Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

21D: Clause 12, page 7, line 5, at end insert “, and
(c) the respondent is aged 18 or over”

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 21G. The first of these amendments takes us to Clause 12, which is the clause giving power to exclude a person from his home in the case of violence or the risk of harm. This power can be included in an IPNA—in the injunction—if two conditions are fulfilled. The first is that the anti-social behaviour giving rise to the application for the IPNA amounts to violence or the threat of violence and the second is that there is a significant risk of harm from the respondent. My first amendment provides for a third condition, namely that the respondent is aged 18 or over. It seems to me a very severe sanction to exclude anyone from his home. I accept that this power is to be in response to a “significant risk” or behaviour, but if it is so significant as to justify such an action, are there not other courses of action that might be open to be taken? It is not required by the statute to link any of these provisions with a course of treatment or rehabilitation, as one would hope to see in many cases, and particularly that of young people.

The Bill is quite properly focused on the victim; we see that not just in the drafting of the Bill but on almost every page of the draft guidance, with which your Lordships have been provided. But I suggest to the Government that while excluding somebody from his home may mean the immediate protection of the victim, the longer-term protection must be rooted in addressing the victim’s long-term behaviour. Of course, excluding somebody from his home does not mean that he will not meet the victim somewhere else. So I am particularly concerned about this in the case of young people. I wonder, too, what the local authority response would be. Would it have obligations if a person under 18 found himself suddenly homeless?

In the Commons, the Minister referred to the guidance, making it clear that,

“the exclusion power will be used only rarely, but that the court will pay special attention to whether it is proportionate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/13; col. 543.]

That applied especially to the respondent’s Article 8 rights. It is one thing to issue guidance to local authorities—and I do not, of course, speak for the judiciary—but it is another matter to issue guidance to the courts. I have very considerable doubts as to whether it is right as a response to an IPNA, in the absence of something else justifying this, to allow this at all. I am hoping that there must be some explanation as to whether this cannot be done through any other relevant measure.

Amendment 21G is also about under-18s. I accept that suggesting that there may not be an injunction unless the police have talked to the respondent and his parents or guardian to discuss the behaviour and the respondent has been given an,

“opportunity to enter into an agreement as to future good behaviour”,

sounds a bit “Dixon of Dock Green”—perhaps a bit “Evening, all”. But it comes not from that but from provisions in the Republic of Ireland, which have been drawn to my attention—and from a concern previously expressed by the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons, whose report recommended that the legislation should not permit IPNAs to be used against young people unless supportive and informal interventions have failed. I can hear the Minister saying “guidance” to that.

In the Republic of Ireland, there is similar legislation but the courts are permitted to impose a behaviour order, which is their version of the IPNA and ASBO, against children aged 12 to 18 only after a senior police officer has held a meeting with the child and the parents or guardian, and when the child has been warned about behaviour and given the opportunity to sign a good behaviour contract—and, of course, to abide by it. I understand that in the past five years in Ireland the authorities have issued more than 2,000 behaviour warnings and 15 good behaviour contracts but only three behaviour orders to those under 18. I suggest that that is a successful way in which to go about the matter. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We have already committed to looking at the draft guidance in the light of our debates. More to the point, it is explicit in the Bill that the youth offending team is involved.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we, too, will look at the guidance in the light of the debates. I say that as a promise rather than a threat—and I hope it is interpreted in that way.

My first amendment—as are so many amendments at this stage—is to some extent probing. I thought that the Minister made my case rather better than I did. I am glad that he will be consulting. I would not expect him to move forward on this without talking to the front-line professionals. I make just one comment on what he said: accommodation with other family members is unlikely to be available unless it was there without the need for an order. I am just thinking about the way that family dynamics work. As regards both amendments but particularly the second, I, too, will look at the guidance again and hope to provide some useful input to ensure that what the Minister describes as a longstop is a very long longstop. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21D withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

We acknowledge that there was broad support for the requirement that the youth offending team be consulted before an injunction under Clause 1 is sought against somebody under 18. However, there appears to be no timescale for the consultation with youth offending teams, and as a result there could be—not necessarily will be—delay. For that reason, the time taken for consultation with local youth offending teams should be reviewed. That is the purpose of the amendment. Surely we need to keep an eye on how long the process is taking and to check on whether there are hold-ups when the legislation comes into force.

