Clauses 43 to 47 introduce nuisance begging prevention orders. Alongside nuisance begging directions and nuisance begging prevention notices, these orders—the third tier of escalation—are designed to be an additional tool available to local authorities and the police to keep communities safe. They are not about criminalising the vulnerable or the destitute, but rather acknowledge the impact that nuisance begging can have on individuals and communities, and empower local partners to deal with it in the most appropriate way.

Nuisance begging prevention orders allow for court-imposed prohibitions on nuisance begging behaviours and, critically, the ability to direct an individual to do positive things, such as follow a programme of support, where a court feels that is reasonable to prevent or stop the person from engaging in nuisance begging. I mentioned before that we wondered if we could give police or local authority officers the power to do that themselves, and we concluded that we could not. This is a court making those directions, which is obviously very different from a police officer or local authority officer acting spontaneously.

A person may be directed to take up a drug treatment offer to prevent them from nuisance begging, if the court is satisfied that drug misuse has driven their behaviour. The orders are issued by magistrates courts on application by an authorised person, which is a local authority or the police. An order can be made if a person has engaged in nuisance begging or has not complied with a nuisance begging direction or a nuisance begging prevention notice. Partnership working is required to seek an order containing positive requirements, as the local authority or police applicant will need evidence that the necessary support is available and suitable. Given the judicial role in the making of an order and the protections that go along with that, the court may set more onerous conditions than those that may be in a notice. That is the point that I was making when I commented on the Government’s policy development.

Government amendments 70 to 76 make various changes to the provisions relating to nuisance begging prevention orders. Amendment 70 provides that applications for these orders will be made by complaint, which ensures that the magistrates court civil jurisdiction procedure, as provided for in part 2 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, is applicable to those proceedings. Amendment 71 provides that the orders are to take effect from the beginning of the day after the day on which the order is made. Amendments 72, 74 and 76 provide that, where applicable, an order is to take effect following a person’s release from custody, rather than from the day the order is made. Amendment 75 is a clarificatory—dare I say technical?—amendment making it clear that the specified period for any orders made must be a fixed period. Finally, amendment 73 makes drafting changes for readability. I will respond to amendment 143 from the hon. Member for Nottingham North once he has explained his thinking on it.