I can accept some of what the Minister has said and I understand the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but there are instances where this system could fall apart. Reservations have been expressed that it might be very divisive in community terms to have these injunctions. For example, they might be applied far more strongly to black members of a community than to white members. It is possible to see how this might be something that the local authority would do better to stand back from.
I accept that the local authority has had a role in ASBOs. I absolutely accept that community safety partnerships and close working are necessary. But here we are looking at a completely different level of restriction of liberty. This provision could require someone to stay in their own home, to not visit any of their friends, to not keep a particular pet, to not walk their pet or to not wear certain clothes. A very different level will be required.
Another of my concerns is that the gang or gang members to whom this injunction will apply when it is granted might want to appeal—for example, to their local councillor—on the grounds of evidence that they were not a member of the gang. There could be a conflict of interest between the council as a body that brings the community together and represents the community, as ward councillors should do, and the council as a local enforcement body. This is well above enforcing matters such as litter, parking and those things that councils are more liable to do. Because of the severity of the restriction on the liberty of the individual, I have grave concerns that this is not an appropriate route for local authorities. I will take further advice from the LGA and take into account what the Minister has said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 145 withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed.
Clause 37 agreed.
Clause 38 : Applications without notice
Amendment 145A had been retabled as Amendment 142A.
Clause 38 agreed.
Clause 39 agreed.
Clause 40 : Interim injunctions: adjournment of without notice hearing
Amendments 146 to 147 not moved.
Clause 40 agreed.
Amendment 147A not moved.
Clauses 41 to 43 agreed.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 October 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c208 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:16:35 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583634
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583634
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583634