Clause 4 - Variation or discharge of orders
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
5:00 pm
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
Clause 4(6) states that an application to vary or discharge an order can be made at any time. Following an application an order could be varied at any time, but it could not be discharged before the end of half its duration unless consent was given by the relevant authorities. With consent, it could be discharged. For example, a two-month order could not normally be discharged until a month had elapsed. The purpose of the provision is to specify that there ought to be a minimum time in which the order has a chance to affect the behaviour of the person who is the subject of the order.
We had a discussion earlier about whether a two-month minimum period was an appropriate period. There was broad agreement among members of the Committee that the prospect of a young person not being able to go to their favourite pub or club for a period of eight weeks could be quite an incentive for them to change their behaviour and perhaps get not quite so drunk the next time they visited that pub or club. We can debate where the line should be drawn and what the earliest point ought to be, but I want to see sustained evidence of changed behaviour as a result of the drinking banning order. We do not need to be too prescriptive about when applications can be made.
Amendment No. 183 would remove the minimum period that an order must be enforced before it can be discharged and would leave the decision to the court based on whether the circumstances had changed. The court should take a view on this matter, but there should be a minimum period, which is why we have specified half the total length of the period specified. If the orders are to be effective, we cannot have a position where they do not have time to bite on the person who is guilty of criminal or disorderly behaviour or has been convicted of a fairly serious assault. For the power to be worth while, it has to be effective for a minimum period. The test that the amendment proposes is already provided for because courts are not going to discharge drinking banning orders when the behaviour has not changed enough for the order to be no longer necessary.
The provisions are appropriate. They provide for a minimum period for the order to take effect. Applications for variation can be made, and it might be that circumstances have changed in relation to where the person lives, or that some other prohibition in the order that is no longer appropriate needs to be varied, but the core provisions that ban people from going to pubs and clubs where they cause the most problems ought to have time to bite.