Local Authorities (Contracting out of Anti-social Behaviour Order Functions) (England) Order 2007

I thank the Minister very much for her introduction of this order, and I welcome her to the Front Bench and look forward to working with her. At the outset, I want to make clear that in general we support these proposals, which seem extremely sensible, particularly because registered social landlords are already deemed appropriate bodies to have the power to seek anti-social behaviour orders to help them manage their properties. It seems therefore only right that the arm’s-length management organisations and tenant management organisations, which now control a significant proportion of local housing authority stock, should be placed in a similar position. We are absolutely at one on that. We all recognise that the problems faced by owners and tenants of these—usually—estates from a few troublemakers can be sufficient not only to make their lives absolutely miserable but also to jeopardise the good management of the property and the maintenance of public areas and common parts of their homes. They are often intimidated by gangs of young people who defile and degrade the properties, bringing fear and insecurity to tenants and owners, and make their daily lives a battle rather than a pleasure. We fully understand the rationale behind this. The Minister referred to the government consultation and the views of local authorities and tenant management organisations. However, I am bound to say that the consultation received a dismal number of replies. Is the Minister satisfied that this minimal response is adequate for her to be able to say that there is great support for this? Do she and the other Ministers feel able to conclude that the support of those who will implement the proposals is sufficiently robust? Does she believe that the poor response was due to general satisfaction with the proposals—people often do not bother to respond when they are happy—rather than inertia? Only 29 local authorities out of all the local authorities that have housing responsibilities bothered to reply. I have not checked how many ALMOs and TMOs there are in the country, but there are certainly more than 14. But only 14 ALMOs and TMOs bothered to respond. I know that consultation is not always enthusiastically taken up, but that response does not justify the glorious view that the Minister took of the proportion of those in favour of the proposals. The responses of 24 out of 29 local authorities justified an 80 per cent response rate being quoted. We need to bear that in mind. I appreciate that these regulations are permissive and that a local authority does not have to implement, delegate or contract them to its tenant management organisations, but it would be a pity if so few of them did so that the effort was meaningless. That takes me back to the response to the consultation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how effective the responsibility already borne by resident social landlords has been in terms of the number of anti-social behaviour orders they have instigated. That will give us a feel for the extent to which anti-social behaviour orders are being used by those who are already able to do so. I apologise to the Minister because I have one or two further questions. I think it is important that we get this matter clear. The Minister said that local authorities will be expected to help their tenant management organisations in pursuing ASBOs. How much does she expect them to have to do if this is a delegated responsibility? Is it correct that the legal presentation of these cases to courts will be carried out by housing managers; or is it anticipated that although they will be the prime movers, the court work will be done by legal advocates? I think that the Minister said that where cases are complicated, legal help will be brought in, but I want to be clear on whether it is the housing managers for whom a right of audience is being sought. Is it expected that managers of larger management organisations will be more comfortable in handling anti-social behaviour orders than managers in smaller organisations who are better known to those who live in the area? Where a small housing unit has a tenant management organisation, it is possible that a manager might feel intimidated by residents if he were to try to produce an ASBO. So does the Minister think that the number of properties that a tenant management organisation manages should predicate whether it has delegated authority from the local authority? I want to clarify whether it will be possible to give anti-social behaviour orders to people under 18. The Minister mentioned that ASBOs would be covered by the magistrates’ courts, and I presume that the youth court would be the responsible court for those cases. Can she confirm that, in common with other anti-social behaviour orders, they can be given to under-18s? Can the Minister also indicate whether the Government are likely to respond to the concerns of the Children’s Society, which feels that there should be a set of minimum national requirements to ensure child protection and welfare legislation is fully adhered to? Finally, a question has been raised by the Statutory Instruments Committee about whether the Government have given adequate consideration to the reservations about these proposals raised by a number of legal policy and citizens’ rights organisations. They were concerned that the danger of using anti-social behaviour orders inappropriately would be magnified if the number of those entitled to issue them was increased. Could she comment on that, and on the other issue raised by the Statutory Instruments Committee, which—the use of CCTV in investigations for anti-social behaviour orders? I do not imagine that housing managers have access to CCTV footage for evidential purposes, but would the local authority be able to pass it on to them? We have no objection to the principle of the order but it would be immensely helpful if the Minister could reply to my questions on the record.