|
Lynne Featherstone: I welcome Government amendment No. 74. I would be interested to understand the Minister's change of heart, because that would indicate her thinking. However, at least there is now a logic to the argument that she has been making about this being a less-than-criminal offence. When we know what is involved, disorder may not be the severest of offences, and I understood that breaching a drinking banning order was to be a lesser offence. It is therefore right that there should not be a custodial sentence. I welcome a community sentence.
Amendment No. 128 is intended to deal with a situation in which too much power is placed in the
Column Number: 96
hands of the Secretary of State. Many aspects of the Bill seem to have needed rethinking, adjusting or redrafting, and there have been so many amendments that it is of the utmost importance that the Government should not simply use statutory instruments to make changes. The clause would allow the Secretary of State to keep adding to the list without any further substantive monitoring of changes made. It would be beneficial for no such order to be made unless a draft had been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
Hazel Blears: The hon. Member for Woking is making heavy weather of this issue. As I said before, drinking banning orders can range from two months to two years. In some cases, it will be necessary to give people a short, sharp shock about their behaviour, and custody is not appropriate in those cases. Something like 342,000 offences are committed under the influence of alcohol. We are keeping the provision that states that where there is a conviction for an offence committed under the influence of alcohol, the courts must consider making a drinking banning order, and there are therefore likely to be far more drinking banning orders than antisocial behaviour orders. That is quite right when these problems are plaguing a community.
As I have said on several occasions, I want the courts to use orders proactively and say, ''We have a person in front of us. They committed an assault when drunk. In addition to the penalty for that assault, we want to make a drinking banning order to stop them going in the pubs where they have been going for the last few weeks and drinking far too much, which resulted in the kind of violence that we saw.'' We therefore want to ensure that the penalties are proportionate and that we are not in territory where the courts will resile from using the orders because they feel that they are too draconian. We want the orders to be as flexible as possible, in terms not just of the prohibitions that they include and the length of time that they last, but of the penalties for breaching them. I ask hon. Members to think seriously about this matter. In pushing for custody, the hon. Gentleman is not looking at the—
Mr. Malins: The Minister misunderstands the point.
Hazel Blears: I understand the point, but the hon. Gentleman is making incredibly heavy weather of it. He wants custody to be an option. The option of community penalties and fines, and a range of community sentences that he has welcomed, are perfectly sufficient. Community orders can be a big imposition on people's lifestyle, as they have to make some restoration for the damage that they have caused. If the community penalty is breached and the person is brought back to court, he can face custody; and if there is another conviction, the fact that he has breached the drinking banning order would be an aggravating factor when sentencing. There are a number of ways in which sentences can be taken seriously.
Column Number: 97
6.15 pm
Mr. Malins: The Minister does herself a disservice. She should not say that I am pressing for custody. When she reflects upon that comment, she will realise that it is wholly inappropriate. At no stage have I pressed for custody. It is important to think before one speaks. I did not press for custody; I pressed for the option to be open to the court. That is all. Will the Minister please tell us why something that was thought proper in June this year—custody—is thought improper in October?
Hazel Blears: I think that I have given a proper explanation. Something like 342,000 offences could be subject to drinking banning orders. I accept that the hon. Gentleman was not pressing for custody in every case, but he wanted the option to be open to the courts. I have explained why other community penalties should be sufficient to bring people up sharply by confronting them with the consequences of their behaviour.
The hon. Gentleman spoke to amendment No. 28; that, too, shows that he is trying to face in two directions. That amendment would provide the option of a conditional discharge as a penalty for breaching a drinking banning order. A conditional discharge does not send out the message that sanctions will follow the breach of such orders. We have adopted a good middle way—if I dare use such a phrase.
When a drinking banning order is breached, the penalty is a community sentence or a fine. A conditional discharge is far too light a penalty; people will not be seen as facing any sort of sanction for breaching an order. Equally, custody is not appropriate if people have merely breached a community penalty. We have tried to adopt a reasonable, proportionate and moderate way of dealing with such matters, and ensuring that the penalties are appropriate.
