HL Deb 10 July 1996 vol 574 cc426-8

(".—(1) This section applies to an injunction granted by a county court or by the High Court—

  1. (a) in possession proceedings;
  2. (b) in any proceedings for breach of tenancy relating to residential premises;
  3. (c) in proceedings brought by a registered social landlord or a public sector landlord as defined in section 80 of the Housing Act 1985 for trespass or nuisance;
  4. (d) in any proceedings brought by a local authority using its powers under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972;
  5. (e) in any proceedings brought by a local authority for a public protection order under this Act; or
  6. (f) which is a witness protection order granted under the provisions of this Act.

(2) Where a young person is in contempt of court by reason of a breach of any injunction to which this section applies that court shall have the equivalent powers of sentence and punishment which would be available to any criminal court had the defendant been convicted of an offence liable to imprisonment for up to two years.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to young persons under the age of 18 and the use of injunctions against them granted by a county court or by the High Court in possession proceedings or in any proceedings for breach of tenancy relating to residential premises. The purpose of the amendment is to deal with the possibility of imposing sentences of detention on young persons for a period of up to two years. I believe that it is right there should be safeguards against the detention of young persons, although young persons can cause a nuisance and behave towards others living near them in an anti-social way. Nevertheless, young persons are more vulnerable than older ones and it is right that there should be certain safeguards.

My interpretation of the amendment is that the use of custody for those under 18 years of age will be resorted to reluctantly and that the powers suggested for the county court do not affect that: custody should be resorted to only for young offenders who commit serious offences or persistently offend. There would be no change to the nature of the circumstances in which young people might be given custody orders. The county court would have a discretion which it would use in the same way as a magistrates' court or juvenile court. The court would take into account the level of maturity and welfare needs of the young person.

Therefore, the amendment is not out of line with the principles that I have mentioned. Under the amendment, a court would not have power to impose a sentence of detention for up to two years on a 15 year-old unless that could also be done by a magistrates' court or juvenile court in similar circumstances. The provision would therefore act as a constraint. The practice of a magistrates' court or juvenile court would be that which would prevail for the county court or High Court. It is a safeguard. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, this amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in substitution for his noble friend Lady Hollis, in the sincere hope that it will address the problem of young people who make life a misery for others on some local authority housing estates. As I said in response to the noble Baroness in Committee, there is no easy answer to this problem.

The Government do not believe that the answer is to be found in this amendment. The noble Baroness acknowledged this herself at Committee stage, when she said she was stumped as to the best way forward on such an intractable problem. She called for organisations outside and beyond this Chamber to come forward with ideas. The Government, too, would welcome those ideas. As I indicated when we discussed this in Committee, this issue straddles the responsibilities of several government departments: the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment.

The Department of the Environment has made what the Government believe to be a significant step forward in addressing anti-social behaviour on public sector housing estates by the measures in Part V of the Bill. Many of these provisions have resulted directly from working with the local authority associations, and that work will continue. As the noble Baroness suggested, ideas from other sources would also be welcomed. There is more to be done between departments and with the local authority associations before we can offer a comprehensive solution to this problem.

I turn to the substance of the amendment. The amendment would allow the county court or High Court to impose on a young person—a 14 to 17 year-old—who breached an injunction granted by the court in certain types of proceedings any penalty which would have been available if the young person had been convicted of a criminal offence which carried a sentence of imprisonment of up to two years. In effect, a young person who committed such a breach would be eligible for a range of penalties, from a financial penalty to a community or custodial sentence, depending on age. The use of custody is not something which we advocate generally for young offenders. It is reserved for those who commit serious offences or who offend persistently, to reflect the principle that the courts should take into account the level of maturity and the welfare needs of the offender. The amendment does not rest easily with that principle. For example, the county court would have power to impose a sentence of detention on a 15 year-old for up to two years to prevent the escalation of a relatively minor breach of a tenancy agreement.

We believe that there are more appropriate ways to deal with young people. To recap what I said at Committee stage, these are the youth court (rather than the county court), where magistrates can bring particular expertise to bear on the needs of young people, and a wide range of penalties for young people over 10 who commit serious anti-social acts amounting to a criminal offence (for example racial harassment), including fines, community sentences and the binding over of parents to take proper care and control of the child. At the extreme, custodial sentences are available for the serious and persistent offender and the period of detention has recently been doubled from one to two years. A new sentence of secure training orders is to be introduced. This will be available for the small but significant group of 12 to 14 year-olds who are already experienced and regular offenders and who have failed to respond positively to a community penalty.

This issue goes wider even than how young offenders should be punished. I do not believe that it can be solved here tonight by means of this amendment. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, on the mutual understanding that this is a matter which the Government and others—evidently including the noble Lord—are addressing actively. However, sadly, we feel that there is not yet a solution.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I fully understand the difficulty that the Minister has described. How we deal with young persons who behave in an anti-social and unlawful way is a very difficult problem which probably cannot be resolved at the end of a long day in relation to a particular provision in the Housing Bill. It is a much wider social problem than we can solve here and now, though we recognise that the manner in which young persons behave on council estates and elsewhere can be very upsetting to others. We must all struggle to find answers to these difficulties. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 186: Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—