Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Diana Johnson

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we want to address issues such as street drinking and taking drugs. The whole idea of a respect order will be restrictive in the sense that an individual may be told that they can no longer be in a certain area, such as on the high street, in a town centre or in a park. However, positive conditions will also be attached: if there were issues around someone street drinking, they could attend courses for alcohol addiction; they could attend courses or treatment for drug addiction; if it was appropriate, they could attend courses on anger. In that way, we will be dealing with the problem in the area, but also trying to treat the underlying issue with the individual who has caused the antisocial behaviour.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I certainly support the Minister’s intent in bringing this forward, but I am still struggling to understand what the material difference is between these respect orders and antisocial behaviour orders. If it is the case that they are materially different, will the Minister say in what respects they are, and will she say to what extent that will be based on perception by a complainant? We have recently had considerable controversy around perception of an allegation and its effects in non-crime hate incidents, which has caused all manner of problems and bogged the police down in a whole load of controversy. I am sure the Minister would want to avoid that with this particular measure.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I say first to the right hon. Gentleman that changes were made to the antisocial behaviour legislation in 2014; in fact, it was weakened. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in coalition decided to weaken the antisocial behaviour powers that the previous Labour Government had brought in. That is the first thing to mention.

What we have ended up with are the civil injunctions. As I tried to explain earlier on—perhaps I need to do it again, and be a little clearer—civil injunctions can be issued for antisocial behaviour, but if they are breached by someone behaving antisocially in a town centre or on a high street, the police have to go to court to prove the breach. That is the issue. They cannot be arrested, and the antisocial behaviour cannot be stopped at that point. There is a process that has to be gone through. With the respect orders, there will be an automatic arrest for breach, which means action can be taken far more quickly. That is the key point.

The criminal behaviour orders, which we discussed earlier as well, can be attached only to someone who has been convicted. Those orders are about trying to nip the antisocial behaviour that is causing “harassment, alarm or distress”—that is the definition that is used. That is the level necessary to be able to apply for a respect order.

I hope that explains to the right hon. Gentleman the difference and why we think the way to go forward is to deal with things through arrest and get people in front of a court if they breach respect orders.

Middle East Peace Plan

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Diana Johnson

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Minister has said that it is a well-thought-through plan; how, then, can he make the case for the fact that the Palestinians have not been involved in the plan at all? How can that really be well thought through? Is that really the case?

[Dr Murrison]

Well, I think it has been well thought through. It has been three years in the making and is extensive. The hon. Lady makes her own point in her own way. It is not a UK Government plan, but we do welcome its publication as the potential start for negotiation between the principal parties.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Diana Johnson

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I hope very much that the Archbishop of Canterbury is listening to the hon. Gentleman, and that perhaps he might consider whether he or other faith leaders have a role to play in this matter. I am not sure whether the established Church is the best vehicle, but it is universally recognised as being positive and capable of talking to people of all faiths and none. My view on this matter is that dialogue is necessary, notwithstanding the nature of the individuals who we know are intimately connected with this case in Tehran and who have not in the past shown themselves to be the masters of dialogue.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this urgent question and for the way she champions her constituent’s case.

My hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) both made a really important point about looking at other ways of trying to put pressure on the Iranian authorities. The Minister is a very good Minister, but what more can the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do to co-ordinate not just the diplomatic pressure that needs to be applied, but the wider pressure that can come from society, the Churches and other faiths? Why is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not doing that? From the answer that the Minister just gave, it sounded like that co-ordination was not under way.

[Dr Murrison]

I am always open to suggestion; however, having considered the matter in respect of the Church of England in the few minutes I have had to do so, I think we need to be a little bit careful, because Iran is inherently suspicious of this country. If the hon. Lady doubts that, perhaps she might like to refer to Jack Straw’s excellent book that has just been published; I commend it to all right hon. and hon. Members who take an interest in these matters. There is a long-standing suspicion of this country in Tehran, and there will be a suspicion of any initiative that is prompted or engineered by the UK Government. It would certainly be open to organisations that are held in some esteem in Tehran to speak to any interlocutors they are able to identify and have access to in Iran, in order to put pressure on where they can and to bring their good counsel to bear in respect of this case and other cases relating to dual nationals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Diana Johnson

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I am absolutely delighted that journalists, and of course their representative bodies, will be represented at this conference. I am very keen for them to suggest what part they might play in the proceedings, and I am looking forward to hearing from them. This is meant to be Britain being a window to the world on the importance that we assign to journalistic freedom and a free press. Let us see what they have to say.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

7. What recent steps he has taken to ensure that staff working in his Department are paid (a) on time and (b) at the correct rate.