Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill part one
Peers have begun a third day of committee-stage scrutiny of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, focusing on new measures to tackle anti-social behaviour.
The bill proposes replacing Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Asbos) with an Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Disorder (Ipna), which would require a lower standard of proof than an Asbo.
Baroness Hamwee raised concerns about plans to allow people subject to an Ipna to be excluded from their home in cases of violence or risk of harm.
The Lib Dem peer said she felt it was a "very severe sanction", particularly for a young person, and tabled an amendment on 20 November 2013 to ensure it would not apply to under-18s.
Home Office minister Lord Taylor of Holbeach said he was not convinced that preventing the exclusion of all young people was "necessarily the right answer", but he pledged to give it further consideration it before report stage of the bill.
Lady Hamwee, satisfied with the minister's remarks, agreed to withdraw her amendment.
The bill would also remove the automatic restriction on reporting legal proceedings relating to under 18s, in relation to Ipnas.
The change means that a young person subject to an Ipna could be named, unless a court ruled otherwise.
However, some peers questioned whether "naming and shaming" youngsters would act as a deterrent, with Lib Dem Brian Paddick saying some young people regarded the current Asbos as "a badge of honour".
Baroness Hamwee put forward an amendment - later withdrawn - to exempt children under 16 from the new provisions.
Labour was worried about the impact such publicity could have on a child given an Ipna, with Baroness Smith of Basildon questioning whether it could put them at risk of grooming.
Defending the plans, Lord Taylor said the move would allow for effective enforcement of the injunction as communities would be able to contact police if they saw someone breaching their order.
He assured peers it would be at the discretion of the court to decide whether it was "necessary and proportionate" to allow an under-18 to be named.