Antisocial Behaviour (Stag and Hen Parties)

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

Mr Sanders, may I first apologise both to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) for being a minute or two adrift at the beginning of the debate?

It is very helpful that my hon. Friend has raised this particular matter, and I congratulate him on doing so. It is a relatively new phenomenon but it can affect people and communities in quite profound ways, as he has indicated. Consequently, as well as listening to his informed contribution today, I have seen his letter to the Home Secretary on behalf of Councillor May Haines of Poole borough council, in which he highlighted the issue of houses being rented out for hen and stag parties, and their effect on the community in the Canford Cliffs ward.

Current noise regulation is complex and can be difficult for councils to deploy, but the new powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 will help councils to prevent and stop noise nuisance quickly and simply. I will expand on that shortly.

By way of giving some background, it is worth saying that the coalition Government has, of course, overseen a fall in crime of more than 10% since 2010, according to the independent crime survey, and that fall is mirrored by and large by the fall in the police’s recorded crime figures. Alongside that reduction, there has been a significant drop in the number of antisocial behaviour incidents reported to the police, from 3.2 million in 2010-11 to 2.2 million last year. However, that figure is still far too high, and is probably only the tip of the iceberg. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to one particular manifestation in his speech.

We know that the police, councils and others are there to help, but it is also clear from the hundreds of responses to our consultation on antisocial behaviour in 2011 that those agencies can feel constrained by the tools currently available to them. Many of those tools are overly bureaucratic and costly to apply for, and others are so behaviour-specific that they are inappropriate in all but the most straightforward cases. Nowhere is that starker than in the example raised in this debate, which is one reason why we have moved away from behaviour-specific offences to more general offences that give councils, the police and others more flexibility.

Tackling noise nuisance can be challenging and time-consuming, but some powers are available to local authorities. The Noise Act 1996 gives councils powers specifically to tackle noise from houses at night. If noise exceeds a certain level between 11 pm and 7 am, an officer can serve a warning notice on the person responsible for the noise. The notice requires them to reduce the noise within a specified time. If that does not happen, the officer can issue an on-the-spot fine of up to £100, seize any equipment used to make the offending noise, such as music systems or televisions, or choose to prosecute the person. If convicted, the person can be fined up to £1,000 by a magistrate.

Local authorities also have power to tackle noise nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If the noise is emitted from premises, is unreasonably loud and substantially interferes with neighbours’ enjoyment of their property, it can be classed as a statutory nuisance and local authorities can serve an abatement notice requiring those making the noise to stop. In fact, local authorities have a duty to serve an abatement notice where they find a statutory nuisance. The abatement notice is served on the person responsible for the nuisance, but if the person responsible cannot be found—for example, because they have left the premises—it can be served on the owner of the premises. The notice relates to noise emitted from the premises. Environmental health officers have wide discretion about what they include in the notice to ensure that the noise nuisance stops and does not recur. The notice remains in place on the property until the council decides to withdraw it. Breaching an abatement notice can lead to prosecution and large fines.

Too often, though, police and councils are prevented from taking swift and effective action by the limitations of the powers. In particular, in the case of so-called party houses, it can be difficult to apply the noise nuisance legislation in every situation. For example, noise from people inside a premises might not exceed the specified level in the Noise Act 1996. Serious noise nuisance from people in the street who are causing harm to others—in other words, outside a premises—is not covered by current noise legislation. In addition, the notices can impose only requirements that are reasonable, and ultimately, breaching an abatement notice is subject to a defence of reasonable excuse, so an owner may argue successfully that it is not reasonable to expect them to control the behaviour of everyone in the property, particularly when they are staying for only one or two nights.

My hon. Friend and I had a brief conversation yesterday in which I promised to look into planning matters for him to see whether there were any planning controls. I am advised that where landlords allow such behaviour to occur, it can be difficult to hold them to account. Some areas look to planning rules to address the issue, but except in a few specific areas, planning cannot control the short-term letting of a property because that does not amount to development as defined in planning legislation. I am advised that the only trigger for planning legislation is if the use of the house falls within the “different use” class, for example if it is used as a house in multiple occupation or a bed and breakfast. However, I have asked my officials further to investigate whether, if a house is used regularly over a period of weeks so that that it becomes a standard feature for that house to be used, that might qualify for a change of use. Effectively, it is being used as a business, particularly if the person renting out the property receives a financial reward for doing so. That is a matter on which we have not yet had an answer from my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government, but I have asked officials to take it further, and I will write to my hon. Friend about it specifically.

