| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Bridgeman: These guidance notes are gathering increasing numbers of treasures; I look forward to reading them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: They are on course to become a collector's item.
Viscount Bridgeman: I look forward to receiving and studying them with anticipation. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: This gives me an opportunity to reply to what the Minister said earlier.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 198
His reply to the amendment dealing with a personal service of the order was, "Well, that will go along in the usual way with the usual procedure in the county or magistrates' court", yet the clause introduces new procedures. Why should it be assumed that the rules for the service of an interim order personally on an individual should follow? If the order is to be made without notice and heard in the absence of the individual, at the least the Bill should provide a requirement that the order be served.
What happens when it is not served? What happens if it is renewed once, twice or three times and 12 or 16 weeks go by but it has not been served so the person does not know about it? Is he in breach of an order that he knows nothing about? If he is, what is the significance of that? What is the consequence of that? We need an answer to that. I do not see the utility of an interim order—a drinking banning order—made against someone who knows nothing about it. It is absolutely pointless until he knows something about it. It has no effect. I intend to pursue that matter. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer my earlier question: what happens if someone does not know anything about the order? What is the consequence?
Lord Bassam of Brighton : The consequence is clearly that interim banning orders are there to ensure that action can be taken against a criminal offender with some speed, so that measures begin to have a bite and effect. As the noble Viscount knows, an interim drinking banning order can be made in absentia and the magistrates' court—for that matter, the county court—could therefore, subject to some provisos about service, consider the complaint in the absence of the defendant. As I said, the same general position applies in the county court.
6.30 pm
However, we think it very unlikely in practice that a court would want to make a final drinking banning order in the absence of the defendant except in exceptional cases. We believe that an adjournment and the powers to issue warrants to secure attendance are much more likely in those circumstances. That probably answers the noble Lord's point, if that position were ever to be reached. The idea of an interim order is to ensure that action can be taken speedily. As I said earlier, the maximum duration of an interim drinking banning order is to be limited to four weeks and, although it can be renewed, in practice we would not want it to be renewed. We would far prefer a proper drinking banning order to be sought and made, because we think that that would properly give effect to what the police or the local authority are seeking to achieve under the drinking banning order. The permission for an application for an interim order may be given only when the court or the clerk is satisfied that the application needs to be made without the individual concerned receiving notice and without his presence. They will have to be satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances. There are sufficient
26 Apr 2006 : Column 199
safeguards within that to ensure that this is a proper process and that the objectives that we seek to fulfil through the legislation are properly met.
A drinking banning order will obviously take effect when the subject is made aware of its terms, so it makes sense to serve the drinking banning order personally and, in many cases, this can be done while the subject is in court. The need to serve drinking banning orders personally can be set out in guidance and, of course, reinforced through court rules where necessary. I understand the noble Lord's objection to this. We take a different view and we are determined that the application of this part of the Act, as it will be, is effective and can be used in a way that provides some flexibility but also ensures that the authorities are fully aware of the need to conform with the strictures that are set down on how drinking banning orders may be applied for.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I think I understood the Minister to say that the order does not take effect until the individual knows about it. Where in the Bill does it say that? I cannot find it anywhere but, if that is the case, would the Government undertake to include a provision to that effect in the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall certainly consider the noble Lord's point, which is a fair one, and I shall reflect further on his comments.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Breach of drinking banning orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 36:
"(11) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Lord said: This is very much a probing amendment. I really want to find out who can bring proceedings for an offence under Clause 10(1). Under subsection (4), it is a local authority. Under subsection (5),
"the Secretary of State may by order provide that a person of a description specified in the order may bring proceedings for an offence . . . in such cases and such circumstances as may be prescribed by the order".
Well, who are we referring to? Who do the Government have in mind apart from the local authority? If it is someone other than the usual prosecuting authorities, my amendment really bites, because I would remove subsection (11), which is the negative procedure for extending the power of the Secretary of State, and would impose instead a requirement for a positive order. I would give the House an opportunity to consider who would now have the chance to bring proceedings for a breach. I am always aware that the Government are privatising everything, and I do not know whether a security firm
26 Apr 2006 : Column 200
that used clamps and all that sort of stuff would be given the power to bring someone before the courts for a criminal offence. Could I have some information about that, please? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 36 would require any order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 10(5) to be made by way of the draft affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. Orders under that subsection could extend the range of persons who can prosecute for breaches of a drinking banning order, and might be used if we can expand the range of persons who can apply for drinking banning orders. I cannot be more specific than that in response to the noble Lord's point.
It would not, in our view, be a good use of parliamentary time to require all such orders to be debated. It is entirely appropriate for an order such as this to be made by the Home Secretary and then laid before Parliament. Noble Lords can of course pray in aid against the order when it has been laid if they feel that that is right and appropriate. I also remind your Lordships' House that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was content with the level of scrutiny that we propose here. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel the need to press his amendment to a vote.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We now have no idea who could be the subject of an order by the Secretary of State to bring 16 to 18 year-olds, for example, before the court for a breach of a drinking banning order. I do not think that is a very satisfactory reply, and I shall return to it. But for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 37:
"APPROVED COURSES
If an application is made to the Secretary of State for the approval of a course for the purposes of section (Duration of drinking banning orders), he must decide whether to grant or refuse the application.
(2) In reaching that decision the Secretary of State—
(a) must have regard to the nature of the course and to whether the person providing it is an appropriate person both to provide it and efficiently and effectively to administer its provision; and
(b) may take into account any recommendations made by persons appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the application.
(3) A course may be approved subject to conditions specified by the Secretary of State.
(4) The approval of a course—
(a) is for the period specified by the Secretary of State (which must not exceed 7 years); and
(b) may be withdrawn by him at any time.
(5) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may make provision in relation to the approval of courses and may, in particular, include—
26 Apr 2006 : Column 201
(a) provision about the making of applications for approval;
(b) provision for the payment of fees, of such amounts as are prescribed by the regulations, in respect of applications for approval, the giving of approvals, or both;
(c) provision specifying the maximum fees that a person may be required to pay for a course and about when fees for courses have to be paid;
(d) provision for the monitoring of courses and of persons providing courses;
(e) provision about the withdrawal of approvals; and
(f) provision authorising the Secretary of State (whether on payment of a fee or otherwise) to make available information about courses and about persons providing courses.
(6) The Secretary of State—
(a) may issue guidance about the conduct of approved courses; and
(b) in exercising the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him by or under subsections (1) to (5) must have regard to the guidance under this subsection that is for the time being in force.
(7) Also, a court must have regard to that guidance in determining what for the purposes of section (Certificates of completion of approved courses) constitutes reasonable instructions or reasonable requirements by a person providing an approved course."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 41, as amendments to Amendment No. 37, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 37 agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |