Schedule 17
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
7:35 pm
David Heath (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice & Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I seem to spend a lot of time in this Committee asking, “What about the children?” In this instance, I am talking about children who have not been accused of any crime or even of any potentially offending behaviour, but who merely happen to reside in the house or premises that are subject to a closure order.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead has already made a number of the points that I wanted to make. Amendment No. 354 is a probing amendment to see how the Government intend, first, to assess the needs of vulnerable people on such premises and, secondly, to cater for them if a closure order is made. As the hon. Gentleman said, this issue was recognised in the Government’s own consultation paper, “Strengthening powers to tackle anti-social behaviour”, which the Home Office published in 2006. He quoted part of a passage from it that I had intended to quote when he said:
“The needs of any vulnerable people in the household, including children and young people, will need to be considered.”
It goes on to say:
“Their safety must not be compromised and a clear plan needs to be put in place to safeguard them and promote their welfare if the closure goes ahead.”
Amen to that. It is exactly what the Government should be considering in this context, but at the moment there is no mention as far as I can see, in either the parent clause or the schedule, to that assessment being made.
In other legislation of a broadly similar type, that linkage is made. Let us consider, for instance, housing benefit sanctions under section 31 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. There is a link between the sanction and helping the family in question to deal with the consequences, but in the Bill no link is made between the closure order and rehabilitative services. In my view, there should be such a link. The Government appear to have at least considered it at an earlier stage, but it does not appear in the Bill.
How does the Minister propose to ensure that vulnerable people, such as children, who reside in the same premises are safeguarded in relation to actions that may be completely beyond their control—actions that are committed by another person, perhaps a parent or another relative, who is resident in the same premises? I ask that because we do not believe in collective punishment in this country. It is not appropriate that we should not have regard for the interests of innocent parties.