You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

What is more, the wide publicity that is given to the children who are subject to these orders means that older people are showing increased fears of young people. A divide is opening up in society where older people regard children as, to use the expression that is current at the moment, “feral”. It is all because of the emphasis that is placed on children as though they

10 Mar 2008 : Column 1335

were rather less than human. At best, the public are encouraged to show little understanding of children’s difficulties, while, at worst, representations and publicity of this kind invite community hostility and vengeance. The naming and shaming of children subject to ASBOs was no doubt introduced as a “tough” gesture by this Government. I respectfully suggest that it is having precisely the opposite effect and that it should be removed. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: If the Government really want to reinforce the syndrome of ASBOs becoming a badge of honour, I can think of no better way than to put the child’s face and identity on the front of the local newspaper. That will simply add to the impression that they are a bit of a lad or a lass, and will encourage the child to revel in that situation. Apart from being totally contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is unworkable. It will do no good at all. I challenge the Minister to tell us what evidence there is that the children who are named and shamed are less likely to break the terms of the ASBO and to reoffend than those whose names are kept confidential. I would like to see if there is evidence for that, because I do not believe that it exists.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Your Lordships’ House is familiar with this argument. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raise this issue whenever there is an opportunity to discuss ASBOs. I am afraid theirs is not an argument with which I have a great deal of sympathy. They seek to remove the automatic imposition of reporting restrictions on proceedings against juveniles for breaching their ASBOs or which relate to the making of an ASBO against juveniles on conviction of criminal offences.

Publicity of these proceedings is often an integral part of local agencies’ efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour. It is not about naming and shaming, but ASBOs are made in open court and, unless the court imposes restrictions, the media are entitled report them, even if they involve young people. It is for the court to decide whether to impose reporting restrictions.

I was interested in what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, because my attention has been drawn recently to a case reported in the Argus on Saturday 19 January. The headline ran, “MPs hit out at ban on naming teenager. Asbo yob u-turn by magistrates”. It reported a case, heard in Brighton and Hove magistrates’ court, where the court ruled that the local newspaper could not name the teenage delinquent concerned. The court made a firm decision, but it produced this response from one of the local politicians, the Lewes MP, Norman Baker, who said:

That puts the case perfectly well. It was no minor matter. The anti-social behaviour reported in the local

10 Mar 2008 : Column 1336

newspaper related to a youth from the area who had a long history of yob behaviour and had been banned from parts of the city centre. He threw a brick through the window of a house, injuring a teenage girl, smashed six car windscreens, stabbed an inflatable dinghy, causing criminal damage, and was in a gang which attacked an innocent father. It was exactly the sort of behaviour that ASBOs are intended to deal with. The local Labour MP, David Lepper, made complaints similar to those of the reasonably local Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, Norman Baker, about the effect of the court’s order.

The case illustrates that the magistrates can rule in certain circumstances that publicity is inappropriate —the local politicians took a different view on the appropriateness of reporting restrictions. Norman Baker seemed to be arguing quite clearly for the Liberal Democrats that publicity is essential in these cases. For once, I entirely agree with the representative from Lewes.

The law is best left as it is so that those in the local community and the victims of anti-social behaviour know and can see that something positive has been done to deal with it. Publicising the prohibitions also helps the community enforce the order. Publicity is not to punish or shame the individual; it is simply to remind the local community that action has been taken, that it can be effective and that the community has, in its informal way, an important part to play.

We need to remember that anti-social behaviour of juveniles, and adults, made subject to ASBOs can have a serious and/or lasting effect on people’s lives. The case to which I have referred illustrates the way in which it could have such an impact. The needs of individuals must be balanced with the wider needs, issues and concerns of the local community, which has an equal right to be protected.

The court can impose reporting restrictions if they are appropriate. They might be appropriate, for instance, in the case of somebody who perhaps has some mental ill health, and one might expect the court to behave rather differently. However, the law is best left as it is. It should be left to the discretion of the courts, even where they attract some opprobrium for the way in which they behave. A requirement exists in any event for the court to have regard to the welfare of the child or young person. The existing legal framework is working well in practice. I would not encourage the Committee to support the amendment. We have got the balance about right. It helps us in our general policy of tackling anti-social behaviour if we leave the law as it is.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have to commend the sagacity and the good common sense of the magistrates’ court in Brighton for equating the stabbing of an inflatable with the stabbing, such as in the case I referred to, of an individual to death and protecting the identity of the person concerned. It is ludicrous, is it not, that protection is given to children under the age of 18 on these most serious crimes and yet it is removed from them on anti-social behaviour orders?



10 Mar 2008 : Column 1337

Noble Lords will remember that 57 per cent of such orders are breached. The effect of naming and shaming—as my noble kinswoman said, the placing of their photographs on a notice board and giving them publicity—is to make them the leader of the gang. I know of instances where that has happened. It puts them out of the ordinary and makes them the role model for the people in their area. If they happen to be among the 57 per cent of youngsters under the age of 18 who breach their orders they are there, ready to lead their contemporaries in the sort of behaviour that the Government seek to stop. It is short-sighted, unfair, stigmatises or gives a badge of honour to the person who is subject to that order, and does no real positive good for society as a whole. I am grateful to the Minister for his consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment, but I will consider what he has said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 176 and 177 agreed to.

Schedule 32 [Police misconduct and performance procedures]:

Lord West of Spithead moved Amendment No. 166C:

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 166Charlie to 166Mike all relate to the provisions in the Bill dealing with police misconduct procedures and complaints.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord West of Spithead: It is the phonetic alphabet; Sorry, I forget where I am. They are largely technical in nature.

Amendments Nos. 166Charlie to 166Foxtrot give effect to a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They provide that the secondary legislation that will set out a police officer’s right to legal representation and appeals under the disciplinary arrangements will be subject to the affirmative procedure on the first exercise of these powers.

Amendments Nos.166Golf to 166Juliet allow the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the persons who can make representations to the Independent Police Complaints Commission on behalf of those who are the subject of an investigation into their conduct.

Amendment No. 166Kilo provides that the new requirements to be placed on a person investigating a complaint, under new paragraphs 19Alpha to 19Delta to be inserted into Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, will apply only where the complaint is in respect of a police officer or special constable and not in respect of police staff whose terms and

10 Mar 2008 : Column 1338

conditions are covered by their contract of employment rather than uniform regulations.

Amendments Nos. 166Lima and 166Mike provide for the definitions of “gross misconduct” and “misconduct” in the police officer disciplinary arrangements to appear in the Police Reform Act 2002 as amended by the Bill and for the “Standards of Professional Behaviour” for police officers and special constables to be set out in regulations. Again these two amendments respond to a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Henley: I think that this is the first time we have heard the phonetic alphabet used in this House. It ought to be noted and we should congratulate the noble Lord on such use. We have no objection to these amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord West of Spithead moved Amendments Nos. 166D to 166F:

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 178 [Investigation of complaints of police misconduct etc.]:

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 166G:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 178, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 33 [Investigation of complaints of police misconduct etc.]:

Lord West of Spithead moved Amendments Nos. 166H to 166M:



10 Mar 2008 : Column 1339

“(r) for enabling representations on behalf of a person to whose conduct an investigation relates to be made to the Commission by a person who is not that person’s legal representative but is of a description specified in the regulations.””““Special procedure where investigation relates to police officer or special constable

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 179 agreed to.

Clause 180 [Inspection of police authorities]:

Baroness Henig moved Amendment No. 166N:

(a) in subsection (1), for “subsection (8)” substitute “subsections (7A) and (8)”;(b) in subsection (6)(c) for “subsection (8)” substitute “subsections (7A) or (8)”;(c) after subsection (7) insert—(a) section 10 (inspections);(b) section 24 (Police Act 1996).”

The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who unfortunately cannot be present, is to make clear in the Bill the intention that police authorities should be inspected jointly by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission. I declare an interest at the outset as a former police authority chairman and a former chair and current president of the Association of Police Authorities.

I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment because it seeks to achieve much the same outcome as is intended in the Bill; that is, joint inspection of police authorities by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission, but in a way which I believe is much clearer. I will speak about other important elements in a moment.

First, I emphasise that I am a strong supporter of the open and transparent inspection of police authorities. Inspection helps to drive improvements in performance and to reassure the public that authorities are doing their job of effectively holding the local police to account. Without an independent check on effectiveness it is all too easy to cast doubt on the value of police authorities. So I completely support the intentions of this clause but I have difficulty with the wording of the Bill. An inexperienced eye might think that it deals only with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s inspection of police authorities but I am sure my noble friend will confirm that this is not the intention.

Historically, police authority inspection has been conducted under the Local Government Act 1999, but this Act has been so much amended, and counter-amended, with some elements repealed and others added, that it hardly provides clarity. Indeed, I had great trouble following the various changes made to it in putting forward this amendment, and apologise to the Committee if there are technical errors in the drafting as a result.

On top of this, it is possible to argue that the 1999 Act does not allow for joint inspection at all but delegates all police authority inspection to HMIC. I know my noble friend will say that there is another argument that says it does allow joint inspection. But my point is that this is not clear or completely beyond doubt, and this is before we begin to consider other legislation that affects police authority inspection. This makes for a muddled and confusing landscape. Police authority inspection is important and I argue that we should have wording that puts it on a proper and considered footing, which is what my amendment seeks to do.



10 Mar 2008 : Column 1341

The additional elements I have included in this amendment are: a “gatekeeper” role for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in ensuring that inspections do not place an unreasonable burden on authorities; a peer review element in police authority inspections; and a provision that the Association of Police Authorities should be consulted about inspection programmes. HMIC has already been given a “gatekeeper” role in relation to police authorities, but this is only through secondary legislation passed as a result of the Police and Justice Act 2006. That Act did not in itself deal with police authority inspection and as a result joint inspection of police authorities was not specifically anticipated by it. This amendment ties the “gatekeeper” role directly to police authority inspections conducted jointly with the Audit Commission.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page