I appreciate that the Government’s view is that the necessary consultation with the relevant youth offending team will take place with a proper sense of urgency and should not be unduly delayed by protracted consultations. A clear commitment to a review would further strengthen that position and make clear the need to carry out such consultation expeditiously. That is what those who may be victims certainly wish. In the light of the statement in the draft guidelines that the consultation requirement does not mean that the youth offending team could veto the application, will the Minister say what would constitute consultation being completed? Does the person applying for an injunction have to have received a response from the youth offending team for consultations which have been completed? If the response is that the youth offending team is not in favour of the injunction, would discussions have to continue before the terms of Clause 14(1)(a) had been met?

Would a failure by the youth offending team to respond at all within a certain timescale mean that consultation could have been deemed to have taken place? If so, what would the Minister consider a reasonable minimum period for a response? Would a failure to respond by a youth offending team within a certain time be grounds for an application without notice under Clause 5? Could the youth offending team oppose an application for an injunction under Section 1 for someone under the age of 18 in court? Will the court hearing an application for an injunction under Section 1 have to be told the outcome of the consultation with the youth offending team and the view of the youth offending team?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendment 21J in this group. Consultation can mean a lot of things and sometimes mean different things to different people, depending on what they want it to mean. I have pretty much given up tabling amendments which add, to “consult”, “and have regard to the outcome of the consultation”, having been told quite frequently that of course that must be implicit. However, I have met times when the consulter has not recognised that.

We heard from the Minister on my previous amendments that local authority social services have a role when someone under the age of 18 is involved as the respondent or potential respondent to an IPNA. My amendment would insert a reference to,

“the local authority for the area where the respondent resides”,

meaning of course the social services part of the local authority. I am seeking consultation, without trying to define it, of the local authority as well as of the youth offending team.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and my noble friend for their amendments. This group again relates to the balance that needs to be struck in ensuring that the appropriate consultation takes place, but relates specifically to cases involving young people under the age of 18.

Amendment 21H is concerned with the duty on applicants for injunctions under Part 1 to consult with the local youth offending teams in the case of under-18s. Crucially, that consultation must take place before the application is made to the court. That is an important change to the process where young people are concerned. Therefore, youth offending teams will help to ensure that the prohibitions in the order are appropriate and understood by the young person, and that any positive requirements are tailored to meet his or her needs. As we all recognise, as do I from my time in local government, youth offending teams are an important and established part of the youth justice system. They are well used to working with young people in these sorts of circumstances.

The noble Lord raised the issue of consultation. This would be an ongoing process and I would expect the consultation with the youth offending team to take place swiftly for the benefit both of the victims and of the communities that require protection. One of our primary objectives in reforming the response to anti-social behaviour is to speed up that response and I would not expect this consultation requirement to prevent that.

--- Later in debate ---

In closing, I return to the issue of consultation. The statute book contains many duties to consult and we leave it to the good sense of the police and other bodies to consult youth offending teams. Of course, anyone who has experience of youth offending teams will expect them to respond in a timely manner. I hope, in the light of the explanations and assurances that I have given, both the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend will be content not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of whether the Local Government Association has been consulted—sorry to use the term again—on this provision? It seems to me that the Government should have been talking to it about whether it would want a statutory role. I take his point about occasional urgency but it is always open to a local authority to say, “This is urgent. You had better get on with it”, or, at the other end of the spectrum, to say, “We have no comment”. If he is not aware of what talks underlay the provision as we see it now, perhaps he could let me know after today’s sitting.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

In direct response to that, I can say that representatives from the LGA and other organisations have attended meetings with my noble friend with regard to this Bill. I again reassure her that, as the guidelines are reviewed, I am sure that the LGA will be making representations and will be part of that process.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

21K: Clause 17, page 9, line 28, at end insert “against a respondent who is aged 16 or over at the date of commencement of the proceedings”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my amendment is grouped with the debate on Clause 17 stand part and Amendment 22DA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Within the past few minutes, he has sent me a note asking me to apologise to the Committee. Like many of us, his anticipation of what would happen, and when, was rather thrown. He said that he had an impossible diary today with long-agreed speaking engagements outside the House. However, in case the Minister thinks that that lets him off the hook from attack from that quarter, the noble Lord has primed the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to speak on his behalf on his later amendments. The noble Lord said that he would not dream of considering voting before Report anyway, although I think one might add “ … ” to that.

