| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Across the whole breadth of the criminal law, it is a matter of public policy which is agreed to by all parties and in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which this country is a signatory, that we have thought it right to protect young people up to the age of 18, so that if a person is charged even with the most serious offence of murder, his identity will not be released. That is the policy that this country has adopted.
We are now introducing a completely new concept. The breach of this civil order will lead to a criminal offence, and we are lowering the standard for this civil order. We are saying to young people: "You should be in the newspaper. Everybody should know all about you. If you want to make a noise or kick a dustbin"—to get back to our earlier debate—"or if you want to
26 Apr 2006 : Column 189
be disorderly in a way that affects others, then you can expect your name and photograph to be published". Is it really that serious an issue that we have to go against the whole trend of public policy in this country of trying to protect young people until the age of 18? The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked what the reality is. We probably all have different concepts of reality. Is it really the truth that packs of 16 to 18 year-olds are going into public houses, getting drink to which they are not entitled and running riot?
My own view of reality—and I am fairly close to the ground in my part of the world—is that it is people with a bit of money in their pocket before they take on the responsibilities of a family who are causing problems and at whom such orders should be addressed. If it is not them, it is what we have called the rough sleepers who have alcohol or drug dependence. Those are the problem people at whom the drinking banning order is directed. It is a sad day when it comes to something like disorderly conduct that all the safeguards that we have recognised, which have developed over many years, should be thrown away and young people should be pilloried in the way that the Government suggest.
If a young person between the ages of 16 and 18 commits an offence—if he is guilty of criminal damage; if he is drinking under age; if he is drunk and disorderly; if he is urinating in a public place; if he is swearing at people—he can be taken to a youth court and dealt with in that protective way that we have developed. But under this provision the principle is weakened and his protection is weakened. It is a sad day. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. Many good points were made against the proposition that I am advancing, which I shall consider with care. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 17:
The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 17, 25, 52, 54 and 60 make some minor and technical amendments to the provisions on drinking banning orders by removing the concept of relevant persons. The concept of relevant persons refers to those people in a relevant authority's area whom the authority is seeking to protect in applying for an order. While that definition holds for drinking banning orders made on application by a relevant authority it does not hold when a court considers making a drinking banning order on conviction. In such proceedings no relevant authority is involved.
The matter was helpfully drawn to our attention by the Crown Prosecution Service and we are now amending the Bill to remove the term "relevant persons". That will remove an unintended fetter on the courts' ability to make a drinking banning order on conviction. It is a technical set of amendments. I beg to move.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 190
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 18:
"(6) Nothing in this section affects the operation of section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) (limitation of time in respect of informations laid or complaints made in magistrates' court)."
The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 18 and 165 to the drinking banning order provisions and the new clause amending anti-social behaviour legislation respond to the uncertainties created by the Boorman case, which was decided in November last year. The amendments clarify the time period in which a complaint can be made for a drinking banning order or anti-social behaviour order. The complaint will have to be made within six months of the criminal or disorderly conduct taking place. However, earlier behaviour outside the six-month period will be relevant to support an application—to show, for example, that there is a pattern of behaviour that the order is intended to address.
I should stress that this new clause simply reflects the existing guidance in relation to ASBOs and is no more than a reflection of current practice. A consequential amendment has also been made for ASBOs in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders in county court proceedings]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 19:
The noble Baroness said: The intention is to probe the effect of subsection (3) of Clause 3. Clause 3 enables relevant authorities to apply to the county court for a drinking banning order against an individual in certain circumstances. Those relevant authorities are the chief officer of police, the chief constable of the British Transport Police force and a local authority.
Where proceedings are already under way in a county court and the authorities are not involved in any way in those proceedings—not a party to them—subsection (3) allows those authorities to get involved just so that they can apply for a drinking banning order against one of the people who are already involved in the proceedings. In effect, subsection (3) allows relevant authorities which should not otherwise be involved to get stuck in.
Is it not the case that the majority of cases in the county court are likely to be applications for non-molestation orders in private family proceedings? Subsection (3) would therefore surely mean that the police or local authority would have the right to become directly involved in private family proceedings and apply for a drinking banning order against one, or
26 Apr 2006 : Column 191
perhaps both, of the parties. Is it the Government's intention that this should be the purpose of subsection (3)?
I appreciate that private family proceedings would not immediately be a matter of public knowledge. But presumably social services, the police or probation might well have knowledge of the circumstances which gave rise to the application for a non-molestation order and therefore they would be in a position to know that the case was in the list. My concern, therefore, is that subsection (3) could give a much wider power to the police and local authorities than the Bill at first implies.
When I tabled this amendment, I rather hoped that the Ministers would say, "No, this is not what we intended, and therefore we are going to make sure that we clarify the clause". Then earlier today I listened to the responses given by the Minister to other amendments and I became concerned that perhaps the Government had an intention that I hoped they did not. When the Minister responded to Amendment No. 49, which was grouped with Amendment No. 2, he tried to convey that the Government intend that actions that take place in private at home could indeed lead to a drinking banning order being made. I am going one step further and asking whether it applies within the context of county court proceedings.
In response to Amendment No. 6, the Minister said that the Government could envisage preventing access to the person's family. Surely the Children Act directs that the welfare of children is paramount, although the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in replying to Amendment No. 7, said that the needs of the community are paramount.
I hope that the Minister is able to say that subsection (3) categorically rules out intervention by the state in private proceedings in non-molestation orders in the county court. If he is not able to give that assurance, I shall certainly be concerned and will want to look at the matter again on Report. If he is able to give that assurance, I shall need to know how that can be clarified in the Bill. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |