| Anti-social Behaviour Bill
|
|
Mr. McNulty: I happily concede that it may well be appropriate for there to be an exhortation in the guidance for housing authorities to be more fully involved in crime and disorder partnerships, and in best practice and the wider issues, as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said. It may also be appropriate for them to be involved in the wider context of local strategic partnerships and to some extent in whatever reasonable bodies follow thereafter, and we may want to include that in the guidance. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, best practice among many RSLs in particular means getting as fully involved in their localities as they can. That is right and proper, and I am sure that those elements will be reflected in the guidance to the extent that it is germane to the execution of an efficient and effective antisocial behaviour strategy. As I said, amendment No. 135 would add little to the clause, and confuses matters as it mixes up procedure and policy, which is not useful. The intention may be to ensure that some statement of strategic matters appears in the landlords' published statements on antisocial behaviour. The clause currently does not set out details about what the word ''policy'' should cover, as it should be left to the individual landlord in the light of their unique circumstances. Vernon Coaker: A concern arising from the amendments and from different clauses in different parts of the Bill is that it is one thing for a policy to be written down and another to ensure that that policy is enforced and is worth the paper that it is written on. This is a crucial clause: it has an impact on many of our communities, and if we do not get it right, we will have failed the people in those communities. The fundamental question is how we ensure that the improved and increased powers will be used and that policies will be enforced, so that something is done to tackle the problem that some of our tenants face. Mr. McNulty: That is an entirely fair point that will be dealt in part in guidance and in part by existing mechanisms. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that when RSLs have to draw up antisocial behaviour policies and procedures, they will be included in their audited accounts, which go directly back to the Housing Corporation. The process of going back to the Secretary of State in this instance, and to me in the case of housing action trusts, which are being wound down, is not dissimilar. There are mechanisms through which they will be brought to book.
3.30 pmMy hon. Friend is entirely right. We could have the most eloquently or powerfully drafted policy, but if it does not have the teeth to bite on our streets and estates it is worthless. That is why I said that I understand and take to heart the real concerns that hon. Members have expressed. However, we feel that the strategic consistency that we all seek should be at national level, which is why the guidance will be so important. There should also be a degree of local autonomy, because no one will know better how to Column Number: 217 implement and interpret measures to deal with antisocial behaviour than those close to the streets and estates.Mrs. Brooke: Will the Minister give way? Mr. McNulty: Let me just finish one small point as it wraps up four amendments and then I will happily give way. Amendments Nos. 213 to 215 and 235 would place unnecessary additional requirements on landlords when producing policies and procedures. Such matters are more appropriately found in guidance. I am mindful that it may appear even at this stage that we are talking about guidance in the form of a small local Yellow Pages, but these are important matters that are better swept up in that framework than on the face of the Bill. Mrs. Brooke: Does the Minister agree that a strategic approach would mean adopting a staged approach in the use of preventive measures? Should there not be something in the Bill to say that there are many other supportive measures that should be used, without being too specific, before the extreme measures are taken? Mr. McNulty: In part the hon. Lady answered her own question when she said, ''without being too specific''. The purpose of legislation is to be as specific as possible, at least in a strategic sense. As legislators generally, rather than in a partisan fashion, we should resist shopping lists that try to include every possible notion in a policy statement or the procedures to enforce them. We know that there are local variations. There may be manifestations of antisocial behaviour in Dorset that are entirely distinct from those on the Essex coast, in Surrey Heath or in Cambridgeshire. I take the hon. Lady's point entirely, but I do not think that it is appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill that all those elements, preventive or otherwise, should be included as part of the policy. It is far more appropriate to provide in guidance some notional checklist of what should be in the process. That is not to detract from what she says, but we feel that those elements will be more appropriately dealt with in that fashion, because if we take the approach she suggests, as night follows day, things will be left out and the legislation will then be subject to judicial review or other challenge because something has not been included. We do not want to become mired in the courts or judicial review when the people on the streets and estates in all our constituencies want something done. That is a lengthy response, but it is a serious point. During the course of our deliberations this afternoon, I will endeavour to find out from the people who do not exist in this Room because we do not acknowledge them what shape the guidance will take, because that will be useful to the Committee now and subsequently. The balance between what is in the Bill and what is in the guidance is always a matter of debate, but I hope that people will accept that the way forward is to seek strategic consistency on antisocial behaviour policies and procedures at national level, while leaving scope for as great a degree of local autonomy as possible so that people can react within our framework to their local circumstances. Column Number: 218 The import and direction of most of the amendments under consideration differ from that approach, albeit for laudable reasons, and the debate has explored some of the areas they highlight. However, in the spirit of co-operation that I am desperately trying to pursue, I ask that the amendments be either resisted or withdrawn. Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which he replied to the many points that the hon. Member for Ludlow and I raised. In relation to my amendments Nos. 96 and 97, I am not entirely convinced that we need that strategic consistency. I believe that there are local variations that might justify distinctions in policy in different parts of the country, and that such areas should be entrusted to local authorities rather than to centralised decision making. That is part of the devolution of power that I would like to see. Nevertheless, I understand where the Minister is coming from and fully accept his commitment that he will do his best to ensure that the guidance from the Secretary of State is as similar as possible to that issued by the Housing Corporation. I also understand, as a non-lawyer, that we do not want to start unpicking the law on channels of accountability. For those reasons, I am loth to pursue the issue further, but before I commit myself to that position, I look at the hon. Member for Ludlow in case he wishes to intervene. Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. The Minister has indicated that the majority of the issues raised by our amendments will be dealt with in guidance, and that the Government share our intent. Mr. Paice: In that case— Mr. McNulty: May I intervene? Mr. Paice: Of course. Mr. McNulty: I am grateful, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes is sitting behind me. The only point that I missed out was her point about leaseholders. I will, as invited, explore the matter further in writing with my hon. Friend and the Committee. I could not enjoy the rest of the Committee while she was sitting there— Shona McIsaac: Scowling. Mr. McNulty: Yes, if I did not pick up on her point. Mr. Paice: I should not dream of intervening in the relationships between the Minister and his Back Benchers, although I think that there would have been an opportunity for the hon. Lady to raise the matter under a later group of amendments, when I intend to raise a similar issue. However, no one should accuse me of not being generous even to the Liberals in allowing the hon. Member for Ludlow to make his comments. I also appreciate the Minister's reply, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 219
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 13 May 2003 |
