Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Greaves Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

19A: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “10” and insert “12”

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 19A stands on its own. I should first apologise to the House for not being present for Second Reading. As this is the first time that I have taken part in this Bill I should, in line with the Code of Conduct, declare various interests that I know are going to come up. I am a member of Pendle Borough Council and its executive and vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am also a member and vice-president of the Open Spaces Society and a member and patron of the British Mountaineering Council. I will declare any other interests as they crop up.

The amendment is unusual for a first amendment on a Bill because it deals with a specific point rather than a general one that might lead to some general discussions, but there are amendments that are coming up fairly quickly where those general discussions can take place on the principles behind this part of the Bill. We are talking about the proposal to abolish ASBOs and introduce injunctions for the prevention of nuisance and annoyance. The proposal is that injunctions of this nature can be taken out against people from the age of 10 upwards. There was some discussion at Second Reading, which I read with great interest, about whether the age of 10 was appropriate or whether it was too low. The amendment provides an opportunity for some probing and consideration of that at this stage of the Bill.

It occurred to me that it might be useful to look at my party's policy on this matter. That could be a fairly original thing for someone in your Lordships’ House to do, but in any case I thought that it might be helpful. I discovered that we had agreed a policy paper within the past two years, Taking Responsibility: Policies on Youth Justice. Under the heading “More appropriate treatment of Young People in the Justice System”, it talked about the age of criminal responsibility. These are civil injunctions so, unlike ASBOs, they are not part of the criminal system—although as noble Lords pointed out at Second Reading, any young people involved in the system might not recognise a great deal of difference between the two.

The policy states:

“Liberal Democrats recognise that children aged under 14 often know the difference between right and wrong and have personal responsibility for their actions but that courts are not the appropriate way to deal with them”.

We are not talking about the wider youth justice system: we are dealing with what is in front of us. The paper went on to suggest that it would be better if there were specially trained panels to deal with young people of this age, similar to those in Scotland,

“with the emphasis on measures including restorative justice”,

and community sentencing. It continues:

“Panels would be expected to provide consequences which were proportionate, sought to reduce reoffending and provide amends to the victim as well as addressing any welfare needs the child had”.

They would also mean that,

“immature acts of youth do not result in a lifelong criminal record”.

Some of the principles behind this are embodied in the idea that the injunctions for the prevention of nuisance and annoyance—IPNAs, as I suppose we will have to call them—will bring in. The document went on to talk about the age of criminal responsibility across Europe, which varies, although the UK currently has the lowest ages in western Europe—10 in England and Wales and, at that time, eight in Scotland, although there is now new legislation in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

To respond to the noble Earl, 38 of the 41 police and crime commissioners listed anti-social behaviour as one of their major priorities in their crime plans, so the subject is at the top of the list. Certainly one would hope that as well as dealing with the consequences of anti-social behaviour, that could be converted into preventive action. I beg to ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for trying to withdraw my amendment before I do, but he is a bit too enthusiastic. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, which has been useful. It has shown that there is not quite as much clarity about how the youngest children in particular—10, 11 and 12 year-olds—will be dealt with in the new system. I hope that perhaps the Government might find ways to be clearer about that as the Bill proceeds. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, had to dash back from Argentina. Since she took up her responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench I have admired her contributions to this House. I never quite thought of her as Eva Perón, but perhaps she can sing to us as well—that may be a thrill in store.

The Minister said that the Government are replacing ASBOs, which are a “heavy hammer”, with a more nuanced approach. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, pointed out that they are doing this by sweeping away a whole range of means that perhaps on the face of it ought to provide a more nuanced approach and a greater choice of measures in each case, and replacing it with one. The crux of the matter—whether this injunction will work for young people and for people generally—depends on whether it is sufficiently flexible. The Minister referred to the draft guidance that has been published. For much of the anti-social behaviour parts of the Bill this draft guidance is still very skeletal. The part of this draft guidance that deals with the new injunctions and the way in which they might be the end of a series of actions is one of the better parts, although it can no doubt be further improved.