My amendment is to Clause 17. I have not sought to delete the clause from the Bill because I wonder whether it might be possible to discuss a compromise. I am aware that this is a delicate issue on which there has already been quite a lot of focus. The clause provides that Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—it has a long pedigree—is not to apply to proceedings on IPNAs. That section restricts reporting of proceedings in which children and young persons are concerned. That provision restricting reporting also has an exception within it. Is that exception not sufficient for the Government's purposes? The exception is that if the court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, it may dispense to any specified extent with the requirements of the section. Is that not sufficient? That is Section 49(4)(a). Section 49(5) provides that the court can similarly dispense with the requirements of the provision if it is appropriate to do so for the purposes of avoiding injustice to the child or young person.

We have talked on a number of occasions about one purpose of the ASBI being to avoid criminalising young people, whom we hope to divert from a criminal career—not to consolidate a criminal career. Given the way in which reporting would be likely to happen, this provision would criminalise the young person and have a very unfortunate long-term impact. “Naming and shaming” is not a term I like to use—it means stigmatising and putting a negative label on the young person. There must be a very high risk of perpetuating the problems which an IPNA should be looking to nip in the bud.

We have also talked about positive re-engagement and rehabilitation. I question whether not imposing reporting restrictions would be a deterrent. Is there any evidence that it might be? There are also, of course, safeguarding concerns. This had not occurred to me, but I am told that professionals consider that there is a risk that children who are identified as having been involved in anti-social behaviour may engage in risk-taking behaviour or be more susceptible to being groomed. This is very much in our mind at the moment.

In all, it seems to me that the risks, quite apart from the concerns that have been voiced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Local Government Association, are too big. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee what lies behind this; what evidence the Government have that this is the right way to go; what assessments have been made to evaluate safeguarding risks, and whether the Government have kept in mind the impact on a child’s rehabilitation. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I add just a short point to what the noble Baroness has said. When one looks at the draft guidance at page 26, one can see what the Government are thinking of here. The point is made that making the public aware of the perpetrator and the terms of the order can be an important part of the process in tackling anti-social behaviour. One can follow the thinking behind that proposition. When one reads on, however, one sees that there will be circumstances in which either the police or the council may decide not to publicise the fact that an IPNA has been made. It seems to me that the power—or the discretion, perhaps one should say—to decide whether or not publicity should be given is being taken away from the court and given to the police or the council. Will the Minister explain why that is being done, bearing in mind the point that the noble Baroness has made about the discretion which exists within Section 49?

It is a very big thing to take away from the court the power to restrict publicity, bearing in mind the reach of the whole of Part 1, which is what we are concerned with, including Clause 5, which permits an application for an injunction to be made without notice being given to the respondent. The court would have no power to stop the press if they happened to be there reporting what had taken place. It would be a very serious matter to go as far as the clause goes without a full explanation why exercise of discretion is being taken away from the court and being given to the police or the council, who are not answerable to the court for what they do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am sorry if I struggled to get the place name right but I am delighted that he mentioned this point because I just received a note saying that Section 39 of the 1933 Act gives the court the discretion to impose reporting restrictions.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I, too, was a little confused when the Minister referred earlier to Section 39, which the noble and learned Lord just mentioned. This will require some reading. The point, of course, is entirely right. It is how the court has discretion as regards publicity. I do not at all challenge the point on the injunction. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for reminding the Committee that our courts are essentially public; that is where the concern comes from.

The Minister talked about the status quo. That confused me, because I thought that I was arguing for the status quo. He said that the status quo was good, but he challenged my amendment. I cannot see how we will not return to this on Report. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21K withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment on a subject not too dissimilar from the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Our new clause is about corporate anti-social behaviour. Other than the community protection order, which includes the power to close premises that cause severe problems associated with anti-social behaviour, the Bill’s emphasis is not on the corporate but on the individual.

Too often the public feel, sometimes justifiably, that although they as individuals have to obey the law or be taken to task, companies seem not to be targeted until things get very serious and action is taken that could lead to their closure. A corporate anti-social behaviour order would be targeted at actions by a corporation or company that are deliberately socially harmful, and cause harassment, alarm or distress at a local rather than a national level. It would not target legitimate businesses or business activities—even businesses that some might regard as unpalatable. For example, there is a lot of talk about payday loans, and some people do not like gambling. The order would not focus on business activity, and there is no intention to comment on business activities that may cause distress at a national level; it would be used only where local disregard for the public and for the environment could cause harassment, alarm or distress.

The purpose of such an anti-social behaviour order would be preventive. It could identify low-level behaviour and seek to prevent it increasing in frequency or becoming more serious, as is often the case. Some of the examples I shall give tie in with the comments about litter in the previous debate—examples such as takeaways and other businesses that fail to deal with rubbish outside their premises, or premises that are unnecessarily noisy. I remember, when I was a Member of Parliament in the other place, dealing with a business in a residential neighbourhood. It had to have delivery vehicles coming and going—but at 5 am, did those vehicles really need to leave their engines running, causing considerable distress to those who could not sleep, or were woken first thing in the morning?

There could also be a pre-sanction stage, with an acceptable behaviour contract, to deal with problems. I think that such a provision would be welcomed by businesses that do their best to deal with such problems, but find themselves up against other companies that cut corners and do not fulfil their obligations to local communities. An anti-social behaviour order for local businesses would complement the community protection order by offering sanctions targeted at businesses, which might be used before more serious action that could lead to closure of the business was taken.

A corporate anti-social behaviour order would be business-friendly, because it would nip the problem in the bud and give the business the opportunity to deal with it before it faced far more serious action. It also gives the opportunity for preventive measures; I am thinking particularly about littering and noise pollution. At the moment the legislation focuses on individual behaviour—that is where the community protection order comes in—rather than on the actions of companies. It is a preventive measure, designed to be more effective, more helpful and more friendly towards business. It could also lead to better engagement between businesses and the local authority, which would have a reason to hold early discussions about problems that could arise and how it would deal with them, and also to better relations with local residents, by nipping any such problems in the bud before they get too serious. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. I have been wondering about other examples, and the one that immediately came to mind was the noise of aircraft coming into Heathrow in the middle of the night, which is a big issue in my area—but perhaps the order is not intended to be as extensive as that.

I have a serious question for the noble Baroness, which is whether it is appropriate for criminal offences to be created by regulations. That is in effect what subsection (3) of the proposed new clause would do, as it states:

“The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set out the circumstances under which an offence has been committed”.

I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, so I do not want to be too tedious about it, but that struck me as a point of principle that one might want to consider.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the Government are often accused of not listening. I listened with great interest to the previous debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, and as I went over to the Box I noticed a piece of litter on the floor. I acted promptly and handed it to the doorkeeper—so there is some hope of instant action on the part of the Government.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for tabling her amendment with the proposed new clause and raising an important point. I agree with her that, where businesses act in a way that is likely to cause harm to others, they should be held to account. However, the Government feel that a corporate ASBO is unnecessary. We believe that we have drafted the new powers in such a way as to be flexible enough to deal with this eventuality.

For example, the new community protection notice, which we will discuss when we come to Part 4, can be issued against a corporate body. If that corporate body is persistently acting in an unreasonable manner and having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, it can be held to account through the new notice. While the community protection notice replaces litter and graffiti notices, it can be used for much more, including noise and other behaviours. What is more, breach is a criminal offence and, on conviction, a business could be fined up to £20,000. It is a power which provides real teeth.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

22B: Clause 21, page 11, line 38, after “satisfied” insert “beyond reasonable doubt”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 22C and 22D. I hope that I can be quick with these. Amendment 22B seeks clarification as to the standard of proof required for a criminal behaviour order. Of Clause 21, the Minister said in the Commons:

“The draft guidance to the Bill makes it clear that we expect that the courts will follow existing case law from the House of Lords in relation to antisocial behaviour orders and that they will apply the criminal standard to criminal behaviour orders”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/13; col. 543.]

He then said that an amendment similar to this was unnecessary. If guidance is needed on an issue as serious as the standard of proof, it should be in the legislation. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which reported before Report in the Commons, said that that should be in the Bill.

Amendment 22C would import the test of necessity—as for an ASBO—to the making of a criminal behaviour order. Amendment 22D would import a test that we have already discussed in the context of an IPNA from the Crime and Disorder Act, which would provide that the court should disregard an act that the defendant shows is “reasonable in the circumstances”. That is linked to the standard of proof but is a separate issue. When we discussed a similar provision on Monday, the answer was that, for an IPNA the court must consider whether an injunction was “just and convenient”. That, of course, is not the same test as would apply to a criminal behaviour order. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, these amendments move us on to Part 2 and another series of issues, with us now considering the criminal behaviour order. I will deal with Amendments 22C and 22D first, but on Amendment 22B the Government expect that the courts will follow the reasoning in the McCann case and apply the criminal standard of proof—that is, beyond reasonable doubt—to the first condition of the test for the criminal behaviour order. We acknowledge that the criminal standard is apt in this case because of the serious consequences that flow from a breach of the order, namely a criminal conviction attracting a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

