|
Column Number: 257
Standing Committee G
Thursday 15 May 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]
Clause 36
Anti-social behaviour orders
9.10 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I beg to move amendment No. 63, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 64, in
Mr. Hawkins: Good morning, Mr. Cran, on this bright morning. I welcome you back to the Chair and other members of the Committee. I can deal with the amendments quite briefly. As the Minister and others will realise, they would have the same effect. Again, we are genuinely attempting to improve the Bill by making it more flexible. The Bill uses the words
''that the person's anti-social acts are material in relation to the principal proceedings'',
which is too restrictive. We hope that the Minister will understand the spirit of the amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I often say, we do not suggest for a moment that our wording is necessarily perfect, but I am sure that the Minister can understand what we are getting at.
It would be helpful if courts could consider the wider picture. If someone is involved in an antisocial behaviour problem, there should not be the restriction of their antisocial acts having to be material in relation to the principal proceedings. I need take up no more of the Committee's time. We shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. I hope that, even if he cannot accept the precise wording of the amendments, he will say that he will keep the matter under review and may introduce something that achieves the same objective.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I understand what Opposition Members seek to achieve, but their proposal would not be helpful. I hope to persuade the hon. Gentleman that that is right. The amendments would open up the county courts to further antisocial behaviour applications even when the antisocial behaviour of the person in question was not directly related to the principal proceedings in the court. That would not achieve the objective of making it simpler to get antisocial behaviour orders to provide quicker protection for those suffering from antisocial
Column Number: 258
behaviour. Further evidence and witnesses would be necessary, as the antisocial behaviour would be unrelated to the evidence in the principal proceedings. That could slow down the proceedings and the protections that they offer. The appropriate forum for unrelated applications is a magistrates court.
When the evidence of a person's antisocial behaviour is directly relevant to proceedings in a county court, the Government's proposal will enable that court to join the person to the proceedings, so that an order may be made against them. That will be extremely useful when, for example, a tenant is being evicted due to the antisocial behaviour of a family member or friend. It removes the need for the same evidence to be presented in different courts.
Under the amendments, we might deal not with the antisocial behaviour directly relating to the relevant premises, but with antisocial behaviour that was occurring around the corner. That would not be helpful. In those circumstances, a separate order should be sought. That said, I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve, because there are pockets of antisocial behaviour that go well beyond individual premises in respect of which proceedings may be taken in the county court.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive way in which he is approaching the amendments. I understand his point, but will he undertake to talk to those at the sharp end, who will have to deal with ASBO proceedings and conduct cases, as they have been doing under the existing law, and ask them whether they are worried that the Bill's wording is too restrictive? If he undertakes to do that, I shall happily withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Ainsworth: I am happy to do that, but what the hon. Gentleman proposes is wide of the specific proceedings that will be dealt with in the county court, and it would in any case not be helpful.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister. He realises that it is not our intention to make the provision more complex or difficult. We were trying to make it more flexible. He said that he will consult further with those who are at the sharp end to see whether the wording of new subsections (3A)(b) and (3C) can be improved. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): I repeat something that I have said before about antisocial behaviour orders and I am slightly heartened that the National Association of Probation Officers makes the same point. The association suggests that ASBOs should always be accompanied by a further requirement or have attached to them something that could change behaviour. At the moment, the ASBO is pure enforcement.
The clause makes a sensible extension to existing legislation by including housing action trusts, which was an obvious omission. I have always expressed
Column Number: 259
concern about the fact that once outside agencies, such as the local authority and the police, are brought in, there is not the same incentive to ensure that other measures have been tried first. Being able to include accompanying measures would allow the nature of the physical environment and other factors to be considered.
The clause extends the scope of the ASBO. I accept that that is necessary at the end of the line, but I have always been concerned that it is pure enforcement, particularly when it is extended to other agencies. I ask the Minister to consider at least issuing guidance on having something alongside the ASBO to change behaviour.
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): I welcome you, Mr. Cran, to the Chair on this sunny morning.
When antisocial behaviour orders were introduced, I thought how wonderful it was to have found a solution to the problem that so many people were experiencing in our towns and cities. However, as the weeks went by, cases were still being brought to my attention from all parts of my constituency—villages, towns and town centres. I would contact the police, highlighting the concerns of residents and detailing the harassment and antisocial behaviour that my constituents had experienced. Time and again, however, the police did not follow up my concerns for a variety of reasons, including the complexity of the law. I began to feel dismayed, despite thinking that ASBOs would be a solution to the antisocial behaviour from which people were suffering. It became clear that we needed to make ASBOs simpler.
We are now going the right way. Having lobbied the Humberside police for some time about antisocial behaviour, I am gratified that they have started issuing ASBOs. One was reported in the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph this week under the headline, ''Street ban to keep the peace''. That was the first order to have been issued in the town and only the third in north Lincolnshire; yet week in, week out, cases are being brought to my attention in which an ASBO would be appropriate.
That first ASBO covered a variety of streets in Scunthorpe. The man's targets were women and children but, as the police said, he seemed to know how to stop short of being criminal. He would turn up at schools and harass his intended victims' children. I am glad that the order has been used and I hope that the police will use the powers a lot more.
Another case was brought to my attention involving someone in Barcroft street in Cleethorpes. We cannot seem to get antisocial behaviour orders against the perpetrators in this case, but this woman has listed many examples of antisocial behaviour. The latest involved people running down the street with baseball bats smashing windows. That is criminal. Something needs to be done about these neighbours from hell, yet nothing is being done. I hope that the police and other authorities start to pull their finger out and use the powers and sanctions that will be available to them.
Column Number: 260
It is disheartening to speak to people whose lives have been made a misery by antisocial behaviour, to tell them about the sanctions that exist, to take it up with the police and then to find out that nothing has happened. They blame politicians. We are the ones who take the responsibility. That is not acceptable. This Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I are visiting our local police to discuss many aspects of the Bill in detail. We will express our concerns and say that we hope that they will do something now. Having welcomed antisocial behaviour orders when they were first introduced, we feel that the police have not used those powers enough. I welcome the clause. I hope that the chief constable of Humberside pays attention to what we have been saying.
Mr. Hawkins: I was not going to speak in the stand part debate, but the speech by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has provoked me to make a brief contribution. It is perhaps unwise for hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, to make speeches that are in effect a direct attack on the police. The hon. Lady said that she felt that it was unfair when her constituents blamed politicians. However, she has been part of a Government who have introduced an incredibly complex and bureaucratic system, which we repeatedly pointed out at the time would not be used. Her constituents are right to say that politicians did not get it right. That is particularly true when some Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—
| 
