| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The point is that if ABCs are used in the first instance one does not have to put an ASBO on a bit later. I would prefer the encouragement of those being implemented rather than going the full stretch to an ASBO.
Baroness Amos: I recognise the point being made by the noble Baroness. It may be that in the case of the 15 individuals who I mentioned earlier, who are persistent offenders, ABCs are not appropriate. However, as a degree of prevention before young people get to the point where one has to use an ASBO, an ABC is appropriate. The point is that there are a number of tools in the armoury. There is a degree of flexibility, and a certain judgment is required about which is most appropriate.
I remind the Committee that these are civil orders, not criminal orders, although a breach of the order is a criminal offence. On the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, the Housing
20 Jul 2004 : Column GC106
Executive will be able to use the orders against tenants and against private owners in areas where it is the chief landlord. District councils will be able to use them where there is anti-social behaviour in their areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, also asked whether councils would only get orders regarding their own properties. A council can apply if a property of an adjoining council is a problem. An ASBO can apply throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. In seeking an ASBO, identification will be made at that point about where it will apply. It can apply to the whole of Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, raised a series of very important questions. Indeed, I would like to thank her for recognising that it is not an easy environment in which to work. That is why a number of noble Lords have welcomed what is being proposed here, despite the concerns that are being expressed. On the issue of the Human Rights Commission, I understand that it has had a meeting with officials on this issue.
On the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, first, in relation to the challenge made by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, I am, of course, aware that he sought leave to apply for judicial review of the Minister's decision to put this draft order before Parliament for approval. Both the applicant and the Government presented arguments. The commissioner failed to persuade Mr Justice Girvan that there was an arguable case in any of the issues raised in support of the application for leave. This included the issues raised in relation to consultation. The issues raised were fully dealt with by Mr Justice Girvan in his judgment in the application for leave to apply for judicial review. In relation to consultation, he said:
"A decision by the Minister to consult in the way in which he did could not be considered irrational or unlawful".
On the issue of civil procedure, with its lesser safeguards, this is not the case. In a case, Clingham and McCann, the House of Lords accepted the justification and good sense of ASBOs, which are intended to protect the fundamental rights of the community that suffers from anti-social behaviour. ASBO procedures are subject to due process in court and the anti-social behaviour must be proven to the criminal standard, which was held by the House of Lords in McCann. Any proceedings for breach of an ASBO will be criminal proceedings.
In relation to possible imprisonment in Northern Ireland, if a child breaches an ASBO and goes to court, he or she will be offered a youth conference. Youth conferencing was introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Review and involves the child and its family and the victim, if the victim wishes it. The aim is that a plan will be drawn up and taken through, which can involve reparation and restitution.
On the issue of the naming and shaming, about which the noble Baroness is clearly very concerned, the order gives the court discretion to impose reporting restrictions when making an ASBO against a child, as I have already mentioned. The wording of the
20 Jul 2004 : Column GC107
legislation is clear that the whole of the proceedings is covered. The restrictions cover television and radio broadcasts as well as newspaper reports, which goes beyond the position in England and Wales. Courts will not act carelessly and will be in a position to make a decision on a case-by-case basis. The Government are providing a statutory measure with all of the safeguards in law so that people do not turn to those who would mete out paramilitary-style justice.
On the provision of public housing and the sectarian split, an ASBO can be used to stop someone being in an area where he has been acting in an anti-social way and the court decides that an order is necessary for the protection of persons from further anti-social behaviour. However, the sanctions must be reasonable and proportionate, and the court, as a public body, must interpret the order in a way that is human rights compliant.
On the issue of whether an ASBO might result in homelessness, it is not inconceivable but highly unlikely that a court applying the proportionality test would conclude that a person should be excluded from their home, though if alternative accommodation was available that might be appropriate.
I believe that I have dealt with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, in relation to the Police Service of Northern Ireland being stretched. But I underline the fact that the approach is multi-agency and that the applying partner will have the power to enforce an ASBO.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the issue of interim ASBOs, which will enable a court to order an immediate stop to anti-social behaviour. That protects the public more quickly and reduces the scope for witness intimidation, sending a clear message to the community that anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated. It removes the opportunity for the behaviour to continue while the application is being processed.
On the issue of the order being tailor-made, I made it clear that this was a matter of learning from what has happened in England and Wales. The measures have been consulted on, and they do not set aside restorative justice orders. I repeat—measures must be reasonable and proportionate.
I have answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on lesson learning. As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about whether we shall have more young people going to prison, I hope that that will not be the case. It is important to emphasise that in Northern Ireland, if a child breaches an ASBO and goes to court, he or she will be given the option of a youth conference—as I said, in relation to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. If it becomes a matter of custody, the place of custody would be a juvenile centre for 10 to 17 year-olds. But I should like Members of the Committee to remember the availability of the youth conference, which was one of the recommendations of the criminal justice review.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
20 Jul 2004 : Column GC108
Criminal Justice (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Criminal Justice (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
The draft order makes proposals for new legislation in two areas of concern—"hate crime" and "car crime". Hate crime deals with crimes motivated or aggravated by hatred of race, religion, disability or sexual orientation. Car crime deals with the specific and often misnamed area of "joyriding". Hate crime has seen worrying increases in Northern Ireland in recent times—a quadrupling of numbers in the last five years—and joyriding has frequently been a plague on the lives of some communities.
Racist attacks have increased from 93 in 1998–99 to 453 in 2003–04. Alongside what has become regular reportage of racist incidents in Northern Ireland is the fact that the rate of racial incidents per head of the minority ethnic population is estimated as being almost double that in England and Wales. There have also been worrying increases in attacks against the gay community. A recent attack in Northern Ireland ended in the horrific murder of a completely innocent man, Mr Ian Flanagan, for which the perpetrators quite rightly received life sentences. The disabled have also been increasingly victimised. Attacks based on religion will also be covered by our proposals.
On car crime, the offence of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, the nearest current approximation to the offence we are now targeting, has been between 2,000 and 3,000 over the past two years. Dangerous driving offences have increased by 44 per cent in the past year.
Hate crime and car crime are areas of pressing concern for Northern Ireland. Incidents have been seen across Northern Ireland. They are issues which cross boundaries and are faced by all communities. The time is right to legislate.
On "hate crime", the draft order will provide courts with powers to impose heavier sentences when an offence is aggravated by hostility based on the victim's actual or presumed religion, race, disability or sexual orientation. When there has been such aggravation, the proposals will require sentencers to state that in court and to treat this as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
The maximum penalties which can be imposed in what are, by and large, crimes of violence are being increased across the board. For example, sentences for grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm and putting someone in fear of violence will increase from five to seven years, common assault from one year to two years' imprisonment, harassment from six months to two years' imprisonment, and criminal damage from 10 to l4 years' imprisonment. The draft order also adds sexual orientation and disability to the list of groups currently protected under public order legislation. In
20 Jul 2004 : Column GC109
many respects, the "hate crime" provisions are bringing Northern Ireland's laws up to the same level as is already the case in England and Wales.
The draft order creates an offence of aggravated vehicle taking based on the taking of a vehicle without consent, and it then being driven dangerously, or causing an accident which results in injury, damage to property, or damage to the vehicle. The maximum penalty will be up to five years' imprisonment. The draft order also creates an offence of causing death or grievous bodily injury when committed as part of the new offence of aggravated vehicle taking. The maximum penalty will be up to 14 years' imprisonment. The draft order also increases the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from two to five years' imprisonment. Again, the creation of these offences brings Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales.
The form in which the draft proposals are presented to the Grand Committee today have been influenced by public consultation. The Government undertook three consultation exercises in developing this legislation. Two separate policy consultations were held on race and sectarian crime legislation in Northern Ireland, and one on road traffic offences and penalties. These were then brought together into a single piece of draft legislation, which was consulted upon between February and April of this year.
As part of the consultations, the proposals were extended to include protections based on sexual orientation and disability. As part of its inquiry into hate crime in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee was particularly influential in the decision to include disability. In relation to our initial road traffic proposals, we listened to some of the representations made and increased our proposed penalties for dangerous driving and aggravated vehicle taking. These have been increased from two to five years.
The police and the justice system as a whole must be able to respond to criminal behaviour firmly and appropriately. It is essential that the police, the prosecutors and courts have the tools available to them to deal with such behaviour. Our aim is to continue to build a safe and tolerant society for all in Northern Ireland.
I commend the order to the Committee.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Criminal Justice (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |