POWER OF ARREST FOR BREACH OF OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY INJUNCTIONS (Hansard, 30 April 1996)

§ Mr. Raynsford
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 81, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert— '(4) For the purposes of this section, any premises occupied as residential accommodation are qualifying premises.'. The amendment would clarify the grounds on which an injunction with power of arrest could be obtained to cover persons other than local authority tenants. We are concerned that the local authority should be able to act effectively against anyone who is causing a nuisance and making their neighbours' lives a misery. We do not accept the premise, which has been to some extent set out by the Government in the title of part V, that such offences are only the responsibility of tenants. I remind the Minister that the title of part V is "Conduct of Tenants". We are very well aware that such anti-social conduct can be perpetrated by other people as well, and we think that it is insulting to tenants to suggest that only tenants can be guilty of such behaviour.
We therefore want to make it quite clear that the local authority or the landlord taking action in such cases can take action against people occupying any premises as residential accommodation, whether under a council tenancy or not. On many estates, where properties have been sold either as freehold houses or as leasehold flats, owners of properties live cheek by jowl with tenants and may themselves be guilty of anti-social behaviour. We want effective action against behaviour, whoever it is perpetrated by. The amendment would clarify those powers to ensure an even-handed approach in the fight against anti-social behaviour.

§ Mr. Gwilym Jones
I have much sympathy with the amendment. The Government have never tried to suggest that anti-social behaviour is suffered only by those who live in public sector rented property. In part V, we are trying to help local authorities to improve the quality of life on their estates by introducing a strong power to deal with troublemakers—whether tenants or non-tenants—who cause problems. Attaching a power of arrest to an injunction in this context is a new development. Our new power is a bold step and has been made available only once before, in cases of domestic violence.
It would be prudent to see where we are once things have bedded in and how effective the power has been before considering extending it more widely. Anti-social behaviour and what can be done about it are high on the agenda and, I assure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), will remain so. In future, if the Bill's powers work effectively, it may be appropriate to consider whether local authorities need similar, stronger powers to deal with the private sector or owner-occupiers.

§ Mr. Betts
Is it not an anomaly that there are powers in the Bill to deal with anti-social behaviour by tenants against tenants, by tenants against owner-occupiers, by owner-occupiers against tenants, but not by owner-occupiers against owner-occupiers? Removing the idea of qualifying premises would allow the latter category of anti-social behaviour to be covered by legislation.

§ Mr. Jones
I am trying to express sympathy with the point being made by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. 1013 Friend the Member for Greenwich. I rule nothing out in what we need to consider further. I am suggesting that we should take this first step, see how it goes and then consider what more we might need to do.

§ Mr. Raynsford
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) rightly made the good point that the current legislation is in this respect partly defective. We would therefore have been happier if the Minister had agreed to accept the amendment, but on the understanding that the matter will be kept under review and that there will be scope for further changes at a future date, and in view of the need to press on because other very important matters, especially the issues of homelessness, need to be considered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.