Amendment No. 28 would mean that those who broke a drinking banning order—those who had conducted themselves in a criminal or disorderly way as a result of their alcohol-fuelled behaviour, which had caused problems for others—would face the prospect of a conditional discharge. That does not sent out the right message. It says that a drinking banning order is a matter of little consequence. I seek to persuade the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment; if he does, I ask the Committee to vote against it. It will not reinforce the authority of the court.
The amendments of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green say that regulations should be made under the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. It would not be a good use of parliamentary time to ask that all orders of that nature should be debated. Orders made under clause 10(6) could extend the range of persons who can apply for a drinking banning order. It is entirely appropriate for that sort of order to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. If hon. Members felt strongly about the matter, they could pray against the order and then debate it. That is the appropriate way to proceed.
Column Number: 98
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.
Division No. 1]
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Blears, Hazel
Brennan, Kevin
Butler, Ms Dawn
Cooper, Rosie
Featherstone, Lynne
Keeble, Ms Sally
McCabe, Steve
Pound, Stephen
Ruane, Chris
Sheridan, Jim
Waltho, Lynda
NOES
Clappison, Mr. James
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Wilson, Sammy
Wright, Jeremy
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 75, in clause 10, page 8, line 3, leave out ', or to both'.
No. 76, in clause 10, page 8, line 4, leave out subsection (3).—[Hazel Blears.]
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Interpretation of Chapter 1
Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in clause 11, page 9, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 10.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 33, in clause 11, page 9, line 47, leave out subsection (3).
Lynne Featherstone: We are back to the Secretary of State and his wide-ranging powers—in this case, to regard a person as a relevant authority—and I am worried that the provision could be interpreted too widely. There should be a safeguard; otherwise anyone, even a malicious individual, could be considered to be a relevant authority.
Omitting the words in my amendment would not limit in any way the number of times the Secretary of State could make a statutory instrument and adjust the exceptions, exemptions, provisions and so on. I appreciate that parliamentary time is precious, but it would not escape the notice of the House if the Secretary of State dodged in and out daily, and it might be construed that the additions to the provisions were excessive.
Hazel Blears: Our current view is that it is appropriate for only the police and local authorities to be relevant authorities as defined in the Bill in terms of applying for drinking banning orders. However, in future we may wish to extend the provision to others, and it is therefore helpful for the Secretary of State to have the power in clause 11(3) to do that by order rather than having to await a further legislative slot to amend the Bill.
Such matters are commonly dealt with by secondary legislation and there is a range of precedents. It is sometimes difficult to get primary legislative slots—although it sometimes seems that the Home Office is legislating for the whole Government. I ask the hon. Lady to consider the matter on the
Column Number: 99
practical basis that we may need to amend the Bill, so the order-making power is appropriate.
Lynne Featherstone: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Power to impose charges on
licence holders etc. in zones
Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in clause 12, page 10, line 17, after first 'authority', insert ', or local authorities,'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 131, in clause 12, page 10, line 17, after 'month', insert
', at an annual rate of no greater than three per cent of a premises' rateable value,'.
Amendment No. 35, in clause 12, page 10, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment No. 43, in clause 12, page 10, line 23, at end insert
'provided that no charges shall be paid, or be payable, by any persons or clubs unless the local authority reasonably believes that such persons or clubs by their acts, or omissions, contribute to the incidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in the locality.'.
Amendment No. 36, in clause 12, page 10, line 23, at end insert
(c) designated premises supervisors or tenants not holding such a licence but who are responsible for the day-to-day running of the premises.'.
Amendment No. 39, in clause 12, page 10, line 34, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'essential'.
Amendment No. 40, in clause 12, page 10, line 35, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'essential'.
Amendment No. 41, in clause 12, page 11, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment No. 62, in clause 12, page 11, line 29, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 63, in clause 12, page 11, line 29, at end insert—
'(9A) Regulations made under subsection (9) shall include provision for appeals against decisions determining such questions as set out in paragraphs (9)(a) and (b).
Amendment No. 42, in clause 12, page 11, line 30, leave out subsection (10).
Government amendment No. 79
Amendment No. 145, in clause 17, page 15, line 4, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 5 and insert
'but the Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument under this Chapter unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
|
