Ms
Keeble: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point
about ensuring that the powers will be used properly. Does he agree
that it might be appropriate for the report to which the Minister
referred to be presented to Parliament so that MPs can see how the
measures work in practice? That might overcome his concerns about those
issues, which, to an extent, I
share.
James
Brokenshire: The hon. Lady has made a valid point for the
Committee to consider, and I am sure that the Minister will reflect on
it. Certainly, with regard to what might be considered as other
injunction-type orders, such as serious crime prevention orders, there
are mechanisms for formally reporting to Parliament how many are used
and the nature of their use. Given that those powers are wide ranging
and should not be used lightly, there might be some merit in such a
proposal. I am sure that the Minister will reflect on that, given that
new clauses have only recently been added to the Bill and that there
has been only a limited amount of time to consider all the relevant
aspects, their potential impact and what they actually mean. I hope
that suggestions such as the hon. Lady’s and those from other
groups on where the focus should be and on what protections might
usefully be added will inform the debate as the provision is considered
in this and the other
place. Given
the child protection issues that are potentially at stake—the
Minister spoke of his desire for such injunctions to be applicable to
under-18s as well—and the Government’s envisaged approach
of requiring compliance with certain conditions to address behavioural
or other issues, it is essential that those agencies with
responsibilities for providing such services are consulted
at an early stage. We believe that it is appropriate for relevant NHS
bodies and probation youth offending teams to be engaged as early as
possible on the support services that might be available. That should
be reflected in the consultation provisions of the new clauses. I
welcome the Minister’s comments that he will consider and
reflect on that—it is important. If we seek to prevent and
change behaviour, other agencies must be engaged in that process. If we
are looking at issues of addiction, mental health and other associated
factors, the limited consultation requirements that we have at the
moment do not go far enough. I have some
more general points that the Committee might find helpful, and I hope
that the Minister will respond to them. In respect of the duration of
an injunction, is it envisaged that the requirements of an order could
remain in force in perpetuity? That is how the measure is framed,
although the Minister’s comment about the review mechanism, and
that an application could be made by the applicant or the respondent
requesting consideration of whether an order remains appropriate, is
important.
Given the
significant restrictions that could be placed on an
individual—such as where they are at particular times of the day
and what activities they are required to participate in—is the
Minister satisfied that the provisions will withstand challenge under
the relevant human rights provisions? Will he also confirm how many
injunctions he expects to be granted each year? From what he has said,
I imagine that the intention is for there to be a very limited number.
We do not have the benefit of a regulatory impact assessment on these
provisions because of the late stage at which they have been brought
up, but it would be helpful to get some sort of feel for
this.
Mr.
Coaker: Just to answer that point: 160 is the current
estimate, but it is a very rough
estimate.
James
Brokenshire: The Minister referred to a number of 160. Is
he suggesting that that would be an annualised
number?
Mr.
Coaker: Yes. Sorry—I meant to say that that would
be for a
year.
James
Brokenshire: The Minister’s clarification is
helpful, although I note that that is a higher number than the number
given for serious crime prevention orders, for example, which I recall
from our debates on that matter. Perhaps this power is even more wide
ranging that I had anticipated in terms of its application. I thank the
Minister for that clarification; the Committee will find it helpful and
it will assist in the further consideration of the scope and extent of
the
powers. No
provision has been introduced to make it an offence to breach an
injunction as stated in the Bill. The Minister has explained that that
is because a breach of an injunction would be dealt with in the same
way as a civil contempt of court. It would be the same as a breach of
any other injunction, with sanctions available to the court that could
include
imprisonment. We
have touched on the issue of children in this context. Under the
current drafting of the Bill—the Minister accepts this
point—such cases would currently be dealt with in the High Court
or the county court,
and not in a youth court, as would apply in situations where a young
person was subject to some form of criminal
sanction. 10.15
am Let
us look at the ASBO regime. A child will have an ASBO imposed by a
magistrates court, but if the order has been breached it becomes a
criminal offence and is dealt with by the youth courts using the range
of sanctions available in those circumstances. Those do not currently
seem to be available on the basis of the structure that has been
envisaged by the new clauses. The Minister specifically made reference
to that, and I therefore note that the way in which this could be
worked through is very much on his agenda. There are serious issues
that need to be considered carefully to ensure that, for young people
in particular, the use of those orders is conducted in an
appropriate and effective
way.
Mr.
Coaker: That is helpful. I think it is clear, in how the
new clauses are currently drafted, that they will not be used for
under-18s, for some of the reasons stated by the hon. Gentleman. I was
trying to say that there needs to be a debate about whether there
should be a measure for under-18s and the answer to that, I think, is
yes. We then need to have a big debate about what that measure should
be, because as the provision is drafted here, we could not, for some of
the reasons the hon. Gentleman has given, expect them to be used for
under-18s. In fact, I would not expect it to be used for under-18s as
it is drafted, but that leaves us with a public policy gap, and we need
to look at how we can fill
it.
James
Brokenshire: The Minister’s comments about
under-18s were helpful. It was important that he said that he did not
expect the orders to be used for under-18s. It might well be that that
needs to be made more explicit in the Bill, if the new clauses are
accepted. A different regime might need to be thought through and
applied to under-18s, because I recognise that there is a public policy
issue for the reasons that I have identified. There is the question of
continuance—the fact that one of the orders could potentially
remain in perpetuity. Let us apply that to the ASBO situation, for
example, because, even on that, the Government have rowed back from the
civil orders applying to a child automatically for two years, because
yearly reviews for children on ASBOs were introduced under section 123
of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. I think that the
Minister is saying that the envisaged structure is not fit for purpose
for under-18s. It is important to put that on record because it will
help to inform subsequent debates on these particular
provisions.
Will the
Minister explain why the order could impose conditions on the person,
subject to the injunction, for their own protection? If that were to
apply to under-18s, there would be existing child protection
legislation in place. I was struck by one case that highlighted the
need to act swiftly to protect the sibling of a gang member who was at
risk of becoming a victim of a tit-for-tat gang dispute. The local
authority and social services needed to act quickly to get a child out
of a particular address to ensure that their life was not put at risk.
I understand the real-time need—and the Minister made reference
to this—to act quickly in certain circumstances
to protect children. However, the new clauses would not have added
anything to existing child protection legislation, which give rise to a
question of why they would not necessarily apply to
that. Why
does the Minister consider that those protective provisions are
appropriate for people over the age of 18? Liberty’s briefing
note, which he will have read, describes that as an “extremely
paternalistic approach”, and Justice has noted that it
does “not
believe that adults outside the mental health or mental incapacity
context, should be the subject of compulsory protective interventions
of this
nature.” There
is a fairly wide public policy issue that needs to be thought through.
When the Minister responds to the debate, I will be interested to hear
whether he can explain further why he thinks that such provisions are
appropriate and
necessary. I
understand and respect the Minister’s desire to address the
issues highlighted in the case of Shafi and Ellis, but the provisions
are wide-ranging—as he would accept—and will require
further detailed scrutiny. Today’s consideration in Committee is
simply the start of the process. Further detailed review is needed to
ensure that the provisions are appropriate and that they address the
understandable need to provide support to communities suffering
unacceptable gang-related violence.
Paul
Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): The Minister rightly said that
this is one of the most important aspects of the Bill, so it is
regrettable that it was not in it initially. We could not discuss it on
Second Reading and the provisions were not available at the start of
the Committee’s proceedings—in fact, they were tabled
only at the start of recess week. That is regrettable given that, in
the Minister’s words, this is such a major feature of the Bill.
Over the past month in Committee, it has been said several times that
one purpose of our proceedings is to put clarifications on record that
arise from questions asked of the Minister, probing amendments and
statements, so that when the police, lawyers and courts come to
implement the legislation, they will not be simply going on its bare
legalistic bones, but will have a clear statement from the Minister
about the intention of how certain measures will be
implemented.
Earlier, the
Minister said that a breach of an injunction involving somebody under
18 would be taken to a youth court rather than a criminal
court. I thought that that was reassuring, but he went on to say that
he did not see that the injunctions would apply to under-18s at all,
which I found confusing in the light of his opening comments. He talked
very eloquently about the massive problem of gangs and pointed out, as
if to justify the measures, that a lot of the knife murders that
have been so much in the news over the past year or
two were carried out by 14, 15 and 16-year-olds.
Rather than providing clarification, the Minister’s
comments confused
me.
Mr.
Coaker: I apologise if I have confused the hon. Gentleman.
I will read the relevant paragraph again. There is a public policy gap.
Under-18s and gang-related
violence cannot be dealt with in the way that the injunctions will deal
with over-18s. I am sorry if this intervention becomes a little long,
Sir Nicholas, but please bear with me. I was trying to tell the
Committee that because the measure is contentious—to say the
least—I will seek, with officials in my Department and across
Government, to liaise with hon. Members to see whether there is a way
through this legal minefield that will not criminalise children and
that will consider their human rights and other things. Although, in
theory, someone could try to get an injunction, they are not applicable
to under-18s. I will read the legal opinion on
why: “this
injunction can apply to under 18s. However, injunctions must be
enforceable and it is unlikely in practice that this would be
enforceable for under 18s because the court cannot fine someone without
a source of income (and most gang members will not have a legitimate
source of income). Nor can it sentence an under 18 to detention in a
YOI for a civil contempt of
court.” That
civil contempt of court is the sanction for breaching the injunction.
Effectively, we will not be able to use it because there is no
sanction. Which court it goes to is almost irrelevant because there is
no sanction and it will not go to court, so there is a gap. I was
saying that we need to look at that gap to come up with a solution that
meets our public policy objectives without undermining other
principles.
The
Chairman: Order. I have used my discretion to allow the
Minister to intervene at some length. If the hon. Member for
Chesterfield wishes to press the matter further, I am sure that the
Minister can deal with it in his winding-up
speech.
Mr.
Coaker: I apologise, Sir
Nicholas.
Paul
Holmes: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. The Minister’s
welcome intervention provided further clarification. However, I am
still a little confused by his opening comments and the huge emphasis
that he rightly placed on the tremendous problems of gangs and the
number of young people involved in murder, with 13, 14, 15 and
16-year-olds involved in stabbings. It seemed that that was being laid
out as the justification for the measures, but we were then told that
they were not meant to apply to that age group at all. In view of that
confusion—what Justice and Liberty have read has certainly
confused them—it seems that some tidying up is
needed.
The
Chairman: Order. In a moment I shall adjourn the
Committee. However, as this is the last sitting in which I shall chair
the Committee, may I congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the
room on the constructive way in which they have dealt with a very
important Bill? I particularly congratulate the Front Benchers on the
mammoth task that they have undertaken. It has been a great pleasure to
be in the Chair and to see Parliament working at its
best. 10.25
am The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
