Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 May 2003.

Standing Committee G

Clause 29 - Dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 107, in

clause 29, page 23, line 35, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 109, in

clause 29, page 23, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 158, in

clause 29, page 23, line 36, after 'a', insert 'particularly'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Good morning, Mr. Cran, and welcome to what I think is the first morning sitting that you have chaired.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Absolutely.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am sorry that we have dragged you out of bed so early.

Amendment No. 107 is part of the succession of amendments to clause 29 to which I have spoken. In my closing remarks in the last sitting, I referred to the Minister's intransigent attitude to them. It will suffice to repeat the general point, which is that we should like this part of the Bill to be much more flexible and the police to be given the scope to use the powers of dispersal in a way that they think appropriate as and when they need them, rather than subject to all the accompanying paraphernalia in clauses 29 and 30.

Amendment No. 107 would remove the requirement for a

''significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality'',

stated in clause 29(1)(b). That is part of the overall case that I have been advancing. With the Bill, we—I presume that I can use the royal we—are trying to help people who suffer antisocial behaviour. Frankly, they do not really care what criteria surround whether and when the police can use the powers, or whether an offence was committed last week on the other side of town. They care about whether the police can turn up when there is a problem in their area and metaphorically get a grip on those who are causing it and sort them out. That is the purpose behind the amendment.

So much of the rest of this part of the Bill provides that the powers can be used only in areas where there has previously been a persistent problem and where a superintendent has decided to designate a relevant locality and gone through the activities described in clause 30. Those activities would be even more

bureaucratic if the Government accepted the Liberal Democrat amendments to which we shall come later.

I am trying to remove all that bureaucracy, so that if I, as an individual civilian, or my household is suffering the antisocial behaviour of a group of people—not necessarily young people—I can say to the police, ''I do not want you to have to go back to the office to sort things out and return next week to tell me that you have the powers to move these people on. I want them moved on now.'' Currently, the Bill prevents that from happening.

The Bill provides that the police can designate some parts of the country where it is deemed that there is a significant and persistent problem as relevant localities, so that the next time that something happens they can do something about it. The problem is that, as we all know, young people—we are all trying to avoid describing these groups as groups of young people, but we know that the majority will be young people—are past masters at knowing just how far to push the limits of the law. They will know which area is a relevant locality and that if they cross to the other side of the street or walk across a boundary, they will be outside the relevant locality and therefore able to gather and continue their antisocial behaviour with impunity. The police will not be able to disperse the young people or take them home.

That seems crazy. It is asking for the legislation to be brought rapidly into disrepute: young people will make it into a laughing stock. The Government should re-examine the issue and ensure that antisocial behaviour is not considered a problem only in some parts of the country. It is a problem everywhere. It may vary in degree, but to the people suffering from it, it is their suffering, not someone else's, that matters. That is why I contend strongly that there should be flexibility and that the requirement that the ''relevant locality'' must have a ''significant and persistent problem'' should be removed.

The argument can be taken on a stage to discussions on what constitutes a ''significant and persistent problem''. It is not defined in the Bill, so the decision will rely on the subjective views of individual superintendents in different parts of the country who may take different views. For clarity, we should remove that subsection and say simply that if antisocial behaviour is caused by groups of people, the police should have the power to do something about it.

That is the argument and there is no point in repeating in its entirety the case that I have made before. I am trying to emphasise that the value of this part of the Bill, which is designed to help people who are suffering antisocial behaviour caused by groups of people gathering together, will be dramatically diminished if it is hedged about in the way that the Government propose. Bearing in mind the Minister's remarks on earlier amendments, I want at least the removal of the criterion that the area must be the source of a ''significant and persistent problem'', so that people will not have to put up with the problem for some time before the police take any action.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Welcome to the Chair this morning, Mr. Cran.

The Liberal Democrat amendment in the group works, as the Conservative spokesman said, in the opposite direction to the Conservative amendments. I suppose that the difference in our philosophies is emerging. The Conservative amendments would dramatically lower the threshold to be reached before the strong powers—we have perhaps overused the word ''draconian'' in this Committee—may be used. We believe that there should be large hurdle to be overcome before the powers can come into effect, but the Conservative amendments would enable the police to use the powers in almost any case that they can think of.

Our amendment is designed to probe the Government's thinking. It is about setting the threshold and would add the word ''particularly'', so that the powers could be used only if there was a ''particularly significant and persistent'' problem. The amendment is designed to elicit from the Minister the circumstances in which he envisages the powers being used and what test is meant by the phrase ''significant and persistent''.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

As the hon. Gentleman is speaking to his own amendment, will he tell the Committee what he sees as the difference between ''significant and persistent'' and ''particularly significant and persistent''? Surely ''significant'' means significant and ''persistent'' means persistent?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Lady is obviously not listening carefully this morning. I have just explained that this is a probing amendment designed to elicit from the Minister precisely what is a ''significant and persistent problem''. Proposing to add the word ''particularly'' enables us to get a response from him. The hon. Lady clearly does not understand that tactic.

We are seeking assurances from the Minister that the requirement of a ''significant and persistent problem'' is a relatively high threshold. We do not support the Conservatives' attempt to lower dramatically the threshold governing when the powers may be used.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I was relieved to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesman say that his is a probing amendment, as when I first read it I did not think the Liberal Democrats were being entirely serious. The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to probe the Government on how high the threshold should be, but I think his case was that the threshold should be higher than it is in the Bill—I hope that I am not misrepresenting him. In a way, the probing amendment represents his intentions.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying to residents, ''We are not prepared to give the police powers to deal with problems unless they cross a very high threshold indeed. You will have to live with a significant problem and wait until it becomes a 'particularly significant' problem before we are prepared to give the police the power to deal with it.'' The Liberal Democrats' message to people who are concerned about antisocial behaviour is, ''It's tough. You have to put up with it because we are not

prepared to give the police the powers they need to deal with it.''

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. The Liberal Democrats' position seems most peculiar. Does he agree with me that one of the problems of tackling groups of people hanging around, sometimes sitting on fences, is that the Liberal Democrats might be caught by the measure?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

That might well be the case. Although I cannot see the ''Focus'' leaflets emblazoned with the heading, ''Liberal Democrats win concessions for louts from Government'', who knows? It might happen.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Perhaps my hon. Friend would find it useful if Conservative party leaflets told the electorate that that is what the Liberal Democrats spend their time in Parliament doing.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

No doubt a leaflet will appear saying, ''Liberal Democrats demand tougher measures from the Government.''

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. That may be so, but it is early in the morning and we must leave the examination of Liberal Democrat policy on every issue under the sun and return to the amendment.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Thank you, Mr. Cran. You brought me to order because I crossed the threshold and was particularly out of order.

The Conservative amendments are entirely sensible and I hope that the Government will think seriously about them. Subsection (1)(a) and (b) cover the same things; if either condition were established, the other would be too, so I wonder how much both conditions are needed. There is a case for not hedging the proposal about with too many conditions because the powers for which those conditions will be the trigger are not the most draconian, although of course we must be careful when giving the police powers.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

If the hon. Lady thinks that the powers are draconian, I will certainly give way.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I merely want to ask the hon. Gentleman if his words now are compatible with what he said at our last sitting on Thursday afternoon. Responding to me, he said:

''Such an order can only come about when there has been a proven problem in an area of antisocial behaviour, when authorisation has been given and there has been consultation. All those processes must be gone through.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 May 2003; c. 152.]

Is that compatible with changing ''and'' to ''or''?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The conditions in subsection (1)(a) and (b) amount to a proven problem. My point at our last sitting and now is that an awful lot of conditions have to be fulfilled. That is my concern; that is why I read out the list of conditions that must be fulfilled, which must be seen in the light of the powers that are given to the police. We are talking not about powers of arrest or powers to enter someone's house but about giving the police powers to disperse groups of people—I thought that they had such a power anyway—and

telling those individuals not to return to the area. It is not such a draconian power that it needs so many conditions.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) made a good point about the general problem of hedging the powers about with conditions: the more conditions surrounding the powers, the less likely they are to be used. That has been seen to be the case with similar provisions: the police simply look at them and say, ''We have to prove X, Y and Z and then we have to prove A, B and C, too.''

I want the powers to be used. My concern is simply that the Bill creates orders and powers that will not be used in practice because there are too many conditions attached to them and the lawyers have got at the Bill too much. I wonder whether it will make such a big difference to the problem of antisocial behaviour because if it is hedged about with too many conditions, its provisions simply will not be used enough.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

It is fair to say that the Conservatives are trying not to lower the threshold, but to remove it in its entirety and give constables the power to act everywhere. I disagree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that we want senior officers to take a subjective view of whether there is a problem in a particular area. We want senior officers to take a strategic view of where and what that problem is and the resources that are needed to use the powers to effect change in an area where there has been a problem for a long time.

The Bill is not the only measure through which we give directive powers to officers to act in a particular area. We do so in other circumstances where there is deemed to be a problem, for example, to deal with people who are consuming alcohol in public places, we give powers of direction in an area where the problem is deemed to exist or persist. That has been very successful. The whole of Coventry city centre has been designated a non-drinking area for some time. The police have been given appropriate powers and there has been a behavioural change. We envisage the powers in the clause being used in exactly the same way.

There is no need to go all over the arguments again. We will not set the threshold at a level that is over-bureaucratic and requires extensive examination and proof of the persistence of the problem. We will lay out in a code of practice advice on when the powers should be brought into use. That use will be based on evidence of a persistent problem such as complaints about antisocial behaviour and calls to the police. It will be open to people who feel that that applies in their neighbourhood to make a case for the use of the powers.

Care will need to be taken in drawing up the designated areas. We can leave that to the police, as they will know where there might be difficulties if they draw the area wrongly. If a problem persisted in the vicinity of two public houses and the police drew one inside the area and one outside it, the effect would be

simply to move people across the road, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. However, if the police officer takes the designation of an area seriously, decides to allocate some resources and bear down on the problem consistently and therefore gets the area right, we might see a significant change in behaviour in that area. We would then want the police commander to move on and to consider whether it is appropriate to use the powers in another part of his jurisdiction.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

If the Bill is passed in its current form and the threshold for designated areas stays where it is, what will happen if it proves that the threshold is set too high? Will it be easy to change the threshold by regulation or would that require primary legislation? Is there any flexibility?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I think that to change the threshold we would have to use primary legislation, and we do not rule that out. We are moving into a difficult area of law—no one in the Committee thought that this issue would be easy to legislate for. We are trying to change basic behaviour that has built up over a period of time. We are also trying to engage all the partner agencies—not only the police force—in effective change in the area of antisocial behaviour.

As I have indicated with regard to other clauses, we will have to consider what has worked and provide powers in other areas to achieve the change that we want. The alternative is to accept, as an Opposition Member said in an earlier debate, that in the modern world it is not possible to effect such a change in behaviour.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. Unpleasant though it may be, Mr. Ainsworth, I wish that you would look at me; that will allow the Hansard reporters to hear what you are saying.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I will, of course, comply with your request, Mr. Cran. I did not know whether you could bear it at this time in the morning.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

The Minister mentioned a code of practice. Does he intend to publish that code of practice sooner rather than later, so that members of the Committee can get an idea of the threshold of bureaucracy or non-bureaucracy to which the police are expected to conform?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I hope to be able to satisfy my hon. Friend that there will be no bureaucratic hurdle at all. The police will have to satisfy themselves that there has been a problem over a period of time—that people have been intimidated and harassed by groups of people gathering. However, the police will not have to go through a lengthy consultation process: they will have to consult the local authority and only the local authority. We do not intend to set time limits on that consultation or hedge it about with difficulties.

I believe that the requirement to consult the local authority and to take account of its views will be useful. For example, the local authority might be able to advise that the locality concerned should be slightly different from that first considered by the police

commander to incorporate the area that experienced difficulties.

There will be a requirement to give notification but not to conduct a wider public consultation. I believe that that will be helpful in using the powers provided. If the people affected are informed that the police intend to act strategically, they will be aware of what is supposed to be going on in their area and will be able to feed into the police operation. We want to avoid bureaucratic hurdles or unnecessary delays in a particular area.

I am glad to hear that the Liberal Democrat amendment is a probing one. However, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), when speaking to the amendment, blew a slight hole in the case for its being probing when he described the powers under discussion as draconian. The powers are not draconian. We are talking about a uniformed constable having reasonable grounds for believing that the presence of a group of young people has resulted in a problem or is likely to result in a problem. The powers enable that constable to move those people on or to disperse them and to tell them how they should disperse. If there is a history of a particular problem in an area, it is incorrect to suggest that such powers are draconian.

I am not dead sure what the addition of ''particularly'' would add to the clause. It could give the impression that we sought to raise a hurdle and to make it more difficult to use the powers, and I would be opposed to that. As I said, the code of conduct will give the police the ability to use the powers in a designated area without having to go through any bureaucratic process beforehand.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

It bears repeating that the Government, through this part of the Bill, are trying to turn the clock back to the days—the good old days, as some would have it—when a police officer could go along and say, ''Oi, oi, oi, what is going on here? Move along, please. Let's have no more of this.'' Those days have gone, and there is no point analysing what has changed and why the respect that enabled a police officer to do that has changed. However, that is what the public want. They want to believe that, if there is a problem, a police officer can simply turn up and tell a group of people there and then, ''Pack it up. Go home or go somewhere else.'' That is why I tabled the amendments, and why I maintain the view that to hedge the issue with all sorts of criteria is unconstructive and unhelpful.

The Minister referred to allowing the superintendent to allocate resources to the problem, which underlines a mismatch. Policing is being directed ever increasingly from the centre, as we saw in the Police Reform Act 2002. Of course, the superintendent should have the power to dispose of his resources as he thinks appropriate but if there were enough resources, there would be no question of saying, ''We have a problem here. Let's channel our resources to it.'' The police would be out and about in communities and neighbourhoods using such a power as part and parcel of their daily duties, rather than it

being part of a set campaign to deal with a particular problem. That is part of the problem that led to this part, and perhaps even to the genesis of the Bill.

I am sure that the Minister is partly right that the actions would be successful in the relevant locality but the problem could simply move to a non-relevant locality, and we would have to start all over again. I suggest that there is a distinction between this and the alcohol-free zone in Coventry city centre, which he described. Inevitably, drinking alcohol in public places tends to be linked with a location where alcohol is available. I know that that is not an absolute science but alcohol tends to be drunk where one can get it, whereas antisocial behaviour—causing problems to law-abiding members of the public—can happen in all manner of places. It can be connected to alcohol in that sort of location but it can also be connected to street corners and the vicinity of youth clubs and pubs. It can also be connected to the vicinities of blocks of flats.

We all know that some of the lesser architectural gems of the 1950s and 1960s can become the focus for antisocial behaviour. The problem will simply be shifted from one relevant locality to another. I believe that the police want the flexibility that I have been advocating, which is to deal with the problem as and when it arises.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I see what the hon. Gentleman is trying to get at by deleting subsection (1)(b) but if it is deleted, we are almost turning the clock back—he mentioned turning the clock back earlier—to the sus laws, which caused so much resentment in many inner-city areas. If I have a problem with the amendment, that is it. Will he say how deleting subsection (1)(b) is not a return to the sus laws?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I strongly contend that the amendment is not a return to the sus laws in that we would still have subsection (1)(a), which states

''that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places''.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, that is a pretty stringent test. That would remain, and the police officer would still account for his belief that distress was being caused before he used the powers. The problem with the sus laws was that there were no grounds other than the police officer's belief that there might be a reason for intervening to stop groups or individuals whom he suspected of doing something.

As the hon. Member for Ludlow rightly said, his amendment would have completely the opposite effect from mine. As I said about his speech on another group of amendments, his comments deserve a much wider audience. The clause flies in the face of what ordinary people want, which is to see these problems resolved. I, for one, believe that that is what the Government, and certainly the Minister, want to achieve. We may disagree about how far they are going but that is the objective behind the clause. To constrain the clause even more would have the opposite effect not only to what the Government

want but to what the public expect of their police. I cannot support that.

We learned the arithmetic of the Committee, if we did not know it before, and there is no point in pursuing Divisions for the sake of it. I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments. I believe that seeking much greater flexibility in the use of the powers is justified but we shall move on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 199, in

clause 29, page 23, line 37, at end insert—

'(c) That the reaction of the members of the public to such presence or behaviour is reasonable'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 200, in

clause 29, page 23, line 41, after 'uniform', insert '(a)'.

Amendment No. 201, in

clause 29, page 23, line 44, at end insert—

'(b) believes that the reaction of the members of the public to such presence or behaviour is reasonable'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Mr. Cran, you will be pleased to hear that this is a very different group of amendments. They do not relate to flexibility; we have now finished speaking to the groups of amendments that do. This group of amendments returns us to some of the issues debated in relation to the first group of amendments to the clause. I believe that you were in the Chair for that debate, and you advised me not to move too far towards speaking to this group of amendments in the remarks that I made then. I am now, however, free to do so.

The amendment would add an element of objectivity to the interpretation of what intimidation, harassment, alarm and distress may be. The opening sentence of subsection (1) states:

''This section applies where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed''.

That is a clear line of argument but it provides no objectivity as to whether the reaction of that member of the public who is alarmed or distressed is reasonable. I made the point that we all know that some people are more sensitive than others. Some people may react to minor incidents more readily than others would react to them. There needs to be some constraint in the use of the powers in order to prevent someone's abnormal reaction from precipitating police action. Under the Bill, if someone shows alarm or distress, the police can be in no doubt that they have reasonable grounds to act, regardless of whether that alarm or distress has any foundation in normal human behaviour—to put it at its most extreme. When I spoke to another group of amendments, I mentioned the way in which some people may react wrongly simply to the presence of people from a different race in the vicinity of their property. The elderly may react that way.

The amendments would allow officers to say that they appreciate that people are alarmed or distressed but that the alarm or distress is unreasonable. I do not like putting such an onus on police officers, and before I tabled the amendments I gave a lot of thought to how else we could create objectivity. However, there needs to be something, because the Bill as presently drafted seems to say that as long as police officers believe that Mr. or Mrs. Brown is alarmed or distressed, they have to act, regardless of whether Mr. or Mrs. Brown's reaction is reasonable.

As always, the Opposition do not have the same facilities as the Government, and I will not pretend that the amendment is necessarily drafted properly. There may be a better way of doing it, but the issue needs to be addressed. The grounds of reasonableness in the first line of the clause should also be applied to consideration of the behaviour, alarm, distress, harassment or intimidation, so that we ensure that the police are not forced by the legislation to use these powers in a situation that none of us expect or anticipate that they should be used.

I hope that I have made my position clear. I want the police to have flexibility, including the power not to take action because someone's alarm is unreasonable.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

As I read it, the clause provides no compulsion on the police officers to disperse a group of people. In the scenario that the hon. Gentleman described, in which elderly people feel intimidated by a group of people of a different ethnic origin, the police would not have to disperse that group. The provision in amendment No. 199 is not needed in the Bill because there is no compulsion on the officers.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Lady may be technically right.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I am. [Laughter.]

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister laughs, but I was about to say something nice about him. I might be forced to think again.

As I said, I will not pretend that necessarily I have got the phraseology right, but I am trying to address an issue. Although the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) may be right that the Bill does not force an officer to take action, the phrasing of subsection (1) suggests that he should. I am not pretending that a member of the public will be familiar with what will become the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 or that they will quote section 29(1)(b) at an officer. Not many members of the public will be able to do that. Nevertheless, the legislation will give the impression that if someone is alarmed, distressed, harassed or intimidated, the police must disperse the people who are apparently causing that.

I am trying to achieve an element of objectivity by deciding whether the alarm or distress is reasonable. I am ready to listen to the Minister, who is well prepared and puts across persuasive arguments, despite his laughter at my earlier comments.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Such sensitivity.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

It is not me who is sensitive. I am so insensitive that I praise the Minister despite his laughter.

This group of amendments is designed to explore with the Minister whether we need to introduce some element of objectivity into clause 29 to ensure that the powers are not used when the reaction of the public is itself unreasonable.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

For the first time in this part of the Bill, we support the Conservatives. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman has done the Committee a service by tabling the amendments, because they highlight a potential problem with the Bill. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes says that the police would make the judgment anyway—they would decide whether the action was reasonable without that being explicit in the Bill. The problem is that we cannot assume that 100 per cent. of police officers act reasonably all the time. We hope that they do, but clearly there have been occasions in the past when that has not been the case.

Currently, if a measure is in place in a given area, a policeman who has acted fairly unreasonably could defend himself by saying that he had grounds because a member of the public felt intimated by the presence of a group of people. There is no test as to whether the policeman interpreted that his action was reasonable. It is a question only of his having reasonable grounds for believing that the member of the public felt intimidated.

The Conservatives have proposed an important safeguard that would ensure that the power was not abused. It would not prevent the power from being used. It would ensure that, when the power was used, the police officer could show that the intimidation or distress were reasonable grounds and that the action to move people on was not taken just because a couple of people of a different ethnic origin were standing outside someone's house and a member of the public complained. I hope that the Committee would regard that as unreasonable and unacceptable.

The proposal would provide a threshold—in fact, I will not use the word ''threshold'', because that would upset the Conservatives. The proposal would apply an objectivity test to the police constable. We will listen with much interest to what the Minister has to say, because the Government need to find a way of building that test into the Bill, whether or not the form of words in the amendment is exactly the right way to do that. As I said, there is a potential problem in the Bill, which I hope the Minister will find the means to address.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I rise to express general support for the amendments. Picking up on the themes that I have outlined before, I believe that people feeling alarm and distress could put pressure on the police to use the measure. The police need to be able to distance themselves from that. If young people gather and are perceived as alarming to others, there are better measures to deal with the problem, such as using the full works of the crime and disorder partnerships and local groups to consider diversionary tactics. Giving scope to go straight to the strongest possible measure

does not solve the problem, because it just moves it elsewhere. Under the amendment, there would be an opportunity to consider the full range of measures before making a final decision as to which one to choose. As we have said, that often may well need to be imposed, but at many other times people will want to use a proper problem-solving approach.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

For the benefit of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I should point out that I was laughing at the insistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes that she was right when he said that she might be. The hon. Gentleman should not be too sensitive about what I was laughing at; different things tickle different people.

I understand what hon. Members are saying and their concern that groups could be dispersed on the demand of members of the public who in fact do not feel intimidated, harassed or alarmed, but object to particular groups gathering in particular areas. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes that, as drafted, the legislation provides that, before issuing authorisation or giving a direction, the authorising officer and the officer giving the direction must reasonably believe that a member of the public has been or is likely to be intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed. It is discretionary for the police officer to do that. There is no difference in substance between us. We do not want police officers to use these powers if the alarm is unreasonable. I believe that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire had doubts about his amendment when the Liberal Democrat spokesman rode in behind him and said that he wanted to put a test on the police officer to ensure that the powers were used only in appropriate circumstances.

I do not want the powers to be used in inappropriate circumstances, but I do not want to raise the threshold and put a barrier on police officers by making them go through an artificial thought process that deters them from doing what they should do and what their common sense dictates. The Bill as drafted does what we all want it to do. I shall reflect on the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but we can rely on the good sense of police officers to use the powers appropriately. They have the discretion to do so, and I do not believe that the amendment will qualitatively enhance that decision-making process.

I am worried that raising the threshold, with which the Liberal Democrats appear to be content, could deter the police from using the powers. I know that that is not what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I am not sure that amending the wording is necessary. I ask him to give the matter further thought and to withdraw his amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

It must be clear to the Committee from my previous remarks that I do not want to introduce thresholds or constraints to prevent the powers from being used. I am not wedded to the phraseology or even the methodology that I have proposed. The Minister referred to the senior police officer. It is clear that we are talking about a situation after an area has been designated as a relevant locality.

Within a relevant locality, if a group of three or four people, maybe of one particular ethnic origin, are gathered together, an elderly lady might feel distressed or alarmed by their presence—without any justification, most of us would say, but for reasons of upbringing or whatever. I am trying to ensure that in such a situation—it may not be only to do with ethnic minorities; it could be for many other reasons but it is an example—the police do not feel obliged to intervene because of the phraseology of subsection (1). It states that

''where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed''.

It may be perfectly clear to the officer that the elderly lady is alarmed. The issue is whether it is reasonable that she is alarmed. That is different to having reasonable grounds for believing that she is alarmed.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

In an attempt to bridge a gap that may not exist, if we spelt it out in the guidance that the constable should not use the powers if the alarm is irrational or unreasonable, would that provide what the hon. Gentleman is seeking?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

That might achieve it. It is clear from my earlier remarks that I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a vote. I have raised a concern. The Minister said he would reflect on it. Issuing guidance may be the way to address the matter. I take his assurance that he will consider it, to ensure that what some people might call a vexatious case does not oblige the police to take action that most people would consider unreasonable in the circumstances. That is all I seek to achieve. I think that the Minister accepts and understands my argument. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 159, in

clause 29, page 23, line 40, leave out '6 months' and insert '3 months'.

This is a probing amendment. We want the Minister to justify the proposal of six months although we do not necessarily say that three months is any better; we merely want clarification. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that the guidance will contain advice to senior officers about the appropriate length of time and the grounds for setting it. Anything up to six months as stated in the proposal would be appropriate. The amendment was tabled to tease out the Government's thinking on the matter.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We want the police to be able to use the power as part of a strategy for dealing with antisocial behaviour in an area. They will need to use the power strategically. They will need time to be able to show that a strategy has borne fruit and brought about the change that is needed. We do not want the police to have the power indefinitely. Equally, we do not want them to have to keep renewing it under unreasonable time limits. Six months is a reasonable time for the use of the power in a particular area to

effect a behavioural change. Three months is too restrictive to be able to assess whether the change has been achieved.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the guidance issued to senior officers state what might be the appropriate time limit?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that an appropriate time needs to be spelt out in the guidance? The provision allows the powers to be used for up to six months, which is not an unreasonably lengthy time. I cannot see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at if he wants it spelt out in the guidance that particular times should be used in particular locations. I do not understand what he is trying to achieve. The six-month limit requiring the police to have achieved what they want to achieve or else to have to renew the powers is not over-bureaucratic. Renewal strikes the right balance between having to re-register an area unnecessarily frequently and leaving the powers in place for an unnecessarily long time. Six months strikes the right balance.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I have done the arithmetic and there is no point in dividing the Committee. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 163, in

clause 29, page 24, line 3, leave out

'and in such way as he may specify'.

This is another probing amendment, which is designed to check what the Government intend. I believe that

''and in such way as he may specify''

means that officers can say, for example, ''You will leave by a certain route. You will not walk through the shopping centre on your way out of here.'' The problem is that the clause states ''in such way'' rather than ''by such a route'' or something similar. I do not suggest that the constable would use it in this way but the problem with the clause as drafted is that he could say, ''You've got to crawl home.'' I am checking that the wording is as tight as the Government would like it to be. I know what they are trying to say and there is a lot of sympathy for their view but I am checking that they are satisfied with the drafting.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

All the amendments are probing this morning. Someone, somewhere—perhaps in the Liberal Democrats' office—has imposed a new regime.

Amendment No. 163 would remove the possibility of a constable or a community support officer specifying the way in which a group may disperse but that is useful for a constable or a community support officer as it gives them the ability to ensure that groups use a certain route and do not go past a problem area when dispersing as they have been directed to do. Depending on local circumstances, there may be a preferable route. For example, the police may wish to ensure that a group is kept away from people's homes, which may prevent further intimidation, while the group complies with the order that has been given. The intention is not to impose ridiculous situations, or to allow the police to impose

ridiculous situations of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

With the Minister's assurance that the provision is purely intended to allow the police to specify the route that a group should take, and since that has now been clearly recorded, I am happy to—

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The restriction may not simply be on the route. In some circumstances, a police constable may believe that it is appropriate to try to break up the group there and then to prevent a group of a particular size from staying together. The constable may therefore direct half the group to go one way and half to go another—whatever is reasonable in the circumstances that confront him or her at the time.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the Minister for his remark. The matter still essentially concerns the routes that people might take. With the clarification that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 209, in

clause 29, page 24, line 13, at end insert—

'(4A) a constable giving a notice under subsection (4), to a person under the age of 16, must take all reasonable steps to notify that person's parents'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 165, in

clause 29, page 24, line 24, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment No. 166, in

clause 29, page 24, line 27, leave out '16' and insert '14'.

Amendment No. 210, in

clause 29, page 24, line 32, at end insert—

'(6A) a constable removing a person under subsection (6) must take all reasonable steps to notify that person's parents'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The amendments are designed to deal with a number of issues concerning people under the age of 16. I shall deal in turn with the different aspects.

Amendment No. 209 would require that, if a constable has directed someone under 16 to leave a given area and not to return to it for 24 hours, he must take all reasonable steps to notify that person's parents. If the child returned to the area 12 hours later and a fine were imposed, it would almost certainly be the parents who ended up paying it. If a child of 13 or 14 is directed away from an area by a policeman, they will be unlikely to go home and tell their parents that that has happened. The amendment could be more effective. There may be arguments over the phrase ''all reasonable steps'' but I hope that the Government will examine the issue.

The Government may say that they intend to use subsection (6) to deal with people under 16 but that may not be appropriate in all circumstances. If a fairly large group of 13, 14 and 15-year-olds was being dispersed, it may be more appropriate to give them an

order, which would be in place for 24 hours, than to take them all home individually as required by subsection (6).

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Is the hon. Gentleman's thinking that the parents should be notified immediately or that they should be written to? If there were a requirement to notify them immediately, that might impose a great bureaucratic burden on the police, and it would also be impossible to do for a large group.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I share some of those concerns. However, I am also concerned that if a 14 or 15-year-old is sent home, returns 12 hours later and ends up having a fine imposed on them, it is the parents who will pick up that tab. The parents may not even know anything about—

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

They should.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Perhaps we should think back to when we were 14 or 15. If a policeman had told us to go home and not to return somewhere within 24 hours, would we have rushed home and told our parents, ''Oh well, we've been told by this policeman that we mustn't go back to the shopping mall for 24 hours''? I suspect not. I suspect that we would all have remained shtoom with the parents. The young person may not know the law very well and if they return within 24 hours the parents will pick up the penalty. A court is hardly likely to imprison someone under the age of 16 for up to three months, which is the other penalty, so it would almost certainly impose a fine. I want to hear how the Minister will deal with the issue. The Bill does not specify what ''all reasonable steps'' are and guidance might be appropriate.

If amendment No. 165 were accepted, amendments No. 166 and 210 would be unnecessary. They represent two ways of dealing with the same problem. Amendment No. 165 would omit subsection (6), which imposes a curfew. The grounds for a constable taking people under 16 back to their houses are not necessarily that they are doing something wrong or behaving antisocially. The sole test is that the constable believes that they are

''under the age of 16, and . . . not under the effective control of a parent or a responsible person aged 18 or over''.

At the moment, the police may accompany young children home if they believe them to be in danger and we are not against that. However, we are concerned that there is no test of antisocial behaviour in subsection (6). It applies after 9 o'clock at night if someone is under the age of 16 and not with a parent. The Minister will say that the intention is to use the provision only when there is antisocial behaviour and that the constable will make that judgment but nothing in the Bill provides a test beyond the fact that someone is under 16 and not with an adult. Our purpose in suggesting that subsection (6) be omitted is to test the Government's thinking. Do they intend it to be used only on those grounds, or does an antisocial-behaviour or child-at-risk test apply? It seems to do more than the Government intend to deal with antisocial behaviour.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he believe that someone under the age of 16 who is not under the

effective control of a parent or a responsible person aged 18 or over should be out in public between 9 pm and 6 am?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

One of our other amendments suggests that the age should be 14. At the age of 15 and even 14, I was probably playing football on public land after 9 o'clock on summer evenings and that should not be covered by the Bill. The problem could be dealt with in other ways. The 9 o'clock threshold could be raised or the age threshold could be lowered, which is what amendment No. 166 would do. Under the provision, a 15-year-old who is two days short of their 16th birthday could be sent home. They would be two days short of being considered old enough to be married but a police officer could march them back to their parents because it is after 9 o'clock at night.

