Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) 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

: I have indicated that I oppose Clause 8. At this stage, I should like to hear the reasons for requiring an interim order. Such orders are to last only for a limited period unless renewed. Renewal is another problem, as it looks as if they can be renewed without much difficulty. Why should it be thought necessary to make an order without notice or service and ““heard in the absence of the individual””? What machinery do the Government have in mind for serving the order on the individual and what is the position if he breaches that order while knowing nothing about it? For example, the order may prohibit him from entering a particular public house, which may be his local. He may go there every night for a week until someone gets around to serving this order on him. So, the reasons why an interim order is required—and how the difficulties of non-service and non-appearance are dealt with—are matters which I hope to have answered at this stage.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c194-5 
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