Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

This has been a short but thoughtful discussion about anti-social behaviour orders. Again, I congratulate the Committee on the way in which it reflects on these issues, as it adds value to our deliberations. The amendment would reduce the minimum period of an anti-social behaviour order on a young person from two years to three months and remove custody as an option for courts in the case of a young person who breached their anti-social behaviour order. It is worth reminding the Committee that our guidance to practitioners makes it clear that anti-social behaviour orders on young people should be reviewed after one year of operation to ensure, first, that they are still being complied with and, secondly, that the young person is receiving the necessary support. On the noble Baroness’s point, it is worth pointing out that the legislation already allows for an early discharge or for variation of the order at any time within the two-year period, so there is already the scope for what she suggests. In particular, the Bill puts this requirement for annual reviews on a statutory footing, so we have listened in general to the debate about that issue. The guidance also makes it clear that orders extending beyond two years need particular attention and, although an order must last for at least two years, the prohibitions can be set to last for shorter periods. There is flexibility in the current arrangements that allows practitioners and the courts to tailor the orders to suit specific cases and circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. All our guidance, and the judgments handed down by the courts, make it clear that decisions about the content of the order turn on the circumstances of each case. Reducing the minimum period for which an ASBO can be issued to a person under 18 to three months would reduce the incentive to change behaviour in the long term and would therefore impact negatively on the respite that ASBOs provide for communities. Also—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has not appreciated this point—the introduction of a three-month minimum would be likely to increase the number of ASBOs given. I suspect that that would be a consequence of the way in which the order would work and would be structured, because an ASBO is given by the court only after a stringent two-stage test has been met. First, the behaviour complained of must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, the applicant must satisfy the necessity test; namely, that the order is necessary to prevent a recurrence of the behaviour proven in the first test. This means showing that the prohibitions are required to stop the anti-social behaviour for at least a two-year period. The necessity of a three-month ASBO would be much easier to demonstrate. I cannot believe that the noble Lord intends to lower the bar and make it considerably easier to secure an ASBO against a juvenile than against an adult. We would argue that that is not in the interests of young people or of the community, which deserves a decent period of respite—at least two years—from anti-social behaviour. ASBOs should always be seen as part of a wide range of options to bring behaviour under control. However, where the court takes a decision to issue an ASBO on a young person because he or she has failed to respond to other interventions and there is a need to protect the public, the ASBO should also be accompanied by, as we argued earlier, an individual support order to help the young person to deal with the underlying issues and causes in order to better manage his or her behaviour. ASBOs can be extremely effective in preventing further escalation into criminal behaviour. Under the ASBO, behaviour is constantly monitored, often by the public—hence the use of publicity—and if the order is breached people face consequences that can include custody. It is always made very clear that any breach of the ASBO conditions could result in a community penalty, a fine or, ultimately, a custodial sentence. For a young person, a custodial sentence should be considered only as a last resort in cases of persistent and serious breaches. That last resort of custody gives ASBOs teeth and hardness. If people do not abide by them, there are serious consequences to be faced. We well understand the concerns that have been raised by children’s organisations in the past that ASBOs criminalise young people, but we know that a study by the Youth Justice Board concluded that the use of ASBOs is not bringing a whole new group of young people into custody. In its study, 43 young people who received custody for a breach of an ASBO had a total of 1,779 offences between them. Something like 190,000 young people are dealt with by the police and courts each year, but only 4 per cent receive custodial sentences. We know that ASBOs work. The National Audit Office report published in December 2006 showed that anti-social behaviour interventions have a big impact in stopping the problem. The right package of support and enforcement helps to ensure this and we have put that in place. I make no apologies for supporting front-line practitioners by providing what we, the Government, consider to be highly effective tools and powers of intervention. The well meaning nature of the amendment could have an unintended consequence. The concerns for flexibility and the need for a review are already met. We have spelt that out in guidance and we are seeking to put it on a statutory footing. As I have explained, the legislation allows for a variation of the way in which the orders operate. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.