Amendment No. 166 would reduce the age to 14. Most of us would be concerned if someone under the age of 14 were out after 9 o'clock, not least because of the danger to that child. Someone aged 15 and three quarters is not in the same category as someone aged 13 and three quarters. Amendment No. 166 is another way of looking at this matter and seeing whether the Government are certain about where they intend the power to be used.

Amendment No. 210 is in line with Amendment No. 209. It would ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to notify that person's parents. Again, it is reasonable. It does not say that the police officer must do so, because the parents might not be there. If he took the child home, he would want the child to stay there. If he walks down the street and the child goes out of the house and runs off in the opposite direction, there is nothing he could do short of catching him and taking him home again. If the police officer had to take reasonable steps to notify the parent it might be a way to ensure that the child did not run straight out of the house again and back on to the streets. I hope that the Minister realises that although the amendments may not be worded correctly—as has been said before, we do not have the benefit of the parliamentary draftsmen—they are designed to look at some of the potential problems with people of 16 and under.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I must warn my hon. Friend the Minister that if he asks us to support these amendments I will rebel for the first time. Whether they are probing or not, I hope that he will resist them. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked how the clause would work. Subsection (1) states:

''This section applies where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing''

and then sets out the context for the powers that are listed in the rest of the clause. Amendment No. 165 is damaging to the thrust of this part of the Bill. Part of the problem with antisocial behaviour is that in a small number of cases parents abrogate their responsibility. The whole point of subsection (6) is to take account of the question that my constituents and possibly the hon. Gentleman's constituents regularly ask. They want to know why the police do not simply take the children home and embarrass the parents at the very least. Turning on the blue light, whizzing down the

street and telling them exactly what their son or daughter is doing can be very effective. Sometimes the parents do not know what is going on. We are talking about not kids who are simply wandering around but kids who are causing serious alarm, distress or intimidation to their community.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I would like to extend the hon. Gentleman's argument. I have a great deal of sympathy with it but one of the most important factors is bringing the parents into the equation. The hon. Gentleman is probably involved in youth work, as I am. When one takes 14-year-olds who have been drinking back home, there is often nobody there. Something is needed in this clause to bring the parents into the equation.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point but her party's amendment deletes the provision that would enable the police constable to take the children home to involve the parents. What the hon. Lady seeks will be made more difficult if the amendment is accepted by the Committee.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I think that I made it clear that amendment No. 165 and amendments Nos. 166 and 210 are two ways of looking at some of the potential problems. The hon. Gentleman will know that tabling an amendment to remove a subsection is a way of prompting a debate on the problems that relate to it as a whole. He should not push it too much.

I remind the Committee of one point. Subsection (1), which

''applies where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing''

that antisocial behaviour is taking place, is about the senior officer authorising the use of the powers in an area. Once that authorisation has been given, there is no test under subsection (6) that antisocial behaviour is taking place. A group of 15-year-olds playing football happily within a locality for which the power has been awarded could be taken home because it is five minutes past 9.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. That intervention was slightly too long, given that the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment in the first place.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I want to finish by reiterating one point. One main thrust of the Bill, and one of the most important points to commend it, is the fact that the Government are trying to get the small number of parents who do not accept their responsibilities to accept them, using that as a strategy in tackling the antisocial behaviour that blights our communities. If the amendments were passed, they would seriously undermine the Bill's effect and the ability of the Government to do that.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), which he might find odd given that my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) are attached to amendment No. 165. We added our names to it not because we wanted to delete subsection (6), but because we wanted to explore several issues relating to it.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Ludlow is wrong. As the hon. Member for Gedling rightly said, clause 29 is predicated on antisocial behaviour, and subsection (6) comes into play only in that context. However, the Minister must explain some points. The proposition has come up at a pretty late stage in the Government's thought processes on antisocial behaviour. It follows what even the Government must accept as the abject failure of child curfew orders, which have not worked as intended. The Government should think carefully about the detail of what is being proposed.

As the hon. Member for Gedling said, the principle is right. If a police officer finds a group of young people, including some who are under 16, causing the problems described, he should be able to take or to send them home. There is no problem with that. There are questions about the hours. Is 9 o'clock a reasonable time? People might argue that it is a bit early, particularly at the weekend or during the summer and school holidays, and the Government need to justify why they have chosen that time.

I am not sure what subsection (6)(b) means in referring to a situation in which a young person

''is not under the effective control of a parent or a responsible person aged 18 or over''.

The part about ''a parent'' is clear but if someone under 16 is with someone over 18 whom he says is a friend, does that classify as the person being

''under the effective control of . . . a responsible person aged 18 or over''?

It is not clear, and the Government need to explain that. Furthermore, what happens if the young people are under the effective control of a parent or responsible adult but still causing antisocial behaviour? The clause is blind about that, and it seems that the police officer could move them on only as part of the larger group. That needs to be addressed.

In the final part of subsection (6), the police officer is absolved from taking the young person home if he has reasonable grounds for believing that that person, if removed to that place, would be likely to suffer significant harm. I venture to suggest that it may not become clear that that is the case until the police officer gets the young person home. It is likely that he will not know anything about the child's home, but when he gets them home, he may decide that he is unsure whether he wants to leave them there. There is therefore a great vacuum in the subsection.

My purpose in tabling the amendment was to try to explore the Government's thinking behind subsection (6), which is short but significant. We know that the Government do not usually make or accept dramatic amendments, but deliberations in Committee and on Report will be considered when the Bill goes to another place and is examined in detail. It is therefore useful to use the opportunity to try to get the Minister to explain much more of the thought processes behind parts of the subsection, because it is pretty dramatic. As I said, it follows the failure of the

child curfew orders. Their objective was noble but they did not work in practice.

I am unconvinced that the Government have fully thought through the implications of subsection (6), and I hope that the Minister will use the opportunity to let us know much more about the thought processes behind it. Members of this House and another place will then have the opportunity to consider what the Minister says and to decide whether changes need to be made. Significant issues remain to be addressed, such as the time scale, age, parental responsibility or the responsibility of the person in control, the meaning of significant harm, and what happens when a young person is taken home and there is an obvious problem, such as the father being roaring drunk and about to beat the young man up. I hope that the Minister will explain more fully to the Committee how the clause will work.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I particularly wanted to speak to the Liberal Democrat amendment, which would reduce the age from 16 to 14. The amendment is incredible, as it would leave groups of marauding 15-year-olds, who can cause a lot of trouble, on the streets with the police having no effective powers to take the little darlings home and to let their parents know what the hell they have been up to. It is ludicrous to reduce that age limit.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling says, subsection (6) goes to the heart of the problem of antisocial behaviour and poor parenting in many of our communities. Like him, I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I hope he resists the deletion of subsection (6) and the reduction of the age limit from 16 to 14.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I was relieved to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire explain the reasons for tabling our amendment. I could feel my own rebellion rising. The hon. Member for Gedling put it very succinctly: subsection (6) goes to the heart of what the vast majority of our constituents want. I thought that deleting the subsection would be rather stupid—the best word that I can come up with for it. I should have known better, however, as my hon. Friend admirably explained the reason for it. We must examine some of the finer points of subsection (6), particularly in relation to ''a responsible person''.

From time to time, I have great pleasure in serving on Committees that consider Bills such as this, and normally they say somewhere, ''A responsible person is'' and explain that term. The other day, I served on a Committee that considered an interesting statutory instrument about Northern Ireland. That was fascinating work, which I am pleased to—

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. I hope that we are not going to canter over that.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

No, Mr. Cran, except to say that that Committee provided a good exposition of a responsible person in relation to going to a police station. I wonder whether the same definition applies in this case. I could not see it in the Bill, but I just know that the Minister is waiting to tell me the answer to my question. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that I am relieved to

hear that there was a good reason for adding his name to amendment No. 165, but we should keep an eye on these things.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I have two brief suggestions. Subsection (6)(b) refers to ''effective control'' and ''a responsible person''. The link is there. The responsible person is defined in terms of whether they can deliver effective control.

Like my hon. Friends, I resist the Liberal Democrats' suggestion of reducing the age threshold from 16 to 14. My local Cleveland police force works to the 9 pm time scale. I have been out with the community police, and the activities of youngsters between 4.30 and 9 o'clock are their prime concern. That could well be a good suggestion for my hon. Friend the Minister.

My local police already take home youngsters whom they believe may have put themselves in a vulnerable or dangerous position. I have been there when the police take youngsters home, which is a very unpleasant experience. I say that as the parent of a 22-year-old who was a bit of a rip at 16, and as I said the other day, I was not always an angel myself. I saw a child taken home to his parent and the parent's visible distress. A very gentle question was then asked, ''Are you are in effective control?'' The reply was, ''Yes, I love and protect my child.'' The next question was how on earth that child was able to buy as much drink as he had obviously consumed that night. The answer was, ''Well, we always give him £25 pocket money.'' We can see the police delivering and developing an effective relationship with that parent. This is a very difficult issue for us to get our heads round, but the clause provides enough power and scope for the police to deliver on that responsibility.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I do not dissent from what the hon. Lady has said, although I want to challenge her on one issue. She says that the answer to my concern is that it is covered by the reference to

''the effective control of a parent''.

Let us suppose that a young person is out on the streets in a group, so the clause applies. A police officer goes along and finds that the young person's father is in the group. That is not as far-fetched as it may seem. The young person could be 14 and the father only 28 or 29—that is the reality of life in some parts of the country. The father is there, yet the group is misbehaving, so the young person is clearly not in the effective control of his father because his father is also part of the problem. According to the legislation, however, the police officer then has to take the chap home. That is part of what I am exploring with the Minister. As drafted, the legislation will not achieve everything that it should achieve.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

That was a valuable intervention, but the clause also refers to removing the person to a place where the hope is that the significant harm that they might have faced will be reduced. We all want absolutes in Bills, and rightly so: we all face a serious problem. Many innocent youngsters are persuaded to get involved in an awful lot of antisocial behaviour that they would not necessarily

be involved in otherwise. I hear all the concerns, but we will never find all the answers. The clause allows us to take a very reasonable stab at developing relationships that have a chance of reducing antisocial behaviour.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Given the questions that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire raised, I suspect that there has been a policy U-turn on the Conservative Benches. He did not attach his name to the amendments, and if he was concerned about 9 o'clock, he could have tabled an amendment specifying half-past 9 or 10 o'clock. Given the threats of rebellion on both sides of the Committee, I just wonder whether we have seen some kind of U-turn on the Opposition Benches.

The amendments would do several things. First, they would remove the power to return home a young person who was unsupervised in a public place after 9 pm. Secondly, they would limit the power to people under 14. Finally, they would place additional obligations on the police when notifying parents.

The power to take children home will help the police to protect local communities from the alarm and distress that can be caused by children gathering. It will also protect children and young people from the risks posed by being unaccompanied late at night—not least the risk that they might become involved in antisocial or criminal behaviour. It would therefore be quite wrong not to allow the police to remove individuals from areas where antisocial behaviour already posed a significant and persistent problem.

I should tell the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that the power is discretionary: it allows the police to remove people but does not oblige them to do so, nor does it limit their power to disperse groups. In the circumstances the hon. Gentleman described in which a parent is involved, the police officer may think it inappropriate to take the child home. However, he would still be able to issue a direction to disperse the group, including the child and the parent. Therefore, I do not think that we are creating a problem.

The amendments would also reduce the age group covered from under-16s to under-14s. We recognise that 14 and 15-year-olds occasionally have legitimate reasons to be in an area unsupervised. The police will have discretion to return home only those about whom they are concerned and who do not have legitimate reasons to be there.

The hon. Member for Ludlow lives in a strange world. First, he suggested that police constables might direct people to remove themselves from an area on their hands and knees, and now he is suggesting that they will use the powers to go around breaking up football matches at five past 9 in the evening. We are talking about a designated area in which there is evidence that people have been intimidated by youths gathering and there has been a persistent problem. We must rely on officers to use their good sense and to exercise the powers appropriately. The dangers that the hon. Gentleman flags up are not very real and I cannot for the life of me envisage constables going around breaking up football matches.

Fourteen and 15-year-olds might be part of groups that engage in antisocial behaviour, so reducing the age to under 14 would hinder the ability of the police to protect local communities. Furthermore, it would fail to protect 14 and 15-year-olds, who are also vulnerable to the risks associated with being out unsupervised late at night.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The idea that the amendment would somehow leave 14 and 15-year-olds out of the Bill raises an interesting thought. Does that mean that the Minister does not intend dispersal orders to apply to anyone under 16? Does he envisage two distinct provisions—dispersal orders for those aged 16 and above, and removal to their home for those aged under 16? If not, 14 and 15-year-olds would still be covered by the dispersal orders.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I do not see them in that way. As I have said, the dispersal order can apply to people of any age—to the father or to the child. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can foresee the circumstances in which police officers would find the provisions useful. Rather than having to tell a young person to get out of a particular area in which it is believed that that person has been part of a problem, the officer will have the power to remove that person to their home. That will be an enormously useful addition if it is not hemmed in with bureaucratic requirements that will discourage a police officer from using it in the first place. I fear that some of the amendments would have that effect.

I can understand the intention behind amendments Nos. 209 and 210. We share hon. Members' view that parents should be held responsible for their children. Amendment No. 209 specifies that the constable making a direction to remove a person under the age of 16

''must take all reasonable steps to notify that person's parents''.

We believe that that would be unnecessarily time consuming and resource intensive—Conservative Members have said similar things. The amendment may require the police to seek the names and addresses of large numbers of individuals and might in some circumstances deter them from using the powers that we seek to give them. We do not want the police to feel that there is any deterrent. I understand what the hon. Member for Ludlow is saying about the parents of the young people out at night, but he should focus on the people who suffer from the problems in those areas.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Having heard the case for the amendment, does the Minister now think—I take it from his comments that he does—that the amendment would probably deter police officers from using the power because they can see the additional burdens and responsibilities and the time that it would take to fulfil them?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

When I first saw the amendment and read it in conjunction with the speech that we all heard in the previous sitting, I thought that it was perhaps a wrecking amendment and that it was designed precisely to prevent the police from being given the powers that we are seeking to give them.

However, the hon. Member for Ludlow seems to have toned down some of his rhetoric from the other day.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I would like to pursue the wider matter of the parents being informed. To backtrack a bit, let us suppose that a 14-year-old child is taken back home but that the parents are not at home. It would be quite safe to leave a child of 14 in those circumstances. However, the parents would not be brought into the equation. They would have to be for any of the measures in the Bill to work. Can the Minister give us some more information? There is a missing ingredient in the provisions that we keep coming at from different angles.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I was just moving on to amendment No. 210, which requires a constable who takes a child home to take reasonable steps to notify the child's parents. In many cases, the child's parents will be at home when the police arrive. In other cases, the child might not live with their parents. To place that requirement on the police in the Bill would be unnecessarily burdensome. The hon. Lady is right that we need to engage parents. However, she cannot consider the powers in the clause in isolation. There are other items in the Bill and other areas of policy that we must develop to engage parents better.

We talked earlier about parenting orders in cases of truancy or exclusion from school, or when youth offending teams have issued evidence of antisocial behaviour. There must, of course, be efforts to involve parents. However, in this case, we are talking about a constable seeking to disperse appropriately a gang of people that may include or exclusively comprise young people.

We should not put a burden on constables. Individual constables will in many circumstances not be able to perform the duties that the amendment would require. What exactly are we talking about? We are talking about the police having to gather the resources in order to disperse the young people, to take them home and to ensure that contact is made with their parents. That is not going to be possible operationally in many circumstances. The result will be that the power will not be used. We will not engage parents more under the amendment. The police will walk away from a circumstance that is time consuming and ineffective.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I urge the Minister to say how he will achieve his aim. We may end up with something quite distinct and separate from the youth offending team's work, unless those matters are pulled together. I am convinced that there is a missing link that needs to be dealt with. I accept that it might be burdensome but that does not mean that we need not tie together this measure with some of the other measures. There could be stand-alone measures and missed opportunities to deal with the situation and to solve it, rather than putting a stop to it for a set period.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We are going to issue a code of practice in that regard. That will cover to what degree the police should seek to notify parents. If the police have removed young people to their home, they may want to notify the local authority in order to make

sure that other agencies are engaged. I do not want to make that an absolute requirement. I hope that the hon. Lady will see that, under the amendment, we may prevent effective policing of antisocial behaviour in the first place.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Just before the Minister finishes on this matter, I wish to raise the point raised by the Conservative spokesman. If a constable takes somebody to a house but, when they get there, decides that he or she might suffer significant harm there, what happens?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

There are just a couple of points I need to address, and that is one of them. The police will be able to make the significant harm assessment at any point. They may know the individual concerned and may be able to make it immediately. Their opinion may be formed when they arrive at a home and see the circumstances. At any point before or after they have removed the person to the home, the constable may apply the significant harm test.

