| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. Whether what I say will actually fully answer her point I am not sure, but I will give it a go and hope that she will be mollified by my words.
I intend to explain the relevance of it in the context of where the noble Baroness's amendment is pitched. The Bill provides for the police and local authorities, known as relevant authorities, to apply to the county court to be joined to proceedings, if they are not party to the proceedings, in order to apply for a drinking banning order. The amendment would mean that the relevant authorities would not be able to take this route to seek a drinking banning order.
For drinking banning orders via the county court, relevant authorities can apply for a drinking banning order against an individual who is already party to proceedings in the county court. If the relevant
26 Apr 2006 : Column 192
authority is not a party to such proceedings, it can apply to the court to be joined in order to apply for a drinking banning order. The authority can also make an application for another individual to be joined to the proceedings where that individual has engaged in criminal or disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol, and where that conduct is material in relation to the proceedings. For those reasons I cannot see the benefit of restricting the scope for relevant authorities to seek a drinking banning order where it is necessary to do so.
The noble Baroness specifically raised non-molestation orders and she rightly described those as being plainly domestic proceedings. She raised the issue, in essence, of the state intervening in a set of proceedings in a way which she thought was not appropriate, given what we are trying to achieve more broadly with this legislation. It would be fair to put it on record that it is not that instance that we are trying to capture by enabling these proceedings to be taken in the county court.
The best thing I can do is give an example of where we think an application might be sought through the county court for a drinking banning order. Injunctions under Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 can be made where a person has caused a public nuisance. We think that might be the sort of instance where a drinking banning order could be pursued through the county court route. I think it fair to say that we are not seeking to extend into proceedings in the county court. I well understand the noble Baroness's nervousness about us approaching other matters that county courts consider in the way in which she suggested.
I am happy to reflect further on what she said and provide her with some further reassurance outside the Chamber today. I suspect that that is important, not just for today's debate but to ensure that we can clarify the issue to her total satisfaction. I think that we have a very useful provision here. Off the top of my head, I can think of other circumstances where it might perhaps be appropriate for the local authority or the police to seek a drinking banning order through the county court. We need to provide some better clarification on that issue so that we have a common understanding of why that set of proceedings would be more appropriate.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister because I appreciate that he is trying to take the matter forward. I agree with him that this could be a useful provision. I am certainly not trying to prevent a useful provision being in this part of the Bill. I remain concerned that subsection (3) gives a wider power than the Government clearly intend as the current drafting would not exclude the right of a relevant authority to make an application to be joined in non-molestation cases. I really will need to reflect further on that. I am grateful to hear the Minister say that he will reflect further and, perhaps, give some assurances outside the Committee. I cannot honestly see how an assurance
26 Apr 2006 : Column 193
would be sufficient at this stage as it would leave that power within the Bill. At the moment, I cannot see myself being persuaded that that would be right.
In his answer, the noble Lord specifically said that it would be important that conduct is material to the proceedings before a relevant authority were involved. I am of course aware that, in a non-molestation order, a person's conduct while drinking may well be very relevant to those proceedings. That is why I remain concerned, but I know there is good will on the government side as there certainly is on ours. On the basis that we want to look at this before Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Variation or discharge of orders under section 2 or 3]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 23:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Supplementary provision about orders on conviction]:
Clause 7 [Variation or discharge of orders under section 5]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 25 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 26.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 25:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 29:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 194
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 30:
"( ) Where the court makes an order under this section pursuant to an application without notice, the individual who is subject to that order is to be served with a copy of the order personally by an officer of that court."
The noble Viscount said: This amendment also stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It has been tabled to question the Government on the procedure that will be used when interim orders are issued under Clause 8. In another place, the Government inserted subsection (3) during the Bill's Standing Committee stage. The subsection allows for applications to be made without notice to an individual and for hearings to,
The new subsection caused some consternation when it was introduced and the comments made by Hazel Blears at the time in another place did little to allay those concerns. As was pointed out there, the key purpose of interim orders is to resolve a situation where speed is of the essence and where waiting for a full hearing would not be appropriate or sensible. However, it is hard to see why applications for drinking banning orders need to be made with such haste. If the situation is so critical, surely the individual would have committed a criminal offence and therefore would be in custody anyway.
However, if the Government want to insist on leaving it as an option to the courts to hear "an application without notice", our amendment tries to limit the risk of injustice to the individual by ensuring that he is served personally by the court,
That seems entirely reasonable. If someone is expected to abide by prohibitions they need to know what they are. In Standing Committee B on 18 October 2005, the Minister in another place admitted as much. Moreover, she then said that she would be happy to consider the position to see whether the Government could set out the need to serve someone personally with a copy of the order. Have the Government considered this matter further? If they have decided not to set out the need to serve one personally, can the Minister explain why? I beg to move.
6.15 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |