Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
moved AmendmentNo. 9: Page 8, line 1, leave out ““clerk”” and insert ““proper officer”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, these minor and technical changes clarify aspects of the Bill. Amendment No. 13 deletes Clause 11(11); the subsection provides that an order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 11 specifying persons who may bring proceedings for breach of a drinking banning order is subject to the negative resolution procedure. It has been deleted because it was considered to be neater for the procedure to be governed by the general order- and regulation-making provisions under Clause 14. Amendment No. 16 to Clause 14 ensures that this is the case. These amendments ensure that an order made under Clause 11 will continue to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 9 amends Clause 9(5) to replace ““clerk”” with ““proper officer””. Permission of the proper officer is therefore required if an application for an interim drinking banning order against an individual is to be made without notice being given to that individual and heard in the absence of that individual. Under Clause 14, ““proper officer”” means the justices’ clerk in relation to a magistrates’ court, and the clerk of the court in relation to any other court. Amendment No. 14 seeks to clarify when a course provider must issue a certificate or notice on being asked to by the individual. The course provider must give a certificate unless the individual who undertakes the course fails to pay the course fees, attend the course as instructed or comply with any other reasonable requirement of the course provider. If the course provider does not issue a certificate, they must give the individual written notice of that decision and their reasons. The amendment makes it clear that the course provider must issue a certificate or notice before the end of the 14th day beginning with the day on which any request to do so is made by the individual. Under Clause 13(6), the Bill already provides that where an individual is given a notice or his request for a notice or certificate has not been complied with, he may apply within a certain period to the court for a declaration that a certificate has been incorrectly withheld in contravention of Clause 13(3). Ifthat is found to be the case, the court can, under Clause 13(7), decide that the individual has satisfactorily completed the approved course and may therefore receive a reduction to the length of the drinking banning order. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c550
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Alcoholic drinks Crimes of violence Anti-social behaviour Fees and charges Homelessness Licensed premises Drunkenness Local government Public places Sales Young people Shops Drinking banning orders Alcohol disorder zones Boots
- Legislation
- Violent Crime Reduction Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:02:06 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_352115
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_352115
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_352115