Violent Crime Reduction Bill

These amendments have given rise to a useful short debate on the two issues to which they relate: the age level at which drinking banning orders should kick in, and the issue of publicity for those affected by them. I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to the debate. I have long admired the notion that, before we make legislative changes, they should be well informed. We like to think that this legislation is the product of well informed debate and sound information on the ground. I shall take the amendments in turn and deal in good measure with both sets of issues raised. Amendment No. 15 seeks to raise the minimum age at which a drinking banning order can be applied from 16 to 18. The Government’s consultation paper, Drinking Responsibly: The Government’s Proposals, published earlier this year, proposed that drinking banning orders should apply to those aged 16 or older. By setting the minimum age for an order at 16, it is intended that those drinking while underage who are involved in criminal or disorderly conduct while under the influence of drink are held to account for their conduct. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that, although she was supporting the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, she had no particular objection to the approach that we were adopting in this but that she was looking for consistency of provision. I certainly understand the noble Baroness’s point, but it is about making this fit with the reality out there. As my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Borrie said, drinking in teenagers starts rather earlier than 18, and sometimes rather earlier than 16. As a parent of teenage children, I know from my own experience that that is the case. We have to recognise what is going on in the wider society and, in particular, in our towns and cities. This set of measures is targeted very specifically at that. The Government believe that raising the age at which an order can apply to 18 could well fail to address the real problem of underage drinking and would enable young people to escape the consequences of their actions. It fails to recognise specifically that an order may be appropriate to protect other persons from this type of conduct. I would not want us to do anything in your Lordships’ House that undermined the use of drinking banning orders by restricting them to those aged over 18. In addition, the amendment fails to recognise the evidence. As I said earlier, I am an admirer of legislation brought forward on the basis of good debate and good information, and the evidence base for this is very clear. The Interim Analytical Report of the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit Alcohol Harm Reduction project—that is a bit of a mouthful but it is no doubt well intended for all of that—suggested that those aged 16 to 24 are more likely than all other age groups to binge-drink. Our experience in towns and cities tells us exactly that. In addition, the characteristics of offenders identified in the British Crime Survey tell us that for alcohol-related assaults, offenders generally tend to be aged 16 or older. Those are additional reasons why we would not want to undermine the use of drinking banning orders by restricting them to those aged over 18. By doing so, we might well miss an important cohort of young people who would benefit greatly from the approach that we are intending to be adopted through the use of drinking banning orders. I also take issue with another amendment—Amendment No. 34—tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to which he did not refer. It would limit fines for breaches of drinking banning orders to those aged 18 and above. I cannot see the benefit of that amendment. It would mean that those aged under 18 should not be punished for breaching a drinking banning order, and I hope that other noble Lords will agree with our position on this. I turn to Amendments Nos. 24 and 35, which would reimpose automatic reporting restrictions on proceedings for orders on conviction involving young people and when there is a breach of an order by a young person. I am well aware of the noble Lord’s concerns, which were raised on Second Reading, about what he described as naming and shaming and putting up photographs of those who are subject to anti-social behaviour orders. The Bill lifts automatic reporting restrictions on proceedings for drinking and banning orders involving young people. In proceedings brought against a young person of 16 to 17 for an order or when an order has been breached, reporting restrictions will not automatically be imposed. That will allow the press to report cases to inform local communities of action being taken to deal with activity that blights and is a blot on many neighbourhoods. Of course it is the case—and this reassurance is important—that the courts will retain discretion to apply reporting restrictions if they consider it appropriate in the circumstances. We are not creating a situation in which all cases involving young people will automatically be reported. While we are reversing the presumption, we are not preventing the courts imposing reporting restrictions when it would be appropriate to do so. I do not think that we should undermine what is after all an important form of communication and an important route of reporting action that has been taken to deal with the behaviour of individuals when it is appropriate to do so. I share the view of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Brookman, that it is right that we in the community understand the action that has been taken in our name, so that we can identify those who cause problems in particular locations. I think that a degree of obloquy is relevant in certain circumstances, which is why we encourage publicity in some cases. Ultimately, it will be for the court to take a view on the issue. Evidence suggests that we should have an age restriction that begins at 16 and upwards. We know from evidence that young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are more likely to be involved in binge drinking and the sort of drinking that attracts the attention of the courts and the use of drinking banning orders. We know that if we can catch the problem at an earlier stage it is much less likely to turn out to be a bigger problem as the individuals get older. If we can affect and influence young people who have a drinking problem at that age, perhaps we can save them, through the use of drinking banning orders and the conditions and prohibitions that apply, from a life that is blighted by alcohol and causes consistent concern. That is the overriding good that we seek to capture and make available to communities. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment. For similar reasons, I ask him not to press his later amendments, which he believes should apply and restrict the ability of the press to report on court cases involving drinking banning orders.