Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

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.   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—

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

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   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.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

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,   which I understand, and it has been a useful debate, and I shall withdraw my amendment.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I am still concerned about the presumption being switched round for 16 and 17-year-olds, when enforcement could be adequately carried out by the authorities. There is a danger here, and we shall need to explore it further in future.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (4).

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 31, in clause 11, page 9, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).

No. 32, in clause 11, page 9, line 15, leave out from ''section 8;'' to end of line 24.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

As I was saying, amendment No. 15 is a probing amendment, which would omit subsection (4). I seek to find out from the Minister what the Bill means when it states that

''a relevant authority must consult the appropriate persons.''

That could take a long time. A ''relevant authority'' means a local authority or a police authority. Appropriate persons are the police or the local authority. So, if someone decides to apply to the magistrates court to take out a drinking banning order, they must consult first. I want to know how long that will take. If the police have to consult the local authority—the Bill says consult rather than notify—the local authority will presumably be required to consider the application, comment thereon and return the papers to the police, who are making the application. Will that require committee meetings of the local authority—they only meet once in a six or eight week cycle—or will it be an officer-led decision? Will a letter of say-so from the chief officer of the local authority, his having been consulted, be satisfactory? That is the only purpose of the probing amendment.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

There seems to be an oddity. In clause 11, county councils are given a role in drinking banning orders, but district councils are not where a county council exists. But in clause 17, the situation is the other way round. Will the Minister clarify that?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am not sure whether I can help the hon. Lady in that amount of detail at present, but I will certainly consider her point and give her the information. The intention of the Bill is to make the crime and disorder reduction partnership, which is usually at district council level, the area where partnership working takes place to tackle alcohol misuse and the violence that ensues.  

The hon. Member for Woking has used his amendments to make the case that consultation will mean that the process will take an inordinate amount of time. I reassure him that partnership working between local authorities and the police is pretty well established. I am sure that it is in his area, as it is in mine. Under antisocial behaviour legislation, local authorities and the police have to agree on antisocial behaviour orders and dispersal orders. They are used to working in that way. In practical terms, that usually means that the chief superintendent, being the borough commander, will discuss the matter with, perhaps, the chief executive of the local authority and reach an agreement.

It is important that the local authority and the police work together to tackle alcohol-related crime. Some of the best schemes for reducing alcohol misuse involve the local council and the police coming together to set up city-centre safe schemes, such as the one in Manchester. There are schemes in Swansea, Newcastle, Leeds and Leicester. They are very much a partnership between local authorities and the police. In considering making an application for a drinking banning order, joint working is right, because both agencies may clearly need to have an input. I hope that that is sufficient reassurance for the hon. Gentleman, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

It is indeed and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, after 'proved', insert 'to the criminal standard'.

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 171, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, after 'proved', insert 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

This is an important point of principle. My amendment merely seeks to ensure that when a court finds it proved that conditions were satisfied and can make a drinking banning order the proof should be ''to the criminal standard'', not to the civil standard. That would ensure that the magistrates must be sure—the previous phrase was ''beyond reasonable doubt''. The civil standard relates to the balance of probabilities.

A breach of a drinking banning order could have serious consequences, not to mention the stigma. That is the important point because, whatever the Minister says, there is a whiff of criminality about the provision in the sense that the order would be made in a magistrates court, which is a criminal court. It seems to me and many of those to whom I have spoken that the standard of proof should be the criminal standard. In amendment No. 171, I have suggested ''beyond reasonable doubt''.

The issue is the standard of proof to be used by the court in satisfying itself, and I should welcome the Minister's observations and her help.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

The amendments are unnecessary because drinking banning orders are civil orders but   the necessary standard of proof must be equivalent to the criminal standard. That is well accepted case law from cases under antisocial behaviour legislation, which is in many ways identical to the legislation that we are considering today.

