Violent Crime Reduction Bill

This gives me an opportunity to reply to what the Minister said earlier. His reply to the amendment dealing with a personal service of the order was, ““Well, that will go along in the usual way with the usual procedure in the county or magistrates’ court””, yet the clause introduces new procedures. Why should it be assumed that the rules for the service of an interim order personally on an individual should follow? If the order is to be made without notice and heard in the absence of the individual, at the least the Bill should provide a requirement that the order be served. What happens when it is not served? What happens if it is renewed once, twice or three times and 12 or 16 weeks go by but it has not been served so the person does not know about it? Is he in breach of an order that he knows nothing about? If he is, what is the significance of that? What is the consequence of that? We need an answer to that. I do not see the utility of an interim order—a drinking banning order—made against someone who knows nothing about it. It is absolutely pointless until he knows something about it. It has no effect. I intend to pursue that matter. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer my earlier question: what happens if someone does not know anything about the order? What is the consequence?