---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord is falling into the trap into which he fell in the last debate. I will not be provoked here, but I make one important point in response to what he says. It is not about vigilantism; it is about people being aware of those who have been challenged over the effects of their behaviour through the ASBO process. That challenge is very important. I believe, and I know that my colleagues believe, that we need to demonstrate to young people what unacceptable behaviour is. We need to draw a line. People need to understand exactly when behaviour is acceptable and when it is unacceptable. It is in the absence of those clear messages—those clear dividing lines—that young people get into the habit of the abusing behaviour that can have such a profound and damaging impact in our communities. So, yes, I do agree that publicity surrounding proceedings is an important part of the process. It is not about naming and shaming. I do not accept that tag, or title, at all. ASBOs are made in open court, and unless the court imposes restrictions, I believe, and so do the Government, that the media are quite entitled to report them, and that in doing so, they fulfil a sensible and practical purpose. Noble Lords often omit to consider simply this; it is open to the court to decide whether to impose reporting restrictions. My experience of my local newspaper suggests that local newspapers behave entirely responsibly. I certainly remember cases in our locality where it was said that those who are subject to the ASBO process had a behavioural problem such as Asperger’s or an attention deficit syndrome of one form or another. It seemed to me that the local newspaper respected that fact and understood the importance of using its power to publicise responsibly. In some ways, it challenges the newspapers to behave responsibly. Nevertheless, they do a good public service. When we had this debate the last time around, I recall that I reminded the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for the Lewes constituency, was one of those who complained in concert with David Lepper, one of our local MPs, that the newspaper in the locality had been prevented from giving quite right publicity to the effect of an ASBO that had been passed on some young offenders in our area. He was right to do so. He made the argument that publicity was an essential part of the process. It is clear to me that not all Liberal Democrats have buried their heads in the sand on this issue; some of them recognise the importance and value that publicity can bring to these cases. Publicity is not to punish or shame the individual. It is to ensure that people are aware of what has been undertaken in their name so that the community can be reassured that firm action is being taken to counter anti-social behaviour. I would also argue that in certain circumstances it is in the interests of the individual that other people know that they are subject to the ASBO process because it acts as an important restraint on their behaviour. The fact is that courts, in their wisdom, can impose restrictions on reporting if they wish. It is right that they exercise that discretion; they are closer to the details of the case. They have to take into account the welfare of the child or young person they are dealing with. I think the local courts are best placed to do that. The existing legal framework works well and we have not been regaled with abuses of the system. We think that ASBOs have a lasting and tremendous potential benefit in communities dealing with the sorts of low-level disorder and nuisance that too many of us are familiar with. We cannot accept the amendment, and I am afraid I profoundly disagree with the arguments and the approach that noble Lords on the Benches opposite have adopted on this. The system is working well and we should support it. We should make better use of ASBOs.