In particular, as far as these very young people—10 and 11 year-olds—are concerned, it is crucial that the measures and the intervention are there to prevent them ever getting to the juvenile court for an injunction. In my experience of kids in my area who have had ASBOs, once they are given one, for most of them the system has failed. There will be the same sort of thing with the IPNAs. Once kids are hauled up before a system of justice and have these things imposed on them, perhaps without sufficient support to make sure that they adhere to them and do not breach them, for most of them the system has failed at that stage. They are far from being rescued from a life of difficulties and crime—they are rather being set on the road towards it. That is my experience of people in our area. We all hope that this new system will be better for them.

Having said that, I am very grateful for the Minister’s careful comments, which set the Committee off to a good start as far as the anti-social behaviour parts of the Bill are concerned. I ask the Government to think again whether 10 is the right age for this. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19A withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

19B: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “two” and insert “three”

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 19B, I shall speak also to Amendments 20E and 22Q in the same group. The relationship between the new systems and statutory nuisances might appear a slightly obscure subject but I do not think it is obscure. It is fundamental to how it will work on the ground and to the workability of the measures in the Bill. Amendment 20E introduces a third condition for using IPNAs—injunctions for the prevention of nuisance and annoyance—which is that they do not cover the same ground as existing statutory nuisance powers.

Amendment 22Q leaps forward a little in the Bill to community protection notices, which are a parallel measure that the Bill introduces, again sweeping away quite a number of former powers into one power to prevent local nuisance such as litter, dog nuisances or whatever it may be. This states:

“A community protection notice may not be issued if the conduct constitutes a statutory nuisance under any other enactment”.

With these amendments I am trying to probe the relationship between the new measures and statutory nuisances, but also perhaps to probe the relationship between IPNAs and community protection notices. It is not entirely clear to me in what circumstances one might be appropriate and in what circumstances the other might be appropriate. It would help if the Minister could clarify that.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill, I should say in passing, are of a considerably higher quality than some of the Explanatory Notes we get to Bills, which simply churn out the wording of the Bill in a slightly different way. The Explanatory Notes to this Bill make a real effort to explain what is behind the Bill, previous legislation, what it is replacing and the logic behind the proposals. Therefore, I should like to congratulate whoever in the Home Office wrote these. I do not usually congratulate the Home Office on anything, but on this occasion I do, very much.

It sets out some of the most common statutory nuisances:

“Noise … Artificial light … Odour … Insects … Smoke … Dust … Premises”.

We can all think of occasions when the troughings, or whatever they call them in the rest of the world, are leaking with water down the downspouts and covering everyone who goes past. The list goes on:

“Fumes or gases … Accumulation or deposit”—

which gives rise to all sorts of images—

“Animals kept in such a manner or place as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance”,

and, indeed, any other matters in enactment.

These are clearly problems, or nuisances, which it is also intended that the new community protection notices should cover at least to a degree. The Explanatory Notes say that the community protection notice is intended to,

“deal with unreasonable, ongoing problems or nuisances which negatively affect the community’s quality of life by targeting the person responsible”.

Specifically they will replace litter notices, some dog legislation and so on.

Part 3 of the Environmental Act 1990 places a duty on a local authority to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance from people living within its area. There is clearly an overlap here. The question I ask is: will the use of an IPNA or a community protection notice preclude later prosecution for a statutory nuisance if the investigations reveal, or the officers concerned come to the view, that there is indeed a statutory nuisance involved? Will the community protection notice be overridden or withdrawn if it is found that there is a statutory nuisance, or is there a choice? Will it be a pragmatic decision on the ground at any given time, or can the two go hand in hand? Can a CPN or an injunction be proposed and be going through at the same time as a prosecution for statutory nuisance is taking place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for his amendments and my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her comments. It is interesting that she talks about noise. In one’s own personal experience, what is music to some is noise to others. I think we shall be returning to this.

With regard to the amendments to the new injunction, it is our view that they could make the actual process much slower and more bureaucratic—akin to the orders that we seek to replace. It would not help professionals deal with anti-social people and, more importantly, would not help victims who have to endure the perpetrator’s behaviour.

The new injunction is designed to be used quickly and, in many cases, preventively, to stop problem behaviours before they escalate. These problem behaviours will not always relate to a statutory nuisance. Therefore, to include an additional condition which suggests that statutory nuisance should be considered every time would, in all likelihood, result in some social landlords or police forces being unable to act quickly to protect the victim. We expect social landlords and police forces to work in partnership with local councils to deal with shared problems, such as anti-social noise nuisance. If social landlords and police forces felt obliged to seek advice from the local council’s statutory nuisance team before every injunction, this could delay the process of the application unnecessarily, and lead to victims suffering even more. Moreover, this new third limb of the test could open up the process to prolonged and costly legal challenges, as respondents sought to argue that their conduct amounted to a statutory nuisance.

The same is true of my noble friend’s amendment to Clause 40. As he will be aware, we had originally excluded statutory nuisance from situations in which a community protection order could be issued. However, after discussing the matter at length with environmental health officers and other professionals, we discovered that this exemption could result in an undesirable scenario. Some perpetrators might use the appeal mechanism to go unpunished via either the statutory nuisance or the breach of the community protection notice.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee is correct that the Opposition Front Bench raised such concerns in Committee in the Commons. Having considered the matter further, the Commons was content to make this change on Report. So I ask my noble friend to accept my assurances that we continue to work closely with statutory nuisance experts, to ensure that the guidelines reflect the important rule that the regime plays in protecting communities from behaviour that is a nuisance or prejudicial to health. In addition, I assure my noble friend Lord Greaves that the issue of a community protection notice, or the granting of an injunction by the court—which was a specific question he asked—in no way discharges the local authority from its statutory duty to serve an abatement notice where behaviour meets the required threshold.

I say to my noble friend Lady Hamwee that our draft guidelines already deal with the interface between statutory nuisances and the new powers in the Bill. I can reassure her that we continue to engage with environmental health practitioners on how this guidance can be further developed in advance of the commencements.

My noble friend Lord Greaves also asked about the choices available. There is no choice as to whether a local authority serves an abatement notice for statutory nuisance. It must serve one if it is satisfied that a matter is a statutory nuisance. He referred to the Explanatory Notes. There is a good example in there that is illustrative of what may be a nuisance, but not a statutory nuisance. A dog bounding over a fence, or through a hole in a fence, can be a nuisance. Recently, I experienced that with my young son, aged 20 months. Suddenly, a dog scurried under a fence, and appeared next to him. It was certainly more than a nuisance to his father, who was far more startled, whereas the dog was just being playful. In those cases, the first and most sensible thing for anyone who is trying to be a good neighbour to do is to talk their neighbour and see if the matter can be resolved locally. Where such behaviour persists, a non-statutory injunction is not appropriate, and a sensible solution is required before putting it on to a more serious basis.

Let me reassure my noble friend Lady Hamwee once again that the Government continue to talk to experts in the field. Based on my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have found the Government’s answer to these amendments a bit less satisfactory than their answer to the previous group. We will get on to community protection notices later but I think that the last example that the Minister put forward was a good one. It provided a good reason why CPNs may be a very important and useful new power compared with what currently exists: they will not relate specifically to one thing, such as litter, dogs or whatever, but will be a general power based on whether an anti-social nuisance is taking place.

If I may say so, the other examples that the Minister gave show that the people here who are preparing these things and explaining to us how they will work do not fully understand how things work on the ground, if they work well. Noble Lords seem to think that the police and social landlords operate in one little area and that the local authority is something quite different. Where these things work well, those different groups work together on these issues all the time. The first people to go and investigate the noise may or may not be the police and it may or may not be the social landlord. However, most people who experience anti-social behaviour do not live in social housing. In my experience and, I think, that of many people, most people who experience anti-social behaviour live in private tenanted accommodation, and therefore social landlords are not relevant. The people who turn up to deal with the noise nuisance may be local authority officers. In my part of the world, there is a scheme in which the local authorities work together. They have an out-of-hours service whereby, even at three o’clock on a Sunday morning, somebody will answer the telephone and try to do something about it.

Therefore, if things work well, they work well because people on the ground from those three agencies, as well as from other agencies that may exist locally—some of them voluntary—work together in that way. That is why I think that saying that, on the one hand, there will be the council and the environmental health officers with their statutory nuisance abatement powers and, on the other hand, there will be everybody else with these powers is not quite how it is going to work. I hope that it will work but locally everything has to be much more flexible than the Minister seemed to suggest.

The guidance is going to be crucial but, as it stands, I do not think that it is adequate in this area. I am aware that work is taking place to improve it but, when it comes down to it, the idea that local authorities will stop the police or a social landlord going ahead and taking action because they may be investigating and they have other powers is just not how it works. In any case, even a local authority may have a statutory duty to serve an abatement notice if it is satisfied that a statutory nuisance is taking place, but in practice that is not how it works. In practice, a local authority will always go down the route of contacting the people involved, as well as the landlord, and attempting to resolve the matter without serving a notice. If it does serve a notice and the matter gets to court because people appeal against the notice, then, if the local authority has not gone out of its way to resolve the matter, the court will send it back and say, “You’re not having this. Go and do it properly”.

Having said all that, if they are willing, some further discussions on this matter with the Government in the mean time would be very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for raising these matters. She has spelled out her concerns and anxieties about what might be unintended consequences. We should always pause and think, particularly with regard to Amendment 19C, when a standard lower than the usual criminal standard is sought to be imported. I am always nervous of including any test other than the usual one in a criminal court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has done a good service to us here in spelling out—and I am sure that he is right—the two parts of the procedures: civil, in order to obtain the injunction, then the usual criminal one, where there has been a breach or an allegation of a breach. This should reassure those of us who are anxious—and I was anxious when I first read it—of importing any lower standard.

I appreciate the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harris, who has dealt with this in part. I invite the House to stand back and try to deal with the mischief that we are concerned with of unacceptable behaviour in closely-knit communities. For more than 40 years, I represented an industrial constituency with large housing estates. People would come to my surgeries—as they did with my noble friend Lord Harris, who was in a slightly different capacity but with the same problem—and ask: “What can we do? We have been to see the housing manager, the police and everyone we can think of and nothing happens”. Time after time, we were impotent.

Far more frequently than would be admitted, the problem was that people were not prepared to come forward and give evidence, because they had to live in that community after the event. That is the crux of it. We are dealing with a real mischief. This is a small change to what we might expect of a standard of proof before any sanctions are imposed, but there are well-hallowed precedents for doing it in this way. Provided one maintains the usual criminal standard for a breach of it, then I for one am satisfied with Amendment 19C.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, do the Government expect more or fewer people to be arraigned before the courts for injunctions under this new system, compared with people given ASBOs? Have they made an assessment of that? This is important because, we hope, the number of people who are given the new injunctions or who at the moment are given ASBOs, are a minority—quite a small one—of people who cause some kind of low-level anti-social behaviour in the sort of communities that the noble and learned Lord has been talking about.

Do the Government have an assessment of how the new system will affect the numbers who get to the end of the road and have one of these badges—if that is what they are—put upon them? Secondly—I thought about this while listening to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—the fundamental thing is: what level of resources are on the ground to deal with these problems and to prevent people getting either the new injunctions or ASBOs? The harsh reality is that in many parts of the country at the moment, that resource is going down.

In my area, what people might think of as a crime and disorder partnership—we call it a community safety partnership—has been extremely successful in the towns and wards of the borough. One meeting that I try to go to each month as a ward councillor is called a PACT meeting—police and communities together. It is a group of residents who meet police and councillors in the ward each month to talk about these problems: local crime and particularly disorder and anti-social behaviour. It works. Sometimes, a handful of people turn up. Then, when something erupts in some of the streets, a lot of people turn up and it provides a focus for dealing with these problems. However, it requires the local police to have the time and resources to take part in such activity. It also requires the local authority’s anti-social behaviour staff to be there and to be prepared to get involved at the case, area and street levels. If it is in an area of social housing, it involves the social housing providers as well. Other people get involved as well.

In our part of the world, that system is being slowly withdrawn for purely financial reasons, as the police cannot afford to devote the resources to it that they have done. If the police are given a choice between relatively high-level and low-level crime, they will put more resources into high-level crime. They might also be given a choice between low-level crime and local disorder or the preventative work where the local neighbourhood teams go round to talk to people, getting to know the patch and its lads and lasses who are hanging around on the streets and might get into bother. The police might find diversionary activities for them, if they have the resources. If that is going on, the system will work, but once that is withdrawn, then all the IPNAs, ASBOs and anything else in the world will not solve the problem. The numbers will increase, because the numbers who get to that level will increase, but the problems on the ground will get worse.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make one brief point which follows on from that made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. At Second Reading, the Minister made a lot of the breach rates for ASBOs; he said that they were about 60%. The point that I made in my Second Reading speech was that, in my experience as a sitting magistrate, breach rates have declined over the past few years as ASBOs have been more appropriately introduced. I have checked my recollection with my colleagues and I think that they would agree with my comments. Why does the Minister think that breach rates will decline when he is proposing through IPNAs to reduce the burden of proof to a balance of probabilities, and to address nuisance and annoyance rather than “harassment, alarm and distress”? Those two changes are very likely to lead to an increase in the number of breaches, which seemed to be a fundamental point in his seeking to replace ASBOs. I know that later in this Committee there will be a proposal to run the two systems in parallel, which seems a sensible way forward while the IPNA is bedded in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I hope that I am never anything but positive. As I made clear at Second Reading, the provisions of the first six parts of the Bill, which deal with anti-social behaviour, are about protecting victims of anti-social behaviour. It was good to hear noble Lords across the House recognising that that is what lies at the heart of what we are trying to achieve here. It ensures that police, local authorities and all those other agencies that are listed in the Bill can, where necessary, take swift action to bring respite to both individual victims and communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is right: the central purpose of the new injunction is to nip problems in the bud and intervene before anti-social behaviour escalates. It is essential for the threshold to be set at the right level for that to happen.

The amendments seek to retain the key features of the anti-social behaviour order that the Government are seeking to replace. I understand the arguments and the concerns that a number of noble Lords have expressed about the test of the new injunction and I have seen the legal opinion given by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, but I am sure it will not be a surprise that I am going to explain why we do not agree with these amendments and why I do not agree with my noble friend.

I fear that the effect of these amendments would be to weaken the effectiveness of the new injunction in providing relief to victims and communities. Amendment 19C seeks to replace the lower, civil standard of proof—on the balance of probabilities—with the higher, criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Amendment 20A seeks to replace the “nuisance or annoyance” test for the IPNA with the anti-social behaviour test of “harassment, alarm or distress”. Finally, Amendment 20D seeks to revert from the requirement that it must be “just and convenient” to grant an IPNA to the test of “necessary and proportionate”.

As I have said, our reforms are about putting victims first. This means giving front-line professionals the right powers to protect victims and communities effectively from anti-social behaviour. The IPNA has been designed as a purely civil power which can be obtained quickly through the courts, to protect the public and stop an individual’s behaviour escalating.

It may interest noble Lords that the test of nuisance or annoyance was introduced in the Housing Act 1996 and subsequently amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to extend to conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. This test is used for the anti-social behaviour injunction. It is well recognised by the courts; they know it and are familiar with it. They apply it on a daily basis when deciding whether to grant injunctions to stop or prevent anti-social behaviour.

The term is also used in a number of other statutory contexts. For example, in Section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which relates to alcohol consumption in designated public places; in Section 9A of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of proceedings for possession; in Schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 in respect of street trading consents; and in Section 142 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of obstruction of highways. I could go on, but I have already demonstrated, with this list, that “nuisance or annoyance” is a widely used, statutory term that is understood by both front-line professionals and the courts.

It is therefore not surprising that the Law Society fully supports the use of the test in Part 1. Its recent briefing says:

“The Society strongly suggests that the test is retained and that judges are allowed to exercise their discretion and considerable experience in dealing with these matters. The test is already familiar to the courts and other partners working with families and offenders”.

