Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 30:"Page 7, line 2, at end insert—" ““( ) Where the court makes an order under this section pursuant to an application without notice, the individual who is subject to that order is to be served with a copy of the order personally by an officer of that court.”” The noble Viscount said: This amendment also stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It has been tabled to question the Government on the procedure that will be used when interim orders are issued under Clause 8. In another place, the Government inserted subsection (3) during the Bill’s Standing Committee stage. The subsection allows for applications to be made without notice to an individual and for hearings to,"““be heard in the absence of that individual””." The new subsection caused some consternation when it was introduced and the comments made by Hazel Blears at the time in another place did little to allay those concerns. As was pointed out there, the key purpose of interim orders is to resolve a situation where speed is of the essence and where waiting for a full hearing would not be appropriate or sensible. However, it is hard to see why applications for drinking banning orders need to be made with such haste. If the situation is so critical, surely the individual would have committed a criminal offence and therefore would be in custody anyway. However, if the Government want to insist on leaving it as an option to the courts to hear ““an application without notice””, our amendment tries to limit the risk of injustice to the individual by ensuring that he is served personally by the court,"““with a copy of the order””." That seems entirely reasonable. If someone is expected to abide by prohibitions they need to know what they are. In Standing Committee B on 18 October 2005, the Minister in another place admitted as much. Moreover, she then said that she would be happy to consider the position to see whether the Government could set out the need to serve someone personally with a copy of the order. Have the Government considered this matter further? If they have decided not to set out the need to serve one personally, can the Minister explain why? I beg to move.