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

I thank Members of the Committee for their kind and welcoming comments. It is a pleasure for me to speak from the Front Bench. Obviously, I have to respond to quite a few points. I am very pleased that the consultation exercise was mentioned. When considering a consultation exercise, one does not want to look only at the numbers involved; it is also important to look at who has responded. Although the relatively low number of responses might reflect the overtly technical nature of the consultation, it was important that some umbrella organisations, such as the National Federation of ALMOs and the National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations, responded. The response from the umbrella organisations is very helpful in articulating consensus about the desire for this delegation. So although the number of responses was not high, the quality of the responses was very important. We are delegating rights of audience and contracting out ASBO functions because, without the rights of representation, we would not be fully equipping housing management organisations to undertake all stages of an ASBO application, from inception through to the court hearing. At the moment, after collecting all the evidence necessary to make the ASBO application, HMOs have to revert back to their parent local authority for the case to be presented to the courts. Even where some HMO staff may have previously held the right of audience when employed by the local authority, by giving HMOs a right of audience in ASBO applications, we will further equip them to be able to deliver a more effective ASBO service. On the question of whether size is important in handling the delegation effectively, we would expect a contracting-out authority to satisfy itself that an HMO was suitably equipped to take on the responsibilities. However, giving rights of audience does not of course mean that they will always be utilised. There may be cases where it is felt appropriate to use the local authority’s legal team for the more complex cases, as the noble Baroness suggested, or even to commission support from private solicitors. It is fair to say, however, that it may not be appropriate for smaller TMOs, which in any event are unlikely to be leading on delivery, to take on the broader responsibilities for anti-social behaviour. This is definitely the responsibility of the local authority. How effective have ASBOs been, for example, with regard to registered social landlords? The recent NAO report showed that the Government’s approach to tackling anti-social behaviour is effective and that ASBOs represent part of a wider toolkit of anti-social behaviour interventions. They are a key contributory factor to deterring anti-social behaviour. In the NAO survey, the majority of people—65 per cent, I think—who received an anti-social behaviour intervention did not re-engage in anti-social behaviour, which brings vital respite to communities. It found that 65 per cent of people desisted from anti-social behaviour after the first intervention, which is obviously very important; that 85 per cent of people desisted after the second intervention; and that 93 per cent desisted after the third intervention. I am delighted to see from the NAO report that perceptions of anti-social behaviour have fallen significantly nationally and at an even greater rate in particular areas of action, such as the Trailblazer area and Action area. Monitoring local area success in tackling anti-social behaviour is improving and includes the introduction of local area agreements with a mandatory outcome to build respect and reduce anti-social behaviour. Local areas are making increasing use of the new interventions to tackle anti-social behaviour. Members of the Committee raised the important issue of surveillance. Covert surveillance evidence will not always be needed to make an anti-social behaviour order application. However, in situations in which this type of intelligence-gathering is required, there are two options available for taking this forward. Section 28 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 authorises the housing management organisation to use covert surveillance on its behalf on a case-by-case basis where it is considered to protect the community from anti-social behaviour.