---

Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for his explanation. It will obviously take some time to read his answer tomorrow and to interpret precisely what it means, but I am grateful for the information.

I have no problem with amending Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act. However, there are two publications relating to the Bill: one containing comment by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; the other from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. My difficulty is that major amendments to the Crime and Disorder Act have not been through some of the machinery that was established to examine the implications. I wonder at what stage the Minister will take that factor into account. That would be helpful. At this stage, I shall make a note of the point and, if we are not satisfied, we hope that on Report a proposal from the committees will be forthcoming.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I thank my noble friend and welcome the provision in paragraph (d) of the proposed new clause to enable registered social landlords to apply to the courts for anti-social behaviour orders.

My noble friend will probably recall that the housing action trust for Castle Vale—which was a testament to civic neglect over many years—set about trying to rebuild that estate and the lives of the 10,000 people living there. It was a sign of the maturity and confidence of the people there that, when the housing action trust decided that anti-social behaviour orders should be applied for, it received the support of that community. One of the most gratifying events was that, when it turned to the community and asked for people to come forward as witnesses, the necessary number of witnesses appeared. If anyone had thought of acting in that way and giving support to the relevant authorities 10 years earlier, they would have had their windows put in at the very least.

My point is that the Castle Vale housing action trust, among other registered social landlords, found the procedure extremely cumbersome, because it was

12 Mar 2002 : Column 726

not in charge of it. The trust had to persuade the local authority and the local police force to become involved. It was a bureaucratic nonsense to have to go through the local council when it was no longer the landlord of the homes involved.

One of the last tasks I carried out in my previous job at the other end of this building was to write a letter to the Home Office, on the back of this experience, urging the Government to make this among other changes to the way in which anti-social behaviour orders can be dealt with. On behalf of the Castle Vale housing action trust—I should mention that I am chairman designate of a neighbourhood management board which is being established there—and the people living on the Castle Vale estate, I thank the Government for bringing the amendment forward.

We should not be mesmerised by the number of anti-social behaviour orders that have been granted. There is some evidence that magistrates are sometimes reluctant to use them. But there is also evidence that when those accused of anti-social behaviour—I have seen documents running to 30, 40 or 50 incidents, all denied by the young man concerned, as it usually is, and his family—are confronted with that kind of documentation, it can achieve a change in behaviour. That does not happen in every case—and in my experience not in most cases—but in some cases the very threat of an application to the courts for anti-social behaviour orders and the knowledge of what can follow does indeed improve the behaviour. The real threat in the case of the Castle Vale housing action trust was that alongside the applications for ASBOs it applied for possession of the houses concerned. This is serious stuff; but it is serious action that leads public bodies to take such steps. I thank my noble friend again for bringing forward the amendment.

Lord Rooker: I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I know of the incredible efforts carried out by that community over the years. The estate, some 20 or 30 tower blocks, was built on the former Castle Bromwich aerodrome at breakneck speed. It was badly managed by the former managers; namely, Birmingham City Council. The estate was totally reformed. People are queuing up to live in the area now, whereas, in the past, when my own constituents were offered the opportunity to live there, they were horrified. I used to sit there in terror at my surgeries on Friday evenings listening to people saying that they did not want to go to Castle Vale. The exact reverse is now the case. I appreciate what my noble friend has said.

Turning to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, at Second Reading I flagged up the point that we should bring these amendments forward. They were not ready for the Bill, and we did not want to delay the Bill. I should point out that they are being introduced in Committee, not on Report; so I shall not take too many complaints that we have not introduced them at the first available opportunity after the Bill was printed.

A further memorandum has been submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee covering Amendment No. 289B. The Joint Committee

12 Mar 2002 : Column 727

on Human Rights raised a question on the amendments. Its report is in the form of a long letter to me containing 17 questions, one of which I shall refer to. A reply should be sent to the Joint Committee tomorrow. The Government's view is that the amendments, and also the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act, are fully compatible with the Human Rights Act.

I have not yet taken advice on the matter or seen the detail of the reply. However, I was astonished to read the final question on Clause 54, relating to the British Transport Police, which is under the heading:

"Removal of truants to designated places".

The question I was asked, in paragraph 16 of the letter, was:

"What would the purpose of the removal of such truants be, and how would it relate to the legitimate grounds for depriving a person of liberty under Article 5(1)?".

I thought: has this committee taken leave of its senses? The only reason the British Transport Police are involved is that someone is on railway property. So how can we be depriving someone of his or her liberty under the Human Rights Act? If that question is what I think it is, it gives the Human Rights Act the exact bad name that we do not want it to have by making preposterous allegations or by raising issues in such a way that the general public would say that members of the committee are not living in the real world.

The British Transport Police are there to look after railway property. That is their role and function. Truants—people on the property—would be removed. That is what the clause is about—removing people. We are not depriving anyone of his or her liberty. Is it depriving someone of his or her human rights if we remove a truant from railway property? That sounds preposterous. I know that I shall get it in the neck from members of the Joint Committee, but that is up to them. I read the report as a reasonable person. I have not discussed it with the civil servants. I read the whole thing from cover to cover. It was, after all, a letter to me.

The members of the Joint Committee from this Chamber have a vested interest in the issue, but I do not know whether they are here at the moment. Looking at the list of members, I think that they are not here, so I shall not invite any comments. We will give a reasoned and substantive answer to all the questions—much more than was contained in my bellicose statements of a few minutes ago. I am sure that the Committee will be satisfied. We are not in the business of breaching human rights legislation. We are in the business of bringing some law and order to areas where we have discovered defects. One of those areas relates to truants on railway property.

The amendments will require some scrutiny because this is the first time that they have been available. It is important that the Committee of this House and the Joint Committee have an opportunity to look at them. We also have Report stage to come if noble Lords wish to tease out further aspects of them. The new clauses are important. I am not in any way suggesting that

12 Mar 2002 : Column 728

they are not. It is because of their importance that I was so mystified by the last but one question of the Joint Committee.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Dholakia: I had no intention of interfering in the Minister's robust answer to the Joint Committee whenever that is likely to be. My main intention was to point out that whenever such amendments are moved in Committee, an important stage is missed out. I simply want to be satisfied. We have no difficulty with the provision that the Minister is asking for.

Lord Rooker: I have moved the first of the amendments. If the Committee approves it, I shall move the others formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 298B to 298F:

After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—

"POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO ADD TO RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
(1) After section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, there shall be inserted—
"1A POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO ADD TO RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
The Secretary of State may by order provide that the chief officer of a body of constables maintained otherwise than by a police authority is, in such cases and circumstances as may be prescribed by the order, to be a relevant authority for the purposes of section 1 above."
(2) In section 114 of that Act (negative resolution procedure for orders) after "section" there shall be inserted "1A,"."
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—

---