Crime and Security Bill

I want to make only three points, two of which are essentially on drafting. However, I shall first address a few remarks to the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello), with whom I think I agree. It is proper, when considering the issue of a notice, that the officer takes account of persons under the age of 18. Understandably, we have been contemplating, and concentrating on, the relationship between P and P's partner—that is the most usual state of affairs. However, of course, within a household, there can be more than one relationship. There might well be a relationship of violence between P and partner, but one cannot exclude the possibility of a relationship of violence between the partner and the person under 18. In those circumstances, P might be a protector or bulwark for the person under 18 against the partner. That is one point to keep in mind. Another quite different but related point is that there might well be an important relationship of dependency between P and the person under 18, and I can imagine other relationships that are relevant to whether a notice should be issued. Therefore, for those reasons, and indeed for the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, it is right that the interests of the person under the age of 18 should be taken into account as a relevant factor. The other two points that I wish to make are essentially drafting points, as I said. For amendment 64, which is in my name, I depend very much on the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), and I have proposed an end date of 56 days on the running of the notice very largely for the reasons that he gave. He draws on his experience as a district judge, which will include repeated adjournments in magistrates courts. That coincides with my experience, although mine is not quite as contemporary as his. My last drafting point would be addressed by amendment 54, which deals with a matter I raised in Committee. The court of course has a power to make non-residence requirements as part of the order, but one must contemplate that other legal orders may already be in place that could, for example, require P to reside at the matrimonial home. At least two examples rapidly occur to me. First, it may well be that as a condition of bail, somebody is required to live at the matrimonial home. Secondly and alternatively—this arises not under an order of the court, but nevertheless under the order of a lawful authority—a control order may well require P to live in a specified place, where he or she is residing with the partner. It seems quite plain that the court that is in the business of making the order should take account of, and not contravene, other, earlier legal obligations. Clearly, one could say, "The matter should be adjourned until the other court or lawful authority has had the chance to amend," but I am not sure that that would be a satisfactory approach. Upon whom does the burden of testing the other court rest? It would also lead to a considerable delay. My bet is that the Bill should state that the non-residence requirement in the order should issue only if it is not inconsistent with some other obligation imposed by a court or legal authority. That is the thinking behind proposed amendment 54.