The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Dr.
William
McCrea
Bottomley,
Peter
(Worthing, West)
(Con)
Brake,
Tom
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
Burrowes,
Mr. David
(Enfield, Southgate)
(Con)
Cohen,
Harry
(Leyton and Wanstead)
(Lab)
Crausby,
Mr. David
(Bolton, North-East)
(Lab)
Fabricant,
Michael
(Lichfield)
(Con)
Follett,
Barbara
(Stevenage)
(Lab)
George,
Mr. Bruce
(Walsall, South)
(Lab)
Khan,
Mr. Sadiq
(Tooting)
(Lab)
Munn,
Meg
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and
Local
Government)
Murphy,
Mr. Denis
(Wansbeck)
(Lab)
Robinson,
Mr. Geoffrey
(Coventry, North-West)
(Lab)
Shaw,
Jonathan
(Chatham and Aylesford)
(Lab)
Syms,
Mr. Robert
(Poole)
(Con)
Whitehead,
Dr. Alan
(Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
Keith
Neary, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Brown,
Lyn
(West Ham) (Lab)
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 7
February
2007
[Dr.
William McCrea
in the
Chair]
Draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Anti-social Behaviour Order Functions) (England) Order 2007
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Meg Munn):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out
of Anti-social Behaviour Order Functions) (England) Order
2007.
The order was laid before the House on9 January
2007. In summary, they enable local authorities, when they so wish,
to enter into arrangements with organisations that manage their housing
stock so that those organisations may exercise some or all of the
local authorities functions for seeking antisocial behaviour
orders.
The Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 gives the Secretary of State the
power to make an order specifying a body or type of body to which local
authorities may contract out all or part of their antisocial behaviour
order functions. The Act amended section 1 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 by inserting new section 1F. Section 1 gives powers to a
relevant authority to apply for an antisocial behaviour order in
respect of any person aged over
10.
Contracting out,
which is often referred to as delegation, means that
all the local authoritys decisions relating to the discharge of
a function are put into the hands of another person who then becomes
the authorised decision maker responsible for the discharge of that
function on behalf of the local authority. We issued a consultation
paper entitled Enabling local authorities to contract their
Anti-social Behaviour Order functions to organisations managing their
housing stock in November 2005, which forms the basis of the
statutory instrument that we are discussing today. There are areas
where we have advanced policy in the light of constructive comments
from stakeholders, but overall the consultation provides a clear
mandate for pursuing our proposal as put forward in that
consultation.
Agencies
provided with the power to seek antisocial behaviour orders through the
courts are restricted to those listed as relevant
authorities under the 1998 Act, including the police, local
authorities, registered social landlords, transport police and county
councils. At present, local authorities may not contract out their
power to apply for an antisocial behaviour order to other bodies. We
believe that enabling them to do so in the context of social housing
will provide a number of advantages when the local authority has
delegated the delivery of front-line services to other
bodies.
Many local authorities in
England have delegated operational functions to other organisations
that manage some or all of the housing stock on their behalf, notably
arms length management organisations and tenant management
organisations. At the moment, each time an organisation, such as an
arms length management organisation, wishes to seek an
antisocial behaviour order to protect the community, it must approach
its parent local authority, which can lead to delays and unnecessary
red tape. A rapid response is often critical in building and
maintaining public confidence in agencies ability and readiness
to act to stop antisocial behaviour. It is critical that residents have
faith in those who manage their housing and are reassured that they are
suitably equipped to do the
job.
Officers working for an arms length management
organisation or tenant management organisation will, more often than
not, be leading on handling complaints and pursuing cases. They will
be responsible for gathering evidence and making decisions on how
best to act. We therefore see no reason why they should not be empowered,
when the local authority sees fit, to carry that process through to
resolution by pursuing antisocial behaviour order applications through
the courts. It is important to note that many housing management organisations
already pursue applications for other forms of action through the
courts to tackle antisocial behaviour, including possession cases
and injunctions. That demands much the same level of judgment, capacity
and expertise as antisocial behaviour organisation applicationsthat
should be antisocial behaviour order applications.
Michael
Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): We did know. We had
noted.
