Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I am grateful to the Minister because I appreciate that he is trying to take the matter forward. I agree with him that this could be a useful provision. I am certainly not trying to prevent a useful provision being in this part of the Bill. I remain concerned that subsection (3) gives a wider power than the Government clearly intend as the current drafting would not exclude the right of a relevant authority to make an application to be joined in non-molestation cases. I really will need to reflect further on that. I am grateful to hear the Minister say that he will reflect further and, perhaps, give some assurances outside the Committee. I cannot honestly see how an assurance would be sufficient at this stage as it would leave that power within the Bill. At the moment, I cannot see myself being persuaded that that would be right. In his answer, the noble Lord specifically said that it would be important that conduct is material to the proceedings before a relevant authority were involved. I am of course aware that, in a non-molestation order, a person’s conduct while drinking may well be very relevant to those proceedings. That is why I remain concerned, but I know there is good will on the government side as there certainly is on ours. On the basis that we want to look at this before Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 20 not moved.] Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4 [Variation or discharge of orders under section 2 or 3]: