Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 16, page 14, line 23, leave out

‘, or is likely to engage,’.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 51, in clause 16, page 14, line 26, at end insert—

‘(c)the local authority has undertaken an assessment of need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)’.

No. 52, in clause 17, page 16, line 28, at end insert—

‘(c)the local authority has undertaken an assessment of need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)’.

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

The introduction of parenting contracts is yet another possible tool in the increasingly large armoury that includes acceptable behaviour contracts and antisocial behaviour orders, which if used appropriately are broadly welcome steps that can add flexibility—[Interruption.] No, I think that this is established Liberal Democrat policy, I am afraid. I refer the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) to our recent manifestos and policy statements.

We welcome a range of flexible approaches to police and criminal justice, and if used appropriately such tools can do a lot of good. However, it is important to understand that they are not the whole solution. The solution to antisocial behaviour has deeper roots and involves a range of agencies and approaches that do not all involve the criminal justice system. As I have said, extensive use has been made of ASBOs in my own constituency. I have examples of ASBOs being promoted without the young person’s school or the youth service team appropriately being consulted. Since a large number of ASBOs are placed on younger people, that is an important issue when we look at other models such as acceptable behaviour contracts or parenting contracts.

The British Institute for Brain Injured Children has drawn attention to the example of a 14-year-old boy who was given an ASBO that included a curfew. He had to stay in at a particular time, but he had a mental age of less than seven and could not tell the time. There are risks to the new approaches, and we have to guard against their inappropriate use.

The clause provides for counselling and guidance programmes, which are very welcome. The amendments seek further safeguards, including a formal assessment of need and the removal of the targeting of a child or young person who

“has engaged, or is likely to engage, in anti-social behaviour”

as set out in proposed new subsection 25A(1)(a). I know that the Children’s Society has drawn attention to that point and is worried about it. It says:

“it is of great concern that a contract could be sought even though a young person has not actually displayed any anti-social behaviour, especially since refusal to sign one can be cited as grounds for application for a parenting order, breach of which can lead to a level 3 (£1,000) fine.”

It is quite a serious issue. The Secretary of State may have many talents, but the ability to foretell the future and predict antisocial behaviour is not one of them. The intention behind these probing amendments is to discover whether the Government are prepared to put a few more safeguards in the clause.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

This clause allows local authorities and registered social landlords to enter into parenting contracts. “Contract” is the important word. The contract is not a parenting order, but an entirely voluntary agreement between a local authority and the parents to have a contract setting out steps to be taken to support the parents in ensuring that their children do not get involved in antisocial behaviour. Amendment No. 50 would prevent local authorities from providing such support to prevent problems from escalating. A whole strand of our approach in the respect action plan was to do much more prevention, early intervention, and diversion, rather than wait until problems have got to such a pitch that ASBOs or dispersal orders—the harder set of powers—become necessary.

We want to ensure that support is offered at an early stage, both for the benefit of communities and for the sake of the families concerned. That is why we have made £52 million available through the respect action plan to support parenting interventions across the board. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his party would have welcomed the Government’s approach. Our aim is to give support, and our proposals are supported by the Youth Justice Board. I know from the hon. Gentleman’s opening comments that his party has changed its policy and supports many of the measures that we have introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour, and I had hoped that, on this occasion, he would also want us to help children in that position; however, his amendment would undermine our policy.

Local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that careful assessments are made of children’s situations. Such assessments will examine the interaction of risk and protective factors in children’s lives. If they provide evidence that the children are likely to offend, the local authorities will first attempt to engage the parents on a voluntary basis to steer the children away from criminal or antisocial behaviour. We all know that involving parents at an early stage helps to prevent such behaviour from becoming entrenched. The statutory guidance that is published   will reflect the importance of the assessment of need, so that an holistic approach is taken and underlying problems are addressed.

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister knows that I support the use of early intervention to tackle such problems at an early stage. One of the Government’s best initiatives since they were first elected has been the Sure Start programme, which has done enormously good work in trying to tackle problems at an early stage. It is mischievous of Labour Members to interpret certain votes in the past, which related to other parts of legislation that was under consideration at the time, as opposition to ASBOs. My party has never opposed the appropriate use of ASBOs, and the record will show that—I can probably send it to the right hon. Lady.

The Minister seems to be objecting to things that I did not say. The amendments suggest making an assessment of need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Why does she think that that cannot form a part of the early intervention process?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am about to come to the hon. Gentleman’s other amendments. In the first, he seeks to remove the possibility of having a parenting contract if somebody is likely to engage in antisocial behaviour, so he is saying that we have to reach a point at which antisocial behaviour is already taking place before we can have a parenting contract. If he genuinely believed in early intervention, he would not have tabled that amendment.

In the hon. Gentleman’s second set of amendments, he makes a serious point. We have a responsibility to children and their families to provide support at the earliest possible stage. In amendments Nos. 51 and 52, he talks about an assessment under section 17 of the Children Act. That assessment is very detailed, whereas we want the flexibility for the people on the front line to be able to carry out an assessment. The existing common assessment framework should be the first assessment used unless there are concerns that suggest an urgent need for a specialist assessment to be made without delay.

The assessment in section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a more detailed and specialist assessment than the common assessment framework that is in place and which, in these circumstances, should be sufficient to give the background, evidence and information that are necessary in order to enter into a parenting contract or a parenting order. We recognise that parenting orders, in particular, can have an impact on a families. Of course, we would encourage local authorities to consider whether there is a need for further specialist assessment in relation to the individuals concerned.

The common assessment framework is a nationally standardised approach to conducting an assessment of the needs of a child or young person. It has been developed for use by practitioners in all agencies to allow them to communicate and to work more effectively together, meaning that an assessment carried out by an education welfare officer will not differ from that carried out by a social worker. It is   important that there is common framework for assessment because work can be done in a more integrated way. The framework has been designed to encourage greater sharing of information among practitioners and it promotes early intervention if additional needs are observed.

All local authority areas should be preparing for and implementing the common assessment framework, and resources such as guidance and factsheets are in place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the framework is a more appropriate way to proceed than the lengthy and detailed assessment that would be required under section 17.

On that subject, by highlighting a particular case that involved restrictions in an antisocial behaviour order the hon. Gentleman sought to discredit some of the powers used in this area. So far, he has taken a more constructive approach than many members of his party. However, to use a completely atypical case to undermine the antisocial behaviour powers illustrates, yet again, that although the Liberal Democrats always say that they support the ends, they will not support the means. They say that they support tackling antisocial behaviour. They say that they are on the side of the community and that they want the problems to be addressed, but when it comes to the means to achieve those objectives, when it comes to being prepared to tackle the issues that are most important to antisocial behaviour, very often they are prepared to will the ends but never the means.

The Liberal Democrats opposed the use of antisocial behaviour orders and dispersal orders tooth and nail. They voted against our antisocial behaviour legislation. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more honest, rather than quote such atypical cases in an attempt to undermine the Bill. The public do not want that. We have a responsibility to the children and their parents to ensure that we intervene early. We must give them support and ensure that parenting classes are offered. We must help people to change their lives and to have the chance to live in a much better way. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

I agree that early intervention is a good method and that antisocial behaviour need not have reached such a level as to require an antisocial behaviour order before a parenting contract is introduced. However, that is not what clause 16 says. It says the

“local authority has reason to believe that the child or young person has engaged, or is likely to engage, in anti-social behaviour”.

It does not say what level of antisocial behaviour. Surely, to justify that kind of action, there must have been some kind of antisocial behaviour. Just to say

“is likely to engage”

implies clairvoyance on the part of the authorities. There needs to be some evidence of antisocial behaviour to require a parenting contract. Otherwise, the legislation seems open to abuse.

The Minister referred to amendment No. 51 on the requirement for an assessment of need. I appreciate that section 17 of the Children Act may not be the most appropriate methodology and my knowledge of it is not deep enough to justify that amendment. I am therefore content to withdraw it. The Minister should accept, however, that a process will be required and she may wish to table amendments at a later stage.

I defend the use of atypical cases. In any legislation where civil liberties might be at risk, atypical cases are important. An injustice done to one person is an injustice none the less. When introducing new legislation, it should always give us pause for thought if previous legislation on the same model—as was the case with ASBOs—has led to several cases that were undoubtedly unjust to the individuals involved. The case I referred to is not the only example. Liberty will provide us with many, many more. That does not mean that ASBOs are wrong or inappropriate and that we should reject them, but it puts an onus on us, as law-makers, to introduce the safeguards that we can. I hope that the Minister will consider these points more seriously in future.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 16, page 15, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 16.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 115, in clause 17, page 17, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 18.

No. 116, in clause 17, page 18, line 12, leave out

‘or registered social landlord (“a relevant authority”)’.

No. 117, in clause 17, page 18, line 21, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

No. 118, in clause 17, page 18, line 24, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

No. 119, in clause 17, page 18, line 28, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

No. 120, in clause 17, page 18, line 30, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

No. 121, in clause 17, page 18, line 33, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

The amendment relates to the proposal to give the powers set out in the clause to social landlords. It would also remove the power of the Secretary of State to provide by order for local authorities to subcontract their powers to enter into parenting contracts or to apply for parenting orders.

The question is one of appropriateness. Social landlords often have a wide role. I know that Cheltenham Borough Homes in my constituency has a role in considering the behaviour and social environment of the housing for which it is responsible. Nevertheless, its expertise is in housing management; that is its primary function. It is important that we take such issues seriously and that we have mechanisms to tackle antisocial behaviour and the need for better parenting—and better behaviour in general—but I am   not sure that it is appropriate to extend such powers to social landlords, because they do not have the necessary training or expertise.

I refer the Minister to the comments of Children’s Society, which refers to the respect action plan—that should bring a warm glow to her heart. It states:

“As the Respect Action Plan stated, evidence from Sure Start and youth offending programmes shows that the level of skill and training of the member of staff delivering a parenting intervention is crucial. Appropriate and effective decisions on making or implementing parenting contracts or orders requires expertise in assessing parenting skills and delivering parenting support. Such specialist resources and skills are generally not located within social landlords but within local authorities and other agencies.”

