My Lords, the ““to do”” list keeps getting longer but with this Bill it never actually gets done—that is the difficulty. The only crumb of comfort—a very small one—is that the Minister says that a commitment has been given to the Lord Chief Justice that the judiciary will be consulted on the draft drinking banning order guidance.
The Minister says that it would be bad practice and wrong to take up the court’s time continually to repeat the process and to have the four-week drinking banning order renewed. My problem is that inertia could be built in. I would not wish to see court time wasted in that way. As the Minister knows, my concern with several unconnected measures in this Bill is that there could be inertia when penalties simply get built into the system and continue without the proper review, and that the final hearing is the right way to deal with those matters. But this is not a matter that I would press further. I hope that the ““to do”” list does not grow but gets done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Breach of drinking banning orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c552 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:02:06 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_352118
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_352118
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_352118