| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I thank the Minister for that reply. We totally agree on the need for prevention and continuity of support. My point was that even for a parenting contract to be brought into play just when a child is likely to behave in such a way is possibly a step too far. However, I am comforted by what she has had to say and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 126B and 126C not moved.]
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone moved Amendment No. 127:
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 127 and 131 to 136, and I could go on to speak to Clause 23 not standing part of the Bill, if that is helpful. The amendments relate to the inclusion of additional bodies that would be empowered by the Secretary of State to apply for parenting contracts and orders. In particular, this refers to registered social landlords. To some extent, my remarks will overlap with those of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.
The proposal has
given rise to a howl of objection from all agencies and bodies
concerned with children and families. It is seen as another avenue of
coercion for families when more is required to be able to deliver much
needed parenting support voluntarily. RSLs are professionals concerned,
by definition, with housing and not the highly complex world of
parenting, problematic children and the issues that are involved. Such
intervention by RSLs is seen as highly inappropriate. They simply do
not have the expertise. Even the National Housing Federation, while
6 July 2006 : Column 435
However, housing officers can appropriately be involved in an application for an order when this is done in conjunction with other appropriate agencies. We see this as the right way forward in terms of inter-agency working. The other appropriate agencies would be the professionals able to work with families—they have the experience, knowledge and expertise to carry through such an order. Co-operation of this kind is appropriate and desirable, but the extension of the powers as suggested in the Bill is highly inappropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If we were to agree with the noble Baroness’s amendment, it would drive a significant hole through our policy of allowing more agencies to enter into parenting contracts and apply for parenting orders, as set out in the Respect Action Plan. Clauses 21 and 22 enable not only a local authority but also, as the noble Baroness outlined, a registered social landlord to enter into a parenting contract or seek a parenting order in respect of a parent of a child or young person if they have reason to believe that the child or young person has engaged or, in the case of contracts, is likely to engage in anti-social behaviour. I understand that the noble Baroness may say, “Well, such landlords do not have very much to do with children”. But a housing officer, who may have difficulties with a family reported to him, quite often has a lot to do with maintaining the well-being of the community in the housing association or estate for which he is responsible.
Currently, 52 per cent of social housing is owned by registered social landlords. They therefore play an important and growing role in managing housing and wider neighbourhoods, including tracking and tackling anti-social behaviour. The noble Baroness will know that, increasingly, neighbourhood teams are working in collaboration with the other agencies to take a more holistic approach towards management and intervention. Quite often, it is a collective decision on which agency in a particular case will be the lead agency for that family. Therefore, it is important to have within that framework an opportunity where it is appropriate for the social landlord to take a lead, particularly if it has been indicated that they are likely to be the most appropriate person, since they have better access, relationships and opportunity.
As set out in the Respect Action Plan, the Government are determined to increase the levels of parenting support available to all parents and ensure that those who are unlikely to seek help voluntarily take help through formal contracts and court orders. I would remind the Committee that parenting contracts and parenting orders are early interventions which are supposed to nip problems in the bud. Preventing registered social landlords entering into parenting contracts or seeking parenting orders, as these amendments would do, makes no sense when they already have much more coercive powers at their disposal.
6 July 2006 : Column 436
Registered social landlords can seek eviction of a family because of anti-social behaviour. They can enter into an acceptable behaviour contract with a family. They can also seek anti-social behaviour orders and injunctions against their tenants and others in the community. It is surely illogical to prevent them entering into arrangements which may help prevent the worst sanctions against families. If action is not taken there is a significant risk of families losing their homes or being taken to court. We want them to have the full panoply so that they do not have to reach immediately for eviction, because that can have really detrimental consequences for the family and children in terms of their long-term stability and friendship groups. While their behaviour at school may be fine, anti-social behaviour in the home may cause them to be evicted, which is much more detrimental. So we want landlords to have a full toolkit and I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that this is less severe than eviction and less harsh than using some of the other powers they already have. We think that they should see this as a menu in order to intervene both creatively and supportively, but becoming increasingly firm if that appears to be the only way of getting compliance. They may take many steps before taking the final step of evicting the family from their home.
We will encourage registered social landlords to work in partnership with other specialist agencies that are expert in this area. We will provide all the relevant agencies with clear guidance on the use of this power and the new provisions will require them to comply with it. It is important to make it clear that parenting contracts and orders are not designed to criminalise parents, but instead are concerned with providing support so that parents are able to guide and protect their children more effectively. As I said earlier, it appears from the data we have that parents do better afterwards and that this can have a beneficial effect on the behaviour of the children as well.
Turning to the question of whether Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill, local authorities must have the flexibility to make appropriate local decisions to ensure that their functions are carried out as effectively as possible, not least by tackling anti-social behaviour in young people and providing effective support. This clause inserts a new Section 28A in Part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 so as to make it possible for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make an order enabling a local authority to contract out to a specified person the functions of entering into parenting contracts and applying for parenting orders. Subsection (2) makes it clear that the order providing the power to local authorities to contract out is subject to conditions specified in the order. I hope that from all that has been said, the noble Baroness will feel more comfortable with the new section and will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness
Linklater of Butterstone: I thank the Minister
for that response. I actually failed to make my remarks on whether
Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill, but I can now run it all
together, as it were.
6 July 2006 : Column 437
However, I did take great comfort from what the Minister had to say on the earlier amendments. The point here is that what needs to be done is to affirm the importance of the co-operation that housing landlords should be exercising with all the other agencies because they have the people with the skills, knowledge and experience to pick up on problems and take action at the earliest opportunity; indeed, the earlier the better so that things can be nipped in the bud. In the light of what we have both said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Parenting orders: local authorities and registered social landlords]:
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 129A not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 129B:
- “(8) A person is eligible to be
the responsible officer in relation to a parenting order under this
section only if he is-
The noble Lord said: New sections 26A and 26B in Clause 22 will extend to local authorities and registered social landlords the power to apply for parenting orders. Parenting orders should not be considered in isolation and are only one part of the process of assisting parents whose children are engaging in anti-social behaviour. We know that most parents accept help voluntarily and orders in this context are only for those who are reluctant to get help or deny that they or their children have problems.
As
part of the Respect programme of work there will be some £52
million of new funding to start a national programme of change in the
way in which public services respond to parents. It is anticipated that
this additional provision will come from both local authorities and a
wide range of specialist agencies. The Government recognise that it is
vital that parenting programmes provided as part of the requirements of
a
6 July 2006 : Column 438
The amendments to new Section 26A will allow local authorities to extend their partnership working arrangements and either themselves nominate persons from specialist agencies to become responsible officers or ask those agencies to nominate such persons when an application to a court is made. They recognise that there is a wide range of specialist bodies already working with local authorities and provide an opportunity for local authorities to use and widen their pool of these valuable resources.
Similarly, the amendments to new Section 26B will afford greater flexibility to registered social landlords. They will allow for an official of a registered social landlord to be eligible to undertake the role of responsible officer. But the registered social landlord may well want to nominate another person from a specialist agency or body who is better placed and has the requisite specialist skills in areas of parenting support, and the amendments will enable the registered social landlord to do this.
It is, of course, vital that a multi-agency approach is taken when applying for a parenting order and so the amendments emphasise that a registered social landlord must consult the local authority and other appropriate agencies before nominating a responsible officer. Again, this will encourage deeper partnership working among front-line agencies and ensure that support to the parents takes into account any broader and wider factors. In both cases neither local authorities nor registered social landlords will be able to nominate persons to be responsible officers without their consent.
The amendments to Schedule 15 reflect these technical changes and are mainly consequential in nature. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 129C and 130 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 130A:
- “(9) A person is eligible to be
the responsible officer in relation to a parenting order under this
section only if he is-
- (10) In
deciding whom to nominate under subsection (9)(b) a registered social
landlord must take into account the views of-
6 July 2006 : Column 439
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 136 not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Contracting out of local authority functions with regard to parenting contracts and parenting orders]:
[Amendment No. 137 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
5 pm
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 137A:
- “28B TREATMENT OF ORGANISATIONS
PERFORMING PARENTING CONTRACT AND PARENTING ORDER FUNCTIONS AS PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES
The noble Viscount said: In many ways, these amendments follow on from the brief debate we had on Clause 23. The first amendment would amend the Housing Act 1996 to ensure that bodies entering into parenting contracts and applying for parenting orders would be required to respect the human rights of those concerned. The second amendment would insert a new section into the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 which would require bodies to exercise similar functions in the context of anti-social behaviour orders.
A strong argument has been put forward by Liberty and the Joint Committee on Human Rights that anybody who exercises the powers contracted out under Clause 23 should be required to respect and comply with human rights standards as would the public body which is contracting out the functions with regard to parenting contracts and parenting orders.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights set out the case well, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I quote its comments. In paragraph 1.29 on page 13 of its report, it stated:
- “The provision in the Bill for
contracting out local authority functions of entering into parenting
contracts and applying for parenting orders, however, does give some
cause for concern on human rights grounds ... The continuing
uncertainty about the meaning of “public authority” in s.
6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, caused by the Leonard
Cheshire decision, means that it cannot be predicted whether the
person(s) specified by the Secretary of State as a person to whom the
local authority's functions can be contracted out will be treated by
the courts as a public authority for the purpose of the HRA. Although
the court which must decide whether to make a parenting order must
itself act compatibly with Article 8 when deciding whether or not to
make the order, it is an additional safeguard for Article 8 rights that
the body entitled to apply for such an order is itself a public
authority with an obligation to act compatibly with convention rights
when deciding whether or not to apply for such an
order”.
6 July 2006 : Column 440
- “In our view
it would be desirable if the Bill were to provide explicitly that the
person to whom the functions are contracted out is to be treated as a
public authority for the purpose of the HRA 1998 in the discharge of
those
functions”.
I turn to my second amendment. The power to subcontract ASBO functions was created by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The Government have recently consulted on using the power to subcontract ASBO functions to small housing associations run by tenants. I hope that the Minister will update us on the results of the housing consultations on subcontracting ASBO functions and indicate what steps they intend to take.
I cannot see any reason for requiring compliance with human rights standards when a body is deciding whether to enter into a parenting contract with a parent but not when a body is deciding whether to enter into an anti-social behaviour contract with a child. I hope that the Minister will undertake seriously to consider these amendments or, indeed, accept them in his response. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 23 provides for the making of an order by the Secretary of State to enable local authorities to operate with flexibility in making local decisions to ensure that their functions are carried out as effectively as possible. The ability to contract out all or some of their parenting contract and order-seeking functions to other bodies may assist authorities in their management of strategic and operational functions.
It is the Government’s view that the person to whom a local authority’s functions may be delegated in pursuance of such an order is to be treated as a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the discharge of those functions. The new section is modelled closely on similar provisions in Section 1F of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was inserted by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Under it, the Secretary of State may make an order which enables a local authority to contract out its functions of applying for anti-social behaviour orders and similar types of orders.
The Government have intervened in the case of Johnson v Havering. In this case, the Government have argued before the administrative court for their original intention as to the meaning of “public authority” in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The intervention is partly in response to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 2004 report on this subject. The judgment is expected shortly, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it.
As
the committee recommended, and the Government agree, a successful
intervention presents the best possibility of resolving the lack of
clarity in the case law on this subject. If we put such provisions in
this Bill, it would cast doubt on previous legislation in which we have
intended the same but have not stated it explicitly. The Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 is but one such example. I would therefore not wish
to make amendments such as these in isolation, and I am sure the noble
Viscount appreciates the reason
6 July 2006 : Column 441
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful for the Minister’s reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137B not moved.]
Clause 24 [Anti-social behaviour injunctions]:
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 138:
The noble Viscount said: Clause 24 replaces Section 153A of the Housing Act 1996 and relates to anti-social behaviour injunctions. Injunctions may be taken out against persons who the court is satisfied,
- “is
engaging, has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of
causing a nuisance or annoyance to powers of various specified
descriptions”.
This is a probing amendment that inserts additional wording to ensure that such injunctions can apply only to those aged 18 years or over. The aim is to use this amendment to raise the concerns of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children, which highlighted in its child impact statement that it appears, dating back to case law from 1991, that injunctions may not be taken out against under-18s because a breach can lead to imprisonment for contempt of court, a penalty which is currently not available to young people. Can the Minister clarify whether that is still the case? If it is, there is cause for concern that the definition of anti-social behaviour in this clause describes a threshold of behaviour that is arguably lower than that in Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the noble Viscount’s concern, but I hope that I shall be able to assure him that it is not merited. The current wording of this clause ensures that anti-social behaviour injunctions are available for use by practitioners subject to the consideration of the court in deciding whether they are an appropriate and reasonable form of intervention. It is important to note that housing injunctions are available against adults, but will not normally be made against persons under the age of 18. Thus, there should be no need to specify this on the face of legislation.
We take the view
that the existing practice of the courts will ensure that, save in very
exceptional circumstances, injunctions are applied only to adults. We
would not wish to fetter the discretion of judges in deciding whether
an application is appropriate in the circumstances. To the very best of
our knowledge there are very few cases in which housing injunctions to
tackle anti-social behaviour have been made against people under the
age of 18. However, we are aware of a small number of cases where
injunctive action has been taken against 17 year-olds for the purposes
of preventing anti-social behaviour. That
6 July 2006 : Column 442
It is still the case that a person under 18 cannot be imprisoned for breach of an injunction, so there is that additional safeguard. I am sure that the court will have taken into account the sort of injunction that would be appropriate for someone under 17, and I am sure that the noble Viscount has as much faith in our judges as I do.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am sure that that faith is not misplaced. I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Injunctions in local authority proceedings: power of arrest and remand]:
Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 138A:
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 138A, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 138B to 138G, which are grouped together. Amendments Nos. 138A to 138C deal with Clause 25(6):
- (a) he
shall be brought before the court within the period of 24 hours
beginning at the time of his arrest,
and
These amendments look at the possible blurring of the line between civil and criminal law which could increase the use of custody inappropriately. Our amendments would remove the court’s power to remand a person in custody if they were arrested for a breach of an anti-social behaviour injunction. The court’s power to remand a person on bail where he had breached such an ASBI would not be restricted.
If violence was involved, the conduct ought to be classified as a criminal offence. However, our prisons are bulging, more so now that more than 6,000 ASBOs have been issued and, according to the Howard League for Penal Reform, 40 per cent of them are breached. There are cost implications to legislation that may draw more people into custody. As the Howard League points out, there are risks of overcrowding in local prisons and of an over-harsh remedy for people who would otherwise not be taken into custody at any stage. That seems to undermine the whole value of such alternative means of implementing criminal justice and tackling anti-social behaviour as anti-social behaviour orders, parenting contracts and the like. I beg to move.
6 July 2006 : Column 443
Lord Hylton: I am against unnecessary custody. While I am on my feet, I shall try to identify one small drafting point in line 25 of page 23, where it says “the court thinks”. Courts may think any thought that comes into their heads. Would it not be much better to say “is satisfied”?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall take the noble Lord’s drafting point first. It is right to say that the phraseology in this part of the Act is a familiar way of indicating an exercise of the court’s discretion, but I understand the import of the noble Lord’s concern. Parliamentary draftsmen over the years have grown familiar with distinguishing between the two and I think that the courts understand what that phrase means.
The effect of the amendment would be to tie the hands of judges so that they could not use their discretion based on the facts of the individual case to decide whether a suspect should be remanded in custody or released on bail pending a full hearing. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, that it is a neat point as to whether people should not be charged with a substantive offence. Some grave offences are currently dealt with as anti-social behaviour because there is a desire, particularly with younger people, to intervene in that way rather than reach straight away for a criminal sanction. I was told of one case where it seemed very bold not to have taken criminal proceedings as it involved arson, burglary and a number of quite dangerous activities. In their wisdom, the practitioners decided that an anti-social behaviour order would be the better course. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, would not want to dissuade people from taking a course which may be effective and more beneficial to young people and yet not necessarily involve criminal proceedings.
We have strong concerns that requiring the courts to release a suspect on bail following an initial hearing, irrespective of how severe the alleged anti-social behaviour is, would address only the needs of the alleged perpetrator and neglect those of the victims and the wider community. We do not want to see situations where the court is powerless to stop a person who is alleged to have committed acts of serious harassment, possibly involving violence, returning to the community pending a full hearing.
If we accepted these amendments, it would be very curious to know what message we would send to communities living under the blight of anti-social behaviour, and what messages we would send to the criminal justice system and, indeed, to judges on how they should use the provisions that we have made available to them. In seeking to deliver respect, it is critical that communities have faith in the ability of agencies to take swift action to protect people from serious harassment. One can imagine the fear and helplessness of neighbours where a suspect is arrested following serious anti-social conduct only to return next door a day or so later, pending a full hearing.
We also
have serious concerns about removing the power of the court to remand a
suspect in custody where it has decided that a medical report should be
obtained. Surely it is right that the court should retain
6 July 2006 : Column 444
The noble Baroness is very familiar with the fact that the juvenile Bench is specifically trained to consider the best interests of the child and to have a more child-centred approach. In the adult court we can trust judges to make appropriate orders. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Baroness will be a little happier than she was.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I say to the Minister that perish the thought that I would want to take a course that was not both helpful and productive. I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 138B and 138C not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Injunctions in local authority proceedings: powers to remand]:
[Amendments Nos. 138D to 138G not moved.]
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |