Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, responded by saying that the Government like the idea of having more of a tribunal system and that they want something robust which has checks and balances. But then he accused me of trying to introduce a bureaucracy, when it appeared that the more he went into his explanation, the more his system became more bureaucratic than mine. There is a fundamental disagreement between us on what is needed on the face of the Bill to ensure a fair way in which the licence trade may make its appeals against what could be a significant payment by it on a monthly basis. I would never claim that the proposals put forward in my clauses are perfect. But they do represent my view that it is only fair that there should be an independent tribunal, not a bureaucracy, which would give fairness and equity to the licensed trade. It is on that basis that I will ask the opinion of the Committee. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 44.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c240 
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