Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

I should like to make a number of specific points. First, would the hon. Member for Taunton forgive me if I disagreed with new clause 2? I do not think that it would always be the case that the enforcement agency would know about a change in circumstances. In general terms, the change of circumstances would be known, if not exclusively, then largely to the person who is the subject of the order. My feeling is that it would be unfair to place that obligation on the enforcement agency unless it had particular notice of a change of circumstances. To that extent, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I understand and agree with the overall motives of what he is describing.

I should like to make three specific points. First, I have some difficulty in understanding the real purpose of clause 18: whether it is designed primarily to make current orders more onerous, or less onerous. When one looks at clause 18(1), the criteria to which the courts have regard, it is not plain from those what the over-arching purpose is.

My second point builds on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. He is entirely right that there is an imbalance here between the enforcement agency and the person who is the subject of the order. The agency does not have to establish any change of circumstance and, as my hon. Friend says, it can make the order more onerous even if there has been no change of circumstance. That is the effect of clause 18(8). However, the person who is the subject of the order has to demonstrate a change of circumstance. I do not like that imbalance because I see no reason in principle why there should be an imbalance. The consequence, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is that the enforcement agencies can simply go back and seek to improve on the condition of the order from its perspective, even if the omission was through their own fault in the first place. I do not like that one little bit.

Finally, if the change of circumstance justifies an application by the person who is the subject of the order, what are the criteria to which the court should address itself when determining whether or not to make the variation order? I am making absolutely no complaint as to the fact that amendment No. 114 was not selected; decisions have to be made. At least in that amendment, I tried to set out the criteria, which at the moment do not exist at all in the Bill.

I have two questions to put to the Minister. First, what is the primary purpose of clause 18? Secondly, what are the criteria to which a court should have regard when it considers an application to vary made by the subject of an order on the grounds of changing circumstances? The Committee requires answers to those questions.

See this speech in context