For that reason, we did not consider it necessary to specify the standard of proof for the order in the Bill. The clear ruling of the House of Lords applies equally here as it does to ASBOs under Section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Clause 1 specifies the standard of proof for the new injunction because, in that case, we are applying a new civil standard. That is not the case here. The approach we have taken in Clause 21 is exactly the same as that taken in the provisions in Part 9 of the Bill which provide for the new sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, which we have of course already debated. However, I am very happy to confirm that the criminal standard of proof will apply in this instance, a point that is already made in the Explanatory Notes.

Amendment 22D seeks to add a test of reasonableness to the first limb of the test for issuing a criminal behaviour order. As my noble friend has explained, this amendment imports Section 1(5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and it has the same purpose as Amendment 20H, which we have already debated in the context of Clause 1. As I said when we debated that amendment, we expect that the courts will consider, as a matter of course, whether it is reasonable on the facts to make an order. However, we will consider the matter further so that we have done everything necessary to ensure that this is the case.

Finally, Amendment 22C would introduce a test of necessity for the order. I am afraid that I cannot be so conciliatory on this amendment. The explicit additional inclusion of a necessity test could in practice raise the evidential burden on the prosecution, since the requirement may be interpreted in a way that the order cannot be granted unless the court is absolutely sure it will reduce anti-social behaviour. That is not an appropriate test, since whether this is the case will not always be clear and the court should be able to take action where it considers that the order “will help” with the prevention of such behaviour. In all, I fear that this amendment could unnecessarily complicate the application process and delay the bringing of respite to victims. The Government want to make it easier to help victims. This amendment would prevent that. That is why I do not agree with it.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked a number of questions. We believe it would be possible to apply for a CBO after sentencing. We will consider this further in advance of Report and meanwhile I may well write to him with our thinking on the matter, and indeed meet him if necessary to discuss it further.

Having secured an undertaking to consider one of the three amendments in this group, my noble friend will be at least partially satisfied, I hope, and will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Indeed, I am partially satisfied and I will not repeat the argument I made about the distinction between IPNAs and CBOs for the purpose of Amendment 22D.

I am puzzled as to why, if the Government expect the criminal standard of proof to apply and then—it is not quite the same—say that it “will” apply, they are reluctant to spell that out. It is a new offence and I would have thought that it would be better to spell it out, but there we are.

I did indeed intend to raise the evidential burden regarding Amendment 22C. For something to “help” is a very low threshold. It is rather a small objective and achievement. I hope it answers the noble Lord, Lord True, if I say that I was linking it back to Clause 21(3) because Clause 21(4) refers to “such behaviour”. That behaviour is described in Clause 21(3) as having “caused” or being,

“likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person”.

We are talking about a criminal order so it seems to me that it is proper for there to be a more exacting test. However, having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for the partial consideration and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

22E: Clause 23, page 13, line 18, after “must” insert “consider its proportionality and”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to Amendments 22H, 22J and 22K. My noble friend Lord Greaves has Amendment 22KA in this group.

On Monday, when we were discussing the relationship between provisions in the Bill and statutory nuisance, I explained that I had been asked to raise the matter by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, of which I am vice-president. I will speak briefly to my amendments today, but I also ask the Minister whether we can discuss the matter before Report. The institute is clearly concerned about remedies such as the community protection orders and noise abatement orders being too similar for comfort. The institute talked to me about the potential for confusion and conflict and twin-tracking by different authorities and different professions. However, I assure the Minister that we are willing to contribute to the guidance around all this. We take the point that the guidance is still in draft form. We are concerned to get the legislation right, not just to rely on guidance where the legislation may in itself not be as clear as it might be.

Amendment 22NA would provide for a significant detrimental effect to trigger a community protection notice. Where there is a civil process, the de minimis principle would apply. It has been put to me that the alternative to dealing with this in legislation is for it to come out over time in case law, which would obviously have a cost implication.

Amendment 22ND would require a person in authority to assure himself that the conduct is not already subject to any other statutory control. As drafted, that person may think it appropriate as a discretion. This seems to be quite a weak protection against different agencies wasting each others’ time chasing the same end. What is most important is to avoid obstructing or contradicting action that has already been taken, such as an indefinite prohibition in an abatement notice.

