Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 281, in page 51, line 32, after '1B', insert ', 1C'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 277, in clause 58, page 54, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

'(3) The court may only make an order under this section following consultation with the relevant authorities.'.

No. 278, in page 54, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I must extend a belated welcome to you, Mr. O'Brien, as this is the first time that I have spoken this afternoon. I am also seeking some tolerance from you, because I will address a series of amendments and it would help me if I could make a few general comments before speaking more briefly on each amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and I tabled the amendments largely because the subject has not received any debate. Amendments on antisocial behaviour orders were tabled in the House of Lords, and it was generally felt that there was so much detail that there was no time to get into discussion on the subject. I genuinely have several questions to ask and issues to raise. There should be some debate in public on ASBOs. I accept that the wording of some of the amendments is not perfect, but I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit behind them. The point

is to achieve clarification, and possibly to ensure that some extra guidance goes into the guidance notes when they are finally published.

I agree with the principle that antisocial behaviour orders should be weapons of last resort to be used with lots of other measures. I find it quite difficult to consider them in isolation in the Bill. There is a presumption that we need more and more ASBOs. That is reflected in hon. Members' questions to the Minister. Indeed, in last week's Prime Minister's questions it was asked why 5,000 ASBOs had not yet been made. I guess that the Government might be responding in the Bill by saying, ''Well, we're making it much easier. There will eventually be 5,000.'' That is not the right approach.

The Minister himself has cited Wrexham, where only one ASBO has been made. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is not present, because there seems to be good practice in Wrexham. There has been real success there, with 1,500 incidents being resolved through partnership working. That is excellent. Islington is another famous example where acceptable behaviour contracts are used in preference to, or at least as part of the hierarchy before one gets to, ASBOs. To say that we must have more ASBOs and legislation to make that simpler is the wrong premise. The whole package is important.

Ms Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley, Labour/Co-operative)

Does the hon. Lady accept that through using ASBOs and developing practice, the Government are responding to issues that constituents raise regularly with Members of Parliament with a way of dealing with problems that would help in many of our neighbourhoods? The provisions deal with good practice, and are not something that we should be worried about.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I accept that we need to spread good practice on tackling antisocial behaviour, but I do not accept that we have only one weapon on which we must focus all the time. To pick up the hon. Lady's point, I was anxious to look at the monitoring of ASBOs because I thought that before changes were proposed it would be important to have a look at the evaluation. I have read that document now, and I should like to congratulate those involved with it, and should like an assurance from the Minister that some of the many points within it will be included in the guidance.

The evaluation comes up with several recommendations and an executive summary. The recommendations are crucial, but there is one that I will disagree with when I discuss the amendment. For the most part, there is much about partnership work, which I think is exactly what the hon. Lady was talking about. There is so much good practice but, at the other end of the scale, not everything is in place. I want to be sure that we have problem solving and multi-agency approaches, and that everything comes together. I agree that we must all pull together, and that there is a lot more to be done.

There is a bit of concern about the evaluation, as it admits that much of the information about the impact of ASBOs is anecdotal, and there are few partnerships formally monitoring the outcome of ASBOs. Everyone speaks positively about them, but that is not necessarily the whole picture, and it is therefore relevant to ask questions. I sought your indulgence, Mr. O'Brien, because I wanted to provide some background.

Amendment No. 281 would make the part of the Bill to which it applies compatible with the subsequent amendments. It is consequential on the subsequent two.

Amendment No. 277 would delete subsection (3) and insert:

''The court may only make an order under this section following consultation with the relevant authorities.''

It is important to hold a consultation. Indeed, an application should be made for an antisocial behaviour order. That is the point of deleting subsection (3). The provision in the Bill bypasses the important requirement for consultation and almost gives the courts carte blanche to impose orders.

Bearing in mind that the proposal is for the community, it surely forms the basis of the partnership between the council and police forces. Why should the court become involved and bypass the consultation? I realise that an objective is to speed things up, but I do not understand that, and I should be grateful for some clarification.

Amendment No. 278 would delete paragraph (a). It is strange to make provision for an antisocial behaviour order and a sentence. The matter does not seem to be covered in the evaluation, so I should like clarification of the origin of that. Offenders should not, in principle, be subject to a double punishment, which is what that seems to be. I thought that the intention of an antisocial behaviour order was intervention before a full criminal prosecution: I have always regarded it as almost a halfway house. Obviously criminal penalties may apply if a behaviour order is breached.

I am not sure why both are necessary, and I am unhappy about it. We are trying to change behaviour, but that is wham, wham punishment, and I do not follow the logic of including it. I can find no reference to the matter, although I have may have missed it, in the evaluation report.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time at this stage. I understand the spirit of the hon. Lady's comments in presenting the amendments, but she said something towards the end of her remarks with which I want to take issue and which was slightly inconsistent with some of the points that she made earlier. She said that everyone speaks highly of antisocial behaviour orders. With respect, given how they have operated—or, rather, failed to operate—that is not true not only in the House but even of Labour Members. Indeed, one of those who have been most critical of the bureaucracy surrounding ASBOs as originally established is the

hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), with whom I have debated on several occasions. He has initiated debates and tried to put pressure on the Government. It was therefore no doubt not a coincidence that, having expressed such great interest in the subject, he found that the business managers could not find a space for him on the Committee, because no doubt he would have repeated his criticism. He and I have spoken on many occasions outside the formal debates, and we have agreed that we need to keep up the pressure.

I welcome the Government taking the opportunity in the Bill to try to improve some of the more obvious flaws of antisocial behaviour orders. I shall not go too wide of these narrow amendments, because you would rule me out of order if I did, Mr. O'Brien, but as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made some general remarks, I wanted to make that point. Some important matters that relate to the wider implications will arise later, so at this stage I shall restrict my remarks—

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some authorities—I think that Liverpool is one example—have got through their antisocial behaviour orders very quickly? There is good practice—

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. We are discussing a narrow amendment. I allowed the hon. Lady to wander around the issue a bit, but the amendment says ''after '1B', insert ',1C'.'' Nobody has referred to that. I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to stick to the amendment.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

In the light of your ruling, Mr. O'Brien, I shall not respond to the hon. Lady's point, although I might be able to address it when we consider other amendments.

I understand that the point behind amendment No. 277 is perhaps of greatest substance, and we shall listen with interest to what the Minister says about whether it would be better to delete clause 58(3) and replace it with the wording on consultation.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

The reason why the clause is in the Bill and we are debating the amendment is that the Government have examined research on the experience of using ASBOs and listened to comments of hon. Members. Considerable success has been achieved through ASBOs but the system and the accompanying guidance can be improved.

The amendments address an ASBO that could be complementary to a criminal sentence from the courts. When we examined ASBO procedures, it became apparent that there were several instances in the civil and criminal courts when a great deal of work went into amassing evidence about individuals, whether for a repossession case in the civil courts or a criminal case, and the behaviour of the individuals was such that it would have been appropriate to restrain their future behaviour through an ASBO. It would not be an alternative measure but complementary to the steps taken by the court. That is why we are considering criminal court convictions.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked reasonably whether the criminal court should be subject to the same process of co-ordination that exists if relevant authorities apply directly for ASBOs. I understand the case that she made. The procedure in the criminal court will be slightly different in practice. There is no formal requirement for a relevant authority to apply for an order after conviction. The prosecuting counsel will be able to make representations to the court on behalf of the police or local authority and to suggest that a court order might be appropriate.

As the hon. Lady said, the consultation requirements on ASBOs apply only to applications made by relevant authorities. That requirement is present to ensure a co-ordinated and consistent approach by different agencies. The best way forward is for the criminal court to have the relevant information because it has examined the criminal case. Of course, it will be able to request reports if further information is required.

I am reluctant to concede a further and possibly bureaucratic and time consuming process of formal consultation with the relevant agencies, but it will be possible to ensure that the necessary information is brought before the criminal court before it decides whether to make an ASBO. It would be a shame to lose the opportunity of an additional way of imposing an ASBO by erecting an unnecessarily bureaucratic tier.

With regard to amendment No. 278, it is vital that a community may be protected from the behaviour of a person convicted of a criminal offence without requiring a separate legal process to obtain an ASBO, which is what the provision allows. The thinking is analogous to other provisions that allow an ASBO to be imposed on a person subsequent to eviction due to a breach of a tenancy agreement that involved harassment. I am sure that most members of the Committee are familiar with cases in which a local authority or registered social landlord has evicted someone and that person has popped up in a private tenancy down the road and carried on behaving as he did previously. It is reasonable to build on the court process to impose an ASBO in an analogous way. The route to a court and to a different court—it may be the criminal court—to which the police will take the prosecution, will provide flexibility in protecting the public further by restraining a person's future antisocial behaviour than the sentence that is passed by the court for criminal behaviour.

Without such a provision, we will be allowing a category of people to continue their antisocial behaviour, causing nuisance to their neighbours, against whom a great deal of time and money is spent amassing evidence. We will come out of such a situation without a necessary constraint on their behaviour. I hope that we shall retain the ability to maintain an antisocial behaviour order after a criminal conviction.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his response. I was pleased that there has been some movement in the consultation process. I am still worried about the final point to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 273, in page 51, leave out lines 37 to 39.

I shall be in some trouble now with the Minister because the provision was recommended by the evaluation document and I am speaking against it. Nevertheless, I want the answers to the important questions that I am about to ask to be on the public record. Antisocial behaviour orders are so far-reaching that they should be available only to recognised law enforcement officers—the police—or democratically accountable local council representatives. I shall not rehearse the argument about democratic accountability, but clearly that is consistent with the line that we have taken in Committee.

Some additional points need to be considered. Giving social landlords the power to apply for antisocial behaviour orders could become a charter for bad landlords. Good landlords will rely primarily on good housing management procedures to tackle problem tenants and, when antisocial behaviour orders are needed, housing associations will work in partnership with the police or local councillors. If bad landlords are given such a power, they can pose the threat of an antisocial behaviour order as an alternative to good housing management.

I have spoken to several representatives of housing associations about the problem and one association did not want the power as it saw itself as a good landlord. Another representative made some important points that I should like the Minister to consider. I believe that that organisation wanted the power, but it was worried about it. How would it obtain the information? It was worried that there was a problem with data protection and data sharing with the police. It felt isolated.

Ms Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley, Labour/Co-operative)

Given how antisocial behaviour orders operate at present, many authorities use the local council as the lead when people are council tenants, but use the police as the lead in cases of those who are not council tenants. Does it not follow that there is logic in the housing association being the lead when people are housing association tenants? Given that people will be subject to the same processes and the same tests at court, the fact that relevant information would be needed would guard against bad landlords using the provision inappropriately.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I am not convinced that that is the case. It was certainly not the view of those professionals to whom I spoke. The hon. Lady's point comes down to democratic accountability. I should like an assurance from the Minister because, even with simplification, a relatively small housing association could be left with something that is difficult to handle

and not have all the information. I believe that the cases could be different from that described by the hon. Lady.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I object to almost everything that the hon. Lady has said.

I support the principle of ASBOs, and the idea of giving that power to social landlords. However, if I were allowed one major complaint, it would be that of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath—they are too bureaucratic and difficult to use.

Longridge housing estate in my constituency has recently been transferred to a social landlord. On a recent visit there, the social landlord said to me, ''We wish we had the power to deal with the bad and antisocial neighbours, and we would love to have the power to evict them, or to restrict their activity in the way that ASBOs allow.''

ASBOs are a part of a series of imaginative penalties that the criminal justice system needs. I do not always support the way that the Government float such ideas—usually as eye-catching initiatives that are splashed in The Sunday Times. However, I agree with the principle that we need to look at more imaginative solutions.

Yesterday, I attended a Public Accounts Committee hearing with the permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department and I was stunned—as were other Committee members of all parties—at the complete breakdown of the financial penalty system in courts: only 60 per cent. of penalties levied in courts are ever collected. As the permanent secretary conceded, it is really a kind of voluntary system; the offender decides whether to pay the court fine, because it is so easy not to pay it.

The permanent secretary said that all sorts of more imaginative solutions were being considered. ASBOs fall into that category, so I support them and their extension. However, they must be made less bureaucratic, so that they are easier to use—particularly if they are extended to social landlords, who will not necessarily have all the skills and bureaucratic back-up that are required to introduce them.

In my county of Cheshire, the chief constable recently told me that his force had introduced only five or six ASBOs in the entire county. The police said that they were keen to use them, but that they presented difficulties. Therefore, I regret that the Government are not using the Bill to strip away many of the bureaucratic problems that are associated with ASBOs, but I support the principle of extending them to social landlords.

Mr David Borrow (South Ribble, Labour)

I rise to reject the Liberal Democrat amendment. Most of the social housing in my constituency is housing association property, as a result of the stock transfer in the main council in my area.

At the moment, if the housing association wants to take action through the ASBO system, it relies on the police or the local authority to take the lead. That

might happen, but because the necessary procedures are so bureaucratic and quite expensive, one can understand why the police or the local authority might not give ASBOs the priority that the housing associations and social landlords might wish. It is important that the Bill ensures that housing associations have the power to take action—if they feel that it is important enough to do so—rather than leaving them to rely on other agencies to take the lead.

I hope that such organisations will always work in partnership, but it is important that housing associations have the fall-back position to take action. I can envisage many situations where antisocial behaviour gets completely out of control. If the local authority or the police will not take action, housing associations can do very little.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and he is right that the significant extent of stock transfer is one of the issues that have forced this to the head of the queue for legislation.

There have been concerns about the bureaucracy surrounding ASBOs; that is reflected in research. However, it is important to recognise that very little of that bureaucracy derives from the primary legislation that established ASBOs. It has accumulated along the way. Some police forces generate far more evidence than is required to secure an ASBO. Some aspects of the guidance will be revised after the passage of the Bill, as they generate unnecessary bureaucracy. Once the Bill is passed, we shall need to have a concerted campaign to get across to local practitioners that some of what has become regarded as essential to secure an ASBO is in fact unnecessary.

There has been discussion on the consultation with relevant authorities. Sometimes there is debate between local authority agencies—between, say, housing and social services—especially when a particularly young person is causing persistent nuisance. One of the issues raised by registered social landlords is that once there has been a stock transfer they are an outside body compared with the voices within the local authority. If the local authority is not willing to take the issues seriously, the landlord who has responsibility for the tenants is denied access to ASBOs in a way that probably would not take place if the housing department were still part of the corporate local authority.

Although there is no requirement in the clause for registered social landlords to take the responsibility of seeking ASBOs, it permits them to do so if the ideal partnership arrangement is not operating. That is important. Everything will be subject to a court test, so whoever is leading, it will be important to make an appropriate case. No doubt the courts will be interested in the views of other agencies, if those views are sought.

As hon. Members have said, a substantial proportion of the tenancies of social landlords now lie with registered social landlords, not local authorities. There is demand from some registered local social landlords for taking the lead, and the clause will enable them to do so.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his comments. I do not wish to push the amendment to a Division, because we voted this morning on the principle of accountability, and a Division would waste time. We need all the authorities to work together, whoever takes up the ASBO, if we are to tackle the causes of, and reform, antisocial behaviour. I do not think that ASBOs can work in isolation.

This morning I quoted from the evaluation in order to highlight the fact that we need the registered social landlords in the crime and disorder partnership. I hope that that will be in the guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 274, in page 52, line 19, leave out subsection (7).

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 275, in clause 58, page 54, line 8, leave out from 'persons' to ', and' in line 9.

No. 276, in clause 58, page 54, line 11, leave out

'any place in England and Wales'

and insert

'the local government area and persons in any adjoining local government area.'

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Amendments Nos. 274 and 276 can be taken together, as No. 276 follows on from No. 274. I should like to make some probing remarks on them.

The clause empowers the police, the council or a social landlord to apply for an ASBO that could be applicable across England and Wales. Presumably, a person will carry that on their back as they move around, although the Minister may correct me on that. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it was necessary for adjoining local authorities to be consulted before any ASBOs were applied for. The clause does not have the famous safeguard of necessity, so we may end up with police forces and local authorities being responsible for enforcing an ASBO that they have had no role in introducing.

