| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Apr 2003 : Column 206—continued
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): The funding to provide those extra police officers will come from savings that will result from our new asylum policy, which will use quotas.
Mr. Singh: The laughter throughout the Chamber shows how ridiculous that comment was.
I welcome the Bill and I wish it well.
5 pm
Matthew Green (Ludlow): I want to focus on the Bill's desperately negative overall view of young people. It contains nothing to suggest that the Government value young people. They have done many good things for young people such as setting up the splash initiative and the children and young people's unit, but there is nothing in the Bill for young people except draconian measures. It sends the message that young people are the problem—full stop. Centrepoint says that the Bill has a "prevailing negativity". The Bill is all about enforcement; there is nothing about prevention or rehabilitation.
There is confusion about the age at which provisions apply throughout the Bill. Part 4 addresses the removal of young people to their houses by police, and it will apply to people under 16. Part 5 of the Bill relates to penalty notices and if the Secretary of State were to pass a statutory instrument, the provisions could apply to children as young as 10. Part 6—"Firearms"—will set an age limit of 17, and provisions in part 7 will set an age limit for buying spray paint at 18. The Government are confused about the age at which young people are defined under the Bill. Will they make up their mind whether the age is 16, 10, 17 or 18, because it would be easier to find support for the Bill if they reached a satisfactory view?
There is a real oddity about the provisions on spray paint. People aged 17 may hold a driving licence and buy a car, but if their car gets scratched, they will not be allowed to buy spray paint to cover the scratch. If the
Government reduced the age limit from 18 to 16, many of us would find it easier to support the provision, but they insist on a limit at 18.
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the age limit should be 16?
Matthew Green: I am suggesting that the Bill should adopt a more coherent approach on the ages of young people to which its provisions apply. If we are to have an age limit, I would prefer it to be 16. After all, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to reduce the voting age to 16, so I am being consistent.
Curfew orders, which were never used, will be abolished and part 4 will instead allow a police officer to exercise the power to take young people back to their homes. The curfews were a matter for a local authority, so the provisions effectively take the power to make decisions from a community's elected local politicians and put it into one person's hands.
Helen Jones (Warrington, North): What would the hon. Gentleman say to residents in the Grasmere area of my constituency who are consistently plagued by gangs of young people? The residents do not care who takes the decision as long as the young people are moved off the streets.
Matthew Green: If those young people are committing an offence, they should be brought to book. However, let me give the hon. Lady an example. Four or five pensioners go to collect their pensions at the post office—if they still have a post office—and gather outside to discuss something. Obviously, they will not be dispersed and sent home, although technically they could be. However, if a group of four or five young people gather outside the local shop to talk about things, that could be seen as intimidation.
Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matthew Green: No, I have given way several times and we have an eight-minute limit on speeches. [Interruption.] Go on, then.
Shona McIsaac: Third time lucky in my attempts to intervene on a Liberal Democrat.
On consulting my residents, I discovered that it is not just elderly people who are terrorised by gangs of youths, but younger people themselves. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that? We are only talking about the young people who cause trouble, not those who do nothing wrong.
Matthew Green: I agree. I did not say that only elderly people were worried. However, article 11 of the convention on human rights, incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, grants a freedom of association. The Bill goes against that.
There are two ways to read clause 29(3). I do not think that anyone would have a problem if we took it to mean that a constable can use the power to disperse people when he has reasonable grounds for believing that the behaviour of a group of people has caused members of the public to be intimidated and harassed. However, it also states that that power may be used when
- "a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence . . . of a group . . . is likely to result, in any members of the public being . . . alarmed".
On clause 29, the National Children's Bureau said:
- "This measure will simply increase local tensions among the police and young people, and the community and its young people. The power to disperse a 'group' of 2 or more young people is based on a subjective perception that they are behaving inappropriately, and contravenes their right to free assembly (Article 15 of the UNCRC)"—
- "to engage in recreational activities (Article 31 of the UNCRC) , and to freedom of association (Article 11 of the Human Rights Act).
Additionally, there is a general recognition within Government that there is a shortage of suitable places for young people to socialise, and some evidence that both they and their parents prefer that they remain with a group of friends in order to feel—and be—safe."
Matthew Green: I do, but the key word is "balanced", and my point is that parts of the Bill are far from balanced. I hope that we will rectify that in Committee.
