| Anti-social Behaviour Bill
|
|
Mr. Ainsworth: The usual trick when someone pours on one the kind of praise that the hon. Gentleman has just poured on me is to sit quietly and accept it, but I am so suspicious of him that I shall not do that. I have absolutely no memory of the debate to which he referred and I am convinced that he is getting me mixed up with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I make that point just in case there is a barb in what the hon. Gentleman says. There is some uncertainty among magistrates courts regarding the evidence that can be presented in support of banning orders on conviction and orders on conviction for antisocial behaviour. The experience is that magistrates courts are not consistent in allowing additional evidence in the post-conviction civil phase of the proceedings. Amendments No. 65 and 66 would preserve that uncertainty and consequent inconsistency. The intention is to make it easier for the court to determine whether the offence for which the individual has been convicted is an isolated incident or part of a pattern of behaviour. The provisions will also make it easier for the court to determine whether the imposition of a preventive order will help prevent further incidents of antisocial behaviour or football hooliganism. The court needs to be satisfied of the preventive effect before it makes an order. However, the evidence that may be relevant to that decision may not have been relevant to the incident that led to the criminal charge and may not have been admissible in those proceedings, such as video recordings of behaviour at football matches or hearsay evidence from professional witnesses, employees of a local authority or social workers. If the approach is to be consistent, we must make it clear to those responsible that once the criminal aspect of the hearing has been dealt with and the process has moved on to the application for the antisocial behaviour order, evidence such as video and hearsay evidence is in order to make a case. That is what the clause would do. However, I am afraid that the amendment would prevent us from doing that, which is why I must resist it. Mr. Hawkins: I understand what the Minister says, and I said that we had tabled a probing amendment. However, the Minister does not need to be suspicious. I am certain and can show him the relevant section in Hansard to prove that I am not confusing him with his right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen. I am slightly surprised, as I thought that the incident would have stuck in the Minister's memory as it has in mine, given the exchange that he had in a previous debate with me and with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. However, to satisfy the Column Number: 277 Minister's curiosity, I shall find the Hansard today to reassure him. There is no barb. The Minister does not need to be suspicious and—The Chairman: Order. I have heard enough of this. I expect everyone when they leave the Room to check it up. Mr. Hawkins: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mrs. Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 85, in
Amendment No. 176, in
Mrs. Brooke: If discretion were the better part of valour, I might have stayed seated and not taken this matter up with the Committee. However, I am moving amendment No. 84, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) tabled and with which Liberal Democrat amendment No. 176 is grouped. The hon. Gentleman's amendments remove more lines than the Liberal Democrat amendment, which I prefer, although we can take it as read that the thrust of both is the same, so I shall make the same comments. When he was speaking to earlier amendments, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath decided to address the issue under discussion in advance—perhaps he will make no further comment. It is therefore right that an alternative view be put. The world is not black and white and there are circumstances in which it is not a good thing to name and shame young people. We should consider the issue seriously, yet many members in the Committee have seen matters in black and white this morning and on other occasions. Vernon Coaker: Will the hon. Lady give way?
10.30 amMrs. Brooke: May I just get to the thrust of my argument? I have not got that far. The Minister will probably reply in much the same way as members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs did, by pointing out that young people can be named when antisocial behaviour orders have been presented in other forums, and that the restriction only applies to the youth court. Nevertheless, I want to make this point because it is a matter of principle. The point of an antisocial behaviour order is to stop behaviour. If the whole world knows the name of a child, does that help the implementation of the order? It might make a lot of people feel better if the child is named, but I am not convinced that doing so is necessary. I take a liberal point of view on the issue—and why not? Someone in this Room must do so. First, there is the question of labelling. If someone were named, that would hit the press and would affect that individual's future employment prospects if it became widely known. I certainly do not give up on Column Number: 278 young people as young as 10, and whatever hon. Members say or shout at me, that view should be expressed. There is also the practical aspect: having an ASBO attached to one's back might have a bit of kudos, and therefore might lead to more antisocial behaviour. That is one of the reasons that we do not always take extreme action against terrorism, for example, because there is something heroic about it.Shona McIsaac: Oh, for God's sake! Mrs. Brooke: There could be perceived to be something heroic about being named, because it generates more antisocial behaviour. I think that it is rather sad. There are alternative views in the world. It is important to appreciate that naming and shaming is not always the right thing to do. There are many circumstances in which it is not: a young person in very tragic circumstances may need protecting. I say to the Minister that the issues are not black and white and that, however difficult cases are and however tough people want to make the measures, there are some young people whom we should not give up on at the age of 10. The Chairman: Is the hon. Lady giving way? Mrs. Brooke: Yes, Mr. Cran, I will give way now. I had forgotten. Vernon Coaker: I apologise to the hon. Lady, because I know that she tried to intervene on me earlier and I forgot that she was trying to do so. I was not intending to be rude. Many of us would agree with some of the points that the hon. Lady makes if the court did not retain the discretion to decide whether it was in the interests of the child or of public safety to name the child. Surely the discretion retained by the courts addresses some of the issues that she raises? Mrs. Brooke: I accept that that discretion covers some of the aspects, but I hope that I have made the point that going from one extreme to the other is not necessarily a good thing. Mr. Ainsworth: I would have liked to understand the point that the hon. Lady made about terrorism, but I did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has just exposed the fact that what the hon. Lady said to the Committee was different from what she proposed in the amendment, because that discretion remains. The clause removes an anomaly by bringing reporting restrictions for orders on conviction in a youth court into line with those made in a magistrates court, as those made against juveniles in a magistrates court are not subject to automatic reporting restrictions. I assure hon. Members that the details of the criminal conviction will remain confidential and that the court will have the discretion to apply reporting restrictions where appropriate—for example, in the interests of rehabilitation. That decision can be taken there and then in the youth court as it can be taken in the magistrates court. However, this measure will close the loopholes, ensure consistency, and make the orders more enforceable for agencies that have to tackle antisocial behaviour on the ground. Column Number: 279 Effective publicising of orders is an important part of how they work. Awareness of an order and its conditions enables communities to assist the statutory agencies to monitor the order and to expose whether it is being breached. It reassures victims and witnesses that action is being taken to protect them. Mr. Hawkins: I did not want intervene too soon, because I wanted the Minister to explain the Government's stance. I am delighted with the way he puts it. Does he agree with Mr. Catchpole, the chief executive of Surrey Heath borough council, who wrote to the head of the antisocial behaviour unit in January this year that it is important to introduce laws that will enable offenders under 18 to be identified both on television and through local media? His view is that there is no reason whatever to withhold the identities of such miscreants for the reasons the Minister stated. Mr. Ainsworth: I do not accept that there is no reason to withhold the identities of individuals; there can be a reason to do so. If the court can be convinced that it is not in the interests of the individual concerned that publicity be given and that there is a chance of effective rehabilitation that publicity could damage, publicity would not be appropriate. We are giving the courts discretion to consider such situations and to decide whether it its appropriate to publicise the case. They already have such discretion in the magistrates court and they should have it in the youth court. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is saying something reasonable that is not in line with the amendments she has tabled.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 15 May 2003 |