Amendment 22NE would provide that no notice was served where it would be controlled under any other statute, which is again about conflict. Where the problem is noise, apportioning responsibility and sorting out a fair and effective remedy can take a lot of technical—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am responding to this debate, so I am listening with great attention, but for a moment I thought I had lost my place. I must point out that we are discussing group 9, which starts with Amendment 22E. I believe that my noble friend is speaking to group 13, which starts with Amendment 22NA. My apologies for not intervening sooner, but I thought that I had lost my place. Perhaps she would like to speak to the earlier group.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I apologise to the Committee. There is such enthusiasm to move on today that I was moving too fast. I must give my noble friend an opportunity to accept or possibly reject my Amendment 22E. It would provide in Clause 21 that the court must receive evidence about suitability. There must be a proportionality element in the requirements provided in the orders. I may be told that this yet again is something that is dealt with in guidance.

Amendment 22G takes us to the duration of the orders. We are presented in the case of under-18s with a fixed period of not less than two years or an indefinite period. I suggest that there should be a limit for everyone, as there is for under-18s. The criminal behaviour order can include a lot of requirements and restraints, which could, if they go on indefinitely, have a disproportionate impact. To have something hanging over one’s head indefinitely could be a disincentive—you could give up hope of ever getting it right.

Amendment 22H would provide that reviews are not confined to under-18s, which continues more of that thought. Amendments 22J and 22K are consequential on that. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, Amendment 22KA is a modest attempt to help the Government to get their legislation correct. It refers to the review of criminal behaviour orders which has to take place under Clause 27. Clause 28(2) states:

“The chief officer, in carrying out a review under section 27, must act in cooperation with the council for the local government area in which the offender lives or appears to be living; and the council must co-operate in the carrying out of the review”.

Clause 28(4) states:

“In this section ‘local government area’ means—

(a) in relation to England, a district or London borough, the City of London, the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly”.

That definition is archaic and does not apply to the local government map of England as it now stands. It misses out large tracts where there are no districts and where there are unitary counties.

There are other parts of this legislation—under IPNAs and community protection notices, for example—that get it right and refer to counties where there are no districts. They clearly have to be added. My amendment adds this so that large parts of England are simply not missed out. Since the Bill refers at the moment to districts or London boroughs, I assume that the district or lowest level is meant. Where there is a unitary authority only—a county such as Cornwall, Northumberland or various others—that needs to be added. This is in the spirit of being as helpful as possible to the Government, as I always am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

With all things legalistic and legislative, my noble friend will agree with me that it is important, as he himself stated, to get it right. Let me assure him that we will certainly take into account his insight and expertise in ensuring that in our drafting we correct any omission, if indeed that is the case.

I hope, based on the explanations I have given, that my noble friend will be minded to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I apologise again to the Committee for getting so confused over these amendments. I say to my noble friend Lord Greaves that he knows precisely why an amendment is not accepted now—because they never are, are they?

I remain troubled about the issues that I have raised. Proportionality seems to be more than a matter of human rights in the technical way in which we sometimes refer to them. An indefinite order period over five years is a very harsh response. As I understand it, there is no statutory requirement for review in the case of over-18s. There is a page, thereabouts, of provisions for reviews in the case of under-18s, but for the over-18s it is left to everyone’s good sense.

As I say, I remain troubled, but let us see where we might go when the little bits of this which will be further considered have been considered. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22E withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 22KB in the name of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, I shall speak to Amendments 22KC, 22NZA and 22NZB. My noble friend apologises to the Committee for his absence. He has a long-standing commitment and asked that I might present his case for him. There seems to have been a little confusion. His amendments were tabled late in the day and I, also late in the day, called for a clause stand part debate. I do not think that I will need to call for a clause stand part debate, given the useful amendments tabled by my noble friend. The amendments deal with Clause 29, on the breach of orders, and Clause 37, on offences. They would take minors out of both those clauses.

As an aside, several of my colleagues who would be interested in our debate are involved in the Children and Families Bill, as am I, and there has been confusion about the timing of that Bill, which may have been an obstruction to colleagues interested in the area of children to come to discuss this Bill. If the Minister has not agreed to this already, perhaps there may be an opportunity to meet with him and officials to discuss how this Bill affects children with those Peers who are particularly interested in the welfare of children.

Over the past few years, there has been a welcome reduction in the number of children in custody, as a result of the recognition by Her Majesty’s coalition Government that imprisonment is not an effective way to deal with children’s offending behaviour. As your Lordships will be aware, the new police dispersal power to tackle anti-social behaviour is introduced by the Bill. Children who breach the order and are convicted of failing to comply with the police dispersal order are to face a fine and/or up to three months in prison. I suggest that those sanctions are disproportionate, counterproductive, incompatible with children’s rights and risk reversing the positive downward trend seen in children’s custody numbers.

As a bit of background, currently, nearly seven in 10 children breach their anti-social behaviour orders. That is typically due to a lack of support, rather than wilful non-compliance. It is a much higher breach rate than for adults. Imprisonment is imposed as a sanction for juvenile ASBO breaches in 38% of cases, with an average sentence of just over seven months.

The purpose of the amendment is to remove imprisonment as a sanction for children when they fail to comply with a dispersal order. The amendments replace imprisonment with robust community alternatives. I have mentioned several times my concern about the guilt that many of those young people will carry with them. They will feel responsible for the failures in the family. I have spoken to young men who have made it their job to be at home when their father has returned home from the pub so that they can stand between their mother and their father at the time. I have already spoken about those boys who grow up without a father in the home. Of course, there are young men who are beaten by their father on a regular basis. Those young men feel responsible for having to stand up to their father and protect their mother, for being beaten by their father or for having their father absent from the home.

My wide experience of this is that children do not think rationally in those times. They tend to think that they are responsible for those failures. Being too harshly punitive of young children may be counterproductive. I spoke recently to a lawyer with several years of experience of working as a defence lawyer for such children. To get them prepared to stand up in the witness box and give a reasonable case, he would say to a child, “Look, Richard, I know that there is good in you. My partner, Margaret, knows that there is good in you. You can make the choice. You can do the good, the right thing or you can choose not to”. By speaking in those terms to the child, he gets the best from them.

My concern is that if we are overly harsh, if we imprison children, if we punish them too severely, they will be confirmed in their belief that they are bad to the bone, that they are responsible for all the bad things in their life and will go on to be a nuisance to society and cost society a large amount of money when they are later imprisoned. A further problem, to which I just alluded, is that once children get involved in the prison system, there are much more likely to get involved with it again. They will be returnees. I look to the Minister for some reassurance in his response.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The noble Earl has raised extremely important points, and I do not want to repeat arguments that I made on my earlier amendment about publicity, which also apply here. It is not only the noble Earl, who has massive experience, who makes these points. As I said earlier, so many organisations which have practical experience and great success in diverting children at risk of going down the route of a criminal career back to a better road, have suggested that such amendments should be made. We should take that extremely seriously.

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone]

My Lords, I support these amendments wholeheartedly. We are talking about punishment. Punishment must, as a fundamental, be appropriate, proportionate and likely to succeed. I suggest that the provisions have none of those things right. It is entirely wrong to have a sanction which involves the potential imprisonment, which is the ultimate sanction for breach of a CBO, of children between the ages of 12 and 18. A detention and training order, which is a possible likely outcome, can be given to such children for breach for a minimum of four months and a theoretical maximum of 24 months, half of which would in fact be intervention, supervision and the rest.

Children who fail to comply with a police dispersal order can also get up to three months. We are looking at a whole range of options to incarcerate young people. It has already been referred to tonight that children routinely breach ASBOs—about two-thirds of them do. Once they get into the world of breach, we are in very dangerous territory. All the successful work that we have seen and in which I have been closely involved with the Youth Justice Board has been to avoid the incarceration of children. This is simply because it does not succeed; the noble Earl has indicated why. In all cases, incarceration should be for the most dangerous, severe and violent behaviour. Those are the kinds of criteria that we should apply to anybody going to prison. In other words, the criteria apply to adults, too, but how much more do they apply to children?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

22L: Clause 32, page 18, line 35, after “necessary” insert “and proportionate”

[Baroness Hamwee]

I shall speak also to Amendment 22N. Amendment 22L would add the term “proportionate” to the period during which a dispersal order would apply so that the use of the power is both necessary and proportionate. When this matter was discussed in the Public Bill Committee in the Commons, the Minister said that he was confident that the powers will not be used disproportionately and referred to the need for authorisation by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. My amendment would insert a degree of objectivity into the clause. This is not intended to be critical of police officers, but if the power is intended always to be used proportionately, should that not be spelled out and be capable of being challenged?

