Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their attention to this part of the Bill. I shall turn first to the amendment spoken to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and then come back to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Amendment No. 49 proposes that,"““‘disorderly conduct’ should include conduct that does not occur within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby””." In a sense, the amendment would add a gloss to the term ““disorderly conduct””, making it clear that disorderly conduct which took place outside the hearing or sight of anyone likely to be caused distress, but which was perhaps captured on CCTV or witnessed by a police officer, would lead to a drinking banning order. We agree that such behaviour could be capable of leading to such an order, but the amendment is unnecessary. The ordinary meaning of ““disorder”” would in our view encompass such behaviour. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would have the effect of restricting the circumstances in which an individual can be given a drinking banning order to engagement in criminal, but not disorderly, conduct. I know that the noble Lord has a sincerely held view about anti-social behaviour orders, which he does not like because of the way in which they are phrased and their civil nature, but one has to recognise that there are occasions and instances where it is hard to suggest that an act is criminal but to deny that it is anti-social and causes people distress, nervousness and alarm. Such an act is not always describable as a form of criminal activity. The noble Lord might want to consider also that his amendments would restrict the possible drinking banning order prohibitions to those necessary to protect other persons from criminal, but not disorderly, conduct. The Government are committed to tackling all aspects of alcohol-related and alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. Noble Lords will be aware that alcohol misuse is a concern to many people in our communities and that behaviour of that sort may take the form of anti-social behaviour, which, as I have said previously, is not criminal in nature but can nevertheless have a significant and negative impact on many individuals in many of our communities. For that reason, this issue needs to be addressed, and there is substantial public support for our doing so. Numerous recent statutes refer to both crime and disorder, including the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the Licensing Act 2003 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. In addition, key provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 refer to ““crime”” and ““disorder”” as distinct concepts. This Bill enables courts separately to consider making a drinking banning order following conviction in criminal proceedings where the offender was under the influence of alcohol when the offence was committed. It does not seem to be entirely appropriate, in line with our policy or in keeping with recent legislation to retain both crime and disorder in the drinking banning order provisions. It is important that we do not seek to restrict the circumstances in which an individual can be given a drinking banning order to criminal but not disorderly conduct. I was asked for examples of what might constitute disorderly conduct but might not necessarily be caught by the criminal law. Activities such as causing a noise nuisance and disturbance, kicking dustbins late at night, setting off fireworks at an inappropriate time or shouting or swearing in the street could be considered disorderly conduct, but might not necessarily, depending on the circumstances, be a criminal offence. Those are the kinds of thing that would be commonly considered in those terms. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move the amendments having heard what I have had to say on the subject.