|
Shona McIsaac: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me why he supported clause 21, which gives a universal right of appeal against parenting orders, but is trying to restrict the right of appeal in respect of permanently excluded pupils? The two views do not seem to sit very well together.
Mr. Hawkins: I do so because of the national scandal that appeals panels became because of all the national news stories. It is not, as the Minister suggests, just because I am so angry. I am angry about the opportunity that an individual has taken to misuse lottery funding, but I want to make a serious improvement to the law. We are not going to agree. I want to put the new clause to the vote.
3.30 pm
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 12.
Division No. 4]
AYES
Clappison, Mr. James
Francois, Mr. Mark
Hawkins, Mr. Nick
Paice, Mr. James
NOES
Ainsworth, Mr. Bob
Blackman, Mrs. Liz
Brooke, Annette
Clark, Paul
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Green, Matthew
Heppell, Mr. John
McDonagh, Siobhain
McIsaac, Shona
Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, Ms Dari
Wright, David
Column Number: 139
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 29
Dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence
Matthew Green (Ludlow): I beg to move amendment No. 155, in
clause 29, page 23, line 32, leave out
'intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed'
and insert 'intimidated or harassed'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 156, in
clause 29, page 23, line 33, leave out 'presence or'.
Amendment No. 160, in
clause 29, page 23, line 42, leave out 'presence or'.
Amendment No. 161, in
Amendment No. 162, in
clause 29, page 23, line 44, leave out
'intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed'
and insert 'intimidated or harassed'.
Amendment No. 167, in
clause 29, page 24, line 33, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment No. 168, in
clause 29, page 24, line 33, leave out 'presence or'.
Amendment No. 169, in
clause 29, page 24, line 34, leave out 'presence or'.
Matthew Green: The clause contains some of the most draconian elements of the Bill and, unfortunately, seems to undermine some of the good work that the Government have done in supporting young people. After all, the Government set up the children and young people's unit and have supported several other initiatives. They deserve credit for taking the steps that they have. They had, until recently, the first ever Youth Minister. I hope that there will be a replacement as soon as possible—particularly because at the moment I have no one to shadow.
The amendments relate to the overall powers that are being given to the police. The clause has many possibilities in it. One can read it in numerous ways and come up with something that seems quite reasonable and something that seems outrageous, depending on which collection of ors and ands are stuck together.
For the Committee's sake, I will demonstrate. Most of us would be entirely happy that the police might be able to disperse a group when:
''any members of the public have been intimidated . . . as a result of the . . . behaviour of groups of two or more persons''
in a locality. None of us feel that there is anything particularly wrong with the idea of the police dispersing people whose behaviour is intimidating others.
However, the paragraph could also be read as referring to a situation in which
Column Number: 140
''any members of the public have been . . . alarmed . . . as a result of the presence . . . of groups of two or more persons''.
There are probably many circumstances in which people get alarmed by somebody's presence. To be flippant, I am sure that in certain Conservative marginal seats, they would get very alarmed by groups of two or more Liberal Democrat canvassers appearing on the street corner, but in all seriousness—[Interruption.] I knew that that was a dangerous thing to say. Hon. Members will not shut up now; they will chunter on for the next few minutes.
Mr. Clappison: Amendment No. 155 would omit the words ''alarmed or distressed'' from the Bill. Is it the hon. Gentleman's intention to allow people who cause alarm or distress to others to remain on the streets? Why does he want to remove those words? They are well known and are included in antisocial behaviour orders, as well as the Public Order Act 1986. Why does he want to leave people on the streets who cause alarm and distress?
Matthew Green: We want to remove those words because there is a significant difference between people being alarmed by someone and being intimidated or harassed by that person. I live in a quiet, small town called Much Wenlock in my constituency which has, to all intents and purposes, zero crime. Nowhere actually has zero crime, but it is as low as anywhere in the country. Only 1,500 people live there and kids gather on the bench in the town centre and on street corners. Elderly residents have asked me what I am going to do about those kids gathering on that bench. They do not actually do anything or even say anything to the elderly ladies concerned. They do not swear at them and so on, but those elderly ladies feel alarmed by the mere presence of those kids. I have told them that those kids have exactly the same right to be in that locality as they have to stand and chat to each other.
This part of the Bill is clearly aimed primarily at young people and the problem is that they are being labelled as the sort of people who must not gather on street corners, but if a group of pensioners has a chat outside the post office after collecting their pensions, that is fine.
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman wants to omit the word ''presence'', so why does he want to omit the words ''alarmed or distressed? Those words are well known to the law. Why does he want to leave such people out on the streets when there is a significant problem of antisocial behaviour in the locality?
Matthew Green: I want to increase the threshold level before the decision is taken. The words ''intimidated'' and ''harassed'' are a more significant test threshold than ''alarmed'' and ''distressed''. That is my primary reason. The threshold is being set too low and the message that that sends to young people is that the Government think that young people are a problem. I realise that the Government have done other things to contradict that—I have already acknowledged that—but ''alarmed or distressed'' are unhelpful words when young people are concerned and may make them feel that society does not want them to belong to it.
Column Number: 141
Liz Blackman (Erewash): May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection (1) which states:
''where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing''
this or that. The relevant officer is a superintendent or above and he will make the judgment about an area with a history of antisocial behaviour. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe that a relevant officer will decide on dispersal because a group of old people drawing their pensions in a post office are put off by a group of youngsters outside? The decision will be made carefully, based on reasonable grounds. The hon. Gentleman is taking the words out of context.
Matthew Green: I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from and she is right about the officer who decides whether to use the power, but a constable can then use that power on reasonable grounds. We shall come to clauses under which the constable does not have to make a record or issue a written notice; once the power is in place, he can use it 24 hours a day. I have no doubt that senior officers will be careful about how they use the provision, but in the likely areas where a senior officer might want to make use of the powers, ''intimidated'' or ''harassed'' will easily fit. There is no need for ''alarmed'' or ''distressed''. It is the behaviour of such people, not their presence, that is critical. It is very serious to say that someone's presence is the reason that one would want to see them moved on. The right to free assembly and the like immediately spring to mind.
Shona McIsaac: Apart from the fact that it has been well stated that the words are well known in law, would the hon. Gentleman accept that the presence of a group of young people hanging around a cash point at night can alarm and distress people, and that that should be addressed?
Matthew Green: If those young people are not committing an offence of harassment or intimidation, no, I do not think that they should be moved on. That is what it comes down to. If they are causing intimidation to people by their behaviour next to that cash point, the police would have grounds to move them on, and we would be happy to see such a provision go through. We are trying to remove the words ''alarmed'' and ''distressed'' in relation to the presence of somebody.
Shona McIsaac: I cited that example because it is a particularly serious issue in one of the main streets in Cleethorpes. It is the presence—the loitering—that is causing distress to many of my residents who will not go near that cash point. Surely those people who are alarmed and distressed have rights, and we should be doing something about that, which is why the issue of dispersal is being considered.
Matthew Green: We have a fundamental disagreement. If someone is just being somewhere and their actions are not being taken into account but just their presence, that is a very serious step to take. Many of my residents are seriously distressed by the presence of lots of heavy lorries driving past their houses, but we would not stop those lorries if they were travelling on major routes that we would expect them to use.
Column Number: 142
Mr. Ainsworth: I seek clarification of what the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is proposing. He said, ''where they are causing intimidation''. Does he suggest that people ought not to be moved on if they are causing intimidation or if they are actually intimidating people? The two concepts can be very different. I do not understand how he can differentiate between causing intimidation and causing alarm and distress. What exactly does he think that he is proposing?
|
