Lords Hansard text for 23 Apr 200823 Apr 2008 (pt 0017)

Hansard

10.28 pm

[Amendments Nos. 111 to 113 not moved.]

Clause 120 [Guidance about the power to remove etc.]:

[Amendments Nos. 113A to 113F not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 114:

After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—

“Anti-social behaviour orders: reporting restrictions

(1) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) is amended as follows.

(2) Omit sections 1(10D) and (10E) (anti-social behaviour orders) and 1C(9C) (orders on conviction in criminal proceedings).

(3) In subsection (9) of section 1C (orders on conviction in criminal proceedings), omit “(10D), (10E).”

(4) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) is amended as follows.

(5) After section 49(2)(d) (restrictions on reports of proceedings in which children or young persons are concerned) insert—

“(e) any proceedings under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998”.”

23 Apr 2008 : Column 1607

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment takes us back to a matter that this House has discussed and debated many times with the Government: whether people under 18 should be subject to reporting restrictions when anti-social behaviour orders are imposed on them. As the Minister knows, if a young person commits a criminal offence, there are reporting restrictions. Some 10 years ago, when the Government brought in this different system for anti-social behaviour orders, they gave us a large list of reasons why they should be reported on because it was felt that naming and shaming would work. The fact is that it has not worked.

What evidence does the Minister have that naming and shaming has reduced the number of young people who have been subject to anti-social behaviour orders? Can he further tell me all of the difficult effects that that creates for a young person in their community? Does it help with their rehabilitation? I remind him that the Government said that they would like to rural-proof all their policies. For young people from rural areas and small towns where everybody knows them, reporting the matter in the local paper has an extremely negative effect on exactly the sort of rehabilitation and positive aspects of any order that the Government might have envisaged. There are much greater experts on these issues in the form of my noble friends Lady Linklater and Lady Walmsley, who I hope will both speak to the amendment, so I shall not take up more of the House’s time. I beg to move.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I warmly support my noble friend’s amendment, and I know how much we are all longing to get through this Bill and get home tonight. I do not propose to be very long but I must say that I remember well the debates that we had on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill in 2003—five years ago—when we were trying to amend the Crime and Disorder Act.

Now we know a bit more of the results of what was then under debate—the presumption of reporting restrictions being in place and the change from the presumption that they would not be in place, so that there was an open day for local newspapers and others to report on the affairs and events of children coming before the court charged with anti-social behaviour offences.

I remind the House that we are talking about children and low-level behaviour that simply constitutes a civil offence and has nothing to do with criminal behaviour—not, at least, until an ASBO has been breached. What we know about anti-social behaviour orders being reported is not good. Back in 1933 it was understood how damaging the effects of publicity can be on children. It was argued then, and remained so until the Crime and Disorder Act, that it should be left to the court to decide whether it was appropriate for reporting to take place, and that was based on the evidence on whether it would be in the interests of the child so to do.

I am grateful to see the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in his place. He knows a lot about children and that our aim at all times is to act in the best interests of the child. Unless we do so we are not acting in the best interests of our society. Furthermore, in 2005, we had

23 Apr 2008 : Column 1608

the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act when reporting restrictions were then going to be lifted on breaches of ASBOs. That was when naming and shaming came into its own—the humiliation of children. It takes no one in the Chamber, let alone those outside, to know that you do not teach a child anything through humiliation. If anything you do more damage. That is the evidence.

The characteristics of the child’s behaviour, their background and needs, and the information available to the court are necessarily to be taken into account or relevant when a local paper writes its story. In fact, it usually leads to complete disregard of the circumstances of the child and his offence, let alone his needs.

Anyone in this Chamber who has worked with children who end up in court will know that we are almost invariably dealing with children who are already troubled. They are moving from being troubled children to being children in trouble. We know that they are more likely than not to have learning difficulties, perhaps to have disorders such as autism or mental health issues or to suffer from deprivation of one kind or another. We humiliate them by putting them on the front page or the inner pages of newspapers. In the past five years or so, we have seen plenty of evidence of what appears in the newspapers about such children, which is deeply distasteful and, in the long run, deeply damaging. It is also likely, although it has not been tested fully in the courts, that several articles of the UNCRC and possibly the European Convention on Human Rights will be breached in this process. However, we know that when such publicity occurs it is likely to cause great distress, not only to the child who is being humiliated, but to his family. Even worse, it is possible that if the damage is not distressing to the child, the damage is of a different sort; namely, it becomes a sort of badge of honour for the child who is in trouble. There is evidence of that. What good are we doing him, let alone our communities? Children in trouble need help to stop the behaviour—it is, I remind the House, at this stage still low-level—so it does not lead to a breach of the ASBO, which then turns into criminal behaviour and into the process in which we criminalise children.

In the notes I had at an earlier stage, I read with interest that when this issue was being debated in the other place, Hazel Blears MP said:

“Publicity is not to punish or shame the individual”—

there was a bit of denial there already—

Official Report

I have never known such an example of self-deception in my life. I do not think that even Hazel Blears can have really believed what she was saying.

Finally, we all now recognise that, over the past four or five years, aided and abetted by the naming and shaming and the publicity process, we are now used to the sort of language that I wish had never entered our lexicon about young people. We now talk about “feral youth” and “hoodies”. We talk about troubled children and children in trouble in a most

23 Apr 2008 : Column 1609

damaging and distasteful way. All of us in this House should turn our back on such behaviour and reject it on our own part to our children. I therefore support this amendment, and I hope the rest of the House does so wholeheartedly.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I can say only that I endorse without qualification every word that the noble Baroness said so brilliantly this evening. I simply have one question for my noble friends, which I hope they will address. They have repeatedly said that the Government are committed to the rehabilitation of offenders. How are we going to tackle the rehabilitation of the young if they either acquire a badge of honour, and therefore begin to go down the road of institutionalised crime because they have won acknowledgement and standing in society as an offender, or are alienated and hurt in all kinds of deep psychological ways by the process to which they have been subjected? Of course the noble Baroness is right: a very high proportion of those children have been through hell in their own lives. We do not start putting that right by having their stories ignorantly and distortedly paraded all over the media.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, briefly, I endorse the brilliant speech of my noble friend Lady Linklater of Butterstone. Seeing the amendment on the Marshalled List reminds me of the film, “Groundhog Day”. When I hear the Minister's response, that feeling may well be intensified. He must accept that we keep coming back to this issue because we know how wrong it is.

I very much believe in doing what works. If we want to stop young children behaving in an antisocial way, we must do what works. All the evidence and all the research shows that you stop children behaving in that way not by humiliating them but by building up their self-confidence and self-worth, because it is the destruction of their self-worth by their experiences that has led to their behaviour.

Unfortunately, “shock, horror” stories about 10 year-olds behaving in an appalling way is the sort of thing that the media love. I would love to see on the front page of a newspaper one of these days a wonderful, positive story about how a young person's life has been turned around by being treated in the proper way, with proper understanding, family support, analysis of the background that led to that behaviour and the support and help that they need to help them to return to the sort of behaviour that we would like and to have a fulfilling and useful life.

I do not see that happening in the near future, but we need a lead from the Government. We have seen so many good things from the Government in helping children and supporting families, but they seem to have a blind spot about this issue. I promise the Government that those of us who have spoken, and many who are resisting speaking because of the late hour, will keep coming back to this matter until they take notice of all the powerful research that shows how very wrong and ineffective this policy is.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, I welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, after her recent medical intervention—I think that is what they are called. It is nice to see her looking so

23 Apr 2008 : Column 1610

well, busy, active and on her feet giving us a hard time, as she rightly does from time to time.

I ought also to welcome this debate again. I am not quite sure how many of these I have done so far, but this has the feel of a serial issue. I know that it is a serial issue for noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and I am sure that they believe every word they say on the subject. I am not trying to patronise the debate, because it is important—too important to make light of. As I have felt all the way through these debates—we have been having them for eight or nine years—I think that the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches are wrong on this issue. I think that they are profoundly wrong and profoundly misunderstand the intent and the objective of our policy.

It is quite clear what is intended by the amendment: it would repeal sections of the 1998 Act that remove the imposition of reporting restrictions on proceedings against juveniles for breaching their ASBOs, or which relate to the making of ASBOs against juveniles on conviction of criminal offences.

All those who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches went over the issues that we have heard before about the orders being badges of honour—a term that my noble friend Lord Judd also used. That term came into currency after a very limited piece of research done a couple of years ago. We find in the practice of the use of ASBOs that that is not the case. They are not badges of honour; people do not brandish their ASBO. Most people take these orders extremely seriously, and quite rightly so.

10.45 pm

We have heard the argument about the need for an emphasis on rehabilitation. We are putting a massive effort into rehabilitation, which has always been part of our strategy and approach. Indeed, the ASBO process itself in part encourages that very approach. I agree with the general observation that children who are often caught up in the ASBO process need help. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, would see the commission of some of these acts of anti-social behaviour as a cry or a plea for help. That may well be the case, but that does not detract from the fact that that anti-social behaviour is a nuisance and has a profound and damaging impact on the lives of those who are subjected to it and on communities and individuals in particular. We must take that issue seriously. I have heard good Liberal Democrats say that anti-social behaviour needs to be confronted and dealt with effectively in a non-criminal context. That, in essence, seems to be the Liberal Democrats’ argument.

Publicising proceedings is a very important part of the local agencies’ attempts and efforts to deal with anti-social behaviour. I cannot agree with the observations that were passed on the remarks made my right honourable friend Hazel Blears. She was absolutely right to make that point, which I am sure is based on her practical experiences in her constituency.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, did the Minister really agree with Miss Hazel Blears when she said that she wanted the community to act in some

23 Apr 2008 : Column 1611

sort of vigilante way to oversee a person who is named and shamed and shown to be subject to an ASBO? Is it also his view that the whole community should be the policeman? What does he think the effect of that is on a young person of 14, 15 or 16?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is falling into the trap into which he fell in the last debate. I will not be provoked here, but I make one important point in response to what he says. It is not about vigilantism; it is about people being aware of those who have been challenged over the effects of their behaviour through the ASBO process. That challenge is very important. I believe, and I know that my colleagues believe, that we need to demonstrate to young people what unacceptable behaviour is. We need to draw a line. People need to understand exactly when behaviour is acceptable and when it is unacceptable. It is in the absence of those clear messages—those clear dividing lines—that young people get into the habit of the abusing behaviour that can have such a profound and damaging impact in our communities. So, yes, I do agree that publicity surrounding proceedings is an important part of the process. It is not about naming and shaming. I do not accept that tag, or title, at all.

ASBOs are made in open court, and unless the court imposes restrictions, I believe, and so do the Government, that the media are quite entitled to report them, and that in doing so, they fulfil a sensible and practical purpose. Noble Lords often omit to consider simply this; it is open to the court to decide whether to impose reporting restrictions. My experience of my local newspaper suggests that local newspapers behave entirely responsibly. I certainly remember cases in our locality where it was said that those who are subject to the ASBO process had a behavioural problem such as Asperger’s or an attention deficit syndrome of one form or another. It seemed to me that the local newspaper respected that fact and understood the importance of using its power to publicise responsibly. In some ways, it challenges the newspapers to behave responsibly. Nevertheless, they do a good public service.

When we had this debate the last time around, I recall that I reminded the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for the Lewes constituency, was one of those who complained in concert with David Lepper, one of our local MPs, that the newspaper in the locality had been prevented from giving quite right publicity to the effect of an ASBO that had been passed on some young offenders in our area. He was right to do so. He made the argument that publicity was an essential part of the process. It is clear to me that not all Liberal Democrats have buried their heads in the sand on this issue; some of them recognise the importance and value that publicity can bring to these cases.

Publicity is not to punish or shame the individual. It is to ensure that people are aware of what has been undertaken in their name so that the community can be reassured that firm action is being taken to counter anti-social behaviour. I would also argue that in

23 Apr 2008 : Column 1612

certain circumstances it is in the interests of the individual that other people know that they are subject to the ASBO process because it acts as an important restraint on their behaviour.

The fact is that courts, in their wisdom, can impose restrictions on reporting if they wish. It is right that they exercise that discretion; they are closer to the details of the case. They have to take into account the welfare of the child or young person they are dealing with. I think the local courts are best placed to do that. The existing legal framework works well and we have not been regaled with abuses of the system. We think that ASBOs have a lasting and tremendous potential benefit in communities dealing with the sorts of low-level disorder and nuisance that too many of us are familiar with. We cannot accept the amendment, and I am afraid I profoundly disagree with the arguments and the approach that noble Lords on the Benches opposite have adopted on this. The system is working well and we should support it. We should make better use of ASBOs.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I have come into this debate as a new person, and the Minister’s reply to the informed comments of my noble friend Lady Linklater make my jaw drop. The Minister implied that Liberal Democrats do not recognise that anti-social behaviour is a nuisance. Of course we recognise that. The amendment is not about whether anti-social behaviour is a nuisance, but he was implying that our line was that there was no problem with it. That is absolute rubbish. We accept absolutely that anti-social behaviour has to be confronted. Our question is: what evidence does the Minister have for continuing to allow the reporting of children under the age of 18?

He keeps saying that the point is supported only on the Liberal Democrat Benches and yet it is supported on his own Back Benches in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has spoken on this issue in the past—she wished me to mention the fact that she strongly supported the amendment today, although unfortunately due to the hour she has had to leave—so it is supported on the Cross Benches. Basically, it is supported by all Members of your Lordships’ House who have a lot to do with young people, on every Bench other than the government Front Bench. It is with particular regret that I understand that the Minister has simply dug his heels in and repeated the same old argument rather than moving it on.

In discussing this amendment with various colleagues at local government level, I have found that, as the Minister will know, counsellors for children in care—many of which children end up in the anti-social behaviour order category—as corporate parents are often appalled at the fact that this can be reported on, because they can see that it simply adds to the cycle of the difficulties those children already face. After the Minister’s reply, we on these Benches shall certainly be encouraging all those corporate parents, all the counsellors with responsibility for those children in their care, to challenge the Government’s stance under those children’s rights because the Government are failing them.

23 Apr 2008 : Column 1613

The Government have heard the response from these Benches that there is no other place that we can go tonight, other than into the Lobby to express our view on this. I shall not be withdrawing this amendment.

10.55

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 114) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 55.

Division No. 7

Next Section

Back to Table of Contents

Lords Hansard Home Page