It is clear that the current system is fragmented, complex and sometimes inadequate, and is not working for communities in Poole and many other places, not because agencies do not want to help but because it is difficult for them to find a way to do so. Obviously, we want that to change. The impact of antisocial behaviour on victims and communities must become central to their response. My hon. Friend referred to fields—although I caution him that raves in fields sometimes generate opposition—as an example that what might be considered antisocial in one situation might be perfectly acceptable in another, and that location is therefore important in such matters.

We must give professionals tools that are flexible enough to adapt to each situation where antisocial behaviour is being committed. That is what we have done in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and I hope to make some comments that are helpful to my hon. Friend in that regard. As a member of the Public Bill Committee, he will be more aware than most of the reforms introduced by the coalition Government in the Act. The specific form of antisocial behaviour that he has raised today was not discussed in Committee, but I assure him and the House that there is, in my view, sufficient flexibility in the new powers to allow the council to deal quickly with the situation he described. In fact, such is the flexibility that not just one but two powers might be used, so the council and the police would be able to design their response to any situation on reasonable grounds.

First, there is a new closure power, which is the one that is likely to bring victims swift respite and to be most effective. The current closure powers can be effective in some cases, but they have never made it possible to close non-licensed premises quickly out of court, acting preventively on the likelihood of antisocial behaviour. Police and councils have been limited in what they could do. The new closure power will deal with that loophole. If a police or council officer has reason to believe that the use of premises has resulted in nuisance to members of the public, or that that could happen if a notice is not issued—an important distinction—or that there has been disorder near the premises, or could be if a notice is not issued, the premises can be closed immediately.

Those who habitually reside in the premises cannot be excluded for the first 48 hours, but members of the stag or hen party would not fall within that definition and so could be excluded completely from the property. Because the power can be used preventively, it means that the local community need not suffer while waiting for action, so the harm caused by the party could be prevented altogether. Moreover, where the issue persists, the council or police force could apply to the local magistrates court to have the closure extended for up to a maximum of six months, ensuring that the local community would be properly protected from serious nuisance and disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour.

I mentioned another power that might be used: the community protection notice. That out-of-court notice is available to councils, the police, and in some instances social landlords to deal with persistent, unreasonable behaviour that has a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. The kind of behaviour that has been discussed today, from noise to drunkenness, could fall within the definition in the test. What is more, the definition of “persistent” is open to the interpretation of the council or police officer. For instance, if the issue is loud music accompanying a barbeque in the garden, it would be perfectly reasonable, if the officer had asked people to turn it down and they had not done so, to consider that persistent. First, a written warning has to be issued to someone who can reasonably be expected to control or affect the behaviour, explaining what the issue is. Once they have been given sufficient time to change the behaviour, which could be minutes in the case of turning down loud music, a community protection notice can be issued forcing them to comply with the request. If they do not, they commit an offence and can be arrested.

Successful prosecution involves not only a criminal record but also the potential for a £2,500 fine. Furthermore, the community protection notice could be used against the home owner who was allowing the people attending a stag or hen do to act antisocially. My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the people who facilitate the holding of such parties, as well as those who turn up for them, and I agree that that is an important distinction. The community protection notice could involve any requirements that the council or police thought appropriate to prevent the antisocial behaviour, such as passing on to local agencies the details of those attending, so that the situation could be monitored, or requiring the home owner to warn those attending the party that acting antisocially could result in the premises being closed.

Currently, councils are the lead force in dealing with such cases, even though victims regularly turn to the police. That is why the new powers will be not just for council officers, but also for the police and, in the case of the community protection notice, even police community support officers, so that the right person can act every time without needing to refer victims from one agency to the next, which is inefficient and time-consuming. Councils and police forces have the same objective—to ensure that the communities they serve are protected and safe—and by working effectively together they can achieve that. The new powers that we are introducing encourage agencies to solve problems together to ensure that victims and communities get the best results.

I believe that the new powers being introduced later this year will allow councils and the police to deal with the kinds of situations that my hon. Friend described this morning. However, I want to make it clear that the kind of short-term renting arrangements we have been considering do not always result in antisocial behaviour. The additional tourism boost to the local economy from holidaymakers looking for short-term lets can be positive for areas and communities and should be encouraged. That is why the powers are flexible and enable people to make a judgment based on what happens.

[Mr Syms]

I thank the Minister for the constructive and helpful way in which he is replying to this debate. Some of these ideas will be very well taken by my constituents, and give us something to work on.

[Norman Baker]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend; I am glad that he feels that way. I will be interested to see how the situation develops, particularly when the new powers are in force.

In conclusion, I make it clear that when people’s behaviour goes beyond what is acceptable and the result is harm, misery and discomfort to innocent parties, local agencies should be able to act and act fast. I believe that the new powers that the coalition Government will introduce later this year under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 will encourage those agencies and deliver on our promise to simplify the existing powers available to front-line professionals by putting victims at the heart of the response to antisocial behaviour.