| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
In summary, we are sympathetic to the spirit behind this amendment. The solution that is sought, which is to extend the provisions for NHS premises in the way that they are set out in Clause 170, would not necessarily be effective. A lot more thought, consultation and discussion with other potentially affected NHS staff would be required before we could move in that general direction. We need to think about specific remedies and measures that are more appropriate to deal with the problems sometimes caused, primarily by patients in the GP setting. That is where the real core of this particular problem, identified by the noble Baroness, exists. For those reasons we continue to seek solutions in the longer term. We are grateful to noble Lords who supported Clause 170 and the consequent sections. I invite the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Could the Minister clarify two points for me? First, does Clause 170 apply only to England, which he referred to in his answer, and not to healthcare workers in Wales? Secondly, I do not quite understand why hospital staff have greater protection than hospice staff. This is a current situation: a sick patient has relatives who have assaulted each other on hospital premises. For one of those relatives, a “protection of vulnerable adult” order was taken out. The patient was moved to a hospice for the patient’s healthcare needs to be better met, but that warring family moved as visitors. I do not understand why the staff of the hospice, where there is a security person on site at night because it is a large hospice, should have any less protection than the hospital staff, when the hospice has taken the patient in the interests of the patient and has allowed somebody else to be moved into that acute bed in the hospital setting. There does not seem to be equity.
My last point concerns mental harm. Occupational health services now often link with neuropsychiatric and clinical psychology services, and provide extremely robust assessments of people’s fitness to work and harm that may have occurred to them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: On the first point, yes, we are talking about England in the context of this particular series of clauses and amendments. The issue of hospices is quite an interesting one. I want to
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1322
The noble Baroness made a fair point about the value of training and the fact that staff are very well trained to deal with these things. They can identify problems caused by stress and recognise the impact on people’s mental health and so on, which is clearly terribly important.
Baroness Butler-Sloss: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question in relation to his answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Under Clause 170(4)(b), it appears that any building,
may well be covered by this clause. I declare an interest as the vice-president of a hospice which happens to be situated in the hospital grounds of the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital. Although this hospice has to pay for itself, it is probably covered, but I put it to the Minister that there is an anomaly in that some hospices will be covered and others will not. I thought that that might be an interesting point to draw out.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble and learned Baroness is the lawyer and I am not. She may well be right and there may be value in reflecting on the position of hospices, although I suspect that hospices are not the major problem in this area. I think that the primary concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was the position of GPs’ surgeries. However, I recognise that visiting care staff in the NHS may be vulnerable—we all hear nasty stories, so we well appreciate that—and we probably have to rely on the ordinary criminal law in most of those individual cases. This has been a valuable debate touching on some very difficult issues.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am very interested in the Minister’s last contribution. I had not appreciated that this criminal offence was confined to England, as all through the devolution debates it was made very clear that criminal offences would apply to England and Wales. The Welsh Assembly has no power to create criminal offences, so we will now have something which seems to be contrary to “the devolution settlement”—a criminal offence relating only to England and not covering Wales. Where do we go in Wales? Where do I go in my own hospital if I am unruly and cause a disturbance? How can I be ejected from that hospital?
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1323
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If the noble Lord is unruly in his hospital, I am sure that someone will deal with him.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Having regard to the sporting prowess of my nation—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that that would be raised.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am the first to do it and have beaten the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, by a long way.
This is a serious matter to which I should like an answer. I know that I am springing it on the noble Lord at a moment’s notice but I had not appreciated it myself earlier, so perhaps he would consider it and give me his thoughts in due course.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I make it clear that the clause applies only to England and that it would obviously be for the National Assembly Government in Wales to consider what steps would be appropriate. I want to clarify issues for the noble Lord and this may be something that we need to consider when we do a compendium letter at some point between now and Report. I shall ensure that the matter is clarified for the noble Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I see that it is confined to England because NHS premises are defined as “relevant English NHS” premises. It is an interesting problem. It supports my campaign for powers to create criminal offences to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and I am very grateful to see that the Minister would support that.
The real issue here is that the rationale of the Minister, as I understand it, is that they do not have security services in doctors’ premises or in hospices and that is the reason for denying that protection. I do not think I am wrong but in my youth the thought that anyone would attack a nurse or a doctor was just unthinkable; it would never have occurred to anyone that that would happen. Are people now asserting their rights for free medical care at the point of delivery to the extent that they demand it aggressively and with threats? It is a sad reflection on the way in which our society has developed.
4.30 pm
If that is the case, we have to address the problem; we have to put in place statutory offences to deal with the change in societal behaviour. That is why I applaud the Government’s approach to making it a specific offence within hospital premises. Even if no bouncer is employed in a GP’s surgery, surely a notice on the wall relating to a person who causes a nuisance or disturbance and refuses to leave when asked would be a significant contribution to the safety of those premises. The staff could point to such a notice saying, “You are committing a criminal offence”, but people cannot necessarily commit a criminal offence without a provision such as this. If there is an assault
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1324
Here is a specific protection for conduct which is not necessarily covered by any other criminal law. I believe all Members of the Committee would agree that it would be desirable to replace what in the old days was an absolutely accepted convention with protection for staff, no matter whether they were working in a hospital or anywhere else. With those thoughts, I ask the Minister to reconsider his position and to address particularly the criminal offence in Wales. I am sure we shall return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 not moved.]
Clauses 171 and 172 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Clauses 173 and 174 agreed to.
Clause 175 [Individual support orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 175 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Clause 175 takes us to that part of the Bill which deals with anti-social behaviour orders in respect of children and young persons. The purpose of Clause 175 is to extend the jurisdiction for the making of individual support orders—ISOs—under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. My opposition to Clause 175 concerns the extension of individual support orders to forms of ASBOs which are other than civil orders. Individual support orders were created in Sections 322 and 323 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to address the concern that anti-social behaviour orders which were made in civil proceedings failed to provide any support that could assist the young person not only to comply with the order but also to change his or her behaviour. Individual support orders can last for up to six months, but here again, critically, the breach of the conditions of an individual support order is a criminal offence and can result in a fine. Again behaviour that is not necessarily criminal is being criminalised. Clause 175 allows individual support orders to be made more than once and not at the same time as an ASBO is made. It also permits individual support orders to be attached to ASBOs obtained on conviction and in the county court, whereas at the moment, they can be made only in civil proceedings in the magistrates’ court.
In January 2007 the Respect unit of the Home Office published a paper showing that in 2005, although 1,555 ASBOs had been given to people under 18, only 42 individual support orders had been issued. For some reason ASBOs are being granted by magistrates’ courts against young people without in the vast majority of cases individual support orders being made alongside them. My objection to Clause 175 has the support of the Standing Committee for
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1325
In its report in 2006 the Youth Justice Board suggested that low take-up rates of individual support orders reflected a lack of knowledge about them, both among sentencers and YOT duty officers. I know that that matter very much concerns my noble friend Lady Linklater who has done so much to try to introduce to the judiciary the value and extent of these orders among other community orders. The board also found that in cases in which the young person had contacted the youth offending team through an existing court order, there was a general assumption that an ISO was unnecessary because it would add nothing to services already in place. Although the provisions in Clause 175 may increase the number of individual support orders that are made, it does not look as if they will assist after conviction how a young person is treated.
The Standing Committee for Youth Justice is concerned, as I am, that these ISOs place breachable requirements on young people in addition to those that are already in place in the ASBO itself. If there are multiple ISOs there are innumerable conditions floating around with which the young person has to comply: the conditions of the ASBO; the condition of the first ISO, if he is given one; the conditions of a second ISO if he is given one; so he is set up to fail. Instead of a statutory change to ISOs the Government should guarantee to offer targeted youth support, and when an ASBO accompanies a conviction, support must be received through the youth justice system and not through the extended use of individual support orders, which involve the children’s and youth support services.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his comments on Clause 175 in the sense that I thought I heard a rather more reflective tone in his approach to something that I know he does not have a great deal of sympathy with. I understand where he is coming from. In essence, I think, he was trying to pose the question for the Committee: is the ISO route the best way to make better use of anti-social behaviour orders? That is a reasonable and fair issue to raise. I do not agree with the noble Lord’s conclusion.
The fact that ISOs have not been as extensively used as we would perhaps wish is due to two reasons. First, they have not been in place for an overly lengthy period of time so the experience of using them is not so profound, whereas ABSOs have been in place for the better part of a decade and there is more knowledge and understanding of their use and value.
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1326
However, ISOs can have value, and add value to ASBOs. We must ensure that the ISOs can work better. They have been in place only since May 2004 and can be attached to ASBOs made against young people between the ages of 10 and 17. Individual support orders impose what one could fairly recognise as being positive conditions on young people designed to tackle the underlying causes of their anti-social behaviour. Such conditions might typically include attendance of an anger management course or different forms of counselling. Those are valuable forms of support and will be recognised as such.
Individual support orders can last up to six months and are currently available for stand-alone ASBOs made in the magistrates’ courts only. Legislation sets out that, where a magistrates' court makes an ASBO against a young person, it must also make an individual support order if it considers that that order would help to prevent further anti-social behaviour. That is positive support to prevent anti-social behaviour in the future. They are also a significant part of our strategy to reduce anti-social behaviour. Practitioners like them and, where they have been applied, they have a proven track record of success.
However, the circumstances in which individual support orders can be made are rather limited. They are available only where a magistrates’ court makes a stand-alone ASBO on a young person between the ages of 10 and 17. We believe that other young people could benefit from the ISO approach, to say nothing of the communities which would benefit if the underlying causes of anti-social behaviour are tackled.
The clause extends the availability of ISOs. It gives the court the power to make an individual support order where an ASBO is made on conviction. It gives the county court the power to make an individual support order and substantially increases flexibility around when an ISO can be made. Individual support orders could be made more than once and could be made subsequent to the making of an original ASBO.
A major benefit of the clause is that it ties in with Clause 174, which would require young people’s ASBOs to be reviewed annually. Clause 175 would give the applicant authority the flexibility to be able to apply to the court for an individual support order or a further individual support order, for example, if the annual review concludes that it would be merited.
Finally, the clause allows an ISO to be issued if it is desirable in the interests of preventing the repetition of anti-social behaviour which led to a variation of an ASBO rather than merely the behaviour that—
4.45 pm
Baroness Walmsley: What evidence is there that ISOs prevent or reduce reoffending that justifies a further extension of their use?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I said at the outset—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, also made the point—ISOs have not been used as extensively as we would like because we see them as a positive measure. The experience is that practitioners
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1327
We see ISOs playing an important part in tackling the behaviour that led to the initial ASBO. We want to see individual support orders used more widely and we are working with the court service and the Youth Justice Board to achieve that outcome. For those reasons, this clause forms an important part of our strategy. I hope that noble Lords across the Committee will welcome the Government’s continued determination to tackle anti-social behaviour and our efforts to ensure that we help young people tackle the underlying causes of that behaviour because that offers us a more imaginative range of solutions for the future.
We understand the noble Lord’s concern. We want to see this used in a targeted way. We also want to see more extensive use of the order. I am advised that research has been commissioned into the effectiveness of ISOs and I shall be happy to report the outcome of that research to the noble Baroness in due course. She raised the good point that we should proceed on the basis of informed legislation. The view of practitioners is that ISOs have value.
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 166A:
(1) Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7) at the end insert “or in the case of persons under 18, not less than three months”.
The noble Lord said: This amendment was also suggested by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. Its purpose is to enable a court to decide on the most appropriate length of an anti-social behaviour order made on a child under the age of 18, starting with a minimum period of three months. It would allow the imposition of a conditional discharge as a penalty for breach and remove the possibility of committing a child to a custodial sentence for breach. Noble Lords who have participated in the debates on the Bill will know how often we have referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and have made the point that the incarceration of children is to be used as a last resort.
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1328
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |