Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 33:"Page 7, line 27, at end insert—" ““(   )   The Secretary of State must issue guidance setting out factors that the court should have regard to in determining whether applications for the renewal of orders under this section should be granted.”” The noble Viscount said: This amendment, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay, relates to applications to renew interim orders. As the Bill stands, there are no limitations on the number of times for which an interim drink banning order can be renewed; nor is there any specific threshold or test set out for the granting of such a renewal, beyond the general test of whether it is just to do so, set out in Clause 8(2). That leaves it open to the courts to continue to renew interim orders without a final hearing ever taking place. Without any specific limitations or thresholds, the applicant—probably the local authority—might find it convenient to invite the courts to use the renewal mechanism repeatedly rather than have a final hearing. This would in effect be an abuse of the interim order process. It would seem sensible to try to limit the use of the renewal mechanism, thus ensuring that the onus is placed on the applicant to gather the necessary evidence and have the matter dealt with properly at a final hearing as soon as possible. It might well be that a four-week interim order is necessary to allow evidential difficulties to be overcome, but that should not be used as a cloak for inefficiency on the applicant authority’s part. In another place, the Minister said at col. 89 of the Official Report of Standing Committee B on 18 October that she would ““consider any guidance”” that the Government might issue to cover this point about renewals. Is any such guidance likely to be issued? If so, what might be contained in such guidance? I beg to move.