I agree.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Mention of the respect action plan brought a warm glow to my heart because, as I explained in relation to previous amendments, it puts a real emphasis on early intervention, trying to nip problems in the bud and generally trying to support parents in tackling the sometimes difficult issues that they have to face.

The respect action plan is about continuing our action on antisocial behaviour, but it is also very much about deepening and sustaining the measures that we can take so that families can genuinely change their behaviour. That helps the rest of the community; it has a huge impact on the quality of life for all families in the area. That is why parenting contracts and parenting orders are so important. We want to extend the range of agencies able to enter into parenting contracts or apply for parenting orders. The remedy is one that is considered far more frequently, and rather being confined to local authorities, social services and education, it should come to the minds of a range of agencies involved in improving the quality of life in our neighbourhoods. That is why we want to extend it to others with a role in tackling antisocial behaviour.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

Does the Minister accept that, on Second Reading, Members on all sides of the House expressed doubt about registered social landlords being an appropriate outsource agency, as they did not have the training? Although the Home Secretary gave assurances on the Floor of the House that there would be training, I hope that the Minister understands the reason for those reservations.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

Yes, I well recall the debate. I indicated then that it would be appropriate for people to have proper training to deal with young people and families if they were going to be active in that field.

Many social landlords do not carry out their functions in a narrow, defined way, restricted to housing, collecting the rent and doing repairs. Many take their responsibilities seriously, extending their activities to tenant management and ensuring that people behave properly, as well as the traditional housing management functions. Many want to be able to train their staff to have the skills and manage their estates properly. That may include entering into parenting contracts as part of their wider management responsibilities, to ensure that neighbourhoods and   estates are managed properly, meaning that everybody can live their in peace and quiet without the prospect of antisocial behaviour taking place.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

Has the Minister considered that a registered social landlord may consult the youth offending team or experts from the local authority who already have that expertise, so that they, rather than the registered social landlord, may enact the order?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

It is perfectly open for registered social landlords to work with the local authorities and many of them will do that—particularly the smaller ones that do not have the facilities and capacity to train their staff to deal with such issues. However, that is not a reason to prevent registered social landlords that genuinely want it to have the responsibility and the powers, because that will help them to manage their estates better. We should not prevent them from doing that.

At the moment, registered social landlords have the power to apply for antisocial behaviour orders. Entering into parenting contracts is much less of a sanction than applying for an antisocial behaviour order. Again, it is a voluntary process—an agreement between the parents and the landlord—and I am sure that the landlords will seek the expertise of the local authorities already involved in this area.

I genuinely think that trying to spread the responsibility for tackling antisocial behaviour beyond the traditional enforcement and support agencies is important; in that way, there will be a sense that antisocial behaviour is everybody’s business. The problems of solving antisocial behaviour are such that every agency should be thinking about it in their strategies and training and considering whether they have the staff to deal with it. Giving wider powers to local authorities and registered social landlords to enter into parenting contracts and to apply for parenting orders is useful.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

What guarantees can the Minister give that those would not be used for the wrong reasons? What would be the checks and balances for a social registered landlord that took a dislike to a family?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

The checks and balances are that the contracts would be voluntary—a person does not have to enter into a contract—and an order would be made by the court, which will make such an order where it thinks that it is appropriate to do so. It is not a matter of the landlord imposing an order on a family: the landlord would have to make an application, and the question whether it was appropriate would be considered. I think that even the hon. Lady would think that the court’s oversight would be a sufficient reassurance and safeguard.

I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw his amendment.

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

I think that intervention in family life is a serious, sensitive matter and the state should tread lightly and cautiously. As I have said, we Liberal Democrats welcome the idea of parenting contracts as   an addition to the range of tools available to local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. However, to extend and expand those responsibilities to a whole range of agencies would go beyond proper caution and would, potentially, hand to agencies extremely sensitive, delicate powers that would be quite outside their comfort zones and range of experience. In fact, when the Minister said just now that such agencies could draw on the expertise of local authorities, she implicitly accepted that they do not have that expertise at the moment and thinks it unlikely that they will have it.

The Minister also asserted that many registered social landlords want these powers, but I am not so sure. If I were an officer of Cheltenham Borough Homes, or another registered social landlord, I might hesitate before getting involved in parenting matters. One can imagine the kind of liabilities that might arise from intervening wrongly or inappropriately and the kind of complexities that might be added to an already challenging job. I should be interested to know if the Minister has any evidence for registered social landlords demanding these powers, but I should be surprised if many of their officers on the ground are demanding them very loudly.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, registered social landlords often work well in partnership with local authorities and other agencies in providing a measure of broader scrutiny of estates and housing under their responsibility, with a view to trying to contain antisocial behaviour. I have seen that done well in my constituency. But, as my hon. Friend also said, they can always call on the expertise of other agencies such as local authorities to impose parenting contracts at that time. They do not need the responsibility themselves. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.