ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS

HC Deb 23 June 1998 vol 314 cc867-80

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 1, line 12, leave out '10' and insert '16'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 13.

Amendment No. 147, in clause 19, page 15, line 43, at end insert— 'Such an order shall specifically state the geographical extent and duration of, and the occupations or activities covered by, the order.'.

Mr. Beith

Our amendment would increase from 10 to 16 the age at which someone could be subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The amendment follows lengthy debates in Committee on the merits and potential pitfalls of such orders. We do not oppose the orders in principle, as they could prove to be a useful tool in preventing some types of behaviour, but we have a number of widely shared concerns about them.

One concern about the orders is that the Bill's definition of "anti-social behaviour" is very broad and vague and could potentially draw in those who are merely eccentric or extraordinary, or draw in people for trivial or unintentional acts. Although Ministers have said that catching such people is not the intention of the provision, it is difficult to be sure that that intention will be realised when it has been so broadly stated in the Bill.

In making the orders, the standard of evidence applied will be the much weaker civil one, yet an order may lead to the imposition of criminal sanctions—thereby reinforcing our first concern. Moreover, the sanctions themselves are high—up to five years' imprisonment.

The real paradox that emerged in Committee—leading us to table the amendment on Report—is that, in Scotland, the Government accept that it is not appropriate for children under 16 to be subject to anti-social behaviour orders. Indeed, the Government went so far as to resist amendments tabled in Committee by Conservative spokesmen that would have made anti-social behaviour orders in Scotland apply to young children. I should say that, observing the matter from Berwick-upon-Tweed—looking up one end of the road and down the other—I found that paradox and emerging difference quite extraordinary.

The argument against extending the scope of the orders in Scotland was that Scotland already has in place for young people the children's panel system, which provided a more appropriate mechanism. Fine; we agree with that. We like the children's panel system and think that the Government, in their review of youth justice, should be building on the example of that system and incorporating some of its good features into the youth justice system in England and Wales.

We should be drawing on the best practice of the Scottish system, which has now had many years of proven experience and quite notable success in dealing with matters in a better way than our system—a system which has essentially grown out of the adult justice system, rather than being thought out from scratch as the Scottish system has been. The Scottish system was a radical one when it was introduced and has had time to prove itself. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office is in the Chamber, and I am sure that he agrees with me about the merits of that system.

Meanwhile, in the parts of the Bill applying to England, is there a real problem if the Government do not provide for children potentially to be subject to anti-social behaviour orders? Suppose that Ministers accepted my argument and said, "When we have reformed youth justice, we will not need those orders for children at all." Will there be a problem if we do not have such orders until we have reached that stage? I submit that there will not be a problem. Young children can be dealt with in other, usually much more appropriate, ways, some of which—child safety orders and the work of young offender teams—are in the Bill. Various mechanisms are available to deal with young children.

Ministers themselves must realise that, in most cases that one could imagine, it is inappropriate for the mechanism of anti-social behaviour orders to be used for 10, 11 or 12-year-old children. I should like some assurance from the Minister that it is not intended that the orders should be used extensively for young children. If he thinks that they will be so used, will he give the House some examples of the circumstances in which he expects them to be used where alternative measures are not available?

Will the Minister reflect on and compare the Scottish arrangements with anti-social behaviour orders? Although I see merit in the argument that, in many cases, the children's panel system provides a better mechanism for dealing with youngsters than taking youngsters before the court, I still think that the mechanisms by which we initially deal with young offenders in Scotland and in England will not be that different. Similar powers will be used in both Scotland and England immediately to address concern about an offender's behaviour, although the body—the diet, in Scottish terms—to which that offender will be taken will be different in Scotland and in England.

If what the Minister says tonight is consistent with his comments in Committee, he will say that the Government do not intend that the orders should be used widely for young children. I should like that to be made clear. I think that, from now, on grounds of principle, it would really be much better if we followed a consistent practice in the matter between Scotland and England, as the Government's argument on Scotland—with the one exception of the children's panel procedure—holds good for England, too.

Mr. Michael

I should like first to commend amendment No. 13 to the House. It is a small technical amendment, which we have tabled to meet concerns expressed in Committee that it was unnecessarily restrictive to provide that anti-social behaviour orders should contain prohibitions applying only to the local government area in which the application was brought. The amendment would allow agreement to be reached in cases in which an activity perhaps occurs across local government boundaries. I believe that both Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen will welcome the fact that, on reflection, the Government have agreed that it should be possible to deal with such situations, and will accept that amendment No. 13 represents a positive response to aspects of the debate.

Hon. Members who participated in the Committee stage will recall that the minimum age of 10 was subject to a lengthy debate, and that Committee members made a strong case for the proposal now contained in amendment No. 74. I still think that they are wrong. Let us consider the situation of the "family from hell", in which the adults are involved in anti-social behaviour that threatens and intimidates the neighbourhood, and in which the younger children are very often used by their parents and older relatives as the "deliverers" of some of the harassment, damage or even injury to those in the neighbourhood. Neighbours' children can be followed or threatened by the younger children in such families.

As hon. Members will be aware, police officers often have experiences in which youngsters under 10 say, "You can't touch me, Mister." Such youngsters know that they are below the age of criminal responsibility. We have addressed the issue of such behaviour by those below the age of criminal responsibility in clause 11, which provides for child safety orders, so that—in the interests not only of the wider community but of the child—the behaviour can be dealt with and nipped in the bud.

If we are to tackle anti-social behaviour by a family or group of individuals, it is necessary to have an order against each member of that family or group. People over the age of 10 should therefore be eligible for the anti-social behaviour order. To raise to 16 the minimum age at which an anti-social behaviour order may be imposed would leave a gap between those who can be dealt with under the provisions of clause 11, as they are under the age of 10, and those over the age of 16.

I should be quite happy to respond to the request by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for clarification on use of the orders. It is not the Government's intention that anti-social behaviour orders should generally be used for younger children. However, there would be an anomaly if a family's younger members, who are perhaps being used by older family members, could not be placed under equivalent requirements so that there is equity and so that the same provisions apply to all family members.

I should like also to allay fears about juveniles being dealt with in adult courts. Part III of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 will apply to the orders and contains important safeguards. The position concerning juveniles will be clearly stated in guidance that will be issued later this year. We made a first draft of that guidance available in Committee. Currently, we are revising the guidance in the light of discussions in Committee and of comments from other organisations. If the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed requires any further clarification on the points that he made in moving his amendment, I shall ensure that it is provided.

Mr. Beith

The Minister describes a scenario in which he sees it as advantageous for the law enforcement authorities to put everyone—adults and children from the same family from hell—on the same sheet of paper. Of course, the family members then have to appear in separate courts—the magistrates court and the youth court. In Scotland, where it is not thought necessary to put all the names on the same sheet of paper, the children will be dealt with by the children's panel, and the adults will be dealt with differently. There is already a distinction in the procedures followed. I think the Minister may be chasing some illusory law enforcement tidiness if he thinks that having all the names on the same sheet of paper is somehow advantageous.

5.30 pm

Mr. Michael

Clearly, there are obvious differences in jurisdiction as between Scotland on one side of the border and England and Wales on the other. I am trying to address realities. Many of us have had experience of the police and local authorities being powerless to deal with a serious situation and to prevent further anti-social behaviour. As I explained in Committee, there was an attempt in Coventry to use the present system of injunctions to achieve that end.

A particular family was placed under an injunction not to continue the behaviour that was causing harassment and fear in the local community. As a result of that injunction, such behaviour lessened, not only on the part of the family placed under the injunction but on the part of other families on the estate and, indeed, in other parts of Coventry where it was seen that the police and local authorities were determined to take action and that such behaviour would not be tolerated. The problem was that, as a result of an appeal, it was found that such action went beyond the intentions in law for the proper use of that type of injunction. That is why we have to design a measure to deal specifically with anti-social behaviour.

The whole point of the order system is to prevent further anti-social behaviour by each individual who is named on an individual order. It would be very odd to place some members of a family under the requirements of an order, but to leave others free to be used by the older members. I have specific examples in mind. When I spoke to police and local authorities and, indeed, to my Back-Bench colleagues, many examples arose where having an order for all a family's members would be desirable. For example, I visited an estate with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to talk to the local community and the police. We discussed a case which clearly we cannot debate in the same way in the Chamber.

I am clear that we need to catch all the targets. If the court decides that it does not need to make some of the younger members of a family subject to an anti-social behaviour order, it does not need to do so, but it should have the freedom to address the problem on the basis of the evidence made available to it.

The intention is that the order being made and the severe punishment available for the breach of an order will not simply lead to many people being punished, but will lead to some of the offending behaviour ceasing, and other people being allowed to live more secure and peaceful lives.

Mr. Allan

We understand the Minister's point about a family grouping—there is a rationale behind it—but what will happen to a group of, for example, 13-year-olds who hang around causing minor criminal damage or writing graffiti? We want it made clear that, although their behaviour is reprehensible, they will continue to be dealt with in the normal way, and that it is not the Minister's intention that anti-social behaviour orders will be used against them, which is exactly what some people expect will happen.

Mr. Michael

I think it is unlikely. It might be possible to construct an extreme case in which it might be appropriate, but the hon. Gentleman is right—it would be unlikely that anti-social behaviour orders would be used in such circumstances. However, one or two people—perhaps 18 or 20-year-olds—might be associating with a couple of younger children who, under their influence, were indulging in anti-social behaviour. They clearly do not form a family group; it is simply that I can think of examples where it was family groups that were causing a problem that needed to be dealt with in order to protect the local community.

I hope that in my response to the serious points made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and in supplementing the very full and useful debates that we had in Committee, I have teased out for the House the Government's intentions in introducing the anti-social behaviour order and for retaining the lower age of 10 as the cut-off point in England and Wales. The fact that these debates have taken place will assist us in ensuring that the guidance offered to the courts on the use of anti-social behaviour orders is precise.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth)

I shall speak briefly to amendment No.147 to clause 19, a clause which relates specifically to Scotland. It is a probing amendment directed principally at subsection (3).

I do not think that there will be much disagreement with the Government's general proposals. All Members of Parliament—I am no exception—know of people who, to a greater or lesser extent, suffer because of the anti-social behaviour of their neighbours, but I should like the Minister to tell us precisely what he expects an order to contain and, more to the point, what factors he would expect the sheriff to take into account when imposing the conditions.

The Minister will be aware that some people live in blocks comprising four flats or in even higher-density housing. Such accommodation imposes its own difficulties when orders are placed on individuals in respect of their behaviour. Indeed, I am dealing with a case where there are enormous disagreements between neighbours living in a "four in a block". I am having some difficulty envisaging how the conditions of an order can be drawn to deal with that scenario, especially when the conditions would presumably relate to proximity or geographical, physical factors. Will the Minister go into a little more detail about precisely what he would expect the sheriff to consider?

Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I greatly welcome the opportunity to contribute, albeit briefly, to this debate, especially as I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I come to this debate with an interest stemming mainly from a number of years spent as a magistrate in what was then known as the juvenile court and is now known as the youth court. I hope also to give some practical examples from my own constituency where, in a voluntary way, some of the orders set out in the Bill are already in operation.

I fully support the Bill's provisions and will comment especially on the clauses concerned with curtailing anti-social behaviour. These measures must be implemented if we are effectively to protect people from harassment and disruption in their daily lives. My post bag over the past year has shed light on the fact that these measures will come as welcome relief to many people, especially older people and those on some estates in Halesowen and Rowley Regis who have been victims of anti-social behaviour by young people, some of whom, I regret to say, are as young as eight or nine.

I believe that it is high time that we, as elected representatives, took responsibility for dealing with the very real problem of youth crime and anti-social behaviour, which causes many law-abiding citizens such huge distress. The Bill is a welcome step in tackling youth crime, providing a clear strategy to prevent offending and, equally important, reoffending, by young people. For the first time, moreover, the Bill includes measures to make sure that it is not only the offenders themselves but their parents—through the new sanctions of parenting and child safety orders—who must face up to offending behaviour and take responsibility for it. Parents who do nothing to prevent their children from behaving in an anti-social manner, or, indeed, who allow them to run riot, will at last be brought to account by these measures. It is morally and ethically right that the onus be placed on parents to accept responsibility for their children's misbehaviour. Parental neglect of this kind is not fair on the children or on the people who become victims of the children who turn to crime.

In one part of my constituency, the police and the special constabulary have already been making valiant strides to place greater responsibility on parents. Last year, "Operation Guardian", which commenced across South Sandwell, targeted public nuisance and anti-social behaviour by youngsters. The police consulted community groups, tenants associations and police consultative committees before the scheme began. Directed patrols concentrated on areas identified by complaints from the public at times that were relevant to the nuisance occurring—with the intention of resolving the problem, not just dealing with the incident.

Often, the problem related to the activities of young people congregated in groups, but there were also more serious offences by neighbours, including assaults and criminal damage. Sometimes advice to the people concerned was a suitable response to an activity. If that was accepted positively, the problems could be resolved by such action alone. If it was not accepted, letters were written to parents seeking their involvement to exercise parental responsibility. Many of the parents responded positively to being informed about their children's behaviour.

The operation was highly successful, leading to 600 calls between May and September last year and a substantial fall in reported cases of nuisance behaviour. The Bill and the Government amendment will give greater impetus to such operations by formalising and rationalising them in a statutory framework. In the words of Superintendent Baxter, they will provide a "package of opportunities" to deal with such incidents.

I also welcome the power to impose curfews in areas identified by local authorities and the police as particular hot spots for trouble. I fully support the Government's initiative in introducing that bold step in a bold Bill. Local authorities should have the power to introduce local child curfews to address the problem of unsupervised, disruptive children on the streets late at night. Young offenders and their parents will be held accountable for causing disruption and, as it applies to children of 10 and younger, the measure will protect very young children from being drawn into criminal and anti-social behaviour—the so-called sub-criminal activities that can often spiral into serious crime later.

The sanctions that the police, acting in co-operation with local authorities, will have will protect the community from nuisance and harassment caused by youngsters and by anti-social behaviour generally, including that induced by drink or drugs. Replacing repeat and inconsistent cautioning with a final warning strategy is a welcome deterrent. We should be tough and consistent in our punishment of those who regularly cause emotional—and sometimes physical—pain to others.

In my constituency, great strides have already been made to tackle youth crime and social disorder on a multi-agency level. South-west Sandwell community initiative has successfully maintained the partnership approach, and strong links have been forged with the voluntary and statutory organisations in the constituency. A number of community safety initiatives have been supported through the project and have proved very successful in resolving local problems. The main focus of work with young people has been through a detached youth work scheme. That youth work has been issue-based, providing young people with an opportunity to examine their behaviour and increase their awareness of the choices available to them.

I should like to cite two examples of the success of the project in focusing young people's attention on their anti-social behaviour. In Cradley Heath and Old Hill, the recorded incidence of criminal damage and arson fell by 37 per cent. after the schemes were put into operation. On an estate on Grange road, reported incidents of nuisance behaviour fell from more than 200 to just four between April and August 1996.

The work of the police has been significantly helped by support from local community residents. Community organisations, the police and local businesses have come together and succeeded in reducing youth crime. Local people have acknowledged a change in the quality of life in the area.

Important though all the orders are, I am pleased that the Government are not introducing the measures in a vacuum. Tackling youth crime effectively requires a twin-track approach. We need effective powers and sanctions against offenders, and responsible and consistent social policies to ensure that being a young offender does not become an integral part of growing up. I support the Government's strategies for combating unemployment, drugs, failing schools and low educational achievement.

Reducing youth crime and disorder is about local authorities, the police, schools, parents and the community working in partnership. Voluntary and non-statutory schemes in my constituency have proved successful. We have to adopt legislative measures to give the relevant authorities the teeth to stamp out a problem that has been caused in part by the policies of the former Government and the social neglect over which they presided in some of our most deprived areas.

5.45 pm

Mr. Leigh

The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) spoke powerfully. I wish that things were as easy as she makes out. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a more thoughtful speech, because he revealed a problem. We all know about the family from hell. I have followed the Minister's comments carefully today and in Committee. I understand what he is trying to achieve with families that may be out of control.

We should define our terms carefully. We can do no better than to refer to the oracle himself—the Minister—who described in Committee the aim of the orders: Essentially, the orders are to be used for criminal or sub-criminal activity—to tackle serious, persistent, anti-social behaviour that affects a community, causing one of more persons harassment, alarm or distress. They are not intended for run-of-the-mill disputes between neighbours, petty intolerance, minor, one-off disorderly acts or the penalising of the merely eccentric. That is why the breach of an order would be a criminal offence. Later he said: We think it unlikely that an order would be sought against a child unless his behaviour was part of the behaviour of a wider or older group."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 April 1998; c. 48-53.]

We have the definition of an anti-social behaviour order, and we know that such orders will be directed not at individual children, but at the family. The Minister made clear in Committee the danger of introducing children to courts gradually, because they can become case-hardened with repeat appearances. I share that point of view, based on my practical experience. We have to be very careful about taking a child to court. I understand that the provision will be used only rarely, when it is the only way to deal with a family.

However, I am not sure that the Minister has answered the point about the children's panels in Scotland. I do not know the details of the Scottish situation, but I understand from the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) that the panels are informal, effective and successful. I do not think that the Minister dealt adequately with the point of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on that.

Mr. Michael

No, I did not. My hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office may be able to give more information about the Scottish system when he responds. The White Paper on youth justice and our proposals on youth offending teams and the final warning show that we are looking at ways of introducing measures that have succeeded elsewhere in a way that fits in with our methods for dealing with juveniles in England and Wales. We want to deal with matters more effectively.

Mr. Leigh

I am grateful for that response. We are trying to resolve the problem of families from hell, but we are trying also to avoid dragging young children—we are talking here about 11-year-olds—through the criminal justice system. Would it be possible for the order to apply to the adult but—in the way in which it was framed and the injunction that it laid on the adult—instruct the adult, in some shape or form, to control his children? If so, the order would be directed against the adult, and the child would not be dragged through the courts, but the problem would be dealt with. I should have thought that that was a reasonable proposition.

Mr. Michael

If it is a question of parenting, the parenting order forms another part of the Bill.

Mr. Leigh

I am grateful for that response. However, it opens up a further debate. If the parenting order is available and if the Government are seeking to learn from the Scottish experience, why should an anti-social behaviour order be applied to a very young child? I may not be understanding this point as well as I should, but I believe that a serious point has been made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. We are talking about young children, and I should have thought that there must be other ways of dealing with them than by dragging them through the court. The Minister may shake his head. He may disagree, but I have made my point.

Ms Keeble

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of Government amendment No. 13 and against amendments Nos. 74 and 147. The anti-social behaviour order is one of the most important measures in the Bill. I am sure that it will contribute to restoring to many people and their communities a sense of security which has been missing in recent years.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State came to a conference in my constituency last year on the Blackthorn estate, where there had been rioting by young people and there were concerns about endemic disorder. Those problems were causing serious distress and, literally, wrecking some people's lives. Many of the people involved in the rioting were young. There were reports that some were as young as 11.

That relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith); although the anti-social behaviour order would not normally be used against young people who were rioting, the fact that young people were involved in those serious disorders shows that we are not talking about little angels, but about young people capable of causing substantial distress and for whom—in some circumstances—it might be appropriate to use those measures. That is why I think the Liberal Democrats are wrong in their proposals to change the ages to which the orders might apply.

Mr. Beith

The hon. Lady must recognise that the Government are saying, at the same time, that there are no circumstances in which it would be appropriate to use such an order in Scotland for a child aged between 10 and 16. She cannot tell me that there are no families from hell in Scotland.

Ms Keeble

I do not know about families from hell in Scotland. I do know that, in my constituency, there is clear evidence that children as young as 11 are capable of causing seriously disruptive behaviour. Although we do not want to take children through the courts, we must find sanctions to help to prevent behaviour that causes serious distress to other people.

For many of the people at that conference—where my hon. Friend the Minister of State presented the idea of the anti-social behaviour orders—the prospect of being able to deal with the problems that had torn their communities apart for so long was nothing short of a liberation. No longer would they be powerless to counter anti-social neighbours, or to deal with them only by placing themselves at risk of victimisation. No longer would they have to tolerate young people running riot around an estate without being able to set boundaries for their behaviour. No longer would the victims of crime feel a sense of injustice at a criminal justice system that failed to provide proper justice and redress for them.

One of the most startling presentations at the conference came from Blackthorn middle school, which presented an analysis of the difficulties presented by truants and disruptive pupils. The teachers were able to present a typology of behaviour which identified the need for different and more complex sanctions, some of which recognised the need for community support, and some of which recognised that, in some families, the lack of parenting skills was a major issue in terms of children starting down a road that could—if it is not, as my hon. Friend the Minister would say, "nipped in the bud"—lead from stone throwing to bike stealing to car stealing and then to a life of crime.

Middle schools cater for children aged from nine to 13, which is an indication of the seriousness of the behavioural problems we can get with young children. Before hon. Members jump to conclusions, the estate was not a wholly council-owned estate; nor was it an inner-city estate. It was an estate with mixed housing tenure and high employment levels. Although there was a fair measure of deprivation, it was not on the scale that we see in the inner cities. That is a symptom of how deep rooted some of the problems of disorder have become in our community, and that is why it is right that the Government should make the measure available.

In terms of the Government amendment, it makes sense to ensure that the measure can be applied to different local authority areas, since people do not live their lives by local authority boundaries. In Committee, the Opposition raised some points—which they have repeated this evening—about the anti-social behaviour orders, on the grounds that it was not clear when and how they would be applied. I have found that the community in general has no doubt about the orders and is fairly clear about identifying the types of behaviour to which they might be applied.

During the Committee stage, I put out a leaflet that said something about the orders. Immediately, a stream of people came to an advice surgery with complaints about serious problems of anti-social behaviour on their estates. For example, an estate was living in fear of a family which had been evicted from their council property, but had bought a private property and had moved back in. Because the council action in evicting them applied only to their council tenancy, there was no immediate redress for local people. The anti-social behaviour order would provide an avenue of redress and it is worth noting that, in this instance, children in that family might have been the subject of such an order.

In addition, one member of a family that came to see me had severe facial injuries. The family had been involved in a series of altercations with neighbours which had spilled over into a nearby community. That dispute threatened the family—which had six children—with homelessness. One of the protagonists in the series of assaults was a young person of only 13.

I suspect that the main—perhaps the only—problem with the anti-social behaviour orders will be that they will be extremely popular and only too well understood by the public. There will be real pressures to apply them quite frequently, and I expect to see at the front of the queue many hon. Members who will want such action taken to resolve the problems that they hear about in their advice surgeries, weekend after weekend. I commend the orders to the House, with the Government amendment. I strongly oppose the changes to the age limit proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which would weaken the effectiveness of what will be a popular measure.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish)

I want mainly to deal with amendment No. 147, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), but I shall first refer briefly to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who acknowledged that the anti-social orders will be popular. More important, the Government want to make them effective. Throughout the United Kingdom, massive problems are caused by individuals and families who are not yet aware of the need to strike a balance between rights and responsibility in any community.

The Government have no doubt that, if properly used to deal with the appropriate tenants and, indeed, owner-occupiers, the orders could have a tremendous impact in improving the quality of life for a great number of people who experience hell because of the actions of individuals who should know better. It is difficult to sum up what motivates some families to behave anti-socially, but the orders will provide a remedy, as part of a wider armoury available to the police and local authorities. My hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis and for Northampton, North have made clear their support, which, I have no doubt, will be echoed on both sides of the House.

6 pm

Mr. Beith

The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) laid great stress on the importance of ensuring that 10 to 16-year-olds should be subject to the anti-social orders, so will the Minister clarify why he believes that it is safe to exclude that age group from the orders in Scotland?

Mr. McLeish

I am treading a thin tightrope tonight between English and Scottish legislation. The crucial point is that England and Scotland are different jurisdictions. For the past 27 years, the children's hearings system has existed in Scotland on the assumption that children aged 16 and under will be subject to a specific series of provisions to ensure effective treatment, care and punishment. I do not want to stray into the debate as it applies to England, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said, the measures could, in certain circumstances, be applied to those under 16.

In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I repeat that the crucial point is that we are talking about different jurisdictions, although we could argue about whether the orders should apply to the same age groups in both England and Scotland. When we consulted in Scotland, we noted tremendous support from many quarters for applying the orders to children under 16, but we resisted doing so because, in Scotland, there are already measures to deal with that age group—we felt that, after 27 years of progress, it was vital to keep the children's hearings system intact. That is why we are treating Scotland differently—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not straying further into the more complex matter of English legislation.

The anti-social behaviour orders will be like a prohibitive injunction—in Scotland, we would call it an interdict. Moreover, it will be applied to individuals. Some hon. Members have talked about families; there will be many more orders affecting the family in England than in Scotland, where we are talking only about the anti-social behaviour order, which will be served on individuals, not on families or groups of people. It is important that I make that point, as it puts into perspective the wider concern that, in dealing with the anti-social behaviour of an individual, we may encompass the family.

Until now, families have been evicted for anti-social behaviour despite the fact that the children or the spouse were not involved—because of the activities of one family member, the whole family could be subjected to the difficulties and horrors of being evicted. The order will be a much sharper measure; it will allow us to concentrate on the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour and—in many cases, I hope—to save the family.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent)

I was a member of the Scottish Office civil service team that introduced the children's panels all those years ago. Because of the nature of proceedings in Scotland, it is easy to link the child to the family—the parents have to accept the decisions and take responsibility for the offence. Will the Government revisit the question whether the Kilbrandon system would be equally effective in England?

Mr. McLeish

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not responding to that, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State listened to what he said. As I have said, the jurisdictions are separate, and must find solutions to their own problems.

I have no difficulty with the principle behind amendment No. 147, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Perth. It is clearly right that a person against whom an anti-social behaviour order is made should know exactly what they must not do and where and for how long the order is to be in force. It is also important that those affected by the anti-social behaviour should be clear about what is prohibited by any order.

That provision does not need to be specified in the Bill, however. An order made by a Scottish court will, as a matter of course, specify extent, including geographical extent, duration and the prohibitions imposed on the person's behaviour. Like an interdict, the purpose of an order will be to prohibit—for example, it could prohibit loud music after 11 pm, noisy visitors after 2 am or entry into gardens or communal areas. The sheriff could consider a huge list of possibilities, so that the order fitted the circumstances in which the anti-social behaviour was taking place—the sheriff could find the proper ways in which to restrain that behaviour.

The court is also required to have regard to the terms of the order sought by the applicant. The hon. Member for Perth was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, so she will not have had the opportunity to read the draft guidance on the implementation of the provisions that was provided to its members—I shall arrange for her to receive a copy. I reassure her that the guidance makes it clear to the local authority applicants that they must decide what terms of an order to seek and that the terms should be specific, so that what constitutes a breach of those terms would be readily apparent to the person and to the local community. The guidance also makes it clear that the applicant must decide what duration of order to seek, up to, and including, an indefinite period.

The draft guidance was produced in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the voluntary organisation the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. It will be issued for full consultation later this summer.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth will be reassured when she sees the detailed guidance proposed for the implementation of the provisions. Of course, as more than a matter of courtesy, I should be happy to take account of her comments on the draft, which is a substantial document—as I said, I shall send her a copy after our proceedings. Given those comments, I hope that she will not press the amendment.

Mr. Beith

I should say in passing that Liberal Democrat Members accept Government amendment No. 13, which represents a helpful clarification.

We have had a useful debate. I thought that the hon. Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) and for hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) may have had unrealistically high expectations for the order. They both vividly expressed the concerns that we all share about the problems that our constituents face. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis explained at some length many of the existing measures based on co-operative efforts and partnership, which will almost certainly bring the greatest success—I think that even she regards the orders as the ultimate sanction.

The belief that the inclusion of 11 to 16-year-olds on anti-social behaviour orders will be widespread and will make a large difference flies in the face of what Ministers have been saying—it creates unrealistic public expectations about the orders. The public will believe that if the provision is altered, it will fail to provide what would otherwise be a major addition to the powers at the authorities' disposal—we know that that is not so.

The Scottish Office Minister clearly demonstrated—although perhaps he could not use these terms—that the Scots have a better system. In Scotland, those aged between 10 and 16 can be dealt with by a variety of procedures through the children's hearings system, which makes their inclusion in the anti-social behaviour orders unnecessary.

Mr. Michael

The right hon. Gentleman may recall that both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have made it clear that we believe that there are strengths in the Scottish system and weaknesses in the system in England and Wales. That is why, in the White Paper, the Bill and in other developments, we have wanted to change the system in England and Wales, not by replicating the Scottish system, but by learning from it and from what happens in other parts of the world.

Mr. Beith

And we are seeking to encourage Ministers to do exactly that. What has emerged from our useful debate is that, whatever some hon. Members say, those procedures will not be widely used for 10 to 16-year-olds if things proceed as Ministers intend. If we developed a better youth justice system, we could create a better way of dealing with that age group, but Ministers feel it necessary to keep that part of the provision on the statute book in the meantime. If that is the basis and because we will press Ministers to carry on with the reform of youth justice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'protecting' to end of line 22 and insert 'from further anti-social acts by the defendant—

1. (a) persons in the local government area; and
2. (b) persons in any adjoining local government area specified in the application for the order;

and a relevant authority shall not specify an adjoining local government area in the application without consulting the council for that area and each chief officer of police any part of whose police area lies within that area.'.—[Mr. Michael.]