That this is a well established test has been true for some time. When it was being considered in your Lordships’ House in 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—who was then Home Office Minister and is now Opposition Chief Whip, but who is unfortunately not in his place at the moment—made a similar point. He said:

“‘Nuisance or annoyance’ is a well-established legal test which the courts are perfectly comfortable to use”. [Official Report, 23/10/03; col. 1791]

That was true then and it is true now, which is why the Government believe—as the previous Government did—that this is the right test to use. To retain the test that applies for the ASBO, as these amendments seek to do, would increase the evidential burden on front-line professionals who are working hard to protect victims and deter perpetrators. It would hinder them in providing respite to victims and communities more quickly. That this will be the consequence of these amendments has been put clearly in the briefing submitted to your Lordships by the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, which says,

“we consider that these amendments are unnecessary and would, if carried, lead to unintended consequences and seriously disadvantage victims. They would also have significant adverse financial and other resource implications for agencies”.

In relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, to apply the criminal standard of proof, their briefing note goes on to say:

“Raising the burden of proof to beyond reasonable doubt will effectively remove the ability to use professional evidence or hearsay, something which conflicts directly with the core purpose of the Bill, to deliver better outcomes for victims. To do so will make it extremely difficult to prove matters to the criminal standard without the victim giving evidence first-hand”.

These are telling points, which were reinforced by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Lord Morris of Aberavon. They were also shared by the Chartered Institute of Housing, which also published a briefing note for your Lordships.

The central purpose of this new injunction is to nip problems in the bud and intervene before anti-social behaviour escalates to more serious levels or to criminality. That is in the interests of victims and perpetrators. To wait until these higher tests can be met would stop professionals from taking formal court action where it is necessary and from acting when there is more chance of the perpetrator addressing the underlying causes of their behaviour.

As to fears that injunctions will be handed out like confetti to stop children skateboarding or playing football in the street, or to silence street preachers giving public sermons, I can only quote again from the Law Society, which said:

“The Law Society supports retaining the legal test for the Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance … as currently drafted in the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill. We do not agree with those who claim the test is too weak and should be strengthened by imposing conditions such as ‘seriousness’ or ‘malice’. Some are worried that the test is too weak and could result in preachers, buskers and even carol singers finding themselves subject to an injunction but the Law Society do not agree with this interpretation”.

Neither do I. The Law Society would not support these provisions if it had concerns that they would or could be used to stop children playing or people exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of assembly or freedom of expression.

I fully share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that these powers are used reasonably and proportionately. Significant safeguards are already provided for in the Bill, not least that an injunction must be authorised by a court. I am ready to consider further whether it would be appropriate to provide in the Bill that the court must consider, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that it is reasonable to grant an injunction. I therefore urge noble Lords to listen to the Law Society and to the front-line professionals who are telling us, loud and clear, that these amendments are not necessary and would significantly weaken the provisions in the Bill.

If this amendment was made, it would make no difference at all to children doing the normal playful things that children do or to street preachers sermonising on the high street. However, it would make a real and detrimental difference to the victims of anti-social behaviour, who would not get the quick respite they need from those who make their lives a misery. The amendment loses sight of the victims of anti-social behaviour, who should be our first consideration. For that reason I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness does that, will the Minister answer the question that I asked? Do the Government believe that by significantly reducing both the level of the test and the level of proof required, there will be more IPNAs than there are ASBOs at the moment, and if not, why not?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I apologise to my noble friend for not answering his question. I was asked two questions—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also asked one. I was in a hurry because I am aware that we have a busy day. However, I can quote from the published impact assessment:

“The estimated volume of Crime Prevention Injunctions issued is assumed to follow the orders they replace with increase of 5 per cent in comparison with the baseline. It is not thought that there will be a large widening of availability due to the lowering of the threshold of proof, as this is only lower than the ASBO and not the ASBI which forms the majority of estimated applications for the Crime Prevention Injunction”.

I turn to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Positive requirements in the IPNA will help people to address the underlying causes of their anti-social behaviour. We believe that this will reduce breach rates in future.