I do not think that we need a definition of a responsible person. That is a judgment for the police officer at the time. If he believes that a young person is under the control of a responsible person over the age of 18, he will not remove that person. If he is dissatisfied in that regard, he has discretionary power. That is why there is not a list. It will be for the individual circumstance at the time. It is not a requirement; the constable can make a judgment at the time. If his judgment is that such a person is on the scene and has control, he will not remove the young person.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

What the Minister is saying is sensible. For clarification, I ask him whether ''responsible'' is used in the way that we use it in everyday speech, rather than in the legal sense in which it is used in Home Office legislation.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We are not using ''responsible'' to mean that the person has a legal responsibility for the individual; the Bill refers to a responsible person over the age of 18 who has control of the young person's behaviour. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in that regard. I hope that I have clarified the position.

On the point about 9 o'clock, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire did not suggest a different time. It is a matter of judgment. Many problems exist at that time of night, and people are entitled to believe that people under a certain age are under some sort of parental guidance. I would be happy to hear arguments for another appropriate time, but 9 o'clock seemed to us to be the most appropriate when the Bill was drafted. There is no great science in this regard. The hon. Gentleman may tell us that he thinks half-past one is more appropriate but I think that 9 o'clock strikes the right balance. However, we are happy to listen to arguments to the contrary.

I hope that we have avoided a rebellion on the Labour Back Benches on this occasion and that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has managed to avoid one on the Conservative Back Benches.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am worried that there are some matters that the Minister has not addressed. He did not say what would happen to someone under the age of 16 who the police decide will suffer significant harm. Say the young person has been taken in the police car to his house and it is decided that he will suffer significant harm. What do the police do with him? There may be powers under other legislation, to which the Minister did not refer, although I wish he had. He may therefore wish to intervene.

The Minister did much to clarify how he sees the powers being used and that was reassuring. However, there are still some judgment calls to be made. Age is one and time is another. We are inclined to say that 16 is too old for this power and that 14 would be more appropriate. Although there is no specific amendment to this effect, in some circumstances, 9 pm may be too early but in the middle of winter, when it is pitch dark at 9 o'clock, that time is probably relevant. Specifying a particular time may not be the right approach. Perhaps there should be something about how dark it is.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

May I try to clarify the matter about which the hon. Gentleman is so concerned? We are talking about a young person who is not necessarily involved in criminality. The police have no ability to arrest that young person. They have the power to make him disperse along with the rest of the group. However, because of his age, the police officer may choose to take him home and feel that he is at risk of significant harm. We would not want the police officer to be required to hand the young person over if the officer felt that the young person would be at risk of significant harm.

The young person could not be arrested. However, the police officer will have an obligation to report to social services, as they do now, whenever they come across young people in that situation. In such circumstances, the police officer would report the matter to the appropriate authorities to ensure that social services were correctly engaged. We want to avoid the necessity of leaving young people in circumstances where they would be at greater risk than they were on the streets.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the Minister for his reply. We are not saying that young people should be left in such circumstances. Presumably, there will be some guidance about what a police officer should do in such a situation. A 15-year-old who has not committed a criminal offence cannot be arrested and put in the cells overnight. I presume that the police officer would take him away from the place where he would suffer significant harm, notify social services and bring people in to deal with the matter. It is the process by which that happens that I hope the Minister will be able to clarify in the guidance.

A policeman who takes a young person to an obviously violent household where the parents are blind drunk or under the influence of drugs is in a quandary. He may think the child would be in danger if he left him there and there is nothing in the proposal to say what that officer should do. The Minister may not want that to be stated in the Bill but the guidance

should clarify what a police officer should reasonably be expected to do in such circumstances.

Some of the other proposals involve judgment calls, although I can see that the Government are not going to give way on their judgment call. There is an area the Government need to address, perhaps through guidance: ensuring the involvement of parents. I understand why the Minister said that amendments Nos. 209 and 210 might stop the police using the powers altogether. Whatever he may think, we may want to raise thresholds and introduce higher tests before the powers are used. There is no intention to get rid of subsection (4). When the dispersal order or the power to take someone home is used, some attempt should be made to bring parents into the equation.

As the Minister says, on many occasions, the parents will be at home anyway and it will be fairly obvious that there is not a problem but there will be situations where the parents are not at home but at the pub—when at 9 o'clock at night the police take the kids home to an empty house. They might end up taking them back several nights on the trot.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I am trying to save the hon. Gentleman from himself. Does he accept that powers already exist for the police to contact emergency social services to deal with the issue? They do not need to be included in the Bill: the powers already exist.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I think that the hon. Lady is looking at the matter from a different angle. There may be circumstances where it is nothing to do with social services and the child is not at risk. The child may happen to be out after 9 o'clock at night or on the streets and causing a problem but the parents may not be at home at that time. It is not necessarily something for social services to be involved in. If night after night the police are taking a young person home and the parents are not there, at some point the parents need to know. The young person is hardly going to volunteer to his parents, ''The police brought me home again tonight. They did me again tonight''. There will be circumstances where parents might not know, because they were not in when the police dealt with the situation.

I will not trouble the Committee with this group of amendments. We know the arithmetic and that the Government are determined to push the measure through. I hope that when the guidance comes out it addresses the issues that I have raised to try to help the Bill to work more effectively in the interests not only of the community but of the children. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Authorisations: supplemental

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 170, in

clause 30, page 25, line 1, leave out 'either or'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 171, in

clause 30, page 25, line 5, leave out

'some conspicuous place or places'

and insert 'conspicuous places'.

Amendment No. 211, in

clause 31, page 25, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment No. 120, in

clause 31, page 25, line 30, at end insert

'but must be recorded forthwith.'.

Amendment No. 212, in

clause 31, page 25, line 30, at end insert—

'( ) must be given as a written notice'.

Amendment No. 172, in

clause 31, page 25, line 36, leave out from 'scale' to the end of line 38.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

This group of amendments would achieve a number of things in respect of the publicity relating to authorisation. Amendment No. 170 would remove ''either or'' and ensure that both methods are used.

I am sure that the Minister will say that there might be circumstances in which only one method is suitable. However, as the clause is drafted, only one or the other may be used. Perhaps ''either, or, or both'' would make more sense. The orders should be made as widely known as possible. It would be in the interests of the public and of the police if people were made aware that the orders were in place. The ability to choose one method or the other—publication in a newspaper alone, or merely posting in a conspicuous place—might be taken to mean that merely sticking up on notice somewhere would be deemed sufficient. However, notices get torn down—the children who caused the original problem could remove the notice within a matter of hours, so that nobody was aware that the authorisation was in place. By leaving out ''either or'', we hope that both methods will be used. No doubt, the Minister will say that some places lack either local newspapers or conspicuous places, but I am sure that both can be found.

Amendment No. 171 would replace ''some conspicuous place'' with ''conspicuous places''. The object is to ensure that the notice is more widely available. That would be consistent with the Government's aims. The most effective use of authorisation issued by a senior officer is if the problem goes away without the police having to deal with it on the ground. The more widely known the authorisation, the more likely that is to happen, so I should have thought that the Government would be interested in its being as widely known as possible.

Amendment No. 172 would remove clause 31(2)(b). It is a probing amendment to test why the Government have imprisonment as one of the penalties and in what circumstances they might want the sanction of imprisonment to be used. What is the situation when somebody has been given a dispersal order for 24 hours and returns to the area within that time? There has to be some sort of penalty, such as a fine, but I want to hear the Government's justification for imprisonment being necessary—or do they see it as a final recourse, perhaps after a series of fines has been imposed and has not worked? The Minister's thoughts on what would be an appropriate use would be welcome clarification.

Amendment No. 120, tabled by the Opposition, is similar to our amendment No. 212. They both seek to deal with the fact that the Bill seems not to allow for a written record to be made of an order being given to disperse. Our concern is that without our suggestion of a sort of dispersal ticket, rather like a parking ticket, of which there would be a carbon copy, or what is suggested in the Conservative amendment, under which the policeman would record it there and then, it would not be possible to prove that a penalty had been issued.

If the police did not have a record of the names and addresses of those involved, it would not be possible to prove that a person had returned to an area within 24 hours. It would be down to the constable to say, ''I told this person to move away the previous night, and the following morning he was there again.'' That person could argue that the police did not say that they were issuing a direction under the Bill. They would say, ''Yes, we saw the police officer, but he did not say anything like that to me.'' It would be between him and the police officer as to what was said at the time.

That brings us to amendment No. 211. That amendment would delete clause 31(1)(a), which states ''may be given orally''. That does not mean that the police office cannot do so; but we are concerned that the direction could be given only orally. If a police officer spoke privately to the members of a group, issuing them individually with dispersal notices, it would be on his say so at a subsequent trial. If the person was caught the next day, it would be on the say so of the officer, yet under the Bill it seems that there need be no witnesses and no record that that took place.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

When a police officer issues a caution, he presumably makes a note of it in his notebook. I presume that that will happen in this instance.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I hope that that will be the case, and that the Minister will confirm it. However, Conservative Members have tabled an amendment that states that it ''must be recorded forthwith''.

We are trying to address a potential problem. I am sure that the Minister will say that the amendments are completely unnecessary because the matter is dealt with in other clauses. However, the purpose of consideration in Committee is to ascertain where problems lie. This mixed group of amendments deals with the notification of dispersal and how it is recorded, so that if such cases come to court they

can be properly dealt with. Finally, in what circumstances does the Minister foresee imprisonment being used?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, amendment No. 120 requires the verbal instruction to be put into writing ''forthwith''. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, it could be entered into a notebook. It is a probing amendment. Like the hon. Member for Ludlow, I am concerned that if a prosecution goes ahead under clause 31(2), there should be sufficient evidence to ensure that the process is completed and convictions obtained. It strikes me that because we are discussing groups of people, the situation could arise in which it was one officer's word against six, eight or 10 young people, all of whom flatly deny that he told them to go away or disperse. That is the issue on which I am probing the Government. How would such a situation be handled to ensure that the powers are properly used and that a prosecution under clause 31(2) could be achieved?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Amendment No. 170 would ensure that publicity must be given for an authorisation both by publishing a notice in a newspaper circulated in the relevant locality and by posting an authorisation notice in a conspicuous place or places in the relevant locality. The Government believe that, in some areas, one of those methods will suffice, and that that will depend on local circumstances. We do not want to impose unnecessary bureaucracy on the police. For example, there might not be a suitable newspaper circulating in a relevant locality, and so, if the amendment were accepted, the police would not be able to authorise the action under discussion. The clause allows for either or both methods to be used, but there may be circumstances in which the use of both methods is not appropriate.

Amendment No. 171 would ensure that an authorisation notice is posted in more than one ''conspicuous place'' in a relevant locality. We agree that it is important for the public to be notified of the possible use of the powers. However, local circumstances, including the size of the area to be covered by the authorisation, may mean that one conspicuous place in the relevant locality will provide adequate publicity for the use of the powers.

Amendment No. 120 would ensure that a police officer giving a direction would record that direction forthwith. I agree with the principle that an officer should record the directions given, and those issues will be covered in a code of practice issued under clause 33. However, that is a matter of best practice and should not be included in the Bill. An officer should have some discretion as to exactly when a record is made. ''Forthwith'' might be interpreted to mean ''on the spot'', and that will not always be practical. Most sensible officers will do their recording as soon as is practical, for the sake of accuracy, but the circumstances with which they may be faced may mean that they cannot comply with the term ''forthwith''. We should encourage best practice, but should not necessarily include the ''forthwith'' direction in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 would ensure that all directions would be given in writing, and that the police officer or community support officer could not give an oral direction. The Government believe that that is unnecessarily bureaucratic. In some circumstances the police may choose to give a written direction. However, in the light of local circumstances and the urgency of the situation, we believe that the constable should have the option of giving an oral direction.

Amendment No. 172 would mean that someone who ignored the direction given by a constable could not face a custodial sentence on summary conviction. We believe that imprisonment should be an option for those convicted in the worst type of cases. The maximum penalty is the same as that available under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for knowingly contravening a police direction.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister used the words, ''the worst kind of cases''. Could he elaborate on that phrase? Is he referring to repeat offences? What makes one offence of ignoring a direction worse than another?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

That is a matter for the courts. The maximum sentence includes the possibility of a prison sentence where the courts believe that to be appropriate. In effect, the amendment would deny the courts the opportunity to consider prison a sentence, even where they thought that one would be appropriate given the circumstances and the behaviour. We should not place such a restriction on the courts. As I said, the powers are exactly in line with legal provision for other situations in which people knowingly contravene a policeman's directions.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

In light of the new legislation and the new emphasis on community sentences, and in light of the fact that we are talking about antisocial behaviour, a sentence in the community rather than costly imprisonment might be a real alternative to a fine for young people.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We are talking not about antisocial behaviour but about people defying a police officer's direction. However, the hon. Lady is right. In many circumstances, a court may feel that community sentences are appropriate. My point is that the amendment would prevent them from considering a prison sentence in all circumstances. That is not appropriate, and it is out of line with provisions for other circumstances in which people defy a direction given to them by a constable. The option to consider a prison sentence must be open to the courts.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Several issues have been raised. The Minister provided some clarification on the issue of recording people's details, but there is still concern about what would happen where quite a large group was given a dispersal order. Where two officers tell a group of 30 people to disperse, there may be concerns about their ability to write down exactly to whom they gave the order. If someone is caught the next day, his

defence might be, ''I wasn't in that group of 30 people.'' The Minister may want to deal with those issues in guidance. People may, of course, discover when and where the powers do not work as they use them in practice. Obviously, there will not be such a problem if there is CCTV in the area. None the less, there is a potential problem, although the Minister has gone some way towards dealing with it.

We heard the Minister's justification for the use of imprisonment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), I hope that the courts will use community sentences in many cases, because they will probably be far more appropriate. The Minister says that the provisions are in line with other legislation, and that may be the case. However, some issues remain open, and he may want to consider them before issuing guidance to police officers. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Powers of community support officers

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 173, in

clause 32, page 26, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 174, in

clause 32, page 26, line 7, leave out subsection (3).

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I shall probably be entirely consistent in moving the amendment, because I shall doubtless use some of the phrases that I used during consideration of the Police Reform Bill.

I am concerned about community support officers being put in exceedingly difficult situations as a result of the amount of training that they are given. This is a probing amendment, and I am sure that the Minister will give me many examples to show how useful community support officers will be. Indeed, I am in the process of requesting community support officers in my constituency to deal with certain situations.

My concern, which was shared by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, is that a large, rowdy group of young people with lots of alcohol can present a difficult situation to deal with. We have had to deal with such situations in my constituency, and on one occasion in my leafy green constituency—it is not a city centre—young people were swinging from trees, yelling abuse at police officers and consuming vast quantities of vodka. Community support officers would not have been the right people to deal with that situation.

I seek assurances from the Minister about appropriate deployment depending on the situation. I hope that other Members will share my concern that people with limited training should not be put into difficult situations.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the hon. Lady said, the official Opposition opposed the concept of community support officers in the Police Reform Act 2002, and we remain extremely dubious about the wisdom of going down that road. However, CSOs are in place and have settled in remarkably well in some parts of the country. As we said clearly on Second Reading, we do not like the idea that, even though they have been in place for only weeks or months, the Bill will extend their powers.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is right to ask questions about CSOs' training and ability to deal with difficult situations, but that debate took place during the passage of the 2002 Act. The Government decided to override our concerns, which were shared by the vast majority of police officers, and have gone on to establish CSOs. We have not opposed the clause because we believe that we need a little time for the system to settle down to see whether our concerns prove to be justified. I do not believe that the additional powers will make a dramatic difference to how CSOs work, so I shall not oppose the clause.

However, the Government should not take that to mean that we agree with the principle of community support officers. We believe that it would be better at least to allow chief officers to use the money to employ full-time police officers rather than CSOs if they want, but we must face reality. I leave the marker that it is unwise for the Government, particularly in view of the assurances given during the passage of the 2002 Act, to continue to add to the powers of CSOs when they are still in their infancy and the jury is out on their efficacy.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

It is important for community support officers to have the same powers as their

police officer colleagues to disperse groups and take home children who are under 16. A main role of CSOs is to provide visible community patrols, and they will often be the first to the scene of antisocial behaviour. Where they are assigned to local estates, villages or other residential areas, they will have the opportunity to get to know local youths, understand the problems that effect them and identify any that they cause to others.

We have already given CSOs several powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, and given their role in our communities, it makes sense for them to be able to deal with this form of antisocial behaviour, too. The alternative is for CSOs to have to stand aside and wait for police officers to arrive at the scene while a group of young people causes local people intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress.

CSOs are integrated with their police officer colleagues and will be able to call for their assistance at short notice if required. Where a larger group of people needs to be dispersed and the younger members have to be returned to their homes, CSOs and police officers will be able to work together, increasing the resources available to achieve the task. As with police officers, CSOs will not be able to use the powers unless an authorisation is given by a superintendent, and individual chief officers will have to decide in each case whether to designate CSOs with the power.

The power, necessary training and operational control remain—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee G

Clause 32 - Powers of community support officers

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following:

Amendment No. 174, in

clause 32, page 26, line 7, leave out subsection (3).

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I was about to conclude my comments on the Liberal Democrat amendment by saying that individual chief police officers will have to decide in each case whether to designate community support officers with the powers, as they do for designating CSOs with any other powers. The chief police officer will therefore have to ensure that the person designated is comfortable with the designation and has had the appropriate training to be able to exercise the powers that we seek to give them. In the light of my explanations, I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister for his answer, which has provided some reassurance. I am pleased, however, to have been able to put down a marker about my general concern about community support officers being put into difficult situations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Interpretation

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 191, in

clause 35, page 27, line 12, at end insert—

'' 'antisocial behaviour'' means behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more other persons not of the same household as the person,'.

I start by thanking members of the Committee for their indulgence in moving part 2, for which I am largely responsible, to today so that I can talk about it, which I would have been unable to do last Thursday. I am grateful to all concerned.

This is a minor, technical amendment, which clarifies the definition of antisocial behaviour for the purposes of this part. We propose an identical definition to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in clauses 24 to 28. I therefore hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Clause 35 is about interpretation and the definition of ''relevant locality'', which refers us back to clause 29. During our discussions this morning, I meant to ask the Minister whether there is any limit on the size of the designated area or relevant locality. Is a relevant locality defined as a few streets, or is it up to the superintendent to define it?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The designation, as long as it is justified, can be as large as the basic command unit of which the commander is in control, or as small and as limited as a few streets, as he says. It is meant to be as flexible as that in terms of responding the locality concerned and the antisocial problems therein.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

It is helpful that my hon. Friend the Minister has clarified that the designated area or relevant locality can be quite large. That may overcome some of the problems that some of us thought might arise if a police officer had one set of powers in one street, but not a couple of hundred yards away. I hope that those who read the record of our deliberations—the command unit, the superintendents and so on—will take note of that.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I shall take up what the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has extracted from the Minister. The concept that a relevant locality could be an entire basic command unit area shines a slightly different light on some earlier discussions. I accept the Minister's point that the superintendent has complete flexibility. He may make the decision only in respect of a couple of streets. However, the prospect that the area could be as large as a whole BCU area throws a different light on the matter. In some ways, if that were the case, it would negate or at least reduce the concerns that I expressed under earlier amendments.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gedling for getting the Minister to place that point on the record. It makes a significant difference. I just hope that, when the Bill is enacted, superintendents realise that they could have that scope. Then we might really see the benefits of this part of the Bill.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

We have established that a relevant locality involves considerable flexibility. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, to make the powers work, it is important that the provisions in the code of conduct also have flexibility?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is indeed the case. The code of conduct is not meant to restrict any more readily than the flexibility in the Bill. As I said earlier, this is about relevance and full justification. In that context, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3 - Aggravated trespass

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Trespassory assemblies—

'.—The Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows:

Section 14A—Prohibiting trespassory assemblies

Subsection (9), leave out ''20'' and insert ''3''.'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

We now come to a rather different issue, although it fits with part 4 of the Bill because it has to do with dispersal of groups. In introducing the new clauses, I welcome formally the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to the first sitting of the Committee in which he has participated. I am sure that he will follow the pattern of constructive engagement shown by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). I am sorry that we did not reach the new clauses this morning, because the hon. Gentleman was prepared to respond to them, and I am sure that he would have been helpful. I do not in any way doubt that this Minister will be helpful, but he would be the first to acknowledge that this is not his master subject.

I tabled the new clauses largely because of experiences that I have had in and around my constituency and representations made to me about the workings of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Public Order Act 1986 as they affect the control of animal rights demonstrations. My constituency is at the leading edge of biotechnological developments. Huntingdon Life Sciences, of which I should think every hon. Member has heard, is located just outside my constituency, but many of its employees are my constituents. A number of other institutions either engage in such research or commission it, so they are seriously affected by the activities of so-called animal rights activists. Now is not the occasion to have a debate about the rights and wrongs of their cause or of animal experimentation, nor indeed of the controlling legislation passed by the Conservative Government when we were in office. However, I believe it to be robust in controlling experiments.

I am seeking to amend two pieces of legislation with these two new clauses to deal with the activities of

protestors whose behaviour can be not just antisocial but threatening, and, on occasions, dangerous. There have been many physical attacks on those who either work in animal research or simply service companies engaged in animal research. It has gone beyond direct employees to others who may be linked to it, their firms of auditors, and so on. I am sure that the Minister is aware that there have been cases of firebombing and serious damage to property.

That is clearly already illegal, and I do not seek to address those issues. However, below that level of violence there is a serious, significant threat of violence, intimidation and harassment, which are themes that run through the Bill, hence its relevance. I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, for allowing us to debate these new clauses. I hear from people involved in the sector that when they are going about their daily business and doing their job they are constantly intimidated and harassed. I will not pretend that if the Government accepted these new clauses they would solve all the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.

These helpful proposals have been made by the BioIndustry Association. We see groups of protestors invading private property and shouting threats and abuse. They often enter commercial premises and run amok. The new clauses would help to address that. They stem from many conversations that I have had with affected businesses and, as I said, with the BioIndustry Association.

New clause 3 extends the situation in which the offence of aggravated trespass and its associated powers to remove can be implemented. The legislation as currently enacted restricts the offence of aggravated trespass to the open air. I want to amend it to ensure that it includes entering private commercial premises, which may be in the open air; not in the countryside or whatever but on private property. I also want to ensure in the insertion to section 68(5) that it could mean within buildings erected on such property. I realise that that would be a significant extension, but as I tried to explain to the Committee a few moments ago, it is a problem if a bunch of so-called animal rights protestors invade laboratories or whatever and threaten the people who work there going about their daily business. In such cases the police need the power to deal with aggravated trespass.

New clause 4 seeks to amend an older piece of legislation: the Public Order Act 1986. It seeks to reduce the number of people involved in a trespassory assembly from 20 to three. That is my proposal, although one could select any very low number. The reason is straightforward: whereas the 1994 Act amended the Public Order Act 1986 to introduce the prohibition of trespassory assemblies, it allowed chief officers to apply to the council for an order to prohibit an assembly, but the assembly had to consist of at least 20 people.

Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will appreciate the point made to me by many constituents: that one does not need many people standing on one's front lawn or drive to be extremely intimidated and harassed. Twenty is far too excessive a number. That is

why I propose in new clause 4 to reduce the figure from 20 to three. If one were faced with people standing immediately outside one's home or next to the gate of entry into work shouting and screaming abuse, one would be entitled to expect protection from not only any physical violence but verbal assaults, threats and intimidation.

I know from my constituents how extremely frightened some of them have become because of the activities of groups of people who appear close to their homes to shout abuse and threaten violence. Many of my constituents live in fear of their lives because of the invaluable work that they do. They do their best to keep their addresses and phone numbers confidential but, inevitably, that is not always possible. It is also not right that they have to try to do that. Whatever the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation—now is not the time to go into them—we should provide protection and not allow people to be intimidated, harassed or threatened for doing what they are legally employed to do.

I hope that the Minister understands the serious points that I am trying to make. We discussed them in a Westminster Hall debate a few months ago, and I know that the Government are examining what they can do. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work that they have done already in protecting people, especially the employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences. However, more can be done, and the two new clauses are further steps. I hope that the Government will treat them sympathetically.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Like him, I have pharmaceutical companies in my constituency, and I have also followed, with approval, much that the Government have done to toughen up still further the laws that we introduced when we were in Government.

I pay tribute to what Ministers have done, not only the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, but other Home Office Ministers in the previous Parliament. As a member of the shadow Home Office team, I worked with them and Labour Back Benchers to toughen up the law. I take the opportunity also to mention the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). He is not a member of this Committee, but he did a great deal of work on a previous Bill in Committee on which I was the Conservative spokesman. Between us, we managed to improve previous legislation to give further protection for research scientists.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, this is not the right occasion to go into the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation. However, like members of the Conservative Government, Ministers have said time after time that research scientists who are carrying out lawful work should not have to live in fear of their lives. Employees of the companies based in Surrey Heath, such as Novartis and Eli Lilly, are constantly telling me that we need to ensure that the extremists in

the animal rights movement, who behave like terrorists, are not a threat to them and their families.

We all remember some of the appalling events that have taken place, in particular when a scientist in the west country had a bomb placed under his car by the terrorists. When the bomb went off, the force of the blast went sideways, luckily missing the scientist but unfortunately injuring an innocent bystander—a young woman pushing her child in a buggy along the pavement beside the scientist's car. All parliamentarians recognise the need to provide further protection, and as I have a similar constituency interest as my hon. Friend, I thought that it was important reinforce the point.

I hope that even if the Minister cannot accept the precise wording of the new clauses, he will say that he understands the spirit behind them and that he will be prepared perhaps to table Government amendments to incorporate that spirit. If he has any doubts about that, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to confirm that that he will talk to some of his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), a distinguished cancer scientist who spoke about these issues, and the hon. Member for South Thanet, who has pursued these issues in the past? We all recognise that there is a constant battle to ensure that people carrying out their own law-abiding research are protected against extremists.

There is a national interest. Britain has been a home of research science for a century and more. I declare my personal interest. I think that I am the only Member both of whose parents were research scientists. They are both retired and neither of them worked with animals. However, if one grows up in a family where one's parents are involved in research science, one understands the crucial importance of maintaining Britain's position at the forefront of technological developments. I cannot stress too strongly how important I consider these matters. I hope that we will have the same constructive response from the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as I have had from other Ministers.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I recognise, as do the Government, the problems that new clauses 3 and 4 are designed to address. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire talked about protesters outside homes and on the front lawn or drive. He will know that that can be dealt with under section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. His wider point about protesters outside the home but off the drive or the front lawn was well made.

I fully accept that it is entirely unacceptable for a small minority of animal rights extremists to attempt to stop individuals and companies going about their legitimate business. It is important that the message gets through and that the public appreciate that the biotechnological and pharmaceutical industries are doing valuable work and understand the methods of some of those who oppose them. The Government recognise and support the right to legitimate peaceful protest, as does the Committee, but we do not and should not tolerate protests that are violent or intimidatory.

There is a clear and ongoing campaign by some animal rights activists to intimidate individuals and businesses in a way that is unacceptable and often unlawful. Such activities include criminal damage, vandalism, threats, malicious communications, and harassment in the form of protest outside the homes of those who work in the bioscience industries and their suppliers, as the hon. Gentleman described. He highlights some real concerns and makes some serious points. We always anticipate keeping public order legislation under review, and with the indulgence of the Committee we would like to take the points away to consider them further and to decide whether we need to return to them at a later stage.

On behalf of my ministerial colleague on the Committee I can assure the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that we will give due consideration to new clauses 3 and 4. We first need to consider the drafting to see whether they do what they purport to do. If we feel that we need to come back at a later stage, we will do so. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

That is the sort of constructive response that I was hoping that the Minister would give. I am grateful to him. Obviously it would be daft to pursue the matter to the extreme. Before engaging in the formalities, may I seek confirmation from the Minister that it is not just a question of keeping the matter under review, but that the Government are considering what can be done to improve the situation? I would not expect the Minister to know as it is not his Department, but in a debate in Westminster Hall two or three months ago the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) stated that the Government were not just keeping the matter under review, but were actively considering what could be done to improve the situation. I therefore hope that keeping it under review is not simply nice words, but that a positive approach will be taken to examine how the legislation can be improved, so that we can protect those whom the Minister and I would wish to protect. If the Minister wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The broader view to take, as any Government would, is of the overall public order legislation, which needs to be kept constantly under review. As the hon. Gentleman said, active consideration of those specific purposes is taking place, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen. We want to take away the new clauses to see whether it is appropriate, germane and feasible to do anything with the Bill in that area.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister, because that is very much what I wanted to hear. The Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to do whatever they conclude is necessary to make the law more effective. I identified the Bill as a potential vehicle: hence the debate on the new clauses. I hope that the Government, even if they decide that the new clauses are not appropriate, will use the Bill as a vehicle for toughening up the legislation and making it

more enforceable. As we all know, such legislative vehicles do not come by every day, and it is important to use the opportunities when they arise. I am grateful for the Minister's undertaking and response and look forward to hearing his further views on the matter, or those of the Under-Secretary, later in the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 - Anti-social behaviour: landlords'

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 96, in

clause 12, page 8, line 41, at end insert—

'(1A) Each Local Housing Authority must, not later than three months after the commencement of section 12 of the AntiSocial Behaviour Act 2003, publish guidance concerning antisocial behaviour in social housing in its area and procedures for dealing with it.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 134, in

clause 12, page 9, line 1, after 'prepare', insert 'after consultation with tenants'.

Amendment No. 135, in

clause 12, page 9, line 3, after 'for', insert

'resolving disputes, reducing the level of antisocial behaviour and'.

Amendment No. 213, in

clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert—

'(c) procedures for preventing occurrences of antisocial behaviour;

(d) procedures for providing support and rehabilitation services to those who have engaged in antisocial behaviour.'.

Amendment No. 214, in

clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert—

'(2A) In formulating the policy and procedures under subsection (2), the landlord must have regard to—

(a) the homelessness strategy of each local housing authority in whose district the landlord owns housing accommodation;

(b) the crime and disorder strategy of each local housing authority in whose district the landlord owns housing accommodation;

(c) the duties and powers under the Children Act 1989 (c.41) of each local authority in whose district the landlord owns housing accommodation.'.

Amendment No. 97, in

clause 12, page 9, line 7, at end insert

'and prepared in accordance with the guidance issued under subsection (1A).'.

Amendment No. 136, in

clause 12, page 9, line 15, at end insert—

'(c) must be sent to all tenants.'.

Amendment No. 98, in

clause 12, page 9, line 18, at end insert

'who is or may become a tenant of that landlord or to any person'.

Amendment No. 137, in

clause 12, page 9, line 19, at end insert—

'( ) In preparing and reviewing antisocial behaviour policies and procedures the landlord shall consult such public or local authorities,

voluntary organisations or other persons as they consider appropriate.'.

Amendment No. 192, in

clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 20 to 25.

Amendment No. 235, in

clause 12, page 9, line 25, at end insert—

'( ) The landlord must also—

(a) record the number and nature of complaints made about antisocial behaviour; and

(b) monitor action taken to resolve the complaints.'.

Amendment No. 215, in

clause 12, page 9, line 28, at end insert—

'(10) ''Homelessness strategy'' has the same meaning as in the Homelessness Act 2002 (c.7).