It is important to retain the civil nature of the order so that third-party evidence can be given—hearsay evidence and evidence from professional witnesses—but the standard of proof must be the criminal standard. That is well accepted law and does not need to be in the Bill, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

That was a very satisfactory answer. In other parallel proceedings the standard of proof must be the criminal standard, but the Bill mentions nothing about that. It was helpful to hear from the Minister that the standard will be the criminal standard, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 45, at end insert—

'(6) Persons subject to—

(a) an application under this section, or

(b) proceedings for breach of an order pursuant to section 10,

shall be entitled to legal aid for the purposes of representation.'.

We all know that legal aid has been severely cut back by the Government. I do not want to be provocative, but I am going to be. It is a great disappointment that so many people are not properly represented because of the cuts in legal aid. That is as it may be, but can the Minister give an assurance that impecunious people who are, for one reason or another, unable properly to follow the proceedings will be entitled to legal aid in the normal way?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman probably knows better than any other hon. Member in the Room that there is no automatic right to legal aid. The court will consider applications for legal aid for people who are subject to drinking banning orders, as they would for applications in any other area. When an application for an order is made to magistrates, they may consider whether someone should be entitled to legal aid on the basis of their means. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants, as I do, to ensure that we obtain maximum value for money from the legal aid fund, which has increased dramatically in recent years. I am also sure that he would not want to make a case for people to be entitled to legal aid in every instance. The matter should not be in the Bill, but the Legal Services Commission will consider case by case whether legal aid should be granted.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

That was a helpful answer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

It has become the practice in magistrates courts to warn defendants when they are bailed to return for the trial date that if they do not appear for trial two things may happen. A warrant may be issued for arrest. Recently, courts were   encouraged to say, ''If you are not here for your trial, the case will take place in your absence, and it may be proved against you.'' The proceedings are civil proceedings in a magistrates court. If a defendant does not turn up for one reason or another, he is not bailed, is he? If he or she has absconded, will the Minister confirm my presumption that there is provision for the proceedings to be heard and for orders to be made in the defendant's absence?

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

The debate on the clause has been useful, because it has touched on some issues that needed debating, such as the Government's lack of enforcement of legislation, and the distinction between 16 and 17-year-olds and those above those ages.

The debate did not touch on the promotion of alcoholic drinks to youngsters, and I am still concerned that the penal side of youth legislation is in place while but some of the educational and informative side is not.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said:

''We need the thorough review of the youth service that we have been promised for so long so that we can put in place not only worthwhile activities for young people but other activities that engage them in the community and allow them to interact with and contribute to it.''—[Official Report, 20 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 603.]

That was a useful contribution, and I hope that the Government take note of it. I should like them to think carefully about the information and publicity given to children, because I remain deeply concerned about it. The Government should think harder about the under-16s, and deeper about enforcement. There should no longer be any delays about the promised review.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I can give the hon. Member for Woking the assurance that when a drinking banning order is made on conviction, the court will be able to make a drinking banning order in the absence of the defendant, because it will proceed with the criminal charge in the defendant's absence. The Bill provides that the court must then consider whether to make a drinking banning order, so the matter could proceed in absence.

I am pleased that the courts increasingly want to proceed in the absence of defendants, because on some occasions, defendants have sought to string out proceedings for weeks and months with several absences. It is good practice for magistrates to proceed in that way.

In terms of free-standing applications, interim orders can be applied for on an ex parte basis in the absence of the person who is the subject of the order. The position about substantive applications that are not interim is not clear, so I shall undertake to clarify that aspect of the legislation for the hon. Gentleman, and I shall return to it.

I have previously explained to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that the alcohol harm reduction strategy has a range of work streams. Some are being led by the Department of Health around sensible drinking messages, education and ensuring that young people in particular know what they are   drinking, how many units they are drinking, and what effect that can have on their health.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is involved in town centre management, and in the consideration of how different premises can be better managed. This legislation is about drinking banning orders and ensuring that the police have the necessary enforcement powers to make a difference to alcohol misuse. Our strategy is always good enforcement; it is also support, education and campaigning. They are not mutually exclusive, and we must ensure that we do both.

Although it is sometimes easier and more comfortable to do the education and health work, it is crucial to protect the decent law-abiding majority. We are also prepared to enforce where necessary and to use the powers that the police have asked us to introduce, so that they can take action on the streets to ensure that alcohol does not continue to blight people's lives.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.