Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 19:"Page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (3)." The noble Baroness said: The intention is to probe the effect of subsection (3) of Clause 3. Clause 3 enables relevant authorities to apply to the county court for a drinking banning order against an individual in certain circumstances. Those relevant authorities are the chief officer of police, the chief constable of the British Transport Police force, and a local authority. Where proceedings are already underway in a county court and the authorities are not involved in any way in those proceedings—not a party to them—subsection (3) allows those authorities to get involved just so that they can apply for a drinking banning order against one of the people who are already involved in the proceedings. In effect, subsection (3) allows relevant authorities which should not otherwise be involved to get stuck in. Is it not the case that the majority of cases in the county court are likely to be applications for non-molestation orders in private family proceedings? Subsection (3) would therefore surely mean that the police or local authority would have the right to become directly involved in private family proceedings and apply for a drinking banning order against one, or perhaps both, of the parties. Is it the Government’s intention that this should be the purpose of subsection (3)? I appreciate that private family proceedings would not immediately be a matter of public knowledge. But presumably social services, the police or probation might well have knowledge of the circumstances which gave rise to the application for a non-molestation order and therefore they would be in a position to know that the case was in the list. My concern, therefore, is that subsection (3) could give a much wider power to the police and local authorities than the Bill at first implies. When I tabled this amendment, I rather hoped that the Ministers would say, ““No, this is not what we intended, and therefore we are going to make sure that we clarify the clause””. Then earlier today I listened to the responses given by the Minister to other amendments and I became concerned that perhaps the Government had an intention that I hoped they did not. When the Minister responded to Amendment No. 49, which was grouped with Amendment No. 2, he tried to convey that the Government intend that actions that take place in private at home could indeed lead to a drinking banning order being made. I am going one step further and asking whether it applies within the context of county court proceedings. In response to Amendment No. 6, the Minister said that the Government could envisage preventing access to family. Surely the Children Act directs that the welfare of children is paramount, although the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in replying to Amendment No. 7, said that the needs of the community are paramount. I hope that the Minister is able to say that subsection (3) categorically rules out intervention by the state in private proceedings in non-molestation orders in the county court. If he is not able to give that assurance, I shall certainly be concerned and will want to look at the matter again on Report. If he is able to give that assurance, I shall need to know how that can be clarified in the Bill. I beg to move.