Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 April 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Violent Crime Reduction Bill.


Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 6:"Page 2, line 17, at end insert—" ““( ) from having access to or contact with members of his family (whether under the terms of a court order or under the terms of an agreement with his partner); or ( ) from taking his child or children to a place where they may receive medical treatment.”” The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 114. These amendments add to the list of restrictions on what can be prohibited under a drinking banning order under Clause 1(4). That subsection safeguards the individual’s access to his residence, place of employment and education or medical services. Paragraph (d) also allows the individual to attend a location that he has been ordered to attend by statute or court order. The purpose of these amendments is to test whether these restrictions on the scope of a drinking banning order are sufficient. Can the Minister explain on what criteria these limitations have been selected? If he thinks that it is safe to leave the question of the fairness of particular prohibitions to the discretion of the courts, it begs the question why any limitations have been included at all. Is the Minister entirely satisfied that Clause 1(4) provides sufficient protection to the rights of the individual? The amendments would impose a further limitation to a DBO by ensuring that a subject can always have access to his family. Surely that is a right that also needs to be safeguarded. Contact with a member of one’s family would not fall under the mandatory obligations contained in court orders safeguarded in paragraph (d). How can it be guaranteed that any prohibition made as part of a drinking banning order will be compatible with access to one’s family? The example of accommodation tied to a licensed premises poses a particular problem, but there must be other situations in which the issuing of a DBO might conflict with family interests and access to children. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c162 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Children Clubs Crime prevention Alcoholic drinks Courts Crimes of violence Age County courts Certification Fees and charges Families Exemptions Homelessness Licensed premises Local government Medical treatments Police Misuse Public order offences Rehabilitation Young people Violence Drinking banning orders Alcohol disorder zones
Legislation
Violent Crime Reduction Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk