Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 1, line 8, leave out ““described”” and insert ““specified””" The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak to Amendment No. 3, which is grouped with it. Naturally, we support measures that would reduce violent crime, but we shall certainly need to examine all the proposals in the Bill rigorously to ensure that they are both justified and effective. We are surely justified in our scepticism of the Home Office’s ability to deliver its policies effectively given the shambles revealed this week whereby more than 1,000 foreign national criminals, who should have been considered for deportation or removal, completed their prison sentences and were released without the appropriate consideration of either deportation or removal action. That is shocking. I make it clear that I do not expect the Minister to have to respond on that issue today; I have already made that clear to him outside the Chamber. I believe it is not his direct area of responsibility, and I think it would be inappropriate to hold him to account for that today. However, I give notice now that I have drafted an amendment on this matter, within the scope of the Bill, for later debate. I have sought the advice of the Public Bill Office on whether it is within the scope of the Long Title. As a result of the late development of these matters today, it has not been possible for the Public Bill Office to consider it in time for me to make it clear now whether it will be tabled. If I receive the advice of the Public Bill Office that it is within the scope of the Long Title, the amendment will be published before the end of the week. We support measures to give the courts more effective powers to ban individuals from licensed premises if that will materially improve public order. We need to look carefully at whether the Government’s plans for drinking banning orders are worth the bureaucratic new structure that they propose to build. Drinking banning orders are an odd beast. The Government present them as a civil order, but they wear the mantle of criminal design. Debates in another place did not dispel the confusion that lies at the heart of the creation of this new order. In our debates on the amendments in this part of the Bill, we shall try to persuade the Government to do rather better. The amendments in this first group are probing. They seek to determine the scope of the potential prohibitions that could be included in a drinking banning order. This is a particularly important issue to be debated, given recent developments in the courts concerning anti-social behaviour orders. Of course, I appreciate that drinking banning orders are not the same as ASBOs, but they share certain characteristics, as was made clear by the right honourable Hazel Blears in another place. It is worth noting that earlier this month the High Court ruled that a prohibition included in an anti-social behaviour order imposed by a court was too wide. The particular prohibition banned the individual who was the subject of the order from behaving in an anti-social way for two years. That was deemed to be far too vague in its scope to be lawful. With that knowledge in mind of how wary the courts are when it comes to allowing orders and prohibitions of this kind, it is important that the Minister should clarify today exactly what the Government have in mind in Clause 1(1) and (2). Naturally, in this House we always seek to ensure that legislation is fit for purpose. If anything is left in the Bill that risks causing unnecessary difficulty in the courts at a later stage, I believe we need to address that matter now. Subsection (1) explains that a drinking banning order would prohibit the individual subject to the order from doing the things described in the order. I was somewhat surprised to see the use of the word ““described”” instead of the term ““specified””, which one would usually expect to see in this context. The word ““described”” conveys a rather more general and less explicit approach to setting out the terms of a drinking banning order. Is that what the Government intend? In any event, is that wise, given the ruling earlier this month by Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice David Clarke? Amendment No. 1 simply replaces ““described”” with ““specified””. Would not that use of the word ““specified”” make it crystal clear that the drinking banning order must be as explicit as possible in setting out precisely what a person is banned from doing? Subsection (2) states that a drinking banning order,"““may impose any prohibition on the subject””." It qualifies that with the proviso that any such prohibition has to be,"““necessary for the purpose of protecting other persons from criminal or disorderly conduct by the subject while he is under the influence of alcohol””." Subsection (3) specifies what must be included in the prohibition and subsection (4) specifies what must not be included. That begs the question: what, therefore, may be included? Paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that there is,"““the possibility of other relevant prohibitions also being included in the order””." How does the Minister foresee this test of relevance being met? Amendment No. 3 suggests a couple of examples that might possibly be included. Can the Minister give the Committee further examples of what might be contained in such an order? Although the heading of the clause indicates that these orders are drinking banning orders, it seems that, given the width of Clause 1(2), they are not really confined at all to banning someone from drinking. Calling them ““drinking banning orders”” is, therefore, something of a misnomer within the current drafting of the Bill. I have tried to show that in Amendment No. 3. I make it clear that at this stage I certainly do not seek to bring into the debate questions about the approved courses that are the subject of government amendments later on. We shall return to that point. I am simply asking the Minister to give examples of the prohibitions on behaviour that may form the basis of the order. Those are the prohibitions that would stand apart from any requirement that may be imposed by attendance at an approved course. I consider those to be separate. Clause 22 gives the police powers to give directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder, requiring them to leave a locality for up to 48 hours. Is it the Government’s intention to provide in Clause 1 for powers that go beyond those powers in Clause 22? That would be tantamount to exclusion orders. It seems that these prohibitions could end up being extremely similar to bail conditions that the court can already impose, with the crucial difference that no criminal charge has been made against the individual concerned. I beg to move.