Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Elton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

It is a marginally lower hurdle, but as I understand it—and the Minister will confirm—the choice of words was not an arbitrary matter but the result of a very wide consultation among the professionals concerned in order to reach a test that was sufficient to establish gravity but not so high that the scourge of anti-social behaviour could not be prevented.

In its briefing on this part of the Bill, the Law Society made the point that if injunctions are used in the case of noise nuisance, as an alternative to possession proceedings, they can result in the person or family staying in their home but with restrictions on their conduct, rather than the much more drastic step of eviction. Although an IPNA can be obtained on the balance of probabilities, with or without the amendment, the criminal standard must be satisfied before any breach can be established: that is, beyond reasonable doubt. I respectfully suggest that this provides an extra safeguard, so that this will not result in people being deprived of their liberty inappropriately.

I am also concerned about how coherent Amendment 1 is. It requires “harassment, alarm or distress”—a quasi-criminal test—with the exception, which was not in the original amendment in Committee, of a housing provider or local authority in a similar housing management position. In the case of social housing, the hurdle to be surmounted appears to be lower, so there is a two-tier test for anti-social behaviour, depending on whether you are a private tenant or are in social housing, where an injunction is much more easily obtained. That is hardly a satisfactory distinction, and I wonder how enthusiastic the party is about such a classification.

I do not know, of course, how the party opposite—or at least its Front Bench—regards this amendment. It will be borne in mind that MPs on all sides in the House of Commons were at pains to stress what a scourge anti-social behaviour is to their constituents, and that there ought to be substantial and sensible powers to prevent it. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary said generally of the powers in the Bill that she thought they were too weak.

We are all passionately in favour of freedom of speech, freedom of association—

[Lord Elton (Con)]

Will my noble friend forgive me? He has just said that he cannot understand why there should be a lower test in social housing. Surely the answer is that if you are in social housing you cannot move out of the way, people are free to do what they like to you and you are trapped. Therefore, a lower standard of unsociability has a much greater effect on the person affected. It is exactly the right proportion.

[Lord Faulks]

Of course I entirely accept the noble Lord’s point that those in social housing may not have options and therefore certainly need the protection at a lower level. My point was that it is rather inelegant to have a different test where there might theoretically be greater room for manoeuvre if there is a private tenant. The test ought to be the same.

I was repeating the fact that I sympathise with all those who have spoken in favour of the various freedoms that we value so much in this country. If we vote in favour of the amendment—if it is put to a vote—we will of course be able to congratulate ourselves and say that we have acted in the finest traditions of freedom. I will have the good fortune of going back to my house where, at least at the moment, there is no great history of anti-social behaviour in the area. Other noble Lords will perhaps be in a similar position. But let us not forget those who are in less fortunate circumstances, who do not have room for manoeuvre and whose lives are made totally miserable by this anti-social behaviour. I fear that if we accede to this argument, we will fail to take them sufficiently into consideration and will make bad law.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that noble Lords will accept that that is clearly not the Government’s purpose. It is my belief that those concerns are misplaced. I want to make it clear that the purpose of our reforms is not to prevent people from exercising their rights to protest and free speech. We all suffer from annoyance in our daily lives, and there is, rightly, no place for the criminal or civil law to regulate behaviour just because it is annoying.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

Will the Minister take on board the fact that our concern is not with the Government’s purpose but with the effects of the legislation?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I shall be coming on to that, but I felt I had to place what I was going to say in some context—and I am grateful for the discipline of the House in allowing me to do just that. Our aim is to allow decent law-abiding people to go about their daily lives, engage in normal behaviour and enjoy public and private spaces without having their own freedoms constrained by anti-social individuals.

The test for an injunction, when taken as a whole, coupled with the wider legal duty on public authorities, including the courts, to act compatibly with convention rights, would ensure that the injunction cannot be used inappropriately or disproportionately. As I have explained, government Amendment 2 is designed to strengthen the first limb of the test so that the conduct must be such that it could reasonably be expected to cause nuisance or annoyance. This limb on its own is likely to preclude an injunction being sought or granted under this Bill to deal with bell ringers, carol singers or children playing in the street. However, there is a second part to the test.