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

I beg to move amendment No. 120, in clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out subsection (5).

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

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

No. 20, in clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out from 'court' to end of line 7 and insert

'must issue a warrant without bail for his arrest.'.

No. 21, in clause 6, page 5, line 9, leave out 'adequate' and insert '14 days,'.

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

The amendment seeks to ask the question why, and I want the Government's explanation. Clause 5 relates to orders on conviction in criminal proceedings. In clause 5(4), it is reasonable for a court to have to give its reasons for not issuing a drinking banning order when conditions have been satisfied. If conditions have been satisfied and the public need protection, we have a right to know why the court has decided against what seems to be logic.

However, clause 5(5) is more problematic, because if the conditions in clause 2(2) are not satisfied, the court is asked to give its reasons for not issuing the order. That means that the court has to explain why it does not think it necessary to make an order to protect persons. If the conditions have not been satisfied, why should we put that undue pressure on the court? It may put the court on the defensive. It would be a brave court that took the decision not to err on the side of caution in such circumstances when eyes were on it. We believe that the decision should be at the courts' discretion in such circumstances and that the court should not have to explain itself when the conditions have not been met.

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

I think that I am to speak to amendments 20 and 21, which relate to clause 6. Clearly, I will not be speaking on them at that stage, but they are probing amendments to clause 6, where it states that

''the court may further adjourn the proceedings or may issue a warrant for his arrest.''

I am simply trying to toughen it up a bit. I do not think that the Minister will accept the amendment but it is an opportunity for me to say that courts are too reluctant to issue warrants for people's arrest when they fail to answer to their bail. [Interruption.] I understand that other matters are going on outside the Room, but I realise that everybody present is listening with the greatest interest to what I say.  

Stephen Pound (Ealing North, Labour)

You are the new leader of the Tory party.

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

I am grateful.

It is merely a way of drawing the attention of the Minister, and of the House of Commons, to the fact that far too many people in criminal proceedings—it is a different parallel—are not answering bail, and that courts ought to issue warrants without bail at the drop of a hat.

Amendment No. 21, would amend subsection (6), which states that the defendant should have had

''adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings.''

Magistrates courts have rules about notice of proceedings; it is often 14, 21 or 28 days. I wonder what is the Minister's view of ''adequate notice''. There is much to be said for making it 14 days. Curiously enough, that is exactly what the amendment suggests.

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

As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green explained, amendment No. 120 seeks to remove the provision that would ensure that if the court decides the conditions for a drinking banning order are not satisfied, it must state its conclusion and its reasons. It is in the interests of open justice that the wider community should know whether the conditions have been met and why.

The purpose of the legislation is to try to ensure that local people can see that action is being taken on the issues that are of most concern to them. I would have expected the hon. Lady to welcome the fact that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done openly, transparently and inclusively. I have said before that I want drinking banning orders to be used proactively by the courts. The DBO should not be an order of last resort, but one of the tools that the courts can use to tackle the problems of alcohol misuse that beset so many communities. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment, because as a general matter of principle, more transparency and openness in the criminal justice system on how decisions are reached is in everyone's interests.

The hon. Member for Woking asked that courts should issue warrants without bail. Again, I believe that they should have discretion. Because of family circumstances or a range of other issues, bail will be appropriate in some cases and not in others. He also raised the question of what is an adequate period of notice. Again, it could be 14 days, but it could be less. It could be as little as seven days, and I believe that it should be open to the court to determine what that adequate period should be, based on the circumstances.

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

I am somewhat persuaded by the Minister. I am in favour of openness and accountability. Not knowing a huge amount about court procedure, I was concerned that there would be undue pressure if a court felt that it needed to reveal everything. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.  

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.