§ Mr. BennettI beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 17, leave out
'or any other person mentioned in the order'.
§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris)With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'or until further order'.
§ Mr. BennettI have two questions. Amendment No. 7 seeks to leave out the words:
or any other person mentioned in the order".Will that person have to consent to being included in the order?Amendment No. 8 concerns how long the period should be. Are there not considerable advantages in having specific rather than indefinite periods, and would it not be better to define a period, however long, than to allow the order to run indefinitely?
§ Mr. MacleanAmendment No. 7 would limit to victims of an offence defined in clauses 2 or 4 the protection afforded by a restraining order granted by a criminal court. Under the terms of the Bill, a court has the power to make an order to protect not only the victim, but any other person mentioned in the order. The amendment would prevent a court making an order to protect those, other than the victim, whom the court has reasonable grounds for believing that the stalker might attempt to harass. Most obviously, that would exclude from the scope of such an order the family, other co-habitees or close friends of the victim. I believe that we would all agree that that is unacceptable.
We are aware that some stalkers attempt to broaden their campaign of intimidation against a person by also contacting and approaching those whom the victim holds dear. The courts must have the power to protect such people with the restraining order, and, obviously, the courts must be aware that the person who is being protected is concerned and wants that protection.
I shall now discuss amendment No. 8. Clause 5(3) enables a court to make a restraining order for a specified period or until further notice. Allowing the court to make an order until such time as a further order is made is essential for the occasions when a court is not in a position to know, when it makes the order, how long it needs to be in force to have the desired effect.
It is not difficult to envisage such circumstances. If the stalking is extreme, the victim may need to be protected indefinitely. Allowing the courts to make an open-ended order, which clause 5(4) allows, to be discharged on the application of the prosecution, provides maximum flexibility to the courts to make an order for a period tailored to the circumstances of the case, and it prevents unnecessary hassle for the victim in having to return to the courts to have orders renewed—not that there is great expense involved in returning to renew them, but it is an unnecessary hassle, which could be avoided in some cases.
§ Mr. BennettI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
970 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North)On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Following last night's debate, certain issues have been left up in the air and we shall hear more when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. In view of that, it would not be sensible to discuss amendment No. 15, so I do not intend to move it.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.