Meg
Munn:
Antisocial behaviour orders are powerful measures,
and our primary concern is to ensure that they are used appropriately
and only when they provide the best solution to protect the community
from antisocial behaviour. We recognise that local flexibility must be
coupled with proper accountability. We are conscious of the critical
importance of making sure that those entrusted with the powers should
be capable of exercising them responsibly, which is why we have made
the explicit link with section 27 of the Housing Act 1985, which
provides the statutory process for delegating housing management
functions. The effect of section 27 is to regulate the process whereby
the local authority appoints another housing body to manage council
homes. That process is designed primarily to protect tenants
interests, and it ensures that housing management responsibilities may
be delegated only to those with appropriate skills and
resources.
We believe
that the requirement under section 27 to have in place a robust
management agreement between the local authority and housing management
organisation will ensure robust governance and accountability, and
provides a framework for ongoing performance management. It is
important to make it clear that local authorities will remain fully
accountable for the way in which those contracted-out responsibilities
are exercised. We will issue statutory guidance on the contracting out
of antisocial behaviour order functions to which local authorities
and any organisations to which they contract out must have regard. In
preparing that guidance, we will take full account of issues raised in
the consultation and, of course, points that are raised in the
debate.
The
regulations will, for the first time, give tenant management
organisations the power to apply for antisocial behaviour orders where
appropriate in the local context. The Prime Minister and the Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government focused on that matter in
their announcements on 9 January. I am pleased to say that, thus far,
the response has been positive. Some concerns have been raised as to
whether, by providing antisocial behaviour order powers, we would
provoke unchecked vigilante action in which neighbours pursue vendettas
against one another through antisocial behaviour order applications. I
am pleased to say that those concerns are unfounded and betray a lack
of awareness about the way in which tenant management organisations are
establishedand how they operate. Many tenant management
organisations already have responsibility for the day-to-day running of
the homes in their area and deliver excellent services. They may only
take on these responsibilities after a rigorous process of training and
accreditation and must secure the communitys support for taking
on management functions. Many employ dedicated staff and manage large
estates.
We are not
talking about giving powers to residents associations that have
informal constitutions; weare giving them to highly
professional organisationswith established track records,
subject to robust accreditation and ongoing monitoring. In addition,
the courts will be the final arbitrators. They will only grant an
antisocial behaviour order when a case is held to be valid on its
individual merits. Naturally, it may not be appropriate to contract out
antisocial behaviour order functions to smaller tenant management
organisations, if, for example, there is a need to protect tenant
managers from reprisals. We fully acknowledge that issue, as do local
authorities and the tenant management organisation sector. Providing
additional powers to tenant management organisations, where
appropriate, will give local residents a greater say in the way in
which their estates are run, and it will support them in ensuring that
disruptive, antisocial behaviour is dealt with swiftly and
effectively.
The
regulations give local authorities the flexibility to make local
decisions about the way in which antisocial behaviour is tackled,
enabling them to respond to changes in the way in which their
communities are served. They will assist in delivering more effective
and efficient working practices, and will further equip those on the
front line so that they are better able to tackle antisocial behaviour.
The regulation themselves are relatively simple, and have been drafted
to provide the local authority with the maximum flexibility to ensure
that any arrangements they may wish to enter into are tailored to fit
the local context. The local authority retains full discretion as to
whether or not it wishes to make use of these provisions. It may enter
into contracting-out arrangements with one or more housing management
organisations with which it holds management agreements. An authority
will retain the power to discharge its antisocial behaviour order
functions in its own right, regardless of whether or not it has also
entered into a contracting-out arrangement.
The order allows authorities
full flexibility to restrict the circumstances in which the specified
organisations can discharge the contracted-out functions if they so
wish. It allows a local authority to attach other conditions if it
considers it appropriate to do so. The regulations include a duty on
the part of the organisation to which the local authority contracts
out, to consult with the parent local authority. A number of responses
to the consultation urged us to make that explicit in the interests of
supporting multi-agency working and the exchange of pertinent
information. The regulations expressly confirm that, through the
contracting power, housing management bodies, to which antisocial
behaviour order functions are contracted out, are provided with full
rights of audience to take cases through the magistrates court. That is
essential to enable them to lead on applications from the outset to
conclusion. The majority of antisocial behaviour order applications are
made in magistrates courts, although they are dealt with in the civil
system, too, alongside other applications.
