Clause 25 - Parenting orders in respect of criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 60, in
clause 25, page 22, line 17, leave out 'twelve months' and insert 'two years'.
Mr James Cran (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 61, in
clause 25, page 22, line 20, leave out 'three months' and insert 'twelve months'.
Amendment No. 62, in
clause 25, page 22, line 20, leave out
'and not more than once in any week'.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
Again, I can be brief because, as with amendments Nos. 58 and 59, amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are a repeat of counterpart amendments to an earlier clause about time limits. The judgment call we would make is two years not 12 months, and 12 months not three months. I am hoping that the Government will accept again an amendment like the one they accepted before lunch removing the words
''and not more than once in any week''.
I hope that the Minister knows what we are getting at. We want to take out those words and I am hoping that we will have a similar triumph. The Opposition must be allowed such small triumphs occasionally. If the Minister does accept that, I will beg to move amendment No. 62 when we come to the relevant point, as your colleague in the Chair allowed me to do this morning, Mr. Cran. I will wait to hear whether we are going to be equally lucky with this counterpart amendment.
Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I rise to echo our support for amendment
No. 62 for exactly the same reasons that we supported the similar amendment this morning.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)
Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 are like amendments Nos. 49 and 50 that we discussed earlier. As I said earlier, we believe that 12 months is an adequate maximum for parents to be under an order and that 3 months is adequate for a parenting course. If they require additional parenting support, we would prefer to see parents opting for that on a voluntary basis. We believe that that would be more effective than parents being required to undergo orders and programmes for a much longer period.
Amendment No. 62 is intended to allow more flexibility in the delivery of parenting programmes by removing the one session per week restriction. We recognise that change in this area, and I am happy to accept that amendment, as I was happy to accept the earlier amendment in relation to the education situation.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
We are delighted that the Government are going to accept the same sort of amendment that we tabled before, so I shall withdraw the lead amendment. Although we do not entirely agree with the Minister as he knows and we hope that he will keep the time limit under review, there is no point rehearsing the same argument we had this morning about those. Having withdrawn the lead amendment, I would like to press amendment No. 62. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 62, in
clause 25, page 22, line 20, leave out
'and not more than once in any week'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.