| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 9:
"DURATION OF DRINKING BANNING ORDERS
(1) A drinking banning order has effect for a period specified in the order ("the specified period"), which must be not less than two months and not more than two years.
(2) A drinking banning order may provide that different prohibitions contained in the order have effect for different periods; but, in each case, the period ("prohibition period") must be not less than two months and not more than two years.
(3) A drinking banning order may include provision for—
(a) the order, or
(b) a prohibition contained in it,
to cease to have effect before the end of the specified period or the prohibition period if the subject satisfactorily completes the approved course specified in the order.
(4) Provision under subsection (3) must fix the time at which the order or the prohibition will cease to have effect if the subject satisfactorily completes the specified approved course as whichever is the later of—
(a) the time specified in the order in accordance with subsection (5); and
(b) the time when he does satisfactorily complete that course.
(5) The time specified for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) must be a time after the expiry of at least half the specified period or (as the case may be) the prohibition period.
(6) Provision under subsection (3) may be included in a drinking banning order only if—
(a) the court making the order is satisfied that a place on the specified approved course will be available for the subject; and
(b) the subject has agreed to the inclusion of the provision in question in the order.
(7) Before making provision under subsection (3), the court must inform the subject in ordinary language (whether in writing or otherwise) about—
(a) the effect of including the provision in the order;
(b) what, in general terms, attendance on the course will involve if he undertakes it;
(c) any fees he will be required to pay for the course if he undertakes it; and
(d) when he will have to pay any such fees.
(8) Where a court makes a drinking banning order which does not include provision under subsection (3), it must give its reasons for not including such provision in open court.
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (5) so as to modify the earliest time (after the completion of the specified approved course) when by virtue of that subsection—
(a) a drinking banning order, or
(b) a prohibition contained in such an order,
may cease to have effect."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 14 not moved.]
5.30 pm
Clause 2 [Orders on an application to magistrates' court]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 15:
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 15 brings us to a rather different topic. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 34 and 35, which are grouped with it. They are concerned with the naming and shaming of individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 who are made the subject of these orders.
The Government have taken a robust view of naming and shaming people who are subject to ASBOs. On 1 March, the Home Secretary, Mr Clarke, calling on local authorities to name and shame, said:
"Too many communities are still blighted by the mindless behaviour of a few yobs, who can ruin the quality of life for everyone. Many offenders think that they are untouchable and above the law. If they thought there would be a news blackout on their actions they must now think again. Publicising ASBOs has been tested in the courts and today we are making the position crystal clear—your photo could be all over the local media, your local community will know who you are and breaching an ASBO could land you in prison".
I suppose that one might say of Mr Clarke that his photo is all over the media and that the community knows who he is, but I shall not pursue that.
However, an opposite view is put forward by Professor Al Aynsley-Green, who is England's first Children's Commissioner. Speaking on a Channel 4 programme in February, he said that naming and shaming is not in a child's best interests. These amendments are concerned with people between the ages of 16 and 18, who are "children" as defined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Professor Aynsley-Green said of naming and shaming:
"I'm very concerned about this because it is a breach of one of the UN Conventional Rights of the Child's articles. Children have the right to privacy, and I'm very alarmed when invitations are expressed through the media to get the local people to name and shame the young people, particularly children under the age of criminal responsibility".
Fortunately, the drinking banning orders are not concerned with children of that age. Professor Aynsley-Green continued:
"I think it affects both the older generation and the younger generation. The incessant portrayal of children as thugs and hooligans and yobs reinforces the fears that the other generation has . . . It influences political directions, it influences political policy and it certainly influences possible changes in legislation".
"the incessant dispersal, the incessant pressure of ASBOs are generating alienation of a generation of young people from law and authority and that can only be seriously damaging to our society in the future, if we have a generation now who are children who grow up as adults who do not respect law and order and do not respect the power of authority".
It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say, "Publish their names! Publish their photographs! Let the neighbours tell the authorities that they are in breach of this order or that order or prohibition", but the consequence, as fully outlined by the Children's Commissioner, will be the alienation of young people from authority. If that goes for ASBOs, so it will go for the new drinking banning orders. The only difference that I see is that, in the context of drinking, there may be naming, but there will be little shaming of
26 Apr 2006 : Column 184
the person who has his photograph plastered everywhere—in the present culture of drinking, it might be more a badge of honour.
Naming and shaming is not a proportionate response to youth drinking. I suggest to the Government that it will not assist the proposals for treatment courses that we have just acclaimed to have a person coming out of the place where he has taken the course to see his picture and details plastered all over the place and to have the population pointing at him. So I ask the Government to think again about 16 to 18 year-olds, which is the age group to which my amendments relate. I ask them to think again about the whole policy of naming and shaming when it comes to ASBOs, but, in particular, not to extend it to the drinking banning orders. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I will speak in support of Amendment No. 15 on the basis that I take it as a probing amendment to explore the Government's rationale for setting the age limit at which a court may make a drinking banning order at 16. It asks the Government to justify why it should be 16. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, simply raises the age to that of adulthood—18. There was a useful debate on this matter in another place on 18 October, at cols. 66 to 74 of Hansard, but a couple of matters were not addressed then that we need to look at today.
We on these Benches do not contest the argument that some young people under 18 drink when they should not, sometimes drink to excess and sometimes then become involved in disorder. We do not oppose the idea that help should be available to them to ensure that they do not behave in public in such a way as to cause distress or harm to other people, or indeed to cause harm to themselves. The question is whether a drinking banning order is the right way to go about forcing those under the age of 18 to change their behaviour, or whether there are other and better ways of addressing that problem. What is it about drinking banning orders that the Government believe is uniquely valuable in ensuring that young people under 18 will change their behaviour?
In addition, we now have before us the new proposals—the Government's new clauses on approved courses that we have just now agreed to have added to the Bill. What steps will the Government take to ensure that courses are available to young people under 18, and that they are specifically appropriate for young people as opposed to adults? Does the Minister agree that it would not be appropriate for the content of the course and the method of delivering it to be the same for young people under 18 as it would be for adults? What if courses are available to adults, but not available on the same geographical spread to young persons? Would that not create two different classes of people subject to drinking banning orders, with one class being at a disadvantage because they would be unable to get the chance of the discount on the length of their order?
26 Apr 2006 : Column 185
The other matter to which I have to draw attention is that the Government seem to have a split personality when it comes to legislation regarding those under 18. Sometimes they treat them the same as adults; sometimes they recognise the fact that they are, as I would say, different from adults. We see that split personality within the Bill. In Part 1, young people are treated as adults for the purposes of drinking banning orders, yet, when we reach Part 2, suddenly young people are not treated as adults. For example, the Government seek to raise the age at which young people are permitted to buy or hire air guns from 17 to 18. I am not going to object to that; what I object to is inconsistency in the way in which the Government treat young people between 16 and 18. That is extraordinary anyway, but it is even more extraordinary that such an inconsistency should be within one Bill. That is why I hope that the Minister will address the questions that I have put today on the way in which drinking banning orders treat young people as adults.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |