Clause 13 - Injunctions against anti-social behaviour on application of certain social landlords
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
We come to the crux of this part of the Bill—injunctions against antisocial behaviour used on application. I shall run through our amendments as quickly as I can. Some are designed to establish the Government's thinking on the detail of the clause.
Amendment No. 138 would remove the phrase ''capable of'' from proposed new section 153A(1)(a), making it read:
''This section applies to conduct . . . which is causing nuisance or annoyance to any person''.
We want the Government to clarify what they mean by conduct ''capable of'' causing nuisance or annoyance. Excessively loud music, late night parties and people hanging around outside might be capable of causing nuisance to people, but surrounding tenants may be entirely happy that that is happening. I accept that that is unlikely, but we are testing why the Government have used the phrase ''capable of causing nuisance'' rather than ''is causing nuisance''.
Amendment No. 139 is designed to test the difference between nuisance and annoyance. Nuisance is an understandable condition, but many different things could be described as causing annoyance to neighbours, some of which would not be at all reasonable. What do the Government class as annoyance? There is a clearer line on nuisance.
In passing, I should say that we do not support Conservative amendment No. 193. Using ''or'' instead
of ''and'' would mean that the proposed new section could apply to conduct
''which directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management functions of a relevant landlord''
without reference to the nuisance test. I think that the Conservatives want the amendment to work differently, but it would not quite achieve their aim.
Amendment Nos. 140 and 141 go together. They are similar to previous amendments and relate to the idea that the people in question should be actually engaged in behaviour that causes a problem. Subsection (3) talks about a person who
''threatens to engage in conduct to which this section applies.''
I am uncertain about the condition of threatening to engage in antisocial behaviour, as the requirement that the person is engaging or has engaged in such conduct would be sufficient. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to include the other condition? Does he have in mind specific circumstances in which it might apply? We are concerned that the wording is not tight enough, so we seek clarification.
Amendment No. 142 would remove the phrase ''capable of'', again tightening the drafting. It is the same as amendment No. 138, and the question is whether any conduct is causing a nuisance, rather than is just capable of causing a nuisance. Amendment No. 143 is similar to amendments Nos. 140 and 141. If it were made, subsection (1) would refer to conduct which
''involves using . . . housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord''.
We are seeking to discover what problem the Government see in using the idea that someone might do something rather than actually doing it.
Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 are along the same lines. Clause 14 includes:
''or has threatened to engage in conduct''.
That is perhaps more understandable if someone has threatened, for example, to play his music all night long every night. It may be slightly more relevant than in the implied circumstances in which someone has not actually engaged in antisocial behaviour but might have done.
There is a broad theme to the amendments. I hope that the Minister can explain why those phrases should remain in the Bill.