Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was right in this, at least in drawing attention to the scourge of anti-social behaviour. When I represented the constituency of Newport East I was all the time aware that there were households and, indeed, communities whose lives were very seriously blighted by anti-social behaviour. There is enormous political pressure on MPs representing constituents to find ways to crack down more aggressively and more effectively on such behaviour patterns. That pressure is, of course, amplified by the tabloids.

That is precisely why we should be moderate in this matter, why we need to be restrained and why we must try to get the right balance. Therefore, the provision in law that a threshold of “harassment, alarm or distress” must be exceeded seems to me to strike the right balance. I think that it is dangerous and improper to lower the threshold to “nuisance or annoyance”. It is surely unthinkable that we should risk introducing legislation that could impair the rights of people to go on demonstrations, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu offered as an instance, or of kids playing football in the street, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, worried about. There are all manner of other innocent behaviours that are, indeed, annoying, but that in a free society we should not dream of legislating to prevent.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, did not annoy me—he never could annoy me—but he startled me with the arguments he scraped together in his gallant speech in support of the Government’s position. He asked: is it a realistic fear that people would be subject to IPNAs for trivial and inadequate reasons? He offered the thought that the requirement that applications would have to be made through an official public agency should be seen as a filter and a safeguard. The vast majority of public officials handle their responsibilities fairly, properly, scrupulously and reasonably. I hate to say this, but it is also, surely, an observation that all of us have made that if you put a man in uniform, or if you vest official authority in a person, some will find themselves tempted, and succumb to the temptation, to use power overweeningly. We have to be very careful indeed.

The noble Lord says, further, that guidance will be offered to these agencies so, again, we do not really have cause to worry. I am sure that the guidance will be a force in the right direction, but guidance is only guidance; it is flimsy and an insufficient protection. The much better protection would be not to write this risk into law. He offers a much more reassuring protection—that such injunctions could be made only at the discretion of a judge and that we can rely upon the judges to exercise common sense, decency and appropriate restraint and to be animated by a mature and wise sense of justice. In that case, why legislate? We do not need to do this. We can rely on the judges not to order injunctions against people who are merely guilty of causing trivial annoyance. It does not seem sensible, in the present circumstances in which the resources of the courts have been very attenuated, to add this burden to them.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. What are we here for if not to protect civil liberties? Justice and convenience are very often in tension. I suggest that what may be for the convenience of the Government politically, for the convenience of local citizens, whose annoyance threshold is perhaps rather low, or for the convenience of agencies may be very ill assorted with justice. I think that the Government’s position is unwise and I very much hope that the House will support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and his colleagues.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. The arguments for it have been set out so clearly and persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, that I will not repeat them, particularly at this late stage of our consideration. I will make three quick points as my contribution.

First, I listened in particular to the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulks about MPs on all sides of the House complaining about and explaining the anti-social behaviour that some of their constituents face. As an MP of some 26 years’ standing, I can tell him that that is absolutely right: any MP worth his or her salt could give him numerous examples of anti-social behaviour and of the sense of inadequacy and frustration over the law seeming not to apply in those circumstances. However, one of the strengths of our bicameral arrangement is that this, your Lordships’ House, can consider such matters in a slightly different frame from the pressured one of representing constituents, some of whom are hard done by because of the law of the land. This House has the opportunity to reflect on the broader principles and bigger issues. This House sets the framework that, just occasionally, the House of Commons has not managed to get around to addressing because of the other pressures that Members of Parliament legitimately face. This is an opportunity for us to behave in a way that is in the national good and not just one that may be pleasing to some, or to some vested interest groups.

Secondly, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay illustrated the ability to cause annoyance, and of Ministers causing annoyance to the other side of the Chamber when they blame the previous Government for problems they face today. Incidentally, I know my noble and learned friend would accept that this is a two-way street: it is not just Ministers in this Government who have blamed the previous one; Ministers in the previous Government blamed us as well. The distinction I want to leave in the minds of noble Lords is that we are a sophisticated body. I was interested in the reaction to my noble and learned friend’s point. We all smiled, nodded and were very civilised about it. Out there are people who are not as civilised, tolerant, understanding or forgiving. This legislation may be of interest to them in a way that it would not be to us. We have to bear that in mind when we cast our vote.

Thirdly, as a former chairman of the Conservative Party, I am saddened that the Government have brought forward this particular piece of legislation. It is a matter of record that I—along with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and others—was a signatory to the legislation in December 2012 that amended by an overwhelming majority of your Lordships’ House the Public Order Act and took out the word “insulting”. Now we are offered in its place “annoyance”.

The sad fact is that it is not that surprising. I speak with some knowledge when I say that, internally, Governments occasionally believe that the combined wisdom of both Houses is not really up to scratch when compared to the wisdom of a department of state on a particular issue. I see nods on the other side of the Chamber that encourage me to understand that I am not making a party-political point at my party’s expense. It is one of the realities, and I will say something about departments of state: they have long memories. I have to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench—who is my friend in the personal sense, as we have known each other for many years—that I am saddened that I judge this to be an example of long memory.

Your Lordships threw out “insulting”—rightly so —and annoyed a lot of people in the process. They pleased a lot of people as well. Today I hope, not out of any sense of vindictiveness, as I have been a fully paid-up member of this party for a long time, that at the end of this vote the only people who will be annoyed are those who thought to bring forward this particular piece of legislation. I hope that, under the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, we will now amend it.