On spray paints, I cannot understand how anyone in their right mind can say that someone, aged 17, who wants to fix the car that he owns is not allowed to buy the paint for it. All we will do is stop the shopkeeper selling the paint to the young person. There is nothing to stop that young person walking around with it, asking an 18-year-old to buy it or buying it over the internet. There are huge loopholes that any young person who is determined to use spray paints for graffiti will discover. The Government are again doing something that sounds good in headline terms—it gets them an extra line on their leaflets for the local elections—but, if we are to tackle the problem of graffiti, it is not a properly thought-out approach.
We need a more positive approach. The most successful examples of tackling antisocial behaviour by young people have come as a result of engaging those young people in finding the solutions themselves. There is nothing in the Bill about involving young people in doing that, but that is the way to achieve real progress, and that is what ought to be supported.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who is not present at the moment, spoke about a group of children who have been involved in helping to tackle problems of antisocial behaviour in their area. I am delighted that they have done so: that is exactly what ought to be happening. When those young people discuss the results of their activity, however, they had
better not do it in a group standing on the street corner, as they will not be allowed to do so. They better not go down to the shop to buy spray paints—
Dr. Kumar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
What is more, those young people had better not walk to their friend's house after 9 o'clock at night, if they are under 16, to discuss their success. The Home Office's schizophrenic attitude towards young people has caused severe problems, which it needs to address—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
5.11 pm
David Wright (Telford): I know that Labour Members will be reassured to know that I have been polishing up my new Labour credentials: I have been reading the coffee table book of the No. 10 policy unit, "Leadership", by Rudolph Giuliani. It is an excellent read, and includes the phrase,
- "Everyone's accountable, all of the time".
One of the criticisms that I have heard this afternoon from many Opposition Members is that the Bill is just another set of proposals adding to what the Government have already done in relation to antisocial behaviour. Is that a bad thing? I do not think so. It strengthens and builds on our work and on the Government's good track record since 1997.
We need to place the Bill in the context of wider Government policy. We have already heard this afternoon how important the partnership agenda is in terms of delivering our policy approach in relation to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. We have an excellent community safety partnership in Telford and Wrekin: it is one of the first that came into place. We also have an excellent police force that uses intelligence-led policing to tackle those who perpetrate crime and antisocial behaviour. I have been to the police station at Malinsgate, and have had a look at the way that that system operates, and it is having a tremendous impact on picking out those individuals who are making peoples' lives a misery across our estates and in our communities. It is working extremely well.
The Bill must be considered in the light of a raft of other Government policies, particularly those relating to neighbourhood renewal. It is incredibly important that we promote sustainable communities across our country, and that we address particular urban areas where crime and urban design are key issues, and where strategies pick up economic regeneration as part of a holistic approach to building sustainable communities. I have a number of wards in my constituency, such as
Brookside and Stirchley, where the local authority and other agencies are coming together in effective partnership to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. Two councillors in that area, Councillor Jim Hicks and Councillor Dave Morgan, are doing an excellent job. What they are trying to do is close off underpasses, deal with graffiti and pick up on many of the issues that could be considered as low-level crime and disorder but that affect and impact on people living in those communities.The Government's education agenda is also incredibly important. We have already heard this afternoon how important citizenship is. I am very proud of the Government's work to bring citizenship into the heart of the curriculum in this country. We need to promote parenting skills: there has been consensus across the House this afternoon that those skills are extremely important. We also need to build on excellent policy initiatives such as sure start. I have two superb sure start schemes in my constituency, which make a real impact in relation to improving parenting skills and ensuring that we lift the quality of what I would call the social infrastructure of our communities.
The Government have put a lot of effort into tackling social exclusion—the Bill sits alongside that effort—and looking at tax credits, the minimum wage and the poverty issues that underlie crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities. Contrary to what the Opposition have said, there has been a dramatic increase in police numbers. I was very concerned, however, that those in the local Conservative group on Telford and Wrekin council are not willing to back the neighbourhood warden scheme that the Labour council is proposing, if it gets re-elected in May. [Interruption]. That unwillingness is a symbol of the Conservatives' lack of commitment to such an approach towards dealing with antisocial behaviour.
We have also heard that alcohol abuse is a key issue, and I welcome the publication of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |