HL Deb 18 June 1996 vol 573 cc299-302

(".—(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;
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 Baroness said: This amendment concerns the problems presented by under 18 year-olds in civil law. Where an adult breaches an injunction, he or she is in contempt of court and can be imprisoned for up to two years. This amendment would give the county court or High Court powers to deal with someone under 18 as if he or she had committed an equally serious offence.

We find that a large number of cases of abuse, violence, harassment or serious damage to property are committed by juveniles. If these were criminal proceedings, the court could act and the actions would range from fining the parents to sending the young offender to an appropriate institution. But in civil law there is no appropriate punishment; indeed, there is barely any punishment at all.

According to Wookey v. Wookey, one cannot take out an injunction against someone under 18 because he cannot be imprisoned, nor is he likely to have an income which could lead to the payment of a fine, and imprisonment could not again come into it if he defaulted on payment. This was brought home to me when Exeter City Council obtained an injunction against someone who was either 16 or 17—a young man who had a history of making threats and committing acts of violence culminating in a threat to burn down a council house. The young man broke the injunction by further violent acts. When the city council pursued the matter, the official solicitor stepped in and said the injunction should never have been granted in the first place as the young man was under 18. The city council had to drop the case; the local authorities were entirely powerless to act. This amendment would bring the powers of civil courts into line with those of the criminal courts when dealing with juveniles. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

Clearly the new clause of the noble Baroness highlights an important and intractable feature of life on some local authority housing estates. There may be gangs of youngsters, some below the age of criminal responsibility, who indulge in various forms of anti-social behaviour. It is not easy to devise an apt remedy in terms of public policy. A number of government departments have an interest: the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of Health and possibly the Department for Education and Employment. The measures in Part V of this Bill represent the first fruits of the Government's work in the field of anti-social behaviour. That work has been undertaken in close consultation with the local authority associations. But it does not end here, with this Bill. There is a great deal more work to do, co-operatively between departments and with local authorities.

That said, we are not comfortable with the route pursued in this amendment. It would allow a county court or a High Court to impose on a young person who breaches an injunction granted by a county or High Court any penalty which would have been available if the young person had been convicted of a criminal offence which carries a sentence of imprisonment of up to two years.

The use of custody for those under 18 years of age is something that we resort to reluctantly. That is why the law only provides that it may be used for those young offenders who commit serious offences or who persistently offend. This reflects the long held principle that young people who appear in court should be treated in a way that takes into account their level of maturity and their welfare needs. This new clause is out of line with these important principles. Under the new clause, a county court would have the power to impose a sentence of detention on a 15 year-old for up to two years; for example, for a breach of an injunction which had been issued to prevent the escalation of a relatively minor breach of the tenancy agreement, such as persistently loud music.

We feel that in any case the Youth Court will be the appropriate forum for dealing with people of this age. We certainly agree that when young people commit serious anti-social acts which amount to a criminal offence then such firm action is needed. That is why we have provided the courts with a wide range of penalties to deal with those aged 10 and over who have been convicted of a criminal offence. Courts also have powers to ensure that parents of young offenders support and care for their children to help prevent re-offending.

For the relatively few young people who offend in a serious and persistent way a custodial sentence must remain an option. That is why we have recently widened the custodial powers available. The Youth Court is experienced in dealing with those serious sentences and we would not wish to widen that area of jurisdiction to the county court. But it is quite clear that the noble Baroness and I are aiming in the same direction with much the same ambition—to achieve an effective solution to these problems.

I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we cannot support the specific solution she proposes and will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I propose to withdraw the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord that it is an intractable problem. I think the truth is that none of us knows what to do about it. None of us likes, wants or seeks custody for young people under 18, especially as they may end up more damaged at the end of it. However, if custody is inappropriate, and those people cannot pay fines, what does one do? We are not talking about the child of 10 who kicks a ball, or anything at that level. We are talking about people of 15, 16 or 17 who commit arson, threaten violence and terrify elderly and frail people.

Again, I do not know whether community service orders, or some version of a sentence within the community, is a way forward. We are clearly on the cusp between what is civil and criminal in much of this area. Obviously we shall have to return to the issue. However, currently local authorities are absolutely powerless to do anything against young people under 18. Many teenagers, largely but not invariably young men, are responsible for a major amount of serious harassment and intimidation which occurs, and they go free because custody is inappropriate. They do not have an income with which to pay a fine and, therefore, an injunction is not appropriate because if that were broken there would be contempt and a fine which they could not meet.

We shall have to return to the issue. Whether such people could be required to do a number of hours of work in the community, I do not know. We need some help on the matter. It is simply unreasonable at present for so many people to do as they do: to criticise local authorities for the management of council estates and then deny them the powers needed against those people who cause not simply a minor nuisance but serious intimidation.

The noble Lord is right. I shall withdraw the amendment. We should revisit the issue. I am stumped as to the best way forward on such an intractable problem. It would be helpful to hear from organisations outside and beyond this Chamber as to what might be the most appropriate way of dealing with this very real problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.30 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 263ZAGDA: After Clause 140, insert the following new Clause—