave out lines 15 and 16
474BLeave out lines 19 and 20

Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with Amendments Nos. 474A and 474B, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 474.

Moved, That the House do agree with Amendments Nos. 474A and 474B, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 474.--(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Motion agreed to and Commons Amendment No. 474, as amended, agreed to accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

475Page 76, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert--
("In section 5(2)(a), and in section 5(2)(a) as substituted by section 73(6) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the words "or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment".")


476Page 76, line 14, column 3, after ("Sections") insert ("19")
477Page 76, line 15, column 3, at end insert--


("In Schedule 11, paragraphs 22 and 23.")


478Page 76, line 15, at end insert--
("1992 c. 14. Local Government In Schedule 13, Finance Act 1992. paragraph 32.
1994 c. 19. Local Government In Schedule 15, (Wales) Act 1994. paragraph 25.
1994 c. 29. Police and Magistrates' In Schedule 4, Courts Act 1994. paragraph 7.
1995 c. 25. Environment Act 1995. In Schedule 7, paragraphs 9 and 10.
1996 c. 16. Police Act 1996. In Schedule 7, in paragraph 1(2)(h), "98(1A)" and paragraph 21.")

24 Jul 2000 : Column 145


479Page 76, line 16, at end insert--
("1997 c. 50.Police Act 1997. In Schedule 6, paragraphs 1 and 2.")


480Page 76, line 24, column 3, leave out ("and (5)(b)") and insert ("(5)(b), (7) and (8)")
481Page 76, line 27, column 3, at end insert--
("In Schedule 3, paragraph 3(1).")

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 475 to 481.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 475 to 481.--(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

482Page 76, line 27, at end insert--
("1998 c. 31. School Standards and In Schedule 30, Framework Act paragraph 13.") 1998.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 482.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 482.--(Lord Whitty.)


482ABaroness Young rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That Amendment No. 482A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 482, be agreed to.--(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Motion agreed to and Commons Amendment No. 482 disagreed to accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

483Page 76, line 27, at end insert--
("1999 c. 29.Greater London Section 66. Authority Act 1999.
In Schedule 8, paragraphs 6 and 7.")


484In the Title, line 4, after ("services;") insert ("to amend section 29 of the Children Act 1989;")

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 483 and 484.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 483 and 484--(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

24 Jul 2000 : Column 146

Football (Disorder) Bill

8.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Football matches: prevention of violence or disorder]:

Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:


    Page 1, line 11, leave out ("believes") and insert ("is satisfied").

The noble Lord said: I believe that I should speak rather slowly for a moment or two while Members of the House depart for more attractive occupations than that of listening to the proceedings at Committee stage of the Football (Disorder) Bill.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 33, grouped with it, concern the standard of proof required to obtain a banning order. Two elements comprise this procedure. First, what evidence is required of past behaviour before the banning order can be made? Later amendments in the list will propose that the necessary standard of evidence should be a conviction. The second element in the standard of proof is this. What evidence is required of the probable future behaviour of the person who is to be made subject to the order? Amendments Nos. 1 and 33 deal with that point.

At present, a court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder. Where a banning order is clearly imposed as a punishment--that is the case where it is given as part of the sentence following conviction--I accept that having reasonable grounds for believing that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder is sufficient. After all, the court is allowed to impose punishment and this is a form of punishment.

The situation is quite different where the banning order is made not as part of the sentence but on an application by the police for the making of a banning order based on past behaviour and prospective future behaviour. Clare Montgomery QC and Rhodri Thompson, in a thorough opinion given on the Bill for Justice--I declare that I am vice-chairman of the council of Justice--say that the application for a banning order is in effect criminal proceedings, even if not formally so, and is likely to be regarded as criminal proceedings by the European Court of Human Rights.

24 Jul 2000 : Column 147

They say that the standard of proof for probably future behaviour,


    "falls well short even of a civil standard of proof of the state of affairs justifying the order, namely, that the individual concerned intends to cause trouble at a match. It appears to us that the court should be entitled to make such an order only where it is satisfied that the order would have the desired effect, not where it is satisfied merely that there are reasonable grounds to believe that to be the case".

I believe that part of their opinion to be both good law and good sense.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 33 make it clear that in a case where a banning order is sought on an application, that banning order cannot be made unless the court is satisfied that the suspect intends to cause violence or disorder. I beg to move.

9 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support unreservedly the amendment. It is not a question of having consulted with the noble Lord. There has been too little time in which to do that. The noble Lord is correct. According to the authority of Benham, in the view of the Court of Human Rights these proceedings are criminal proceedings. Therefore one is not only concerned with clarifying the burden of proof--my Amendment No. 31 does so--but also the standard of proof. My Amendment No. 31 does not do that; nor does this amendment.

As far as it goes, it is clear that the amendment should be accepted. As it stands, the Bill is totally unacceptable. It should be built on to establish the standard of proof.

According to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, the standard of proof will be the civil standard for certain parts of the Bill--I have here the reference to Hansard but the hour is somewhat late--but the criminal standard of being sure beyond reasonable doubt in other parts of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, has never elucidated which parts of the Bill to which diverse standards will apply.

I support the amendment. However, it requires extension and clarification along the lines I have suggested. I understand that the introduction of the reverse burden is not involved. That was considered recently by the Appellate Committee of this House in Kiberlene.

We have a straightforward burden of proof which has to be proved by the applicant. The question is this: to what standard?


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page