Clause 13 - Injunctions against anti-social behaviour on application of certain social landlords
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
Our concern is about why the Government are introducing the provision. I can see that they may want to make it clear that the conduct does not necessarily have to take place in the premises or their immediate vicinity. However, the provision may be taken to mean that antisocial behaviour that occurs well away from the premises where somebody lives could be a reason to bring in a demoted tenancy. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. Our amendment seeks clarification as to what they mean by
''It is immaterial where conduct . . . occurs''.
I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have tabled amendments Nos. 194 and 196. In the light of
what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has said, the use of the word ''immoral'' seems inconsistent with an antisocial behaviour bill. If people's conduct is unlawful or they are causing a nuisance, that will be covered. Therefore, I am not sure what possible immoral purpose that caused a nuisance or annoyance would not be caught up by the earlier clause.
I hope that this is one area in which lawmakers are beginning to move from attempting to impose morality on people's behaviour to addressing the effects of that behaviour. I am grateful to the Conservatives and will be interested in the Minister's response to amendment No. 100, which deals with a similar issue to our amendment No. 144 in that it is concerned with the locality that is to be considered.