My second amendment, Amendment 22N, would provide that the authorisation must clearly identify the locality in question. That is a matter of clarity, but rereading the clause over the past few minutes, it strikes me that the term “locality” could be understood in different ways in Clause 32(1), which is the specified locality to which the order will apply, and Clause 32(2)(a), where we are directed to reducing the likelihood of members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed. In the second case, the normal meaning of “in the locality” would be in and around the area, not in the specified locality referred to in Clause 32(1). I have only just thought about this. Reading things again, they sometimes read slightly differently. I do not know whether the Minister can assist me on that.

The amendment relating to proportionality was raised in the context of concern about peaceful assembly. I think we will come to that later, but I shall just say that I, too, am concerned that we should do nothing in the Bill to prevent peaceful assembly when people in a proper manner exercise their democratic rights as citizens. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 22M in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, which would insert into the Bill the words,

“and once the relevant local authority has been consulted”.

I do so on two main grounds. One is to revert to a topic that we discussed in Committee on Monday, which concerned the importance of the powers in the Bill being exercised as part of a wider pattern and a wider agreement with local government and other interested parties. That is a general principle that we should not move away from. However, the main issue is that this is clearly a power that relates to a specific locality. It might relate to, for example, aggressive begging in a particular park, square or precinct. Therefore, you would expect the local authority or the custodian of the public space concerned to have very clear responsibilities and interests. There may well be community implications. There may well be a need to listen to what the local authority may feel will be the community impact of such an action or, indeed, to consider the local authority’s view on whether the community benefits from such an action.

I understand that the local authority should be the custodian of those public spaces and that these are the circumstances in which this power may be used so it is appropriate that it be involved. I understand that the parallel of this power, the old anti-social behaviour order regime, did involve consultation with the local authorities concerned, yet the Government have specifically excluded it in this Bill. I would be interested to know a little more about the rationale behind why this has happened in this particular case as this seems to me an obvious area where you would expect there to be consultation with local authorities.

If the argument is that local authorities have been slow in responding to consultation and that this has led to a continued problem, I would be surprised because local authorities usually are well aware of concerns that are being expressed by local communities about a problem in a particular area. If that is the case, I suspect there are some faults on the side of the local authority. These could be remedied by some expectation of what the normal period is within which the local authority should respond when asked for its views on these matters. However, I think there is an extraordinary weakness in the way that these powers could be pursued. The way in which the legislation is framed, this is a quite a broad power. The authorisation could come from a police officer and would proceed solely on the basis of the authorisation of a police inspector. This is not something that would have necessarily gone to court, although obviously it relates to people about whom there are clearly concerns.

I would like to know why it is not felt to be appropriate in these circumstances for the local authority to be consulted. If the argument is that there have been unconscionable delays associated with that, can the Minister give us some examples of where they have occurred, and can the Minister say why it would not be possible to build in to the legislation something which required a specific time period for the local authority to respond when such a power is being considered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I accept the noble Lord’s explanation, but perhaps I can turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

The noble Baroness asked about how we undertook in the draft Bill to provide the consultation with local authorities; we did not do that in the draft Bill. I have made it clear that I would expect police and local authorities to work closely together in the exercise of all anti-social behaviour powers under the provisions in the Bill. We believe that this clause and the dispersal power that arises from it are useful. The current Section 30 dispersal power has worked well in dealing with longer-term issues. Those powers are held by the police with local authority consultation. We have acknowledged the important role that local authorities have played in this and have designed the public spaces protection order to be used in much the same way by local authorities to deal with persistent, long-term problems. The arrangements set out in Clause 32 balance the need for safeguards with the flexibility vital to dealing with a wide range of anti-social behaviour. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not think that I should prolong this debate, and I shall keep until after today the questions that have occurred to me during the course of this debate.

My noble friend Lord Greaves has a much better memory than I have and has reminded us of the distinction between locality and location, as identified in previous legislation. I could not help but notice that my noble friend the Minister, in talking about Clause 32(1), used the term “location”, so I think we may need to be absolutely clear about that. But that can wait until after today.

I will say to both Front-Bench speakers who were sorry to have missed the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill proceedings that we dealt with an awful lot of it at unearthly hours of the morning and right through the night. On one occasion, breakfast was provided for the House, except for those who were stuck in the Chamber dealing with the Bill. So the noble Baroness may be a bit less sorry that she missed it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22L withdrawn.