Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Norman Baker Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 1 to 68, 138 and 168.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The House is agreeing with Lords amendment 1 only, with which we will consider Lords amendments 2 to 111.
Norman Baker
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am so keen to agree that I got carried away.
The amendments deal with the new antisocial behaviour powers in parts 1 to 6 of the Bill, and I will deal briefly with each one in turn. Members will, I am sure, have watched with interest the proceedings in the House of Lords on the test for issuing an injunction in part 1 of the Bill. Because of the clear vote in the Lords, where there seems to be a majority, and in the light of that debate, the Government has accepted that the test for an injunction should be amended. Lords amendments 1 and 5 will provide for a two-tier test, and the nuisance or annoyance test will continue to be used to deal with housing-related antisocial behaviour. In all other circumstances, the test of harassment, alarm or distress will apply.
The Government believes that the fears raised in the Lords and by campaign groups were unfounded, and our view is shared by the Law Society and housing providers who have been using the nuisance or annoyance test responsibly and proportionately for more than a decade. The suggestion was made that we somehow wanted to curtail the activities of carol singers. It is slightly difficult to believe that any Government would want to do that, and that we would mis-write legislation to enable that to occur. We are then expected to believe that a local council or police officer would want to use the legislation to ban carol singers. We are then expected to believe that any court in the land would deem it proportionate, just and convenient to ban carol singers. Of course, by the time a court had so decided, several weeks on, the carol singers would have left the place where they were singing and it would not be possible to capture them. I think that that example shows some of the exaggeration and scaremongering that have occurred on this proposal. The Lords have spoken, however, and we have listened carefully. It is a democratic Parliament and we have therefore accepted, largely, the substance of Lord Dear’s amendments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I do not take exception to the Minister’s comments, but those of religious persuasion who are concerned about the proposed changes support the view that the Lords have put forward. Will the Minister confirm that the position of those of religious persuasion and religious beliefs will not be in any way changed?
Norman Baker
Yes, I am happy to deal with the issue of religious beliefs. Lords amendments 2 and 19 respond to concerns by the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to the provision in clauses 1 and 21 that requires a court to avoid, so far as practicable, imposing prohibitions or requirements in an injunction or a criminal behaviour order that would conflict with a respondent’s religious beliefs. The amendments remove this wording, as the right to hold a religious belief is absolute. It was simply the manifestation of a person’s religious beliefs that we intended the provision to capture, but a court would be obliged to consider this in any case to comply with its obligations under the Human Rights Act. That being the case, the neatest solution is simply to remove the provision. That is what has happened, and I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Mark Field
While I agree with the Minister that we should agree with what the Lords have had to say on this matter, I do not necessarily think that it is the result of the workings of democracy—it is anything but. He slightly trivialised the issue of carol singers, but there is a bigger nuisance concern. For example, there might be a sense that if trick or treating was being clamped down on, it would be unfair not to clamp down on other activities, such as carol singing. I think that that is what might have been behind the Lords thoughts on this matter.
Norman Baker
I am not quite sure what was in the Lords thoughts. Other examples were given—bellringers and so on—and nobody in this country would want, in any way, to limit the activities of bellringers. I fear that the Government’s honest attempt to deal with genuine antisocial behaviour has been misconstrued, either inadvertently or otherwise, but we are where we are. We have accepted the form of words—“harassment, alarm or distress”—which was wanted by their lordships.
The next set of amendments in this group relate to under-18s. Lords amendments 3, 4 and 12 enable an applicant for an injunction to apply to the youth court for permission to have cases involving respondents, who are both over and under 18 years of age, to be heard together in the youth court if it is in the interests of justice to do so. If the youth court does not grant the application, the hearings will be separated, with the adults in the county court and the under-18s in the youth court. By linking these hearings, we will help to put victims first.
Lords amendment 10 brings us to the prohibitions that can be included in an injunction where the respondent is under 18. As originally drafted, clause 12 meant that the injunction could be used to exclude a respondent of any age from his or her home in cases of violence or risk to others. However, in the Lords, concerns were expressed, by my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Hamwee, on whether it would ever be appropriate to exclude under-18s from their own home on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. Lords amendment 10 limits the exclusion provisions to injunctions where the respondent is over 18. Where it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from the family home, there are sufficient powers in other safeguarding legislation to ensure that that is possible without the need to resort to an injunction.
Other amendments and provisions in this group relate to tenancy injunctions, the criminal behaviour order, dispersal powers, the public spaces protection order, the recovery of possession of dwelling houses and the issuing of statutory guidance. I will be very happy to pick up on any questions that Members have on any of those particular matters.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining how the Government do not intend to oppose the Lords amendments, although it is interesting that he bows to the wisdom of the Lords on this issue, but not on miscarriages of justice. The Lords amendments, particularly on the threshold for injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance, improve the Bill, taking the threshold from “nuisance and annoyance” to “harassment, alarm or distress”, but overall we feel that the Bill still weakens the powers against antisocial behaviour, which is of growing concern to people. It is a badly worded Bill thrown together on the usual principle of, “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it”, which the Government seem to operate under. Large parts of the Bill will not offer people the protection they need.
Richard Fuller
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), because I am always better informed after listening to his speeches. I wish to speak to Lords amendment 69, which deals with changes to the penalties relating to attacks by dogs, and I, too, hope that the Minister will respond directly to the points that my hon. Friend and I are raising today.
This amendment originated in the Bill Committee in this House. I, too, thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for supporting the pressure that was put on the Government in Committee to increase the maximum sentence permissible for these offences. We were all appalled by the evidence that the police gave in our evidence sessions, so I am very pleased that Lord de Mauley took forward the Committee’s recommendations, produced this amendment, and obtained the Government’s support and, I hope, that of the whole House.
There have been a number of victims of dangerous dogs. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has made a powerful case on behalf of her constituents who were affected by a dangerous dog, and other hon. Members have done the same on behalf of victims of upsetting cases that resulted in only a minimum sentence. The police told us how difficult it was for them to prosecute under the existing legislation, and Lords amendment 69 gives them the tools they need to deal with the small minority of people that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset was talking about who breed or keep dogs that go out of control, attacking and maiming people. The police will now have the measures to provide the proper prosecution and sentencing through the courts for those people.
The amendment is also an indication of the good work of the trade unions. The Communication Workers Union has run an excellent campaign in support of its members who face the daily risk of attack by a dog. Such attacks can end in injury and be quite severe: they may have a negative psychological effect on postal workers. It is fair to put on the record my support for the CWU and its campaign to bring this legislation to the House.
Although this took place before my time here, I understand that legislating on dangerous dogs is treacherous territory for Governments of whatever party or origin. I hope that this amendment will prove to be an exception to that rule, and I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House today.
Norman Baker
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to some of the points that have been raised in a very wide-ranging debate. As you will appreciate, we are considering a huge range of disparate measures, so I will do my best to make sense of them. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s general support, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) says, we are not clear whether they are accusing us of being too draconian or too weak in our response to antisocial behaviour. As they are accusing us of both, perhaps we have got it about right.
I know that the Opposition are wedded to the ASBO, but the simple fact is that, although it may have been useful on occasions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has said—I am not saying it has not—it has generally been a failure. In 2012, the 1,329 ASBOs issued represented a decrease of 68% since 2005. Up to the end of 2012, 58% of ASBOs were breached at least once and 43% were breached more than once. Where ASBOs were breached, they were breached five times on average, and the breach rate for under-18s was 69%. Defending a continuation of that arrangement is not a sensible approach for anyone in this House who is as sensible and concerned as everybody should be, and is, about tackling antisocial behaviour.
The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) also referred to the use of hotels and other such premises for child sexual exploitation and, in particular, for grooming. She wanted to know how the law stood on that matter. If she looks at Lords amendment 77, she will see that subsection 1(b) of the new clause we propose refers to
“conduct that is preparatory to, or otherwise connected with, child sexual exploitation.”
I believe that provision is sufficiently wide as to provide reasonable grounds for the police to take action.
Helen Jones
That was precisely my concern; I fear that it is difficult to prove a grooming offence, because of the nature of the offence. I asked the Minister this earlier, but will he keep this under review and, if necessary, come back to the House with further proposals?
Norman Baker
I am happy to keep anything like that under review. Everyone in this House shares a dislike of and distaste for the reprehensible child exploitation activities that some people engage in. Of course there are other evidential trails that the police can use. Grooming often takes place online, and so sometimes evidence can be accrued and then added to the use of a hotel, which then gives the police reasonable grounds for taking action. Of course we will keep matters under review, because we want to ensure that we eliminate all such cases as far as it is possible to do so. We share that objective across the House.
Richard Drax
I am most grateful to the Minister for answering my question. If the Crown Prosecution Service decides not to take any action, would someone still be in a position to decide, in the case that I cited, to put down that West Highland terrier because a view had been taken that it was indeed dangerous? What would the situation be there? If the case does not go to court, who has the power to decide on the future of that dog, which has caused an offence on private property?
Norman Baker
On the face of it, if no offence has been committed or pursued, there is no case to answer. However, I imagine that responsible owners would want to take into account the activity that has taken place or the attack on the individual that has occurred. Of course it is always open to people to take civil action if they believe that that is the appropriate course of action. If I find out any further details, I will drop my hon. Friend a line on that particular matter.
The hon. Member for Warrington North referred to the issue of firearms ownership and guidance, particularly in relation to domestic violence. I assure her that we take both issues extremely seriously. Indeed I am spending a great deal of time on those two issues in my ministerial role. I want to make it plain that the law sets out that the police must consider whether a firearms or shotgun applicant can possess a gun without danger to public safety or the peace. The detailed criteria are set out in the firearms guidance, which can be amended when we believe it to be necessary. On 31 July last year, we took action to strengthen the guidance for the police on domestic violence specifically, and published new, more detailed guidance. For the avoidance of doubt, if there is an expectation or an understanding that someone has been involved in domestic violence, I would expect in most if not all circumstances the police to refuse to issue a licence to that particular individual.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the Minister, who is being generous in giving way. If the Government accept that that should happen, can he explain why they are so opposed to having it written into law?
Norman Baker
The Opposition, as we saw during their time in government, appear to believe that the only solution to anything is to create a law about it. If laws and statutory guidance already exist and it is common practice for certain processes to be followed, it might not be necessary to create a law to achieve the aim that she wants. The question that she should be asking me is whether we have put in place a mechanism to achieve the aim that she rightly identifies, and the answer to that is yes. We do not need to create further legislation to deal with something that has already been dealt with satisfactorily under present arrangements.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
Will we have continuity? What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Parliaments to ensure that we have a similar approach across the country?
Norman Baker
We and my officials have regular discussions with the devolved Administrations on this and other areas, and irrespective of political control the relationships between central Government here in London and the Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are sensible and good. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular concerns and believes that there is a scenario in which the approach has not worked and is willing to drop me a line, I would happily look into it for him and take it further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) referred to schedule 7, which, unless I have got this wrong, appears in the next string of amendments, but as he raised the matter I will deal with it now. He quite properly asked about our response to the changes to the schedule recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In coming to a final view on that and other matters relating to the schedule, we want to take into account the judgment of the judicial review into the David Miranda case and the report of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation into Mr Miranda's examination. Once they are available, we will naturally study them carefully and decide how best to proceed. Should we conclude that further amendments to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 are appropriate, we will seek to bring them forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) rightly drew attention to the peculiar powers—peculiar in the sense that they are unique—of the City of London. For example, it is the only authority to be designated a secondary authority for the control of dogs. Let me be clear on this point: we are, of course, deleting the reference to private Acts. Much of the land operated by the City of London corporation, as he mentioned, is done so under a private Act. As worded, the measure would have resulted in that land not being designated as a public space for the purposes of chapter 2 of part 4. That would have the perverse result of restricting the corporation’s ability to manage land that it is entitled to manage under a private Act, and that is why we have taken the steps that we have in that regard.
I hope that that deals satisfactorily with the amendments and points raised by hon. Members.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 88 agreed to.
Lords amendment 89 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.
Lords amendments 90 to 111 agreed to.
After Clause 152
Abolition of defence of marital coercion
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 114 to 180.
Norman Baker
I will not repeat the numbers, in case I get that wrong, but these are the main amendments to the policing provisions in the Bill. The first relates to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which we have already touched on and which is a part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy. Lords amendments were made in line with our ongoing commitment to ensure respect for individual freedoms and the need to balance that against reducing the threat of terrorism to the public in the UK and to British interests overseas. Other amendments clarify how the right to consult a solicitor as soon as is reasonably practicable and privately at any time may be exercised under schedule 7.
The amendments make it clear that a detained person who exercises the right to consult a solicitor may not be questioned until they have consulted a solicitor or no longer wish to do so unless the examining officer reasonably believes that postponing the questioning would prejudice the determination of whether the detained person appears to be a person who is or has been concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. I would expect that exception to be used very sparingly.
The amendments also clarify that a detained person is entitled to consult a solicitor in person, where it is practicable to do so, without prejudice to the purpose of the examination. Other amendments respond to a commitment given in Committee in the Lords to consider building on one of the key changes we are already making in the Bill: namely, the introduction of statutory provision for the review of detention under schedule 7 to the 2000 Act. On reflection, we agree that the maximum periods between reviews should be specified in primary legislation, rather than in a code of practice. The amendments provide for a first review of detention by a review officer no later than one hour after the start of detention, and for subsequent reviews at intervals of no more than two hours.
I ought also to refer to marital coercion. I will deal briefly with a final substantive amendment, Lords amendment 113, tabled by Lord Pannick, which would abolish the defence of marital coercion. It is currently a defence for all criminal offences, other than treason and murder, for a wife to show that she committed the offence in the presence of, and under the coercion of, her husband. The defence is an historical one and reflects the particular dynamics of marriage at the time when it was introduced, which was by section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which in turn abolished the previously existing presumption that a wife who committed any offence, except treason or murder, in the presence of her husband did so under his coercion and should therefore be acquitted. For those historical reasons, the defence applies only for the benefit of a woman married to a man. I am happy to say that time has moved on, as indeed will I in a moment. That one-sided defence is now clearly an anachronism, and we accordingly agree that it can be consigned to history. Lords amendment 113 achieves just that.
These amendments, and the one in the previous string, reaffirm the value of effective scrutiny and demonstrate, yet again, that the Government is receptive to sensible proposals from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from noble Lords to help address the many issues of public policy we face on a daily basis.
Lords amendment 113 agreed to.
Lords amendments 114 to 180 agreed to.
Business of the House
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5 February, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day.—(Claire Perry.)
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Norman Baker Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Norman Baker)
I will be brief because, as Members will recall, clause 104 introduces a new offence of forced marriage. The new offence is an important part of our efforts to stamp out that appalling practice, and will send a clear message that it will not be tolerated. I am pleased the Scottish Government has also decided that forced marriage should be a criminal offence, and new clause 9 introduces a similar provision for Scotland. Breach of a forced marriage protection order is already a criminal offence in Scotland, so there is no need for a similar amendment to mirror clause 103, which makes that the case in England and Wales. The other amendments in the group are consequential on new clause 9.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I was not in the Chamber yesterday, so may I welcome the Minister to his new post and let him know that any conspiracy theories he comes up with about me will probably be true?
The Opposition accept the need to deal decisively with forced marriage in Scotland, as in England, and we are pleased that the Government are extending to Scotland provisions that make forcing someone into a marriage a criminal offence. We therefore support the new clause and its consequential amendments. It was clear from evidence taken in Committee that there are differing views on the issue, and some who are active in the sector oppose the use of criminal law in that area because they believe it would deter victims from reporting what is happening to them. That is an understandable view, but not one I share. Victims of forced marriage are British. They are of many ages, although many are young people. British boys and girls, of whatever colour, deserve the same protection as every other British boy and girl.
It is important to make the point that forced marriages are not about religious beliefs—they are not condoned by any of the major faiths, whether Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Forced marriages are about abuse, often of children. What we condemn as abuse in any other sector of society cannot be condoned because of the colour of a person’s skin, their ethnic background or their parents’ culture. I am therefore glad that new clause 9 will make coercing someone into a marriage a criminal offence in all parts of the UK. I hope we will give young people, their communities and others the confidence to challenge forced marriage and to stand up and say no, knowing that they are supported by the law throughout the country, and, I would hope, by others in the community.
It is fair to say that, in some respects, Scotland has moved ahead of the rest of the UK on the matter because, as the Minister has said, breach of a forced marriage protection order is a criminal offence in Scotland, as it will be in the rest of the UK when the Bill becomes law. It is therefore clearly right that new clause 9 extends the criminal offence of coercing someone into a marriage into Scottish law. However, the UK Government and the Scottish Government need to do much more. No forced marriage protection orders have been issued in Scotland since its current legislation came into force, and yet no one would seriously argue that there were no forced marriages last year. In fact, the UK forced marriage unit gave support in 1,483 cases related to possible forced marriage. That is a high number, but the National Centre for Social research report published in 2009 estimated that there were between 5,000 and 8,000 reported cases throughout the UK each year. Of course, many cases go unreported.
The Opposition therefore support the Government’s legislation for Scotland and the rest of the UK, but I should tell the Minister that the legislation by itself is not enough. We need to put in place a system that allows people to report when they are at risk of forced marriage, that encourages them to report, and that offers them the support they need. Currently, that is sadly lacking. For example, much more work needs to be done in schools, so that teachers are alert to the signs that a pupil might be being forced into marriage. Young people need to be educated so that, if they or one of their friends are at risk, they know where to seek help.
I therefore ask the Minister to say what the Government are doing to raise awareness of forced marriage. Where is the money to fund such a campaign? In 2012, the forced marriage unit said that many agencies, whether those dealing with children or with vulnerable adults, still did not recognise forced marriage as a safeguarding issue. That is totally unacceptable. There is evidence that police throughout the UK recognise the need to deal with forced marriage proactively, but other agencies—not just schools, but colleges and health organisations—still have a long way to go. I hope Ministers discuss the measures needed with the Scottish Government, so that we can develop a common approach throughout these islands.
We must have training not only for teachers to allow them to recognise the signs that their students are at risk, but for others. Teachers are important because, sometimes, they are the only person outside the family with whom a victim has contact at first. I remember the tragic case of Shafilea Ahmed in my area—she lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). She was so desperate that she drank bleach when she was taken to Pakistan. Later, she was missing for a week before anyone from the school raised the fact that she was not there, despite the warning signs she had given. Teachers did not intervene, and health workers did not follow up or ask the right questions. In the end, she was tragically murdered. I tell the Minister that, although the legislation is welcome, the Opposition want to know what he will do to ensure there is not another Shafilea.
Social services provision is struggling because of the draconian cuts the Minister’s Government are making to council services. Women’s refuges have lost a third of their budget, and refuges and specialist advice services are closing. There is evidence that services that cater for women from black and ethnic minority communities are particularly hard hit. One test of the willingness of both the Scottish Government and the coalition Government to enforce the provisions will be whether they provide the services that people need.
Norman Baker
We have had a good wide-ranging debate. In the time left available to me, I will try as always to address the points that have been raised, but if I am unable to respond to all of them, I will write to the individual Members who have raised points and have not had those addressed as part of my response.
Let me say first that we are very sympathetic to the calls from many people for an increase in the maximum penalty for a dog attack. The Government agrees that two years’ imprisonment is not a sufficient penalty for the devastation and damage that a serious dog attack can do. There were over 3,000 responses to the consultation, and although there was strong support for an increased maximum penalty, there was no consensus as to where to set the bar. Given the volume of responses, I regret that it has not been possible for the Department to conclude its consideration of the issue in time to table a Government amendment on Report, but I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that the Government will table an amendment to increase the maximum penalties for dog attacks when the Bill is in the other place. The response to the consultation on changes will, I can assure the shadow Minister, be published in good time to inform the debates on the issue in the other place.
The Government amendment will reflect the high public concern that two years is an insufficient penalty for these offences, and the fact that some 16 adults and children have died in dog attacks since 2005, and some 10 assistance dogs are attacked by other dogs every month. As the consultation made clear, we will be looking to distinguish between attacks on people and attacks on assistance dogs. For attacks on people and where a person is killed or seriously injured, I am attracted—perhaps given my former role as a Transport Minister—by the comparison with penalties for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. Where a dog attacks an assistance dog, we will be looking at a lower maximum penalty, but one that is higher than the present one that applies.
I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that some people are breeding dogs deliberately to use as weapons. It is under those circumstances that higher penalties would be applicable. I hope that in the light of the reassurances that I have given on this matter, and the commitment that I am giving to a Government amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will not press his amendments today.
New clauses 3, 6, 17, 18 and 19 deal with dog control notices, dog number control notices and the requirement for all households with a dog to fit letterbox guards. I understand the intentions of hon. Members who tabled these amendments. There is a genuine need for an additional tool to address poor dog ownership and to enable early action to prevent dog bites and attacks. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who sought to take matters forward with her new clause 18. Every day thousands of postal workers and others, including those who deliver political literature, face uncertainty and apprehension as they approach houses with dogs to deliver mail and so on. The Government believe that such individuals must be able to go about their duties without fear of injury.
It is paramount for local officers from the police or the local council to have at their disposal the right tools so that they may take action in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. But as was made clear when the issue was raised on Second Reading and again in Committee, the measures in parts 1 to 4 introduce powers that will allow exactly the type of early intervention that the new clauses seek to provide.
Those measures can address all types of such irresponsible behaviour with a dog, regardless of the specific manifestation. For example, a community protection notice can be served in cases where there are too many dogs in one home—the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—where an owner does not have proper control of his or her dog, where a dog strays and in many other scenarios. Those measures are in addition to existing statutory measures, notably offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 relating to welfare standards, the law on statutory nuisance and, for commercial dog breeders, any licence requirements.
I want to reassure Members—this is an important point—that all the requirements they suggest under new clauses 3 and 6, such as muzzling, neutering, microchipping, keeping a dog on a lead, attending training classes, fitting a letterbox guard to the door of a property and seeking expert advice, can be required under a community protection notice. The new clauses, although well intentioned, are simply not necessary. The powers are already there in the Bill. To pick up on a point made by the shadow Minister, that is how the Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifesto commitments are being delivered.
Luciana Berger
Will the Minister acknowledge that, as the legislation is currently drafted, individuals will still require a written warning before they can receive a community protection notice, which will add delays? Who knows what could happen during the intervening period?
Norman Baker
I want to address that point. Only this month the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a draft practitioners’ manual—it is a draft because we are inviting comments on it—entitled, “Tackling irresponsible dog ownership”. It gives an example on page 15. If a dog is out of control in a park, a written notice can be issued on the spot by the relevant officer who has control in that situation. The owner would then be given a “reasonable time”, which might be just five minutes, to respond. If the dog is not brought under control in that time, the community protection notice can be issued right away. I do not understand why the Opposition think that there could be huge delays in the process, because there could not. It is a simple piece of legislation to make it effective and quick, and that relates to the issues to which attention is rightly being drawn.
Mr Spencer
I am concerned about the term “owner”, because the person in control of the dog in the park might not be the owner, so the “It’s my cousin’s dog” defence could deflect the notice.
Norman Baker
The provision might specify the person in control of the dog, so if I have that wrong I will correct it. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point and will reflect on it.
The measures in the Bill go further and allow officers to make innovative requirements based on the specifics of the case they are dealing with, for example by requesting that signage be put up to warn visitors to a property of the presence of a dog, or that a letterbox guard be fitted. I have genuinely heard nothing during the course of the debate to suggest that there is a gap in what is proposed in the Bill.
The Local Government Association stated in written evidence to the Public Bill Committee:
“The LGA remains to be convinced that separate tools are necessary as no details have been provided of the specific gaps in the provisions for the injunctions, community protection notices or public space protection orders that a dog control notice is needed to fill.”
We all share the objective of trying to do something about this matter, but Opposition Members seem to think that a measure cannot be effective if it does not have the word “dog” in the title, which is simply wrong.
Mr Reed
It is not just the Opposition who are making those points; so too are many experienced organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Veterinary Association, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and this House’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. All of those organisations have more experience in this area than either the Minister or I have, yet he is not taking their views on board.
