---

Policing and Crime Bill

This amendment seeks to ensure that all three of the conditions, instead of just two—which is all that the Bill requires at the moment—are satisfied before a closure order can be authorised. For example, what would happen if, as regards the third condition, reasonable steps had not been taken to establish the identity of any persons residing on the premises? You might be closing the premises although you had the wrong person. I should like to probe the Minister on why only two out of the three conditions apply, although the Bill specifies that three conditions need to be met. Why is it reasonable to revert to only two of them? We have specified in Amendment 81 that: ""The third condition is that the court is satisfied that the authorising officer has satisfied himself of the identity of the … parties"." This may be a technicality which the Minister can answer quite satisfactorily. I beg to move.