---

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I thank the Minister for his reply. It does not surprise me. The Government seem wedded to legislation that is new even if it will not do any particular good by extending anti-social behaviour orders. The noble Lord says that the Government believe that two years as a minimum for an anti-social behaviour order is right because the objective of an ASBO is to protect the community and not to punish the perpetrator. I think that I must have missed something on the first full day in Committee because I thought that that was the same thing that the drinking banning order was supposed to have as its objective. But if the Government are saying that it is different, it means that drinking banning orders are not to protect the community but are to punish the perpetrator. I find that even stranger. It is a strange hybrid. It pretends to be a civil matter with a civil penalty, but it can have serious effects on individuals and on crime results. I think that this is one of those headline-grabbing Bills. My honourable friends in another place made it clear that they felt that there were better ways of approaching the Chapter 1 ““Drinking banning orders”” that the Government sought. I know that they divided in another place on this amendment, and I am going to give the Committee the opportunity to show its view on the same matter. I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 166) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 46.