(11) ''Crime and disorder strategy'' has the same meaning as in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37).'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Obviously this is what the Minister came for, and over the next few hours we will be considering the section of the Bill dealing with housing and antisocial behaviour by tenants.

The first group contains four amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, and one that we tabled jointly with the Liberal Democrats. The remaining amendments were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, so I will not address those in detail.

The main issue is one of consistency in the application of the legislation. I believe it to be necessary—others may take a different view—to put into statute a measure to deal with antisocial behaviour by tenants, and I am therefore not opposed to the principle of what the Government are trying to do. However, I also believe that such measures should be applied consistently.

It has been argued that such legislation is not necessary, or that existing legislation is adequate to deal with antisocial behaviour. Many hon. Members will have heard quoted the example of Manchester, where the housing authorities are able to use existing legislation to deal satisfactorily with antisocial behaviour. I do not, however, oppose the principle of introducing legislation, despite its controversial nature. Our amendments are designed to introduce into the Bill an element of consistency and reasonableness, which I believe to be lacking.

Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 relate to the matter of consistency. The clause requires all social landlords to publish a policy on antisocial behaviour. A vast number of commentators have argued that requiring landlords to publish a policy does not in itself achieve anything. It does not impose a duty on them to do anything about it, but simply to publish a policy. However, I accept that publishing a policy would be a significant step forward. It does not impose any obligation to enforce that policy and, clearly, if it is not enforced, it will quickly come into disrepute. However, there needs to be some consistency within a locality.

In many local authority areas there are registered social landlords, housing associations and local

authority landlords, and sometimes they share the ownership of developments. Several housing associations may have adjoining properties, and they need a consistent approach to the problem of tenants' antisocial behaviour. However, nothing in the clause will encourage consistency.

Amendment No. 96 would require each housing authority to publish guidance on antisocial behaviour in social housing in its area and guidance on procedures for dealing with it. Amendment No. 97 would require the landlords, in preparing their policy, to have regard to the guidance issued by the housing authority, and that is a clear step forward.

There are already proposals that the Secretary of State should be involved in the case of local authorities and housing action trusts, and RSLs would have to comply with guidance from the relevant authority. That is an attempt to address the matter, but it introduces a degree of inconsistency because there will be different sets of guidance. I do not know why the Secretary of State has to be involved, but the guidance in any local authority area should be consistent. The obligation should be on the local authority to produce the guidance, so that however many RSLs are within the area they must have regard to it. Why do the Government want to do it differently?

Amendment No. 98 would require all tenants to be given a copy of the policy and procedures. The Minister may argue that that is covered in the clause, but it is not. It is important to amend clause 12 to ensure that the landlord is obliged to provide all tenants, not just those who request it, with a copy of the policy and procedures, not just out of courtesy but because tenants could not claim ignorance if they were later accused of transgressing the policy and procedures.

As I said, amendment No. 192 is a probing amendment. Some guidance is necessary, but subsection (7) will lead to confusion and it should be dealt with as described in amendments Nos. 96 and 97.

We are more than happy about the joint amendment No. 235, which relates to the important matter of monitoring and recording complaints. If a landlord is to go to court to seek a demoted tenancy he will need such information. It is therefore logical that the Bill should include the obligation to record the number and nature of complaints and the action taken to deal with them in order to justify a subsequent claim for a demoted tenancy.

Those are my reasons for tabling the amendments. It would be absurd for tenants in adjoining properties under different landlords to be covered by different procedures. The amendments address the issue of consistency in the application of the measure in a local housing authority area. If there is a better way of achieving that aim, so be it; I am always open to be persuaded.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I welcome the Minister to his first active engagement with the Committee.

The Liberal Democrats tabled a series of amendments, a joint amendment has been discussed,

and I shall deal briefly with the Conservative amendments in a moment.

Amendment No. 134 would ensure that tenants were consulted before the landlord adopted the procedures, which is sensible because involving tenants in drawing up the procedures may give them a greater sense of ownership of them and a feeling that they are more relevant. The tenants may want more stringent procedures than those that their housing association or council propose. Housing associations and councils often have tenant groups that can act as consultation groups. Such a requirement may not be needed in the Bill, but it is at least best practice, and I would welcome the Minister's confirmation of that.

Amendment No. 135 is designed to ensure that the landlord takes a more proactive approach when dealing with antisocial behaviour, rather than dealing only with its consequences. It would place on landlords the obligation to help to resolve disputes and to reduce antisocial behaviour to a reasonable level, as outlined in their policy, not just to deal with its occurrence.

Amendment No. 213 would add two new paragraphs, (c) and (d), to subsection (2). It would ensure the inclusion of prevention, support and rehabilitation in the antisocial behaviour policies and procedures that social landlords are required to publish under the clause. It would also ensure that behavioural problems are tackled more effectively, and that tenancies are sustained through the provision of appropriate support, rehabilitation and resettlement services. I thank Shelter for providing much of the information for the amendment. Proactive and imaginative schemes for dealing with antisocial tenants have been very successful in certain parts of the country. This is a chance for councils or housing associations to work effectively with the tenants, and we do not want it to be missed by rushing through to the next stage of a demoted tenancy. That is the thrust of the amendment.

Amendment No. 136 is similar to Conservative amendment No. 98, but would go down a different route by inserting a new paragraph (c) into subsection (6), so that a copy of a landlord's policy and procedure would have to be sent to all tenants. There are various ways of expressing that. The Minister may say that this is best practice and that it will be included in the guidance. I hope that he will at least say that it is best practice. I would have liked it to be included in the Bill.

Amendment No. 137 would insert a new paragraph at the end of subsection (6) and encourage landlords, when reviewing their antisocial behaviour policies, to consult other authorities and organisations with experience in this field, so that they are not merely writing those off their own bat. There would also be consultation with the public. After all, the thrust of the Bill is to protect the public from antisocial behaviour, so one hopes that they will have some say in the drafting of the guidance. Again, whether the amendment's wording is right remains to be seen,

but it would ensure that there was greater consultation with regard to antisocial behaviour.

Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 also have the support of Shelter. They would ensure that there was a consistent multi-agency approach to tackling antisocial behaviour, with adherence to the work of relevant agencies and strategies across each local authority. Amendment No. 214 would make the landlord have regard to the homelessness strategy of the local housing authority, to the crime and disorder strategy and to the duties and powers under the Children Act 1989. Amendment No. 215 would support amendment No. 214. Some of that may be expected to happen anyway, but we should like to hear from the Minister precisely how the Government would ensure that it happened. As I said, those strong amendments were tabled with a lot of help from Shelter.

Amendment No. 235 is the joint amendment. We heard about it from the Conservative spokesman. It would simply ensure that the landlord also recorded occurrences of antisocial behaviour. That makes a lot of sense; if a case went to court, such information would be helpful in a number of instances.

It might seem as if many of these amendments would impose extra duties on, for instance, housing associations, but we have consulted associations as to whether they would be onerous, and many of them carry out most of these duties already. The amendments would ensure that we bring some of the other bodies up to the standard of the best associations, or councils if there is still council housing. As I said, the duties are clearly not too onerous, because many associations are fulfilling all of them already.

We support Conservative amendments Nos. 96 and 97. The Conservatives have done the Committee a service by proposing that the local authority publish guidance, which could be taken into account, as we have heard, to establish a level playing field. Amendment No. 98 is broadly the same as our amendment No. 136; it just deals with the issue differently. I, too, am interested to hear from the Minister why the Secretary of State needs so many powers.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I shall speak briefly. Mine may be a somewhat technical query about the amendments and the clause. It relates to leasehold property. My hon. Friend the Minister has been consulting various people about the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, and knows of my interest in that issue. More than 20,000 properties in north-east Lincolnshire, mainly in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, are leasehold houses. One thing that became evident from the discussions on that Bill was that, in law, those homeowners—they have mortgages—are classified as tenants, and the freeholder is regarded as the landlord.

I want to know how the provision would impact on homeowners in my area. As I said, it is a fairly technical point, and the Minister may want to write to me about how the amendments and the clause would affect my local residents. I have come across unscrupulous behaviour by freeholders with regard

to forfeiture of leases, and I do not want the clause to give unscrupulous freeholders more reason to use forfeiture proceedings to seize a person's home, sell it and take all the profits regardless of the fact that someone else has paid all the mortgage on the property.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I appreciate and understand the concern articulated by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). We must understand that the search for consistency, which is right and proper, should be within a national framework. That is why we believe that it is appropriate that the guidance is dictated from the centre.

We must also remember two points. First, the existing reporting mechanisms for local housing authority tenants and organisations and for RSLs are distinct, and I shall return to that point in a moment. Secondly, we need as far as possible to allow the autonomy necessary for quick, local, flexible responses to specific circumstances in a given locality. That, in a nutshell, is why I have some difficulties with amendment No. 96.

As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, the amendment would place a requirement on local housing authorities to publish guidance on antisocial behaviour in social housing in its area and the procedures for dealing with it. It would also require the policies and procedures that social landlords have a duty to publish under clause 12 to follow that guidance. Although the hon. Gentleman said that the intention of the amendment is to ensure strategic guidance and consistency in the way that antisocial behaviour is tackled, like many later amendments, it would not achieve that. However, existing clauses will do so, for reasons that I shall come to.

There are several problems with the amendment, not least the fact that it confuses the local authority's strategic role with its landlord responsibilities. Imposing an extra duty would result in some duplication. As I hinted, it would confuse the lines of accountability for registered social landlords. The activities of RSLs, including their action to take on housing-related antisocial behaviour, are regulated by the Housing Corporation, and any formal or binding guidance to RSLs must be issued by the corporation. The local housing authority would have to issue guidance to itself, which is an unnecessary duplication of work, and as I have said, it would remove or lessen the autonomy of RSLs to decide the best ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour depending on the circumstances within wider strategic guidance.

I understand where hon. Members are coming from, but I do not agree with how they get there or that the amendments would improve on the provisions already in the Bill.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I half follow the logic of the Minister's argument, but will he elaborate on how he believes that subsection (7) will improve consistency. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will set guidance for housing authorities and housing action trusts and the

Housing Corporation will set it for registered social landlords. The Bill builds in an inconsistency, and I do not entirely follow his argument about why my proposition, which would at least create total consistency within the area of a local authority, would produce any more problems than having two different ''authorities'' issuing guidance.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The point at which the hon. Gentleman and I part is in seeking strategic consistency. We agree that there should be a strategic framework in which to deal with antisocial behaviour in social housing. The chase is for that consistency at a local authority level; surely we want consistency at national level. Subsection (7) merely reflects existing the accountability lines. Happily for me I am no lawyer, and I cannot begin to think about the unpicking of legislation that will be necessary in respect of the Housing Corporation, its relations with RSLs, how the two will relate to local authorities and how they all relate to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The amendment would create an unnecessary layer on top of existing levels of accountability. It must be right to have a strategic oversight at national level and to preserve a degree of autonomy at local level for housing authorities or RSLs.

Although I agree with the hunt for consistency, it must be at a wider level than the hon. Gentleman's amendment suggested. It follows, too—recent experience has shown it to be the case—that there is a strong argument that the guidance issued by the Housing Corporation to RSLs on how to manage antisocial behaviour in the context of the legislation should have to consider, materially and relevantly, the guidance issued by the First Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister, to HATs and local housing authorities. Although from the Bill it appears that there is plenty of scope for the two to be entirely distinct and to go off at random and in different directions, if I had anything to do with it I would ensure that the guidance issued by the Department and by the Housing Corporation is the same. However, I emphasise that we want the strategic guidance at national level so that we know roughly how the housing authorities, HATs and RSLs are being guided in dealing with antisocial behaviour. It is at local level that further autonomy is needed.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

It would be a way forward if there were a requirement to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance, as that would strengthen consistency. Strategic guidance also spreads best practice.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I endorse what my hon. Friend says. We would need to reflect equally the local authorities' input and responsibilities, rather than those of the local housing authorities, in a range of other local partnerships, not least crime and disorder partnerships and others in the local domain, such as homelessness strategies. I shall return to such matters shortly.

Amendments Nos. 136 and 98 would require landlords to provide each tenant, and anyone who may become a tenant, with a copy of the policies and procedures. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was ahead of me in anticipating my response, which is that the proposal is unnecessarily

prescriptive and may put a provision in the Bill that in economic terms is not necessary and in terms of efficacy is not the most appropriate way to disseminate the necessary information.

The policies are not relevant simply to tenants: landlords may take out injunctions to protect leaseholders, lodgers, visitors to the locality and a landlord's staff. It would not be feasible or cost-effective to identify anyone who may benefit from knowing about the policies and provide them with a copy. The existing provision enables anyone, whatever their link with the landlord, to obtain a copy, and that is preferable.

I do not mean to be churlish, but amendment No. 134 is completely unnecessary, like many proposals that come from the Liberal Democrats. Local authority landlords already have a statutory duty to consult their tenants on any matter to do with housing management. The Housing Corporation also requires RSLs to consult tenants on housing management issues. Wide concerns about consultation on various matters, including antisocial behaviour, are already taken into account in existing measures.

Amendment No. 137 would have little practical effect and might even increase landlords' work loads unnecessarily. Nothing is stopping landlords consulting any body or person whom they want to consult when preparing their policies and procedures. In any case, the amendment would not require landlords who did not consider it appropriate to consult anyone else. It simply states, ''as they consider appropriate.'' It is betwixt and between: either they do not have to do it and it produces unnecessary burdens, or they should do it, in which case the amendment should be worded entirely differently.

I suspect that the guidance, when issued, will exhort local housing authorities, HATs and RSLs to use the broadest policy context when drawing up their specific local guidance. It is entirely unnecessary to say about such an important dimension of housing policy and antisocial behaviour that because it is not in the Bill, RSLs, HATs or local housing authorities need have no regard to crime and disorder partnerships, existing homelessness strategies and all the other elements. We need to see all these elements in the wider context of what is going on at local authority level, county level and in housing generally, as we did with the limited elements of previous clauses. The fact that they are not in the Bill does not mean that we are prescribing that RSLs, HATs or local housing authorities should have no regard for those wider, very germane and relevant policies.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I, too, welcome the Minister to the Committee. I want to ask a question that I have asked in debates on other legislation: is he convinced that all housing associations of any size participate sufficiently in local crime and disorder partnerships? I understand that there is no requirement for them to participate, and I have sought such a requirement because I am sure that some housing associations do not participate fully. Will the Minister at least confirm that there

should be some recognition of those points in the guidance?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I happily concede that it may well be appropriate for there to be an exhortation in the guidance for housing authorities to be more fully involved in crime and disorder partnerships, and in best practice and the wider issues, as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said. It may also be appropriate for them to be involved in the wider context of local strategic partnerships and to some extent in whatever reasonable bodies follow thereafter, and we may want to include that in the guidance.

As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, best practice among many RSLs in particular means getting as fully involved in their localities as they can. That is right and proper, and I am sure that those elements will be reflected in the guidance to the extent that it is germane to the execution of an efficient and effective antisocial behaviour strategy.

As I said, amendment No. 135 would add little to the clause, and confuses matters as it mixes up procedure and policy, which is not useful. The intention may be to ensure that some statement of strategic matters appears in the landlords' published statements on antisocial behaviour. The clause currently does not set out details about what the word ''policy'' should cover, as it should be left to the individual landlord in the light of their unique circumstances.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

A concern arising from the amendments and from different clauses in different parts of the Bill is that it is one thing for a policy to be written down and another to ensure that that policy is enforced and is worth the paper that it is written on. This is a crucial clause: it has an impact on many of our communities, and if we do not get it right, we will have failed the people in those communities. The fundamental question is how we ensure that the improved and increased powers will be used and that policies will be enforced, so that something is done to tackle the problem that some of our tenants face.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is an entirely fair point that will be dealt in part in guidance and in part by existing mechanisms. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that when RSLs have to draw up antisocial behaviour policies and procedures, they will be included in their audited accounts, which go directly back to the Housing Corporation. The process of going back to the Secretary of State in this instance, and to me in the case of housing action trusts, which are being wound down, is not dissimilar. There are mechanisms through which they will be brought to book.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We could have the most eloquently or powerfully drafted policy, but if it does not have the teeth to bite on our streets and estates it is worthless. That is why I said that I understand and take to heart the real concerns that hon. Members have expressed. However, we feel that the strategic consistency that we all seek should be at national level, which is why the guidance will be so important. There should also be a degree of local autonomy, because no one will know better how to

implement and interpret measures to deal with antisocial behaviour than those close to the streets and estates.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Let me just finish one small point as it wraps up four amendments and then I will happily give way. Amendments Nos. 213 to 215 and 235 would place unnecessary additional requirements on landlords when producing policies and procedures. Such matters are more appropriately found in guidance. I am mindful that it may appear even at this stage that we are talking about guidance in the form of a small local Yellow Pages, but these are important matters that are better swept up in that framework than on the face of the Bill.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the Minister agree that a strategic approach would mean adopting a staged approach in the use of preventive measures? Should there not be something in the Bill to say that there are many other supportive measures that should be used, without being too specific, before the extreme measures are taken?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In part the hon. Lady answered her own question when she said, ''without being too specific''. The purpose of legislation is to be as specific as possible, at least in a strategic sense. As legislators generally, rather than in a partisan fashion, we should resist shopping lists that try to include every possible notion in a policy statement or the procedures to enforce them. We know that there are local variations. There may be manifestations of antisocial behaviour in Dorset that are entirely distinct from those on the Essex coast, in Surrey Heath or in Cambridgeshire.

I take the hon. Lady's point entirely, but I do not think that it is appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill that all those elements, preventive or otherwise, should be included as part of the policy. It is far more appropriate to provide in guidance some notional checklist of what should be in the process. That is not to detract from what she says, but we feel that those elements will be more appropriately dealt with in that fashion, because if we take the approach she suggests, as night follows day, things will be left out and the legislation will then be subject to judicial review or other challenge because something has not been included. We do not want to become mired in the courts or judicial review when the people on the streets and estates in all our constituencies want something done. That is a lengthy response, but it is a serious point.

During the course of our deliberations this afternoon, I will endeavour to find out from the people who do not exist in this Room because we do not acknowledge them what shape the guidance will take, because that will be useful to the Committee now and subsequently. The balance between what is in the Bill and what is in the guidance is always a matter of debate, but I hope that people will accept that the way forward is to seek strategic consistency on antisocial behaviour policies and procedures at national level, while leaving scope for as great a degree of local autonomy as possible so that people can react within our framework to their local circumstances.

The import and direction of most of the amendments under consideration differ from that approach, albeit for laudable reasons, and the debate has explored some of the areas they highlight. However, in the spirit of co-operation that I am desperately trying to pursue, I ask that the amendments be either resisted or withdrawn.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which he replied to the many points that the hon. Member for Ludlow and I raised. In relation to my amendments Nos. 96 and 97, I am not entirely convinced that we need that strategic consistency. I believe that there are local variations that might justify distinctions in policy in different parts of the country, and that such areas should be entrusted to local authorities rather than to centralised decision making. That is part of the devolution of power that I would like to see.

Nevertheless, I understand where the Minister is coming from and fully accept his commitment that he will do his best to ensure that the guidance from the Secretary of State is as similar as possible to that issued by the Housing Corporation. I also understand, as a non-lawyer, that we do not want to start unpicking the law on channels of accountability. For those reasons, I am loth to pursue the issue further, but before I commit myself to that position, I look at the hon. Member for Ludlow in case he wishes to intervene.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. The Minister has indicated that the majority of the issues raised by our amendments will be dealt with in guidance, and that the Government share our intent.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

In that case—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

May I intervene?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Of course.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am grateful, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes is sitting behind me. The only point that I missed out was her point about leaseholders. I will, as invited, explore the matter further in writing with my hon. Friend and the Committee. I could not enjoy the rest of the Committee while she was sitting there—

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Scowling.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Yes, if I did not pick up on her point.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I should not dream of intervening in the relationships between the Minister and his Back Benchers, although I think that there would have been an opportunity for the hon. Lady to raise the matter under a later group of amendments, when I intend to raise a similar issue. However, no one should accuse me of not being generous even to the Liberals in allowing the hon. Member for Ludlow to make his comments. I also appreciate the Minister's reply, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Injunctions against anti-social behaviour on application of certain social landlords

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 138, in

clause 13, page 10, line 4, leave out 'capable of'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 232, in

clause 13, page 10, line 4, leave out 'capable of causing' and insert

'causing or is likely to cause'.

Amendment No. 139, in

clause 13, page 10, line 4, leave out 'or annoyance'.

Amendment No. 193, in

clause 13, page 10, line 5, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

Amendment No. 140, in

clause 13, page 10, line 12, after 'engaging', insert 'or'.

Amendment No. 141, in

clause 13, page 10, line 12, leave out 'or threatens to engage'.

Amendment No. 142, in

clause 13, page 10, line 14, leave out 'capable of'.

Amendment No. 143, in

clause 13, page 10, line 28, leave out 'or threatening to use'.

Amendment No. 146, in

clause 14, page 13, line 9, leave out

'or has threatened to engage'.

Amendment No. 147, in

clause 14, page 13, line 39, leave out

'or has threatened to engage'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

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.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I do not intend to comment in detail on all the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Ludlow before I come to the two standing in my name. I understand his approach and support the principle of trying to find out what the Government are seeking to achieve. I am not going to say that I support or oppose the detail of his amendments, but I support the objective of inquiry behind them and indeed behind my amendments, in particular amendment No. 193.

The hon. Member for Ludlow stated that he could not support that amendment, and indeed I would have been horrified if he could. That is not a partisan comment: I would not support it myself if someone were daft enough to press it to a vote. It was tabled

simply to challenge the Government to remove ''and'' and insert ''or'', as the hon. Gentleman said, and thus separate the issue of management from nuisance and annoyance. That would not be wise, but it enables me in a different way from that chosen by the hon. Gentleman to ask the Minister to explain what he means by ''nuisance and annoyance''. It is part of the overall challenge to the Government. I have tabled other amendments on later clauses that in their own way similarly challenge the Government.

I have great hopes that the Minister might accept amendment No. 232. The reason is straightforward: its phrasing is quite pedantic, but as the Minister and the Committee will know, the Bill follows closely the Housing Act 1996, passed by the Conservative Government, which brought in the concept of introductory tenancies in which the issue of antisocial behaviour was addressed. It seems logical that we should use the same phraseology in the Bill. The proposal came from the Law Society, so with its support I have tabled the amendment to amend the phraseology of clause 13 to retain the current definition—which is proven to be workable—in the 1996 Act by deleting ''capable of causing'' and replacing it with ''causing or is likely to cause''. It is a small change, but it has the merit of consistency with existing legislation that has been proved to work. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on that modest proposal.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Without pre-empting what I shall say subsequently on amendment No. 232, I admit that I shall probably disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The essence of clause 13 and, I accept, the thrust of many of the amendments is that people's behaviour has consequences. That is the key. If there is a theme to the Liberal Democrat amendments, it is to narrow our ability and limit the powers of HATs, RSLs and local housing authorities to secure injunctions and correct antisocial behaviour. I am sure that that is not the purpose of the amendments, but it would be the outcome.

Amendments Nos. 138 and 142 would limit the use of injunctions to circumstances in which behaviour had caused nuisance or annoyance to a relevant person, rather than circumstances in which behaviour was capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. That would require a victim to be identified before the landlord could take action and would severely limit what landlords could do in the broader proactive and preventive sense to try to arrest the early stage of antisocial behaviour before it turned into something that ultimately had real consequences.

The amendment would prevent third parties from acting as witnesses where a victim was too scared or intimidated to come to court, which is a real concern. For example, some landlords use professional witnesses on estates where a fear of reprisals has prevented tenants from coming forward to give evidence, not least because their experience of raising their head above the parapet in the past has been sorely disappointing and found wanting.

Some of the most successful schemes that are in place to arrest the early stage of antisocial behaviour and restore greater confidence in local communities

are the various street neighbourhood and community warden schemes in which the professional witness model or duty is part and parcel of the role. That works terribly well. If the Bill referred only to circumstances in which nuisance or annoyance had been caused, that would severely limit the proactive nature of what authorities could do.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was right: amendment No. 232 refers back to the language of the Housing Act 1996. However, it would narrow the ability of social landlords to obtain an injunction to occasions on which the behaviour was causing nuisance or annoyance or on which it was likely to do so. We chose the language of clause 13 very carefully to make the test easier, in the context of being proactive and preventive as well as simply reactive.

I am afraid that I have to pretend to be a lawyer now, at least in some regard, and go through the notion of nuisance and annoyance, which underpins at least some of the amendments. That phrase has been readily understood by the courts. The same wording is used in existing housing injunctions under the powers in the 1996 Act and in the nuisance grounds for possession applicable to secure and assured tenants. The courts have said that those words should be given their usual meaning: nuisance and annoyance are given their ordinary everyday meanings.

Behaviour must be such as to annoy an ordinary person, not an ultra-sensitive person. That relates not least to some of the matters that the Committee discussed under previous provisions and will probably discuss again. The Bill is about antisocial behaviour that deviates from the norm, not about putting everything in the context of how someone ultra-sensitive—probably like me—would react to the circumstances. For example, in one case a possession order was made because a tenant kept cats in the back garden that caused nuisance and annoyance to several adjoining occupiers. Were there only one or two cats? No, there were 38. Such a number can be a nuisance and an annoyance in the wider sense.

Legal argument has tended to focus not on the meaning of nuisance and annoyance, but on whether it is reasonable to grant an injunction or possession order on the basis of the nuisance and annoyance. The phraseology is broadly interpreted in a normal sense and, as ever, the test is of the reasonableness of granting an injunction or possession order on that basis. That is why the words ''nuisance'' and ''annoyance'' are included in the clause.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

May I take the Minister back to the phrase ''capable of causing'', as opposed to ''likely to cause''? I assure him that I have no desire to make the barrier tougher to overcome—we want the measures to work and therefore do not want barriers. However, can the Minister explain his reasoning? What is the distinction between the words ''capable of causing'' and ''likely to cause''? That seems to be the nub of why he is resisting amendment No. 232 and the consistency with existing legislation. The two phrases seem to mean the same thing, and it would therefore be better to have consistency.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Although my previous experience in Committee is limited, the hon. Gentleman is, as ever, falling into the trap of thinking that English legislation is drafted in English. As I understand the matter, the key difficulty with the legalese is precisely to do with the word ''likely''. That word opens up legal arguments that focus on the probability that a particular conduct will cause nuisance or annoyance. However, I am assured that ''capable of'' is a far easier test that does not take us down the muddy inclines of a debate about tossing coins, throwing dice or other elements of probability theory. That sounds strange and arcane, but those who have the happy experience of being lawyers assure me that that is why the test is easier.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Following his own logic, will the Minister table an amendment to the Bill to amend the 1996 Act? One type of phraseology is used in that Act in the section about antisocial behaviour in which introductory tenancies are mentioned. I am not going to argue with the Minister about the legalese, because neither of us can do so in great depth. However, it seems somewhat daft and odd that there is inconsistency between two pieces of legislation that deal with the same issue. From what the Minister said, I should think it would be logical to amend the 1996 Act if there is a problem with the word ''likely''.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If the hon. Gentleman refers to schedule 3 of the Bill, which is about repeals, he will find that sections 152 and 153 of the 1996 Act are repealed. If it will help and he wants, I can give the hon. Gentleman my copy of the 1996 Act, although sadly it is from the internet rather than an actual copy. However, he makes an entirely proper point: the Bill will supersede sections 152 and 153 of the 1996 Act, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said it should.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

May I return to the theme of enforcing the policies and the powers that we are introducing? The 1996 Act allowed injunctions in much more limited circumstances than the Bill proposes. The 1996 Act allowed injunctions to be taken out by local authorities and, in some circumstances, registered social landlords, but from my experience and from talking to hon. Friends and other hon. Members, I understand that those powers have not been used extensively. What hope does my hon. Friend have that the injunctions in the Bill, which are much more extensive and much more widely available, will actually be used?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

What my hon. Friend has just said goes to the nub of the clause. If the amendments were accepted, we would more or less be back to the 1996 position and relatively limited success. The test in the Bill is easier in the legal sense, for reasons that I just outlined, and there is greater scope for RSLs, HATs and local housing authorities to be far more proactive. Although it might be unfair, that is broadly the context of sections 152 and 153 of the 1996 Act, under which the process was very often crisis driven and injunctions were secured way down the line as a last resort. In the context of the five clauses relating to housing, however, we believe that the ability to take the injunction route will have far more bite and work far more readily than the provisions of the 1996 Act.

Hopefully, given the way in which the Bill has been drafted, and notwithstanding any acceptance of the amendments, RSLs, HATs and local housing authorities will be far more proactive as well as reactive. There will also be greater transparency, so that people know what is happening and why. Crucially, the Bill codifies the consequences of people's antisocial acts far more readily than the 1996 Act or any of the other principal Acts that preceded the Bill have done. That is the nub of the Bill, but it operates only if the amendments are not accepted.

Hon. Members will know that it is imperative to do something about threatened as well as actual behaviour. Within the confines of natural justice and the law it is imperative that we do something about the potential for intimidation, perceived intimidation, and perceived and subsequent antisocial behaviour. That is why I cannot emphasise enough that it is not sufficient to talk about things that have actually happened and respond to those alone. The real difficulty with the estates and streets about which we are talking is the threat and perceived threat of subsequent behaviour. That is why many of the amendments in the group go against the grain. We are trying to broaden the range of powers within which, in a strict legal sense, there is the ability to secure and pursue injunctions.

As I said, the threat of attack can be as distressing as the attack itself. It leaves the victim feeling frightened and unsafe, and it is only right that landlords are able to seek to protect people from distressing threatening behaviour by their tenants. I suggest that it would not be much comfort to the victim of constant threats to be told that action could not be taken because the threats had never been carried out. The victim can reasonably expect that threats will be followed by antisocial acts; equally, under the Bill, they can expect that action can and should be taken to prevent that. That is the thrust of the Bill, and it reveals the real difference between its provisions and the two sections of the 1996 Act to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling alluded.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

Does the Minister agree that the clauses outline and enforce the fact that the measure is a threat as well as a reality and that it must be spelled out in plain English to the tenants? If they do not understand that the threshold is lower and the expectation of behaviour higher, the clauses will not be implemented in the way in which we want them to be.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I fully accept that. That goes to the heart of the clause 12. It is about not only setting the provisions in train, but about letting everyone know what has been determined. That is why, without returning to our previous debate, the degree of local autonomy is so important. There is no point in setting up elaborate consequences for people's actions and shifting thresholds that they are used to—I promised myself that I would not use that word, because it clearly has a resonance in the Committee to which I am not party—if they are not fully aware of the possible consequences through the injunction and the

demotion routes, the second of which we will discuss later. I fully accept what my hon. Friend says.

We have put the provisions together carefully, and the balance between threatened and actual behaviour, nuisance and annoyance and capability and likelihood of causing annoyance is designed to ensure a robust set of injunctive powers that will work effectively both proactively and reactively. The balance would be diluted by each amendment, so I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister has clarified some of the reasons for the provisions in the clause. I am not sure that he has dealt with them all to everyone's satisfaction, although I suspect that he has done enough to satisfy his own side. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 100, in

clause 13, page 10, line 19, leave out from 'or' to 'of' and insert 'within 100 metres'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 225.

Amendment No. 99, in

clause 13, page 10, line 22, at end insert—

'(4A) ''Nuisance and Annoyance'' includes conduct which reasonably intrudes into the peaceful occupation of the properties of the relevant landlord including visitors to those properties and to harassment or intimidation of tenants and visitors.'.

Amendment No. 144, in

clause 13, page 10, leave out line 23.

Amendment No. 101, in

clause 13, page 10, line 25, after 'in', insert 'any'.

Amendment No. 194, in

clause 13, page 10, line 30, leave out 'immoral or'.

Amendment No. 196, in

clause 14, page 13, line 11, leave out 'immoral or'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The majority of the amendments in the group are Conservative amendments and there are two distinct themes. Amendment No. 100 stands as a reasonable amendment in itself, but it is designed to establish what the Government mean by

''the locality of the housing accommodation''

in new section 153A to the Housing Act 1996. Subsection (4) states:

''The second condition is that the conduct is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to . . . a person visiting the housing accommodation or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in or in the locality of the housing accommodation''.

Amendment No. 100 would delete ''in the locality'' and insert ''within 100 metres''. Hon. Members might say that that figure is unreasonable and that it should be 20, 50 or 500 metres, but we need either a definition of ''locality'' or to be told who will decide what it is in any particular situation.

The Minister has described the difference between nuisance and annoyance, but I am not conscious of a meaningful definition of locality. Is it down to the landlord to decide, or does the Minister anticipate that a definition will be laid down in the Secretary of State's

guidance? If so, how can the Secretary of State possibly set guidance on the definition of a locality that will apply up and down the country? I am moving the amendment in an exploratory way. I am not saying that I will not press it, but I am more interested in the Minister's response than in the detail of whether 100 metres is the right figure.

I shall not speak to amendment No. 99, and the Minister need not bother either. He has already addressed the definition of a nuisance and annoyance, which is what the amendment pursues. Amendment No. 101, which would introduce one word, has also been addressed.

I wish to spend a few moments on amendments Nos. 194 and 196. They stand alone in comparison to the rest of the group. Our objective is to remove the words ''immoral or'' from the measure. I fully recognise that it is an ancient phraseology in law; no doubt, the Minister has briefing notes that explain the 1,001 places where it already appears in law, and he might therefore argue that to remove it would seem odd, but I wish to challenge the Minister on that point, for a number of reasons.

Immorality is a totally obsolete concept in the context of the Bill, which is preventing antisocial behaviour and tackling it when it happens. We all support that noble objective, although we our views on the way in which the Government are seeking to reach it may differ. However, by including the words ''immoral or'' in the Bill, we seem to be saying that immorality is automatically antisocial. That is a non sequitur; I do not follow the logic of that.

The term ''immorality'' is judgmental; it is the judgment of someone else about what is or is not defined as immoral. What most people today consider immoral is certainly not the same as what would have been considered immoral 50 or 100 years ago. That may change in the future, but I am concerned that the term is subject to changing nuances, rather than definitive. In other contexts, we know that the courts have problems in defining immorality. It is judgmental and subjective. Most important, it is not relevant to antisocial behaviour.

Obviously, some acts that most people construe as immoral may lead to antisocial behaviour. Kerb crawling is antisocial, but it is the nature of the act rather than the immorality of the act that makes it antisocial. Traditionally, the term immoral behaviour in terms of the use of premises, which the clause addresses, refers to the use of premises for prostitution. The running of a brothel is unlawful and there are many other aspects of prostitution for which one can be prosecuted, but prostitution per se is not unlawful. I am not passing judgment on whether it is right or wrong or acceptable or not, but by using the word immoral, we are saying that it is automatically antisocial.

I do not wish to be judgmental about how other people live their lives. We all know that some people live their lives in a very different way to most of us. There are plenty of people who have regular and frequent changes of sexual partner, day in, day out, but who are not prostitutes, inasmuch as no money

changes hands. Most people would argue that in some ways that is just as immoral as the actions of a prostitute, but where is the antisocial behaviour? Why are we saying that somebody who is a prostitute is acting antisocially because they have a succession of people knocking on their door at night whereas somebody who is doing it simply because they have what might be called loose morals is not acting antisocially? I do not understand where the automatic link is made between immorality and nuisance and annoyance.

That is why I challenge the Government to say why it is necessary to use the word ''immoral''. We all agree on the principle of nuisance and annoyance. I accept the definition that the Minister referred to earlier, and that it is long established in law. That should be sufficient. If behaviour is causing nuisance or annoyance, I do not care whether it is immoral in my judgment or somebody else's; it is nuisance or annoyance. I challenge the Minister to explain why it is necessary for this part of the Bill to introduce a moral judgment into the law.

Unlawfulness is clearly a separate issue. To link it with immorality as the clause does, is inexplicable. We all agree that ''unlawful'' is clear: if somebody uses his property in an unlawful way, the policies that the landlords must lay down and the ability to obtain an injunction should apply. However, to assume a link between immorality and unlawfulness that does not necessarily exist in today's world and to suggest that such behaviour automatically causes nuisance or annoyance is to retain an unnecessary semblance of Victorian legislation. I am all for enabling landlords to obtain injunctions against nuisance and annoyance, and I support what the Minister said in that respect. However, I do not see why a judgmental word like immorality is necessary, which is why I have taken a few moments to introduce the amendments.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Liberal Democrats have one amendment in the group—amendment No. 144, which would remove new section 153A(5). Our aim is to seek clarification from the Minister.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Our concern is about why the Government are introducing the provision. I can see that they may want to make it clear that the conduct does not necessarily have to take place in the premises or their immediate vicinity. However, the provision may be taken to mean that antisocial behaviour that occurs well away from the premises where somebody lives could be a reason to bring in a demoted tenancy. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. Our amendment seeks clarification as to what they mean by

''It is immaterial where conduct . . . occurs''.

I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have tabled amendments Nos. 194 and 196. In the light of

what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has said, the use of the word ''immoral'' seems inconsistent with an antisocial behaviour bill. If people's conduct is unlawful or they are causing a nuisance, that will be covered. Therefore, I am not sure what possible immoral purpose that caused a nuisance or annoyance would not be caught up by the earlier clause.

I hope that this is one area in which lawmakers are beginning to move from attempting to impose morality on people's behaviour to addressing the effects of that behaviour. I am grateful to the Conservatives and will be interested in the Minister's response to amendment No. 100, which deals with a similar issue to our amendment No. 144 in that it is concerned with the locality that is to be considered.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I fully take on board what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said about the distinct nature of the two sets of amendments. I shall take them in turn.

Amendment No. 100 would provide absolute precision about the area within which injunctive protection can be given to visitors and others. At the moment, locality is determined by judicial discretion in each case. That is as it should be. It is up to the courts to decide exactly what is covered in given circumstances, and we do not intend that it should be defined as narrowly as pertaining to particular residences. That goes to the heart of the amendment to which the hon. Member for Ludlow referred.

An action, if deemed antisocial, needs to be dealt with wherever it takes place. The consequence is in part demotion of tenancy, but it is also the protection of the victim. We need to unpick what might be done with the tenancy as a punishment for or deterrent to antisocial behaviour from the action that caused the tenant to be in that position.

Imposing a fixed distance is likely to have some anomalous consequences. Perpetrators could lie in wait for someone to step over an imaginary line—in this case, 101 m from the residence—knowing that the person's protection ceased at that point. It would not be useful for legal argument to focus on whether the correct measurement to where the behaviour took place was 100 m or 101 m. The injunction is about proscribing the action of the individual.

Tenants and their visitors are one group that the clause aims to protect but there are others too: staff and anyone else lawfully in the locality of the landlord's housing stock. All those people are and should be protected against anyone. That may include tenants. Protecting people in that way is precisely the purpose of Government amendment No. 225. Often, it is not the landlord's employees who carry out some or all of the tasks associated with the landlord's housing management function but a third party. For example, some or all of the functions may be delegated to arms length management organisations, tenant management organisations, or let as a contract to another organisation. The clause as currently drafted does not widen the protection to ALMOs, TMOs and so on. The amendment rectifies that.

Under amendment No. 144, protection could be given only where the antisocial behaviour happened in the housing accommodation or its locality. That would have undesirable consequences. For example, our intention is that a housing officer who has refused a tenant a transfer could be protected if that tenant later sees him in a supermarket some miles away and attacks him. It comes back to the relationship between the action and the consequence. The effect of this amendment, doubtless unintentional, would be that if the tenant attacked the housing officer in the locality of the housing accommodation he would be protected but if the tenant laid in wait and attacked him as he left the locality, he would not be protected.

Where behaviour happens outside the locality, there must be some link to the housing management function. It is not the intention that the landlord should police the activities of tenants wherever they are, regardless of the circumstances. I have no difficulty in agreeing with the sentiment expressed by hon. Members but the amendments would not have the desired consequence, which is the protection under an injunction of people from antisocial behaviour.

Amendment No. 194 prompted a more interesting discussion. Its aim is to restrict the ability of landlords to seek injunctions against the use of premises to conduct that is unlawful, rather than immoral or unlawful. I suspect, and I ask hon. Members to bear with me, that the phrase ''immoral or unlawful'' was in section 152 of the 1996 Act. The clear policy in the initial drafting of the Bill was that any power or right accorded under previous Acts should be maintained and if anything built upon and consolidated, not diminished in any way.

I hesitate to find anything other than the activity around prostitution as the reason why ''immoral'' should remain. I am tempted by the argument advanced by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, but I should like to have a further look to see whether there are other reasons—perhaps relating to the crack house elements that have been mentioned—why ''immoral'' should be included as well as ''unlawful''.

I take the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument and assure the Committee that I will return with a firm answer one way or the other. Currently, I am not persuaded by my own briefing that ''immoral'' should be included but I do not profess to be the master of all I survey even with regard to clauses 12 to 17. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point. If he agrees not to press his amendment, I undertake to examine it further and to remove the offending ''immoral'' phrase if there is no substantive reason for including it other than, rightly, not seeking to lose any elements of substance from previous legislation. There may be some reason of which I am not aware but I was more persuaded than otherwise by the hon. Gentleman and will examine the matter.

I think that I have covered most of the issues raised, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Taking the last matter first, I am grateful for the Minister's comments about the amendments

regarding immorality. When he started by saying that he suspected the reason for its inclusion was ''x'', I knew that we were on fairly strong ground.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Maybe.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Maybe. I am also pleased that my explanation of the reasons behind the amendment has caused the Minister to think about the issue. I am grateful to him for that. I take note of the fact that the phrase is already contained in the 1996 Act. Bearing it in mind that that Act was passed by the Government of which I was a member, far be it from me to say that it is wrong. However, the world moves on, the Bill is purely about antisocial behaviour, and my view remains that we should not be making judgmental decisions about immorality. If something is causing nuisance and annoyance, it should be covered by the Bill and be the cause of an injunction but if it is not causing nuisance or annoyance, I do not see why the landlord should be able to obtain an injunction under the antisocial behaviour legislation.

On the inclusion of 100 m in the lead amendment, I realised that whatever figure was included would cause problems, but I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the need for judicial freedom about locality. I confess that at one stage he slightly lost me on his explanation.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Oh, good.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister says, ''Oh, good'', but I suspect that he also lost himself, as he certainly did elsewhere in his comments, including in the introduction to his own amendment. I accept the need for judicial freedom, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 225, in

clause 13, page 10, line 21, leave out from 'employed' to 'housing' in line 22 and insert

'(whether or not by the relevant landlord) in connection with the exercise of the relevant landlord's'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 216, in

clause 13, page 11, leave out lines 8 and 9.

The amendment, which has the support of Shelter, would clarify the use of injunctions, and in particular the fact that an injunction could exclude a person from their normal place of residence. It is not concerned with a person losing their tenancy. The amendment would ensure that people could only be excluded from their normal place of residence if they had used, or threatened to use, violence, or where there was a significant risk of harm, and even that sanction should only be available in serious cases of antisocial behaviour. The amendment would ensure that people could not be excluded from their homes for low-level antisocial behaviour. I say that with some caution, as I realise that there are significant problems. However, excluding someone—

Several hon. Members rose—

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Bear with me for one moment. I am concerned about the sanction of excluding someone from their home—that is not the same as

them losing their tenancy—for a period of three to six months. I am sure that it would not be used excessively, but if used disproportionately it would have an effect on the Government's homelessness strategy.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Can the hon. Gentleman define what he considers to be low-level antisocial behaviour?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

''Low-level'' may not be an appropriate term. There is clearly a difference between the level of intimidation caused by behaviour that is potentially threatening or violent and antisocial behaviour that relates to noise in the person's house.

An injunction that bars someone from his own home is a pretty severe sanction. It is not the same as losing a tenancy. There is a difference. The injunction would bar people from their own homes, and the amendment seeks to ensure that the power would apply only in certain cases. The Minister may assure us that it can be dealt with by guidance, and that the power will be used only in extreme circumstances. That may be one way around what appears to be too powerful a provision. The effect of making people homeless for a period could be disruptive for a huge number of people, possibly leading to them sleeping on the streets.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Does it ever occur to the hon. Gentleman that the person who is responsible for that behaviour has the choice of whether or not to continue with it but that those on the receiving end have no such choice?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Yes, it does occur to me. However, we are talking about not a person losing his tenancy but an injunction banning him from his home. Under the Bill, a tenancy may be demoted and then removed. We are talking about a separate power, and I wish to hear the Minister justify it. We are not saying that people should never lose their homes because of their highly antisocial behaviour. We are saying that it is appropriate to go through the proper steps to get to the end, rather than use an injunction to bar someone from his home, which would be strange.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Amendment No. 216 seems—not unusually, given that it was probably penned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—to have no practical effect. A power to exclude a perpetrator of antisocial behaviour is set out in proposed new section 153C(2), which states:

''The court may include in the injunction a provision prohibiting the person in respect of whom it is granted from entering or being in . . . any premises specified in the injunction''.

It does not declare otherwise. It clearly includes the person's home. Proposed new section 153D(2)(b) merely makes it explicit that the injunction can include the perpetrator's home. Even if the purpose of the amendment were as the hon. Member for Ludlow suggested, it would not achieve what he seeks.

It is possible under sections 152 and 153 of the Housing Act 1996 to exclude a person from his normal place of residence by means of an injunction. That is a powerful tool, and we do not wish to weaken it. Deliberately or otherwise, the amendment would dilute the strong message that we wish to give; it would shift policy. The power to exclude someone from their own home is very strong, and rightly so. There are conditions attached to its use. It can be used only where there is the use or threat of violence or a significant risk of harm. It is at the court's discretion and will be granted only where the court is satisfied that it is necessary given all the facts of the case. It is in line with antisocial behaviour orders, by which perpetrators can be excluded from their own homes.

I strongly urge the Committee to resist the amendment, which would give the message that we are not serious about getting to the heart of antisocial behaviour. The Committee cannot want to give such a message. The amendment would dilute the import and thrust of the Bill and would not achieve what it seeks to achieve, which is not unusual. It should be resisted.

Laura Moffatt (Labour, Crawley)

The amendment is interesting but clause 13 is important, particularly in dealing with those who choose to behave badly and are not tenants of registered social landlords or local authorities. Can the power to extend the use of injunctions be used in the case of private homes to deal with those who have exercised the right to buy and are causing difficulties for local people?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have been assured that the powers can be extended. The clause sends the important message that the Bill is a serious attempt to get to the heart of the problem, but it is tempered by the realisation that the power is very strong and should be used only in exceptional circumstances.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

On excluding a person from their normal place of residence, will the Minister clarify whether the provision applies only to new section 153C(1) and not to new section 153A? New section 153D(1) states:

''This section applies for the purposes of sections 153A to 153C.''

Perhaps I am misreading the Bill and perhaps that is where the confusion has come from, but the Minister is saying that the power applies only to new section 153C. If he were to clarify that, we could move on rapidly.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Perhaps unusually—it is not for me to denigrate legal language—new section 153C(1) is very explicit:

''This section applies if the court grants an injunction under subsection (2) of section 153A or 153B and it thinks that either of the following paragraphs applies—

(a) the conduct consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence;

(b) there is a significant risk of harm to a person mentioned in section 153A(4).''

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Now that the Minister has explained that part of the clause, if he wants to stop talking about the amendment, I will quickly withdraw it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I want to make a final clarification to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). The power must be linked to the landlord's management function to protect the tenant or leaseholder. In those circumstances, the answer to her question is yes. I hope and pray—I think that I have received an indication—that the hon. Member for Ludlow will withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Because the Minister has made it clear that the power would apply only if new section 153C(1) and new sections 153A and 153B apply, my concern has been allayed. I apologise to the Committee for taking up its time by misreading the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 145, in

clause 13, page 11, line 31, leave out 'and appurtenances'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 102, in

clause 13, page 11, line 40, leave out 'three' and insert 'one'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

This brief amendment is designed to question the words ''and appurtenances''.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. May we clarify how to pronounce that word? I am not sure how to do so.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I call Mr. Green.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.