My Department, the Home Office
and the Department for Constitutional Affairs are working together on
new proposals to provide housing officers in both arms length
management and tenant management organisations with rights of audience
in the civil court. If introduced, that proposal will, in due course,
allow those officers to pursue antisocial behaviour order applications
in the civil courts. At the moment, that is subject to judicial
discretion. In many situations, the officers in arms length
management and tenant management organisations are well practised in
taking cases to court. Nevertheless, we will make it clear in guidance
that local authorities need to work closely with housing management
bodies to ensure that those responsible for taking cases to court are
fully equipped to do so. In more complex cases, it is likely that
housing management organisations will continue to work closely with the
local authority legal team or will commission specialist legal
support.
Given the
prominence of antisocial behaviour orders, I am sure that Members are
broadly familiar with their purpose and operation. In a nutshell,
antisocial behaviour orders are civil orders that can be made against
anyone aged 10 or above. They aim to protect the community from further
abuse by the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour, and they remain
popular with practitioners and the public as part of the broader range
of measures that are available for solving community safety problems. I
commend the order to the Committee.
2.41
pm
Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve on a
Committee that you chair, Dr. McCrea.
I thank the
Minister for her explanation of the regulations, as she answered nearly
every question that I wished to ask. The official Opposition support
the measures, as there has been a big change in housing over the past
few years, particularly given the growthof ALMOs. The order
therefore makes sense: those organisations deal with tenants and
collect information, so they have the first-hand knowledge that will
enable them to use the powers. The same applies to responsible tenant
management organisations. I am glad, too, that further consultations
are under way as to whether such
organisations should be represented in the courts,
as that is very sensible indeed. As Members of Parliament, we know the
misery that antisocial behaviour causes to some of our constituents.
Anything that makes the remedy more efficient is to be welcomed, and I
fully support what the Minister said.
2.42
pm
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It is a pleasure
to see you in the Chair today, Dr. McCrea.
I thank the Minister for her
explanation. The draft statutory instrument is not controversial, and I
am happy to put on record once again the fact that Liberal Democrats do
not have an issue with ASBOs. Despite the Prime Ministers
repeated attempts to portray my party as anti-ASBO, we think that the
proposals are very sensible.
Local authorities have
expressed concern that they should still be engaged in the process, and
do not think that ALMOs should be allowed to pursue matters without a
link to them, so the fact that that link is in place is important. Will
the Minister to confirm that the requirement for
the housing manager to consult
the local authority
before exercising any delegated functions
applies on each and every occasion, and that it is not the case that,
following, an initial consultation, there is no such requirement
thereafter. The Minister helpfully outlined the role of the civil
courts, but the right of audience is not addressed by the draft
statutory instrument. When does she expect that matter to be resolved,
and inwhich Bill does she expect any amendment to the
arrangements to appear? In the interim, it is my understanding that one
cannot initiate an ASBO in a civil court alone and that the criminal
court must be involved. Does that mean that in practice, all ASBOs that
go through both criminal and civil courts will not be able to make any
progress until the issue of rights of audience in civil courts is
resolved by a Bill that will, as I understand it, be introduced in the
House
soon?
2.44
pm
Peter
Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): I thank the Minister for
her introduction. I welcome the order.
I have one question about
article 3(2)(b) on page 2. The Minister explained about the
consultation of the local authority, but article 3(2)(b)
states:
Arrangements
made by the local authority with the housing
manager
(b)
may include such other conditions as the local authority considers
appropriate.
I am not a lawyer
or a parliamentary draftsman, so does that mean that a local authority
can say that it wants a condition attached and an ALMO can say,
Thanks for telling us your view, but I am not going to do
it, or is it a requirement? It may be possible either today or
tomorrow to explain what those words precisely mean. It would be nice
to know whetherthe measure is designed to give an arms
length management organisation discretion as to whether to accept the
condition. It would be useful if the Minister could spell out whether
article 3(2)(b) means that if an ALMO does not have the discretion, the
local authority condition must be applied.
Let me proceed to far less
important matters. One is that I greatly welcome the use of plain
language, and both the order and the arms length management
organisation are good exponents of it. The explanatory notes are
usefulthere is no doubt about what they are saying and they are
well expressed.
It is
a matter for the pricing authority rather than the Minister, but I
question why an order that is contained on one sheet of A3 is priced at
£3. Is that market pricing that has been set to maximise
revenue, or is it designed to cover costs? I am sure that the answer is
probably that The Stationery Office determines it, based on general
pricing principles. However, those who might wish to pass on my
comments could say that I have mentioned the point in this Committee,
and it would be useful if people could try to ensure that pricing is
proportionate. I am aware that most people will obtain the order from a
website for free, but one ought occasionally to question the philosophy
behind pricing, and its practical impact.
