Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. Whether what I say will actually fully answer her point I am not sure, but I will give it a go and hope that she will be mollified by my words. I intend to explain the relevance of it in the context of where her amendment is pitched. The Bill provides for the police and local authorities, known as relevant authorities, to apply to the county court to be joined to proceedings, if they are not party to the proceedings, in order to apply for a drinking banning order. The amendment would mean that the relevant authorities would not be able to take this route to seek a drinking banning order. For drinking banning orders via the county court, relevant authorities can apply for a drinking banning order against an individual who is already party to proceedings in the county court. If the relevant authority is not a party to such proceedings, it can apply to the court to be joined in order to apply for a drinking banning order. The authority can also make an application for another individual to be joined to the proceedings where that individual has engaged in criminal or disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol, and where that conduct is material in relation to the proceedings. For those reasons I cannot see the benefit of restricting the scope for relevant authorities to seek a drinking banning order where it is necessary to do so. The noble Baroness specifically raised non-molestation orders and she rightly described those as being plainly domestic proceedings. She raised the issue, in essence, of the state intervening in a set of proceedings in a way which she thought was not appropriate, given what we are trying to achieve more broadly with this legislation. It would be fair to put it on record that it is not that instance that we are trying to capture by enabling these proceedings to be taken in the county court. The best thing I can do is give an example of where we think an application might be sought through the county court for a drinking banning order. Injunctions under Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 can be made where a person has caused a public nuisance. We think that might be the sort of instance where a drinking banning order could be pursued through the county court route. I think it fair to say that we are not seeking to extend into proceedings in the county court. I well understand the noble Baroness’s nervousness about us approaching other matters that county courts consider in the way in which she suggested. I am happy to reflect further on what she said and provide her with some further reassurance outside the Chamber today. I suspect that that is important, not just for today’s debate but to ensure that we can clarify the issue to her total satisfaction. I think that we have a very useful provision here. Off the top of my head, I can think of other circumstances where it might perhaps be appropriate for the local authority or the police to seek a drinking banning order through the county court. We need to provide some better clarification on that issue so that we have a common understanding of why that set of proceedings would be more appropriate.