Police and Justice Bill |
|
Martin Horwood: I thank the Minister for her comments. I am reassured on some matters, although I am not sure that she has addressed some of the specific problems that I pointed out, such as the risk that vocal minorities might sometimes overwhelm the process, and the fact that onerous responsibilities will be placed on ward councillors. I hope that she will take those into consideration. Speaking as a former ward councillor, I am aware that many responsibilities and duties, and much casework have already landed on councillors’ desks. I was quoting my experience in that context; I have attended overview and scrutiny committees only since
I disagree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs—in the county of Brokenshire—when he appeared to reject the idea of using an overview and scrutiny committee. I apologise, but I meant to say that I disagree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch, not with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. The hon. Member for Hornchurch nevertheless raised an important point about the novelty of involving local ward councillors in law and order. It is not something that members of the public would naturally know about or understand. I look forward to a Government advertising campaign enlightening us about that. As I said, however, I support the basic model of involving a ward councillor and using an overview and scrutiny committee. I have much sympathy with the attempt by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs to add further detail to the Bill. However, if guidance can be provided less formally than in the Bill, it is not necessarily right to lay out a cast iron process in legislation on how things should be done. If, for instance, a ward councillor is asked to deal with an outbreak of antisocial activity in, say, Carnarvon park or Naunton park, they might realise that they could resolve that by first talking to local officers or the crime and disorder reduction partnership, without having to be told to do so by the Bill. If, however, there is a riot in the councillor’s constituency that they feel has been mishandled by the local police, they might have to take that immediately to the overview and scrutiny committee for an inquiry. I think that common sense ought to have some role, and therefore I am not sympathetic to amendments Nos. 138 and 139, although I am slightly concerned by the Minister’s response, which was that yet more guidance, timetables and timelines will be issued to local councillors. I hope that those will be measured and will not place disproportionate responsibilities on local councillors. In summary, I am content to seek to withdraw the amendment, but I think that the debate has highlighted the potential for confusion. The Minister said that we do not want to have responsibilities in silos, but there is a risk of it looking less like a silo and more like a haystack. Clarity of function and purpose is needed, although we should retain the overview and scrutiny committee and community call to action models, which have great value. Nick Herbert: I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that mergers of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, about which I expressed concern, will not be compelled by the Government. I think that that is what she said, and that is important. It will reassure members of successful crime and disorder reduction partnerships at a district level. They should be allowed to maintain that configuration if they judge that that is right for the local community. Column Number: 210 The Minister said that guidance on the initial referral to the crime and disorder reduction partnership would do, and that it was not necessary to put it in the Bill. I have some problems with that. First, all the other steps are written into primary legislation, yet that step, which should be the first and an important one, because if at all possible, the matter should be dealt with by the crime and disorder reduction partnership, will be subject to guidance. That is anomalous. Either all the steps should be the subject of guidance, which presumably would not be satisfactory, or they should all be in the Bill. As it is, some steps are in the Bill, and some are not. On a more substantive point, if something is only a matter of guidance, it is not necessarily enforceable. All the other steps are enforceable. The councillor and certain committees must take action, but referral to the CDRP, although desirable, will not be enforceable. That is an important matter. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) is shaking her head—I do not know whether she is shaking it at me. Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Joan Ryan): I just think that the hon. Gentleman is repeating his speech. Nick Herbert: I am not. I had not mentioned enforceability—the specific point that I am now raising, and which was raised by the Association of Police Authorities. That is a serious matter and I do not think that the hon. Lady should be shaking her head. I am entitled to respond to the Minister’s dismissal of my suggestion. I was not entirely persuaded by what the Minister said about accountability, because she used different words from those used in the Home Office’s guidance, which says that the primary accountability for crime and disorder reduction partnerships will be to the local authority overview and scrutiny committee. I think therefore that we have successfully made the point that there is a potential conflict. Her response did not seem to be consistent with the Home Office’s guidance, which we will read carefully. The potential bureaucratic overlap will have to be examined. 2.30 pmFinally, I shall respond briefly to the Minister’s general points about community empowerment. We are happy to support the mechanism for a community call to action. However, it is subject to our earlier deliberations in Committee that it was no substitute for proper local accountability, which should be achieved through the ballot box. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position, “Elected chief constables.” We have never suggested that chief constables should be elected. Hazel Blears: I was referring to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), who has said that his policy is to have elected chief constables. Nick Herbert: I am happy to tell the right hon. Lady that the proposal, as she knows, is for either directly elected local police authorities or an elected official to whom the chief constable will respond. I am talking
We are discussing a reserve power. The Minister conceded that it is only to be used, she hopes, in exceptional circumstances. It is different from a direct form of local accountability. To suggest that it is in some way a dramatic new form of accountability is to over-egg the proposal considerably. By its nature, it will be bureaucratic and highly procedural. Complicated steps are built into it. It will not be a satisfactory alternative to the sort of local accountability that we have proposed. While we are happy to support the provision as a step in the right direction, I want the Minister to be clear that we have worries about it. James Brokenshire rose— The Chairman: I am tempted to call James Hornchurch. James Brokenshire: I want to clarify a couple of points. I have emphasised that my amendment was a probing amendment. I do not oppose local councillors playing an active role in their communities. I believe strongly in that. I do not want the provision in some way to detract away the need for effective local policing. That should solve the problems. It is the key element. If the safer neighbourhood teams are being effective, they will be holding public meetings and will be hearing loudly and clearly a call to action. Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is a little puzzling. He earlier welcomed the concept of a community call to action, but he now seems to be suggesting that that can be done under the current structures and without using an overview and scrutiny committee as the model. As a result, not much will be left of a community call to action. What form will it take without the proposals? James Brokenshire: My reading of the Bill is that the measure is intended as a back-up and that it should be used only when the existing practical mechanisms of policing on the ground and the crime and disorder reduction partnerships are falling down. That is my understanding of what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading and from everything that I have heard the Minister say today. The measure is supplementary; it sits alongside the policing model. Given the practicalities of safer neighbourhood teams in operation, I know that they will be holding public meetings. In many ways, if matters are working effectively, the public will already be directing their attention to particular problems within their local community. I certainly support practical, effective policing on the ground. The issue is whether the safer neighbourhood teams will be properly funded and supported, and whether they will have the protection in the wards that is envisaged at the moment, but which may start to be watered down. The call to action is a fall-back measure to act against that. Column Number: 212 I welcome the proposal, but it needs to be a fall-back measure. It should not be seen as detracting from effective neighbourhood policing, which is what we all want in communities throughout the country. Martin Horwood: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 15 disagreed to. Clause 16 Parenting contracts: local authorities and registered social landlords Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 16, page 14, line 23, leave out
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 51, in clause 16, page 14, line 26, at end insert—
No. 52, in clause 17, page 16, line 28, at end insert—
Martin Horwood: The introduction of parenting contracts is yet another possible tool in the increasingly large armoury that includes acceptable behaviour contracts and antisocial behaviour orders, which if used appropriately are broadly welcome steps that can add flexibility—[Interruption.] No, I think that this is established Liberal Democrat policy, I am afraid. I refer the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) to our recent manifestos and policy statements. We welcome a range of flexible approaches to police and criminal justice, and if used appropriately such tools can do a lot of good. However, it is important to understand that they are not the whole solution. The solution to antisocial behaviour has deeper roots and involves a range of agencies and approaches that do not all involve the criminal justice system. As I have said, extensive use has been made of ASBOs in my own constituency. I have examples of ASBOs being promoted without the young person’s school or the youth service team appropriately being consulted. Since a large number of ASBOs are placed on younger people, that is an important issue when we look at other models such as acceptable behaviour contracts or parenting contracts. The British Institute for Brain Injured Children has drawn attention to the example of a 14-year-old boy who was given an ASBO that included a curfew. He had to stay in at a particular time, but he had a mental age of less than seven and could not tell the time. There are risks to the new approaches, and we have to guard against their inappropriate use. Column Number: 213 The clause provides for counselling and guidance programmes, which are very welcome. The amendments seek further safeguards, including a formal assessment of need and the removal of the targeting of a child or young person who
as set out in proposed new subsection 25A(1)(a). I know that the Children’s Society has drawn attention to that point and is worried about it. It says:
It is quite a serious issue. The Secretary of State may have many talents, but the ability to foretell the future and predict antisocial behaviour is not one of them. The intention behind these probing amendments is to discover whether the Government are prepared to put a few more safeguards in the clause. Hazel Blears: This clause allows local authorities and registered social landlords to enter into parenting contracts. “Contract” is the important word. The contract is not a parenting order, but an entirely voluntary agreement between a local authority and the parents to have a contract setting out steps to be taken to support the parents in ensuring that their children do not get involved in antisocial behaviour. Amendment No. 50 would prevent local authorities from providing such support to prevent problems from escalating. A whole strand of our approach in the respect action plan was to do much more prevention, early intervention, and diversion, rather than wait until problems have got to such a pitch that ASBOs or dispersal orders—the harder set of powers—become necessary. We want to ensure that support is offered at an early stage, both for the benefit of communities and for the sake of the families concerned. That is why we have made £52 million available through the respect action plan to support parenting interventions across the board. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his party would have welcomed the Government’s approach. Our aim is to give support, and our proposals are supported by the Youth Justice Board. I know from the hon. Gentleman’s opening comments that his party has changed its policy and supports many of the measures that we have introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour, and I had hoped that, on this occasion, he would also want us to help children in that position; however, his amendment would undermine our policy. Local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that careful assessments are made of children’s situations. Such assessments will examine the interaction of risk and protective factors in children’s lives. If they provide evidence that the children are likely to offend, the local authorities will first attempt to engage the parents on a voluntary basis to steer the children away from criminal or antisocial behaviour. We all know that involving parents at an early stage helps to prevent such behaviour from becoming entrenched. The statutory guidance that is published
Martin Horwood: The Minister knows that I support the use of early intervention to tackle such problems at an early stage. One of the Government’s best initiatives since they were first elected has been the Sure Start programme, which has done enormously good work in trying to tackle problems at an early stage. It is mischievous of Labour Members to interpret certain votes in the past, which related to other parts of legislation that was under consideration at the time, as opposition to ASBOs. My party has never opposed the appropriate use of ASBOs, and the record will show that—I can probably send it to the right hon. Lady. The Minister seems to be objecting to things that I did not say. The amendments suggest making an assessment of need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Why does she think that that cannot form a part of the early intervention process? Hazel Blears: I am about to come to the hon. Gentleman’s other amendments. In the first, he seeks to remove the possibility of having a parenting contract if somebody is likely to engage in antisocial behaviour, so he is saying that we have to reach a point at which antisocial behaviour is already taking place before we can have a parenting contract. If he genuinely believed in early intervention, he would not have tabled that amendment. In the hon. Gentleman’s second set of amendments, he makes a serious point. We have a responsibility to children and their families to provide support at the earliest possible stage. In amendments Nos. 51 and 52, he talks about an assessment under section 17 of the Children Act. That assessment is very detailed, whereas we want the flexibility for the people on the front line to be able to carry out an assessment. The existing common assessment framework should be the first assessment used unless there are concerns that suggest an urgent need for a specialist assessment to be made without delay. The assessment in section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a more detailed and specialist assessment than the common assessment framework that is in place and which, in these circumstances, should be sufficient to give the background, evidence and information that are necessary in order to enter into a parenting contract or a parenting order. We recognise that parenting orders, in particular, can have an impact on a families. Of course, we would encourage local authorities to consider whether there is a need for further specialist assessment in relation to the individuals concerned. The common assessment framework is a nationally standardised approach to conducting an assessment of the needs of a child or young person. It has been developed for use by practitioners in all agencies to allow them to communicate and to work more effectively together, meaning that an assessment carried out by an education welfare officer will not differ from that carried out by a social worker. It is
All local authority areas should be preparing for and implementing the common assessment framework, and resources such as guidance and factsheets are in place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the framework is a more appropriate way to proceed than the lengthy and detailed assessment that would be required under section 17. 2.45 pmOn that subject, by highlighting a particular case that involved restrictions in an antisocial behaviour order the hon. Gentleman sought to discredit some of the powers used in this area. So far, he has taken a more constructive approach than many members of his party. However, to use a completely atypical case to undermine the antisocial behaviour powers illustrates, yet again, that although the Liberal Democrats always say that they support the ends, they will not support the means. They say that they support tackling antisocial behaviour. They say that they are on the side of the community and that they want the problems to be addressed, but when it comes to the means to achieve those objectives, when it comes to being prepared to tackle the issues that are most important to antisocial behaviour, very often they are prepared to will the ends but never the means. The Liberal Democrats opposed the use of antisocial behaviour orders and dispersal orders tooth and nail. They voted against our antisocial behaviour legislation. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more honest, rather than quote such atypical cases in an attempt to undermine the Bill. The public do not want that. We have a responsibility to the children and their parents to ensure that we intervene early. We must give them support and ensure that parenting classes are offered. We must help people to change their lives and to have the chance to live in a much better way. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments. Martin Horwood: I agree that early intervention is a good method and that antisocial behaviour need not have reached such a level as to require an antisocial behaviour order before a parenting contract is introduced. However, that is not what clause 16 says. It says the
It does not say what level of antisocial behaviour. Surely, to justify that kind of action, there must have been some kind of antisocial behaviour. Just to say
implies clairvoyance on the part of the authorities. There needs to be some evidence of antisocial behaviour to require a parenting contract. Otherwise, the legislation seems open to abuse. Column Number: 216 The Minister referred to amendment No. 51 on the requirement for an assessment of need. I appreciate that section 17 of the Children Act may not be the most appropriate methodology and my knowledge of it is not deep enough to justify that amendment. I am therefore content to withdraw it. The Minister should accept, however, that a process will be required and she may wish to table amendments at a later stage. I defend the use of atypical cases. In any legislation where civil liberties might be at risk, atypical cases are important. An injustice done to one person is an injustice none the less. When introducing new legislation, it should always give us pause for thought if previous legislation on the same model—as was the case with ASBOs—has led to several cases that were undoubtedly unjust to the individuals involved. The case I referred to is not the only example. Liberty will provide us with many, many more. That does not mean that ASBOs are wrong or inappropriate and that we should reject them, but it puts an onus on us, as law-makers, to introduce the safeguards that we can. I hope that the Minister will consider these points more seriously in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 16, page 15, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 16. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 115, in clause 17, page 17, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 18. No. 116, in clause 17, page 18, line 12, leave out
No. 117, in clause 17, page 18, line 21, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’. No. 118, in clause 17, page 18, line 24, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’. No. 119, in clause 17, page 18, line 28, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’. No. 120, in clause 17, page 18, line 30, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’. No. 121, in clause 17, page 18, line 33, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’. Martin Horwood: The amendment relates to the proposal to give the powers set out in the clause to social landlords. It would also remove the power of the Secretary of State to provide by order for local authorities to subcontract their powers to enter into parenting contracts or to apply for parenting orders. The question is one of appropriateness. Social landlords often have a wide role. I know that Cheltenham Borough Homes in my constituency has a role in considering the behaviour and social environment of the housing for which it is responsible. Nevertheless, its expertise is in housing management; that is its primary function. It is important that we take such issues seriously and that we have mechanisms to tackle antisocial behaviour and the need for better parenting—and better behaviour in general—but I am
I refer the Minister to the comments of Children’s Society, which refers to the respect action plan—that should bring a warm glow to her heart. It states:
I agree. Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is right. Mention of the respect action plan brought a warm glow to my heart because, as I explained in relation to previous amendments, it puts a real emphasis on early intervention, trying to nip problems in the bud and generally trying to support parents in tackling the sometimes difficult issues that they have to face. The respect action plan is about continuing our action on antisocial behaviour, but it is also very much about deepening and sustaining the measures that we can take so that families can genuinely change their behaviour. That helps the rest of the community; it has a huge impact on the quality of life for all families in the area. That is why parenting contracts and parenting orders are so important. We want to extend the range of agencies able to enter into parenting contracts or apply for parenting orders. The remedy is one that is considered far more frequently, and rather being confined to local authorities, social services and education, it should come to the minds of a range of agencies involved in improving the quality of life in our neighbourhoods. That is why we want to extend it to others with a role in tackling antisocial behaviour. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 24 March 2006 |