Let me proceed to the most
trivial matters. I donot think that proof-reading is the most
important thing that should happen when an explanatory memorandum comes
before the Committee. To show how trivial it is possible to be,
however, there is a typo in paragraph 7.2 of the memorandum, where an
extra full stop has appeared. I know that we have loosened up, but two
infinitives have been split in the same paragraphparagraph
7.3which strikes me as unnecessary. I looked for the
nevertheless that often seems to emerge from the civil
service word factory, and could not find it, but I found an unnecessary
however in paragraph 7.8. There is also a superfluous
clichA(c) in paragraph 7.4to this end.
Having saidall that, I shall repeat the compliment that the
memorandum is well written and clearly expressed. It is only on article
3(2)(b) that I have concerns about lack of
clarity.
2.48
pm
Meg
Munn:
It is nice to be in such a good-humoured Committee.
My private office can confirm to the hon. Member for Worthing, West
that I, too, am a stickler for plain English. I regularly send back
documents that are unclear, and I steered clear of acronyms in my
speech, even though that meant some stumbling over words. I share the
hon. Gentlemans concerns and I am delighted that he has given
such close attention to the drafting of the explanatory memorandum. I
am sure that we shall try to put such errors right in future, although
I probably do not quite share his aversion to split infinitives. My
linguistics degree focused very much on the spoken word and on the way
in which things are done in practice, rather than on strict
rules.
I digress, but
that has given my officials the time to pass the relevant notes to me.
Let me return to the hon. Gentlemans important points. Article
3(2)(b) concerns a management agreement that will specify the terms
between the two parties. It is the local authority that has discretion
to specify the conditions with which the arms length management
organisation will be expected to comply. I hope that that clarifies the
position.
I thank the
hon. Member for Poole for his support, and I am glad that we can all
agree about the need for action on antisocial behaviour. I also welcome
the
support of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who speaks for
the Liberal Democratson this area. I agree that it is
important for local authorities to retain a role. The action that we
are taking shows that the Government are a listening Government, and we
listened to what was said in the consultation. We expect that there
will be a consultation on each and every occasion. The issue is not a
general one; it is about specifics.
On rights of audience, I would
love to be able to oblige the hon. Gentleman and tell him the details,
but I do not know when that matter will be resolved. However, I can
assure him and other members of the Committee that we are working hard
on it and will be looking for an opportunity to resolve
it.
Michael
Fabricant:
What about
pricing?
Meg
Munn:
I will come to that and we shall look to resolve it
as soon as possible.
Tom
Brake:
Before the Minister moves onthis might be
obviouswill she clarify whether similar sorts of issues
regarding rights of audience will apply to registered social landlords
and their problems in progressing ASBO-related
matters?
Meg
Munn:
My understanding, if I remember from my briefing and
from what I said earlier, is that they have rights of audience, so it
will not be an issue for them. Audience in civil matters remains at the
discretion of the judiciary. I am informed that in many
situations, rights of audience have been given. However, there are
concerns that that has not always been the case, which is why the
Government wish to put the issue beyond doubt by clarifying it in
forthcoming legislation. I think that I have answered the hon.
Gentlemans
questions.
The final
issue, on which the hon. Member for Lichfield pre-empted me, was the
cost of the order. Despite my general attention to efficiency and
ensuring that the Government are not profligate with their resources, I
am afraid that I am unable to answer that at the moment. However, I am
sure that the issue will be fed back, and perhaps on another occasion
another Minister might be able to respond to the concerns of the hon.
Member for Worthing, West. We produced a brief order, but as the hon.
Gentleman may well know, being brief sometimes takes longer than
writing at great length. Maybe the price reflects that cost, but I do
not have that information to hand.
This is the first time that we have sought to use
the order-making power in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act
2005, and we believe that there is clear justification for using it
now to ensure that we minimise operational constraints on tackling
antisocial behaviour effectively. We intend to monitor the impact
of contracting-out, including through continued work with stakeholders.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Local Authorities (Contracting
Out of Anti-social Behaviour Order Functions) (England)
2007.
Committee
rose at seven minutes to Three
oclock.