UK Parliament / Open data

Antisocial Behaviour

Proceeding contribution from Lord Garnier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 January 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Antisocial Behaviour.
: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I am sure that the Minister will take that example on board. We have had a number of different attempts at defining antisocial behaviour, which included references to neighbour disputes and drunkenness. We have all seen and heard examples of foul and abusive language and behaviour; we have heard interesting examples about attempted suicides and brothels; and we all know about crack houses. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) is one of my sparring partners in debates on the abuse imposed on my constituents by airlines using Nottingham East Midlands airport, which is of course owned by the Manchester Airport Group, of which he was a director. I am almost inclined to say that perhaps the aircraft that pollute and disturb my constituents at night should also be the subject of antisocial behaviour orders. The point is that it does not matter how many odd or eccentric examples we produce of what antisocial behaviour may be; we are talking about a species of public nuisance. The great joy of the English legal system is that it does not become hidebound to a specific definition. The courts, the prosecuting agencies and, I hope, Parliament are sufficiently able to cope with definitions that are variable and apt to cope with particular circumstances, so I do not complain if the local people who are concerned about a particular aspect of public nuisance include in an antisocial behaviour order conduct that may in some respects be laughable in another part of the country. That is the whole point about the local application of sensible powers. The lady who feeds pigeons in her garden is creating a public nuisance because the excrement from the pigeons interferes with the quality of life of her neighbours. I do not have a problem with that. I do, however, want there to be a commonsense approach locally, albeit with centrally provided powers to achieve that result. I shall say no more about that, because even a good point repeated does not get any better. Finally, I introduce into the debate a note of dissent about the Prime Minister's occasional off-the-cuff remarks, which no doubt he would like us to think he has thought about quite carefully, on all sorts of aspects of the respect agenda, as he so tastefully calls it. He spoils his case even before he has opened, or closed, his mouth by calling it the respect agenda, because it looks like a slogan rather than a well-thought-out policy. When one examines it, one finds that it is a slogan and not a well-thought-out policy. The latest example of that is the instant justice idea that some clever person has put into the mouth of the Prime Minister. It is absurd and it brings the Prime Minister as well as the criminal justice system into disrepute, because it plainly has not been thought through properly. It is plainly likely to break down the confidence that there needs to be between the criminal justice system, the victims and the law-abiding public, even if we ignore, for current purposes, those who perpetrate these acts of public nuisance or antisocial behaviour. I urge the Government through the Minister, and I urge the Prime Minister, to listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say. I do not know how often he has the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister, but I am sure that the Prime Minister would benefit from the Minister's advice, because this Minister has to deal day by day with the sorts of problems that the Prime Minister seems to create. I say that in a spirit of constructive friendliness, because, as each constituency MP has identified, we all have different sorts of antisocial behaviour with which we must deal, and we all want it to be dealt with. We would all be in a stronger position to deal with the problem if the Prime Minister could simply allow the thinkers to carry on thinking and could wait before he opens his mouth. I shall leave it there, because I have spoken for far too long, and I would hate to be accused, even in this local environment, of antisocial behaviour.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

441 c341-2WH 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

Westminster Hall
Back to top