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

I beg to move amendment No. 123, in clause 19, page 20, line 19, leave out

‘(who need not be a particular identified person)’.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 124, in clause 19, page 20, line 41, leave out

‘Without prejudice to the generality of the court’s power under subsection (2), a kind of conduct may’

and insert

‘A kind of conduct must’.

No. 125, in clause 19, page 20, line 43, leave out from ‘reference’ to end of line 45.

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

The purpose of the probing amendments is to test the appropriateness of clause 19’s wording. It is good for those with a liberal conscience or liberal tendencies to beware of crimes without victims. I understand the purpose of some of the wording, particularly in subsection (4), which would protect the identity of particular individuals. In my constituency, quite a large number of local people were victimising one family, and the conflict had racist elements. It would have been extremely counterproductive for that family to be named. The amendments would not make that impossible, because they are carefully framed.

The amendments would remove the ability of antisocial behaviour injunctions to refer to “persons generally”, which we believe is too broad, but would leave the ability to name individuals if appropriate and to describe people, as in subsection (4)(b), which refers to

“persons of a description specified in the injunction”.

It would still be possible to protect the identity of local residents and of individuals or families.

It is risky to allow injunctions for behaviour that an authority believes to be antisocial, but for which no evidence has been received. In other words, someone could effectively be found guilty of a crime with no victims. On one occasion when I was canvassing locally, I was told by neighbourhood people about antisocial behaviour. The antisocial behaviour that they were referring to was local kids playing football on the green space nearby. I was as sympathetic as I could be, but I could not see what possible harm there was in such behaviour.

By allowing that to be regarded as antisocial behaviour, even though no one was prepared to come forward to put their name to a complaint, the Bill would allow the risk that those children might be unfairly treated under an injunction for doing something that really offended no one and caused no real harm. The amendments would remove the references to “persons generally”, but would leave the reference either to specific people or to people by description.

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

It is Thursday afternoon at the end of a heavy week, and I shall do my very best to be kind and polite to the hon. Gentleman, despite his provoking suggestions that antisocial behaviour is about kids playing football in the street. I do not know what kind of community he lives in—I am not familiar with his constituency—but I must say to him that antisocial behaviour problems in many communities are of a significantly different order.

I have visited communities up and down the country, and in all kinds of areas—market towns and rural areas as well as inner-city areas—problems of antisocial behaviour are significant and, in many cases, of long standing. They have blighted the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people, many of whom are elderly or vulnerable. The proposal will ensure that we can take action but at the same time protect vulnerable people from the prospect of reprisals and intimidation, which often occur and which make them   feel extremely frightened. This is a small provision, but the powers that it gives will help to protect those worried individuals.

The proposal is intended to try to give clear guidance to the courts that there is no need for the victims of antisocial behaviour to be specified in injunctions taken out to offer communities respite and protection. That should be the case, but the courts unfortunately sometimes interpret such legislation very narrowly and insist that if a housing-related injunction is taken out, it has to name the individuals. In terms of the general law, that should not have to be done, and the proposal makes it clear that it does not have to be the case. Naming individuals tells the perpetrators who is complaining about them and significantly increases the likelihood of reprisals. We want to avoid such situations if we can, which is why we have tried to make the clause as clear as possible.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s illustration, when an injunction is applied for, it is the court that makes the order and has to be satisfied that what is going on is sufficiently serious to merit the granting of an injunction, which is quite a significant court power. I am not aware of any court that would grant an injunction lightly or frivolously on the basis of information that did not constitute behaviour that was causing people significant problems.

I say to the hon. Gentleman again, as politely and gently as I can, that when we discuss antisocial behaviour we should be aware of the depth of the problems that people experience and how important it is to protect them. I have come across many people in their 70s and 80s who have shown great courage when they have been exposed to horrific situations. They have been prepared to go to court and take a stand, to give evidence and be a witness in a case that has caused them huge personal distress. When decent people are prepared to stand up and come forward, we have a responsibility to do whatever we can to protect them and to ensure that they are not unnecessarily exposed to the possibility of intimidation, harassment and reprisals from the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. That makes our position very clear indeed, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

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

I think the Minister has badly misunderstood what I was saying, but that may be due to my inadequacy in explaining it, for which I apologise. I referred to an example of racist victimisation and intimidation in my constituency, so I think the Minister should understand that I appreciate that there is a great deal of antisocial behaviour, which causes very serious problems for people and communities. Unfortunately, some of it is in my constituency, and it is quite serious.

The risk in the Bill is that because people perceive antisocial behaviour differently, there is a possibility that inappropriate action might be taken against someone in a situation where there is no real victim. However, I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s remarks.

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

I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but subsection (2) states:

“The court on the application of a relevant landlord may grant an anti-social behaviour injunction if the condition ... is satisfied.”

The court will make the order. If no damage is being caused to people, I do not think a court, of its own volition, would want to make an order if there was no one to protect.

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

That may be one of the Minister’s reassuring comments. On the other hand, I quoted an example at the opposite extreme to the more serious case of antisocial behaviour, which I did not regard as very serious and where I saw no victims, but the perception among some local people was that there was antisocial behaviour. I suppose we have to trust the court to make the right judgment in the circumstances.

The Minister also misunderstands the purpose of amendment No. 125. The idea was not to have to name individuals or to leave courts with the misapprehension that they had to name individuals in antisocial behaviour orders, but to remove the reference to “persons generally”. There has to be a middle ground between that very broad description and the naming of individuals. That middle ground is set out in subsection (4)(b), which refers

“to persons of a description specified in the injunction”.

The middle ground is there in the Bill; we are simply trying to remove the even more general description, which we felt was open to abuse. I hope that the Minister will take that into account and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 102 and 104.

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

The purpose of the Government amendments is to give power to the Welsh Assembly to bring clause 19 into force, bringing it into line with clause 20, for which a separate commencement provision for Wales is already included. It is consistent with the devolution settlement.