I should like the Minister to pick up on the point that antisocial behaviour may relate to particular circumstances, and a person might have behaved very differently in different circumstances. I know that we are talking about hardcore offenders, but it causes me concern that a person could have such a label upon them. It could make it very difficult to get housing, and it could force people into the underclass. It is the package that goes with the ASBO as well as the measure itself that concerns me, in terms of how the subject of an ASBO will get support to change their behaviour, given that ASBOs cross local authorities.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

We support amendment No. 275 and we can see the point of amendment No. 274. However, we do not agree with amendment No. 276, which would work in a different direction. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole pointed out, it would restrict the provision to neighbouring local authority areas, which we think would be an

undue restriction. We shall listen to the Minister's comments, but we believe that the hon. Lady has a point with the other amendments.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 274 and 276. I accept that it is a weakness of the existing ASBOs that they cannot tackle certain types of persistent antisocial behaviour because the offenders move around the country. One group that we had in mind in developing the clause was the minority in the traveller community who engages in persistent nuisance more or less wherever they go. That may involve moving from one end of the country to another, and a stay in a particular area may be relatively brief. The disruption caused may be significant but with no possibility of collecting the evidence necessary for the local authority to get an ASBO.

Persistent antisocial behaviour established in one area will enable an application to be made to the courts to apply the ASBO to the people as they move around. That is important, as it will allow the enforcement of a breach of an ASBO in local authority area that is different from the one where the application was first made.

A more limited scope could come into play when someone is moving on account of their antisocial behaviour from one local authority area to another. As I mentioned earlier, many hon. Members are familiar with the round tripping of someone who moves out of a property after a concerted effort by all the agencies merely to pop up a mile down the road, possibly in another local authority area, and continue their behaviour. In those circumstances, it might be more appropriate to apply for an order that restricts the ASBO to a group of local authorities rather than nationally. However, it is necessary to have the flexibility to act on a national level against those people whose pattern of life involves moving around the country perhaps unpredictably or within a limited group of local authority areas.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Does the Minister agree with the Local Government Association, which says in its briefing for those ideas to be effective,

''there will be need to be a national agreement on information sharing''?

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

Yes, information is important, and one issue that we must address in the closing stages of the Bill and in guidance is the role of the police national computer. At the moment, it does not store ASBO information in an operational form, but police officers who want to check on a group of people that they think might be subject to an ASBO need to have access, either through the PNC or another mechanism, to up-to-date information about such identifiable individuals. Police officers will not automatically know that an ASBO has been issued 200 miles away, and no one will necessarily volunteer that information. The hon. Gentleman is right that it will be necessary to resolve some important information-sharing issues in the successful implementation of this part of the Bill.

On amendment No. 275, ASBOs are designed to protect the community from antisocial behaviour, which the Government have always defined as behaviour that is aimed outside the individual's household towards the wider community or society. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole did not explain the amendment at length, and I am not sure whether it attempts to amend the antisocial behaviour order to create, for example, a domestic violence order.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I am sorry about that. I forget to make a brief comment. I appreciate that that would change the nature and definition of an ASBO. I wanted to attach a question: does the Minister consider that existing legislation as it applies to a noisy household is sufficient—noise represents antisocial behaviour for a person who lives near it, however it is generated—or is there mileage in using an ASBO, which would need redefining if it were used for such a domestic situation?

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

The legislation is not perfect, but I hope that it is getting better at addressing the nuisance that noisy households create for other households. The ASBO procedure should not be used if one member of a household creates a lot of noise that distresses another, which is implied by the amendment. The purpose of ASBOs is to address annoyance, nuisance and disturbance to members of other households.

An entirely separate debate exists about whether legal procedures that deal with internal issues such as domestic violence are adequate. I am quite certain that that process should not be mixed up with ASBOs, and we would experience great difficulties if we tried to do that.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his comments. He reminded me of a situation that my part of the country suffers from at great length. I understand the purpose of sharing information, which is important for everybody's welfare, including travellers, whose living conditions are a great welfare issue.

If a situation occurred with an individual—perhaps a young person—there should be supportive measures if an order were imposed because, otherwise, I have a real fear that people would be driven to crime because they had nowhere to go.

I have made many of my comments because I want them added to the guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

According to the programme motion, we must conclude proceedings on clause 62 by 7 pm. At 7 pm, I shall go through the clauses. If there is a Division in the House, we shall have to come back to conclude the business.

Amendment made: No. 266, in page 52, line 24, at end insert—

'(7A) In subsection (10) of that section (penalty for contravention of order), for ''shall be'' there shall be substituted ''is guilty of an offence and''.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.