Norman Baker
The shadow Minister made that point in his opening remarks. I have not been a Home Office Minister for long, but I dealt with dog legislation for many years in opposition, so I think I know what the legislation says. I have given him an absolute assurance that the issues the Opposition are concerned about, as am I, such as microchipping and neutering, could all be dealt with under the community protection notice. I have given the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) an assurance that those matters can be dealt with very quickly. Those are the two points that the Opposition are perfectly correct to pursue, and I have given answers that I had hoped would satisfy them. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As far as I am concerned, the measures they want to deal with the problem that they, and we, have identified are in the Bill.
Notwithstanding that, I understand the concern that, as Labour Members have said, any dog issues may be lost in the breadth of these measures. However, these powers recognise, first, that antisocial behaviour does not come packaged into distinct areas, and secondly, that what matters is whether it can be dealt with quickly and effectively, which is what the Bill does. The practitioners’ manual from DEFRA is the Government’s attempt to reassure people that these matters will be dealt with properly.
Angie Bray
Does the Minister recognise that sometimes it is not the attacks themselves that cause anxiety but the intimidating nature of some of the dogs that are attached to what I would call dangerous owners? That blights the lives of people trying to use the parks. Just the presence of this intimidating animal with its owner can do some damage.
Norman Baker
I do recognise that. That is a good reason why it is better to have flexible, general legislation rather than specific legislation that then creates loopholes. That is what the Opposition, who are well intentioned, would do if they had their way in the construction of antisocial behaviour legislation.
Norman Baker
I must not, because I have lots of people to try to reply to. I am sorry.
I hope that I have been able to persuade Opposition Members that the approach put forward in the new clause is already provided for in the Bill. If they were minded to press it, I would invite the House to reject it. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is seeking to intervene while I am trying to respond to her points, proposes to reduce the time delay that can take place following the seizure of a suspected section 1 dog, such as a pit bull terrier, before it is examined by expert witnesses for the defence or prosecution to assess whether it is a prohibited dog. I understand her concerns about the impact that such delays can have on the welfare of dogs. That is why we are committed to bringing forward regulations next year to make it clear that when the police seize a suspected prohibited dog they will not be required to kennel it, but only in cases where they are satisfied that the situation of dog and owner do not present a risk to public safety. It is right to give the police this discretion, and that is the aim that we intend to take forward. It will be a condition of release, if release occurs, that the owner consents to the dog being muzzled and on a lead in public, as well as being microchipped and neutered before it can be released back to the owner. This is to ensure public safety and to prevent breeding from section 1 dogs. On that basis, we do not consider the hon. Lady’s new clause 29 to be necessary.
I now want to deal with the amendments eloquently presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which seek to extend the offence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover incidents where a dog injures or kills a protected animal. I entirely understand and sympathise with her reason for proposing that measure. She listed some of the existing legislation, which does have an effect and can be used in certain circumstances, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animals Act 1971, the Dogs Act 1871, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It is rather unfortunate that the Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies animals as goods or property in this respect.
I understand the concern of people whose cat is savaged by a dog, but the way forward is to consider other solutions. Instead of more legislation, we want better education for owners, training for dogs, and increased awareness among the public and the authorities who can use the new antisocial behaviour powers to address these incidents and help to prevent them before they happen.
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to particular resources in legislation in respect of horses, which she mentioned. The Dangerous Dogs Act would apply in a situation where a dog threatens or attacks a horse and a rider, because the rider is likely to have “reasonable apprehension” that the dog will injure them, and therefore an offence would be created. My hon. Friend also referred to the livestock issues that I mentioned earlier. We are keen to make sure that other animals are protected. However, as I said, the general nature of the legislation provides options through, for example, the injunction procedure to see whether there are other avenues that can be taken to deal with dogs that present a danger to the public and, indeed, to other animals.
On amendment 142, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I regret that because of the lack of time I will have to write to her with a specific response to the point she raises.
The actions that this Government are taking in tackling dangerous dogs are absolutely right. Everybody in the House agrees that that needs to happen better than it has done in the past, and I believe the Bill will achieve that. The provisions will enable all the dreadful acts that have been taking place to be tackled in a sensible and effective way.
Mr Steve Reed
I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced and we will press new clause 3 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Norman Baker Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Field
I cannot use ignorance of the law as an excuse, but my hon. and learned Friend knows considerably more about these matters than I do. He makes a relevant point, which is that we do not necessarily have to go entirely down that route. The ASBO legislation and this concurrent legislation is designed to look at the whole issue of antisocial behaviour in a constructive and codified way. The problems to which I have referred apply not simply to the City of Westminster, Southwark or inner-London boroughs. Increasingly, it will become apparent in places such as Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham, so we should look at it fairly urgently. Without being overly negative about the potential open-door arrival of a significant number of people from Romania and Bulgaria, there is no doubt that some of the specific problems in central London in recent months have come disproportionately from groups who have already come to this country from those other EU states. We need to ensure that local authorities are given a chance to take action. As such, I feel strongly that the Bill should be amended better to reflect the circumstances that affect inner-city areas, recognise the particular challenges that are faced in the UK’s major cities and specifically enable a court to grant IPNAs with automatic powers of arrest in a wider variety of circumstances.
This matter will have to be dealt with in amendments in another place. To answer directly the question put by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I hope that we will have a further amendment to clause 3 to add an additional subsection applicable only in major city centres or other designated areas, which varies the conditions under which a power of arrest attachment can be made to include wording such as “deliberately organised antisocial behaviour”. That will have to be dealt with in our further deliberations on the Bill.
I take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to thank you for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I accept that the Minister is aware of some of the specific concerns for Westminster, but I also very much accept that he may wish to deal with this in writing rather than going into it in great detail this evening.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Norman Baker)
May I take the opportunity of my first outing in my new capacity to thank Members on both sides of the House for their good wishes and congratulations. I am deeply grateful for the support that has been shown across the House over the last week following my appointment. I look forward to working constructively with Members on both sides of the House as we take this agenda forward.
I am also delighted to see my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), in the Chamber. I pay tribute to him for the significant work that he has done as a Home Office Minister. His attention to detail and his commitment have been exemplary, and I look forward to trying to emulate that in my role. I also welcome the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) to his new role on behalf of the official Opposition.
I will now deal with the various Government new clauses and amendments. Overwhelmingly, they follow up points raised in Committee, which is a testament to the effectiveness of the scrutiny the Bill underwent upstairs. There are a number of drafting and technical amendments in this large group. So as not to delay the House unduly, I will focus my remarks on the amendments of substance.
The injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance and the criminal behaviour order are important new powers to deal with individuals who commit antisocial behaviour. Courts will be able to use them both to prevent certain behaviour and to require positive actions—for example, addressing a drug or alcohol problem that is an underlying cause of an individual’s antisocial behaviour.
The Committee agreed non-Government amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) to clauses 1 and 21. These would require a court to avoid any conflict with a person’s caring responsibilities when attaching such conditions. This would be in addition to the duties that were already in the Bill, to ensure that conditions are suitable and enforceable and, so far as practicable, to avoid conflicting with a person’s religious beliefs, work, educational commitments or any other court order imposed on them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane said in Committee, we always expected courts to take account of caring responsibilities, which are clearly a relevant factor in ensuring that conditions are suitable and enforceable, and I repeat that for the benefit of the House.
There is a concern that references to caring responsibilities might weaken the new powers in practice. A number of the agencies that would use and enforce injunctions and orders tell us that there is a real danger that specifically including caring responsibilities in the Bill would make it more difficult to secure appropriate conditions, and that is not in the interests of the victims that these injunctions are designed to protect. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that we do expect these matters to be taken into account by courts considering injunctions as they relate to caring responsibilities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—I think he has gained a north somewhere; Bermondsey North and Southwark—asked why the words on religious belief were qualified with the phrase “as far as practicable”. I am advised that it is similar to the right to manifest one’s religion set out in article 9 of the convention. The right is qualified and can be limited where necessary and proportionate. For example, it is not necessary for someone who professes to be a Christian to attend church every single day. I hope that is helpful and answers his point.
The Committee also agreed an amendment to clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), to add head teachers and principals of further education colleges to the list of persons who can apply to a court for an injunction. The intention was to tackle bullying in schools and colleges. I agree that it is vital that powers are in place to address that problem, which blights the lives of too many young people, but we need to get the detail right. She rightly referred to the consultation that has taken place and the responses to it, and I am grateful for her analysis and her decision on how to proceed. However, I want to assure her that we have drafted guidance to explain how the injunction could be used to address bullying, with the help of front-line professionals and the BeatBullying organisation, which has advised us on the matter. I entirely accept her point about online bullying, a matter I was considering only this afternoon in the Home Office. I can assure her that, as far as I am concerned, bullying will not be taken off the agenda.
Amendments 10 to 15 to clause 12 relate to the power to exclude the subject of an injunction from their home. As I have said, the Bill provides for prohibitions to be attached to an injunction. In extreme cases where the antisocial behaviour has involved actual violence or the threat of violence against another person, or where there is a significant risk of harm, someone can be excluded from their home, but only if they live in social housing.
Simon Hughes
My hon. Friend has said that his amendments deal with an issue that was clearly controversial: the ability to deal with social housing tenants but not others and the need for a level playing field. I hope that he will not forget to deal with amendment 166 from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which would add some additional requirements, and that he might be persuaded that they are useful additions.
Norman Baker
My right hon. Friend is as eager as he was when he first arrived in this House many years ago. If he will allow me, I will get to the Committee and the amendments he referred to in his opening remarks in due course.
Another important issue raised in Committee relates to the application of the new powers in relation to antisocial behaviour in or around a respondent’s home, this time in relation to the criminal behaviour order. The first condition that must be met before a criminal behaviour order can be made is that the court is satisfied that the offender has engaged in behaviour that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the offender. In Committee the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) tabled an amendment to remove that limitation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made it clear at the time that the criminal behaviour order is not intended as a tool for tackling domestic violence, as other more suitable powers are available for that, and that remains the case. However, having considered the matter further, we recognise that there might be cases where antisocial behaviour is inflicted by one member of a multi-occupancy household on another and where the flexibility to apply for such an order could be helpful. Amendment 16 therefore removes that limitation.
I turn now to the amendments to clause 93, which relate to the community remedy. That welcome initiative gives victims of low-level crime and antisocial behaviour a say in the punishment of offenders out of court. Police and crime commissioners will work with the public and chief constables to compile a menu of out-of-court sanctions that can be used in appropriate cases following consultation with the victim. At the heart of the community remedy is our commitment to empowering victims and communities to say what is right for them. I do not think that that will include use of the stocks, which was referred to earlier.
We have brought forward amendments 45 to 48, which have three elements. The first two will put on the face of the Bill what had always been our expectation: the actions included in the community remedy document must promote public confidence in the use of out-of-court disposals and include an element that is punitive, restorative or rehabilitative. The third change is a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to which police and crime commissioners must have regard when preparing a community remedy document. A draft of that forms part of the document for practitioners, which we published last week.
The other Government amendments in the group are largely technical in nature, and I have placed a detailed letter in the Library. I commend the Government amendments to parts 1 to 6 of the Bill to the House.
I turn now to amendment 96, tabled by the shadow Home Secretary and spoken to today by the hon. Member for Croydon North. I am firmly of the view that antisocial behaviour still ruins too many lives and damages too many communities. There are, of course, problems in our inner cities, but there are also problems in our smaller towns, and that concerns all Members of this House.
Up to March 2013, 2.3 million incidents of antisocial behaviour were reported to the police and we know other incidents were reported to councils and social landlords. The previous Government tried—genuinely, I think—to address the problem, but after more than 10 pieces of legislation introduced before 2010 we have been left with a mishmash of powers that is confusing for the public and for the professionals who have to use them, and that is less and less effective. The antisocial behaviour order may have worked well in individual circumstances, but overall it has not worked well. Such orders are too often seen as a badge of honour and, as has been said, over 50% of them have been breached at least once and just over 40% have been breached more than once. Also, the number of orders issued has been falling year on year. People are losing confidence in ASBOs.
Mr Steve Reed
Why are the Government seeking to decriminalise antisocial behaviour when 80% of the public feel it is on the rise? How does that help?
Norman Baker
I will come on to the powers we are introducing, but the hon. Gentleman spent a lot of his contribution talking about the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance, which is one of the tools we are proposing, but we are also proposing a criminal behaviour order, a breach of which is a criminal offence. The CBO is in some ways most akin to the ASBO we are seeking to replace, the injunction being an extra tool.
I know Members on the Opposition Benches are still wedded to ASBOs, despite the evidence, but by any reasonable assessment the statistics show it has been increasingly failing. I want a system that is more effective at tackling antisocial behaviour and has the confidence of the professionals who use it. We know that agencies such as the police, local councils and social landlords are working hard to protect victims and stop antisocial behaviour, but they need the right powers to do this. That is why we are replacing the existing powers with six streamlined, more flexible, quicker and more effective ones to protect the public better.
Mr Reed
The Minister talked about trusting the police and local councils and adding more tools to their armoury, so instead of abolishing ASBOs why does he not leave them on the statute book so that police and councils can choose whether it is appropriate to use them or IPNAs, or any of the other tools the Government are providing in this Bill?
Norman Baker
First, ASBOs have been increasingly ineffective and have become a badge of honour in some cases; secondly, we want to streamline the powers so they are clear; and, thirdly, we want to use powers that are quick and efficient and that do the job, which is what Members on both sides of the Chamber want: we all want a swift reduction in antisocial behaviour.
As I have said, the main replacements for the ASBO are the injunction under part 1 of the Bill and the criminal behaviour order under part 2. In drawing comparisons with the ASBO, they should be seen together, rather than be taken individually. The injunction is a purely civil remedy. That means it has a lower test than the ASBO on application, coupled with the lower civil standard of proof, so it will be quicker to obtain than the existing order. Front-line professionals will be able to use it as a preventive measure to nip emerging problems in the bud before they escalate into something more serious—which I think is good news for victims— but, crucially, the court could also include “positive requirements” in the order. That is missing from the ASBO arrangements; indeed, that is one of their major flaws. That has meant the focus has been on stopping the behaviour, but not on getting individuals to deal with the underlying drivers of their behaviour. If we are to prevent reoccurrences of bad behaviour, it is very important we address that.
Unlike for the ASBO, breach of the IPNA will not be a criminal offence. This means there is no risk of criminalising under-18s. It will also help to reduce the burden on the police and others in gathering and providing evidence. That does not mean that the injunction has no teeth if it is breached: it does. Adults can be imprisoned for up to two years for breaching the terms of the IPNA, and the court can detain an under-18 if it thinks that, due to the severity or extent of the breach, no other power available to the court is appropriate.
We must not look at the injunction in isolation. It is complemented by the CBO, which will be available to deal with the most serious antisocial behaviour. Breach of a CBO will be a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of five years in prison. That is the same sanction as is available for the breach of an ASBO, but the CBO will be more effective than the ASBO because, like the injunction, it can have positive requirements attached to it to help the offender turn their life around.
These reforms are about putting the victim first and providing streamlined, effective powers for enforcement agencies to do just that. Amendment 96 seeks to retain a discredited regime that has left people across the country suffering from antisocial behaviour. I therefore hope, perhaps optimistically, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment in due course.
Mr Reed
I am not planning to withdraw it. I wonder whether the Minister is dismissing out of hand the views of the organisations that wrote a letter to The Times saying that this is “Ill-thought-out legislation” that will waste police time and clog up the courts. The signatories to that letter include the Standing Committee on Youth Justice, Barnardo’s, Liberty, the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services, JUSTICE, the Children’s Society, the Howard League for Penal Reform, UK Youth, the Prison Reform Trust, and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England. It is disappointing to hear the Minister dismiss the legitimate concerns raised by those well-respected organisations.
Norman Baker
I am certainly not dismissing them, and they have been looked at carefully, but it is important to look at the IPNA and the criminal behaviour order in tandem rather than merely concentrate on one of them.
Stephen Phillips
Does my hon. Friend agree that rather then relying on letters from the great and the good, perhaps the best thing to do is to rely on the British people? He will no doubt remember that in 2012 Angus Reid conducted a survey in which only 80% of people said they thought that ASBOs had been effective in tackling antisocial behaviour. Is not that why we need to change the regime?
Norman Baker
That is exactly right. The shadow Minister said that the recent crime survey showed that 80% of people think that antisocial behaviour is increasing. That suggests to me that the current regime is not working and needs to be replaced by something more efficient.
Dr Huppert
The shadow Minister mentioned a list of people who have concerns about IPNAs. I think they would agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and I that we could look at those concerns, and I am sure that the Minister will do so. They do not support ASBOs, as he suggests; they would like to get rid of ASBOs and have an improved, more sympathetic IPNA.
Norman Baker
I am grateful for that intervention, which puts the matter on the record.
The shadow Minister expressed concern about the costs of dealing with IPNAs and the new regime that we propose to introduce. It is worth quoting the chief constable of Thames Valley police, Sarah Thornton, who said:
“So in terms of improving the effectiveness, yes we are going to have to train officers, but I think that is worthwhile…If there is a bit of additional training cost, it really would be well worth it in terms of additional effectiveness in tackling anti-social behaviour locally.”
In other words, the relatively modest amount spent on training on IPNAs will more than repay itself in terms of the results that accrue. It is also worth pointing out that ASBOs were not without their costs either; it would be foolish to think that they were. A cost was involved in dealing with breaches of ASBOs just as there is with anything else. If I remember correctly, the shadow Minister quoted a cost of £1.5 million for breaches of IPNAs—allegedly; I am not quite sure where that figure comes from—but ASBO breaches cost money as well. If he wants to make a fair comparison, he ought to include that in his assessment.
Let me turn to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark North and Bermondsey—[Interruption.] I am sorry—Bermondsey North and Southwark. I want to call it Southwark and Bermondsey because that it is what it was for so many years. Anyway, I mean my very old friend who moved the amendments. His amendments and those of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) pick up a number of points raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is of course a very important Committee of this House. I am grateful to the Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the Bill. Taken together, the amendments would introduce additional requirements that professionals and the courts would have to meet in order to use the new powers. While I agree that we must ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place, I believe that those are already built into the Bill and fear that the Committee’s amendments would lose some of the benefits of our reforms in streamlining powers and processes to help victims and empower front-line professionals.
New clause 33 is concerned with the use of injunctions in cases involving children and seeks to place in the Bill a requirement that the interests of the child are treated as a primary consideration when imposing an injunction, any associated conditions or sanctions for a breach. In shaping our reforms, we have, naturally, carefully considered the needs and rights of young people, which are important, so that we get the right balance between enforcement and helping those who commit antisocial behaviour to turn their lives around. I am a little concerned, to be honest, about the use of the word “primary” in new clause 33 with regard to setting that balance.
John McDonnell
I wonder whether the Minister could re-read the script that he has just read. He spoke about an individual having
“engaged or threatened to engage in conduct causing nuisance or annoyance”.
The wording in the clause is
“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”.
That is the problem. That is where judgment enters into it. That is why amendment 158 was tabled. It would put the emphasis on reasonableness in that judgment.
Norman Baker
I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I make no promises, but I have a lot of time for his analysis of the legislation and will consider the point carefully.
I will turn to the amendments that my right hon. Friend has tabled to clause 12, which sets out the limited circumstances in which an injunction may exclude someone from their own home. I agree that the courts must consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to exclude someone from their home, regardless of whether they live in social housing, rent privately or own their own home. However, I am not persuaded that those principles need to be included in the Bill.
We have made it clear in the guidance that not only do we expect that the exclusion power will be used only rarely, but that the court will pay special attention to whether it is proportionate to use the power, taking into account the individual’s article 8 rights. As such, applications should be made only in exceptional cases that meet the high threshold set out in clause 12—that is, where there is a threat of violence or a significant risk of harm.
Several of my right hon. Friend’s amendments to clause 21, which provides for the criminal behaviour order, are similar to those that he tabled in respect of the injunction and are unnecessary for the same reasons. The draft guidance to the Bill makes it clear that we expect that the courts will follow existing case law from the House of Lords in relation to antisocial behaviour orders and that they will apply the criminal standard to criminal behaviour orders. The amendments to clause 21 are therefore unnecessary.
My right hon. Friend has also tabled an amendment to the new dispersal power to explicitly exempt all peaceful assemblies from its use. I agree that that is an important point, but I would argue that the safeguards that we have built into the legislation will ensure that the dispersal power is used proportionately, while maintaining the flexibility to allow the police to act quickly to protect victims and communities from antisocial behaviour. Where behaviour is lawful and is not causing harassment, alarm or distress, the test for using the dispersal power will not be met. Mere presence in an area is not itself a ground for dispersal, so the power could not be used. The test will be met only if someone’s behaviour is causing or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to members of the public, or crime or disorder in the locality.
Simon Hughes
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I both raised that last matter. I understand my hon. Friend’s argument, but I do not see how it is logical to protect picketing and processions in the Bill, as was done in Committee, but not the general right of free assembly. I do not think that the Bill should say that one can do certain things and not face a dispersal order, but not make it clear that one can do other lawful things without facing a dispersal order.
Norman Baker
There was particular concern about processions and picketing. That is why they were singled out for mention in the Bill. I have made it plain this evening that where a behaviour is lawful and is not causing harassment, alarm or distress, the test for the use of the dispersal power will not be met. I hope that that gives my right hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks.
Amendment 177 would remove the ability of landlords in England to seek to evict tenants when they or members of their household have been convicted of an offence at the scene of a riot anywhere in the United Kingdom. The Government believe that clause 91 sends out the strong and important message that if somebody gets involved in a riot, whether it is near their home or not, there may be consequences for their tenancy. However, Members have asked me to reflect on that matter and I will, of course, listen to the House and reflect on it without prejudice to the outcome of that reflection. We will respond fully to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in due course. For now, however, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press amendment 177 or new clause 33.
The shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who is no longer in his place, spoke about amendment 82, which is a consequential amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Provisions on antisocial behaviour orders are among the exceptions to the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales in respect of local government matters. Amendment 82 simply updates that exception to recognise the abolition of the ASBO, thus preserving the status quo with regard to the Assembly’s competence. The UK Government is firmly of the view that amendment 82 is purely consequential upon the abolition of antisocial behaviour orders, so a consent motion is not required. It is also difficult to wait for the outcome of the Silk commission, as a failure to amend the Government of Wales Act now would alter the legislative competence of the National Assembly. Our intention is therefore to preserve the status quo and no more.
Stephen Phillips
Is it not a difficulty, though, that even though the amendment may be intended simply to be consequential and to replace the provision relating to the ASBO, it is drawn so broadly that, as Opposition Members have pointed out, it might also have an effect in other areas in which the Assembly currently has legislative competence?
Norman Baker
The advice I am getting from officials is very clear—that this is an appropriate conclusion to reach. However, three Members have now raised that matter, and they have done so in quite strident or convinced terms, so I will write to them with a firm conclusion.
Mr Steve Reed
We are raising these issues because the Welsh Assembly Government have raised them. Perhaps, rather than driving something through after the UK Government have legal advice that is clearly different from the Welsh Assembly Government’s, the Minister will commit to speaking to the Welsh Assembly Government before taking further steps.
Norman Baker
As I understand it, we have spoken to the Welsh Assembly Government, but I think I have made a generous offer in saying that because Members have raised a constitutional point, although I believe the Government’s position is sound—that is the clear advice I am getting from officials—I will ask officials to set that down for me in writing, and I will write to the three Members who have raised the matter this evening. I think that is quite a good offer, if I may say so.
I hope that I have been helpful in responding to the amendments and new clauses that Members have tabled. I think we have a good Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for dealing with all the new clauses and amendments—those that I moved not on my own behalf but on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights; the Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment; and his own Government amendments.
For the record, first, my constituency is called Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I know that it is the fourth formulation of the name in 30 years, but none the less, we have to keep up. Secondly, the Minister is still a good friend, but for him to call me “my very old friend” was not a way to get off on the right foot. He is not that much younger than me, although I accept that there is a gap between us.
On the substance of the new clause and amendments, I am clear that we are right to say no to antisocial behaviour orders, for reasons that Members of all parties have given evidence of. We are also right, as a Government, to introduce two options—a criminal order and a civil order. I hope that when the Bill becomes law, Ministers will produce something that makes clear the benefit to youngsters of not having a criminal record, because they will not have committed a criminal offence.
In relation to certain of the new clauses and amendments, I believe that the Joint Committee and other colleagues will not want to let the matter rest. I refer particularly—I am guessing, because the Committee will form its view collectively—to new clause 33, amendments 158, 165 and 166, and, most importantly, amendments 176 and 178.