UK Parliament / Open data

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Proceeding contribution from Hazel Blears (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 14 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bills on Violent Crime Reduction Bill 2005-06.
The hon. Lady repeats the assertion about 24-hour drinking. I am sure that she knows that a tiny minority of licensed premises will have those extended licences. We will see flexible licensing hours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) said, rather than everyone being tipped out on to the streets at the same time, people will have their exit from pubs and clubs staged, and we hope that they will behave better. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) to withdraw the motion. I have been sympathetic to his earlier amendment, but I am afraid that he has run out of luck now. I cannot accept that we should simply have ASBOs, rather than the new drinking banning order, which will be of significant use in dealing with such issues and is welcomed by the police and local authorities. The hon. Gentleman asked what the penalty for a breach of a drinking banning order would be and whether it could be a custodial sentence. I must correct him for the record. I made it clear in Committee:"““There will . . . be potential for offenders to receive custodial sentences for persistent breaches of the community sentence imposed for breach of a drinking banning order.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 October 2005; c. 91.]" He will know from his extensive experience that the courts will have the power to make a community order as well as to impose a fine. There would be a range of options including curfews, exclusion orders and unpaid work. In Committee, he welcomed the range of options available to courts through community orders because that meant that magistrates could respond more flexibly to the kind of mischief and problems with which we are trying to deal. He was not correct if he thought I said that there could never be a custodial penalty, because clearly there could.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

439 c723-4 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top