Violent Crime Reduction Bill

---

 
Column Number: 69
 

Standing Committee B

Tuesday 18 October 2005

(Afternoon)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Eric Forth

†Abbott, Ms Diane (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)

†Blears, Hazel (Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety)

†Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab)

†Butler, Ms Dawn (Brent, South) (Lab)

†Clappison, Mr. James (Hertsmere) (Con)

†Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)

†Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon) (Con)

†Featherstone, Lynne (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD)

Hosie, Stewart (Dundee, East) (SNP)

Jones, Mr. Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

†Keeble, Ms Sally (Northampton, North) (Lab)

†Malins, Mr. Humfrey (Woking) (Con)

†McCabe, Steve (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)

†Pound, Stephen (Ealing, North) (Lab)

Prisk, Mr. Mark (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)

†Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)

†Sheridan, Jim (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)

Thurso, John (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

†Waltho, Lynda (Stourbridge) (Lab)

†Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP)

†Wright, Jeremy (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con)

Geoffrey Farrar, Sarah Hartwell-Naguib, Committee Clerks

†attended the Committee

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Clause 2

Orders on an application to magistrates' court

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out '16' and insert '18'.—[Mr. Malins.]

4.16 pm

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 170, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out '16' and insert '15'.

No. 121, in clause 6, page 5, line 15, leave out subsections (8) and (9).

No. 125, in clause 10, page 8, line 1, after 'person', insert

'aged 18 years and above'.

No. 126, in clause 10, page 8, line 3, at end insert—

'(2A) A person of 16 or 17 years of age guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable, on conviction in the youth court, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.'.

No. 29, in clause 10, page 8, line 22, leave out subsection (8).

No. 30, in clause 10, page 8, line 26, leave out subsection (9).

Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): As I was saying, amendment No. 121 deals with age, as do amendments Nos. 125 and 126, and the lead amendment, No. 12. Clause 10(9)(a) removes reporting restrictions. Even though at that stage the proceedings would not be criminal, there should be a presumption that the spirit of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child will be observed. We need to think carefully about how such matters should be publicised, because it is obvious that licensees, the police and interested parties such as youth offending teams will need to know who has received a drinking banning order, otherwise there would be no enforcement—which I have been keen on demanding today. It would not be appropriate for such publicity to stray into public notices in newspapers, leaflets through doors or anything like that. At the very least, it should be restricted to the categories that I mentioned. We tabled the amendment to establish the Government's intentions with regard to publicising the names and photographs of children—albeit that 16 and 17-year-olds are a particular category of children, who need a lot of observation.

My other concern, and another reason for the amendment, is that publication will do little to discourage 16 and 17-year-olds from such behaviour.
 
Column Number: 72
 
There is an added danger that it would become a badge of honour, as has happened with some antisocial behaviour orders, and that drinking banning orders would become a sort of status symbol, particularly because drinking is sometimes regarded as being a macho occupation. Young people may well compete with each other.

It would be improper to breach the spirit of the UN convention, and there may be an anomaly in that a 16-year-old accused of breaching an ASBO can be identified in the media, but one accused of murder cannot. We need to clear this matter up so that the law is consistently protective.

As for amendment No. 125, there is still potential for offenders to be sent to prison if they persistently and wilfully breach their community sentences—

The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Hazel Blears): Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. A Government amendment has been tabled to clause 10, which would remove the custodial penalty for breaching a drinking banning order. Therefore, the hon. Lady's amendment may not be necessary.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the Minister for that information. I recognise that the Government amendment will remove prison sentences—obviously, my party totally supports that. However, my understanding is that a custodial sentence would still apply in cases of persistent and wilful breach—but perhaps my assumption is wrong. Amendment No. 126 covers much the same ground, as there is still a potential prison sentence for repeated offences.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said that his amendment No. 12, which seeks to raise to 18 the age at which drinking banning orders can apply, and his amendment No. 170, which seeks to reduce it to 15, are intended to probe the reason for setting the age at 16. Perhaps I can help him.

The alcohol harm reduction strategy identified people aged 16 to 24 as more likely than any other age group to binge drink. The highest alcohol consumption takes place between the ages of 16 and 24. For alcohol-related assaults against adults, offenders generally tended to be 16 or older. For alcohol-related stranger assaults, 60 per cent. of offenders were 16 to 24, and 38 per cent. were 25 or older. Clearly, we had to decide on an age at which the drinking banning order will apply, and there is a fair evidence base for saying that 16 is the appropriate age.

We did not want to set 18 as the age, as under-age drinkers would not be caught by the provisions. That is one of the main mischiefs at which the legislation aims. Nor did we want to go as low as 15, as there is a distinction between drinking banning orders and antisocial behaviour orders. ASBOs can apply to everybody over 10, and drinking banning orders come in at 16, which we think is appropriate. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman sufficiently for him not to press what he admitted were probing amendments.

Amendment No. 29, to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer, would remove the right of a relevant authority to appoint a person to be present at the
 
Column Number: 73
 
youth court, but that is an important provision. It is right that someone from, say, social services or a youth offending team ought to be present at a youth court when it is dealing with someone who is young and vulnerable. Again, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 30 and 121, to which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) spoke, seek to re-impose automatic reporting restrictions on proceedings for an order on conviction or for a breach. The Bill lifts the automatic reporting restrictions but does not say that the court cannot ever restrict reporting. It says that it is a matter for the court, which will consider the circumstances as a whole, to decide whether there ought to be reporting of an order or a penalty imposed for a breach. The press may be allowed to report local cases.

Again, as with antisocial behaviour orders, it is absolutely right and proper in some cases that the community should know whether orders have been made or breached, so that they can help with enforcement. If they see someone going into an area from which he or she is excluded by order, they can report that to the police so that swift action can be taken. The hon. Lady said that she wanted rigorous enforcement of the orders. In that case, the community should help the police with the enforcement agenda. I hope that she will think carefully before pursuing the amendments, which would mean that in many cases the community would not know who was subject to an order or whether it had been breached. It is right that the court should have the discretion to consider such issues on a case-by-case basis. We are reversing the current presumption; we are not preventing the court from making such decisions.

The hon. Member for Woking said that he was concerned about under-age drinking. We ran an important campaign about the many things that shops, off-licences and clubs can do to establish proof of age. The PASS hologram, under the proof of age standards scheme, is difficult to replicate, whether on the internet or any other way. I stress that it is important that people who sell alcohol should make an effort to determine whether the people to whom they are selling are of an age at which they can legally obtain alcohol.

I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green does not want any publicity about young people in such circumstances. It has been brought to our attention that members of her party have indicated that they want the legal age for drinking to be reduced to 16. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady shares that position—it would be interesting if she could put that on the record for us today—but we think that when young people are drinking under the legal age, the courts should be able to publicise that fact. On those grounds, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Malins: The purpose of my amendment was to tease out from the Minister why she thought that 16 was the appropriate age. I tried to draw attention to excess drinking by 15-year-olds. The Minister has told us of the reasoning behind her decision to go for 16,
 
Column Number: 74
 
which I understand, and it has been a useful debate, and I shall withdraw my amendment.

---

Prepared 18 October 2005