| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 42:
"CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION OF APPROVED COURSES
(1) For the purposes of section (Duration of drinking banning orders)—
(a) the subject of a drinking banning order is to be regarded as having completed an approved course satisfactorily if, and only if, the person providing the course has given a certificate that the subject has done so; and
(b) the time at which the subject is to be regarded as having satisfactorily completed the course is the time when that certificate is received by the proper officer of the court that made the order.
(2) For the purposes of this section a certificate that a person has satisfactorily completed a course—
(a) has to be in such form, and
(b) has to contain such particulars,
as may be specified in, or determined under, regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The person providing an approved course must give the subject of a drinking banning order in which that course is specified a certificate for the purposes of this section unless that subject—
(a) has failed to make due payment of fees for the course;
(b) has failed to attend the course in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the person providing the course; or
(c) has failed to comply with any other reasonable requirement of that person.
(4) Where a person providing an approved course decides not to give the subject of a drinking banning order a certificate under subsection (1), he must give the subject written notice of the decision, setting out the grounds of the decision.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 202
(5) The obligation of the person providing an approved course to give, in the case of the subject of a drinking banning order in which that course is specified, either—
(a) a certificate for the purposes of this section, or
(b) a notice under subsection (4),
must be discharged not later than 14 days of any request to do so by that subject.
(6) The subject of drinking banning order who is given a notice under subsection (4) or who claims that a request for the purposes of subsection (5) has not been complied may, within such period as may be prescribed by rules of court, apply to—
(a) the court which made the order, or
(b) if that court is not the Crown Court or a relevant local court, to either the court which made the order or a relevant local court,
for a declaration that there has been a contravention of subsection (3).
(7) If the court grants the application, the applicant is to be treated for the purposes of section (Duration of drinking banning orders) as having satisfactorily completed the course at the time of the making of the declaration.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—
(a) the form of a notice under subsection (4); and
(b) the manner in which such a notice is given and the time to be taken as the time of the giving of such a notice."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 46, as amendments to Amendment No. 42, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 42 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 47:
( ) the senior officer of any military police unit in whose area the conduct to which the application relates occurred"
The noble Viscount said: The amendment would add to the list of appropriate persons who should be consulted by a relevant authority seeking a drinking banning order under Clause 2. The amendment would add the military police authorities to the list of consultees, mainly to address the issue of garrison towns, such as Aldershot and Catterick, where the military police may be heavily involved in trying to control alcohol-fuelled disorder and may be in a better position to advise the relevant authority about the scope of any order. But it also addresses the question of whether visiting services personnel cause problems in a locality and then return to their units, or even abroad, and there may be a need to consult the military authorities to ensure that the scope of any drinking banning order is sufficient.
It might be that the Ministry of Defence would argue that it is not the duty of the military police to provide assistance to the civilian authorities in this way and that in the vast majority of cases no service personnel would be involved and, therefore, no need to consult. As such, it is only a probing amendment, but it also raises the further question of what is the purpose of such consultation. The "appropriate persons" in Clause 11(1) are the relevant police forces, where the disorder occurred and where the individual resides, and the relevant local authority. If a relevant authority
26 Apr 2006 : Column 203
is already intending to apply for a DBO against an individual, is the point of consulting the police to gain further information on the individual and his behaviour or is it to find out from the police the effectiveness of any previous order or any future order? As such, one wonders whether consultation is necessarily the correct way to term how the local authorities and the police should be working together. It might be better to place the duty on the police to inform the relevant authority of any evidence that it has that might lead to an award of a DBO. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for addressing his amendment in the way that he has and particularly for drawing attention to the problems that might arise in what could be described as military towns. When I read the amendment I thought instantly of Colchester, which is near where I grew up. I can see that there could be circumstances in which the military police might have an interest. I then began to think about how that interest would be addressed.
The amendment provides that the senior officer of any military police unit becomes the appropriate person in an application for a drinking banning order. The implications of this are that the police, local authority or transport police, as well as consulting each other before they seek a drinking banning order against an individual, would have to consult the senior officer of any military police unit.
The police, local authority and transport police are a "relevant authority" and are also "appropriate persons". They need to consult each other before making an application for a drinking banning order. The noble Viscount was suggesting that rather than consulting, they wish simply to inform each other. The reason why we want them to consult is that there is a need to ensure that actions taken by each agency, regarding the same individual, do not conflict. Effectively, we want them to work together, to act in concert, to understand each other's particular problems or difficulties, to understand why there is a need to apply for a drinking banning order and to understand what it will achieve in any given set of circumstances.
As we see it, as a senior officer of any military police unit cannot apply for a drinking banning order, there is no need for him to be consulted. In our view, there is no benefit in senior officers becoming appropriate persons. We approached the MoD on this issue and it was content with the approach that we were adopting. Although I entirely understand why the noble Viscount has moved this amendment, we do not believe it adds anything. As the military police will not be the relevant authority or the appropriate persons, they do not think they need to be involved as a consultee. I have little doubt that in the military towns with which the noble Viscount and I are familiar there
26 Apr 2006 : Column 204
may occasionally be careful consultation with the military police authorities. But we do not believe that the matter needs to be flagged up on the face of the Bill.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful for that reply. Is this a case for the guidance document?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It may well be.
Viscount Bridgeman: With that encouraging remark from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 48:
""approved course" means a course approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section (Duration of drinking banning orders);"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |