Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 166:"Before Clause 51, insert the following new clause—" ““ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS In subsection (7) of section 1 (anti-social behaviour orders) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), for ““two years”” substitute ““three months””.”” The noble Baroness said: At Second Reading, noble Lords from around the House asked whether we needed further legislation on the alcohol-related disorder provisions in Part 1. Many noble Lords suggested that existing legislation could deal with the problem adequately. A wide variety of powers are available to the courts to deal with the behaviour that the drinking banning orders seek to address. One of the key powers is surely the anti-social behaviour order, which my amendment seeks to address. The Government have advanced the argument that drinking banning orders are different from anti-social behaviour orders, particularly because an ASBO must be awarded for a minimum of two years, whereas drinking banning orders will have a minimum length of two months. This argument can be easily overcome by a straightforward amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as my amendment demonstrates. Why not have ASBOs of not less than three months instead of two years? If an anti-social behaviour order can prevent someone entering a certain premises, why could it not be used to prevent someone entering licensed premises and buying alcohol? An ASBO can do exactly what a drinking banning order can do, and more besides. If this is the case, why do the Government waste their time devising the new order that achieves no more than an ASBO might already do? Arguments which compare the consequences of breaching an anti-social behaviour order with the consequences of breaching a drinking banning order also fail to justify the new order. It is proposed that a person who is subject to a drinking banning order but who breaches that order can be found guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine. The breach of an ASBO can quite rightly result in a custodial sentence, so an ASBO is a more versatile type of order which gives the courts greater powers to ensures that its order are enforced. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but it is the kind of argument that the Government advance time and time again against many of the amendments that I move, so what is seen as sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Minister might also argue that drinking banning orders can be awarded more easily and to a lesser standard of proof than that required to award an anti-social behaviour order. Well, indeed. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who made that very point on our first day in Committee. If that is the case, is the introduction of a drinking banning order really just an attempt by the Government, in the interests of expediency, to circumvent the judicial safeguards surrounding the imposition of an anti-social behaviour order? If the Government are serious about tackling the behaviour that we all agree should be tackled, have they considered the alternative of ensuring that courts have the sufficient capacity and resources to ensure that ASBOs can be awarded without delay? My amendment would have the hugely beneficial result of ensuring that anti-social behaviour orders could do the job that we need for a minimum of three months. We would not need drinking banning orders, and we would save a lot of paper and a lot of time, because we could remove 11 clauses from the Bill. That, I think, could do everyone a favour. I beg to move.