Clause 19 - Anti-social behaviour injunctions
Police and Justice Bill
3:00 pm
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.