Violent Crime Reduction Bill — Clause 1 — Drinking Banning Orders — 14 Nov 2005 at 18:30

Jamie Reed MP, Copeland voted with the majority (No).

The Aye voters failed to pass an amendment to clause 1 of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill which relates to Drinking Banning Orders.

In essence the amendment says a person who has a substance addiction or is physically/mentally ill can only be given a drinking banning order if a court is satisfied that the person understands the nature of the order and will not suffer negative health impacts from the order.

The amendment reads as follows:

"(5) Before making a drinking banning order, a court may receive a report from an appropriate officer about the proposed subject of the order, which contains information about the subject and, in particular, about whether there is any reason to suspect that he may be-
(a) suffering from substance addiction (including alcohol dependence);
(b) a person falling within section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983; or
(c) suffering from any other recognised physical or mental illness or condition which could either-
(i) affect his ability to restrict his intake of alcohol,
(ii) cause him to engage in criminal conduct while under the influence of alcohol, or
(iii) affect his ability to comply with a drinking banning order.
(6) In subsection (5) above "an appropriate officer" means-
(a) where the proposed subject is aged 18 or over, an officer of the National Offender Management Service, a doctor or a social worker of a local authority social services department;
(b) where the proposed subject is aged under 18, a social worker of a local authority social services department or a member of a youth offending team.
(7) If the court determines that the proposed subject of a drinking banning order may be a person falling within subsection (5)(a) to (c) above, the court shall not make a drinking banning order unless satisfied, on receipt of medical evidence, that-
(a) his ability to understand and comply with the order will not be significantly restricted by reason of his being a person falling within subsection (5)(a) to (c) above; and
(b) compliance with the order, either alone or in combination to any other order or sentence to which he is subject, would not have a deleterious effect on his mental or physical health."

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 152077.6%
DUP3 0033.3%
Ind0 1050.0%
Lab280 (+2 tell) 0079.7%
LDem0 37 (+2 tell)062.9%
PC3 00100.0%
Total:286 190076.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive