Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 166A: 166A: After Clause 175, insert the following new Clause— ““Anti-social behaviour orders (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””. (3) In subsection (10) after ““person”” insert ““over the age of 18 years””. (4) After subsection (10)(b) insert— ““(c) in the case of a person below the age of 18 years, a reprimand, warning, youth conditional warning or any sentence of the court commensurate with the seriousness of the offence other than imprisonment.”” (5) In subsection (11) after ““person”” insert ““over the age of 18 years””.”” 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. Anti-social behaviour orders were created by Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and apply to persons aged 10 and over, making children and adults subject to the minimum period of the order—two years—and breach of the order can lead to a fine or a custodial sentence. Noble Lords have heard it said before that adolescence is a period of rapid development during which young people can demonstrate dramatic changes of behaviour and can obtain maturity within relatively short timescales. The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the minimum period for a child ASBO from two years to three months. Let me give noble Lords some figures: 40 per cent of ASBOs given to under-18s to the end of 2003 were breached; 179 custodial sentences followed, 30 of which were simply custody for the breach of the ASBO—a civil order. By the end of 2005, the rate of breach for young people had risen to 57 per cent, although I am not sure whether there are up-to-date figures for the number who have been sentenced to custody as a result of that breach. The two-year minimum period for ASBOs is simply inappropriate. Our amendment would amend the law so that, in the case of children under the age of 18, magistrates would have greater discretion to set the duration of the ASBO, so that it might start as low as three months, as opposed to the present two-year limit. The second problem that we are addressing is the use of custody on breach of the ASBO. A child may have a 24-month detention and training order as a result of the breach. We say that that is an inappropriate use of custodial disposals in response to behaviour that may have been non-criminal in nature. Those are the purposes of the amendment and I beg to move.