Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Flight. I remind the Committee that I sit as a magistrate in central London, and in my time I have certainly given many ASBOs for persistent and aggressive begging. When I sit, it is relatively commonplace to have an ASBO application from Westminster City Council, and it is something that magistrates are experienced at dealing with. As I said at Second Reading, in my experience, magistrates are more sceptical about granting ASBOs than they were when they were first introduced, and certainly not all ASBOs that are applied for are given.

The noble Lord, Lord Flight, has set out the case very well. I have been lobbied by Westminster City Council and the central point is that, if the existing mechanisms within local authorities are used to dealing with a particular administrative structure, there will inevitably be a cost if one changes that structure. Therefore, I think that it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why he thinks that the new measures he proposes to introduce will work more effectively and potentially reduce those costs. As I said, certainly from the point of view of magistrates administering this, it is a relatively well oiled machine, and we take a sceptical view when we put them in place in the first instance.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I have concerns about this amendment. I hear what he says about other cities. I have obviously not been able to undertake a scientific assessment but there seems to be quite a variation in views—in London, at any rate—about whether this is the right way to go about the matter.

The language in the amendment seems to be very general;

“intentional or deliberate anti-social behaviour”,

could mean pretty much anything, as we heard earlier. I would have thought almost all anti-social behaviour could potentially be persistent; most conduct would be potentially persistent, but that is not really my concern. The begging that we have heard about troubles me a lot for a variety of reasons; one of them is the criminal gangs behind the beggars. I am not immediately convinced that this measure, dealing with those who are forced into the activity, will actually solve the problem or deter the activity. I am also concerned—though I accept this might be the position with the current arrangements—about the revolving door of arrests. Some are in the cells overnight and then they are out again.

There is other legislation as well; I am sorry that the Minister has apparently not responded at length. I had understood that quite a long letter giving the Government’s views had gone out. That is a matter for my noble friend. I have not seen the letter; I just heard that there was one. It dealt with the other legislation, which might be quite old. That does not mean to say that it is necessarily bad.

I went to the noble Lord’s briefing with Westminster City Council. I heard Councillor Aiken’s views very powerfully expressed. I did not gain the impression that everything was okay now, so I was a bit confused as to the argument against scrapping the current system. I may have been wrong, but I picked up the feeling that there were problems now.

[Lord Flight]

I would like to respond to that. Yes, there are problems; persistent begging is a very hard thing to deal with. I think that the Westminster argument is that its present tools include a tool which has had some success; it is concerned that the new arrangements, because of the double doing, would be less useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have the chance to talk about this issue because I am concerned that Westminster City Council, a flagship council, has expressed anxieties. I reassure my noble friend Lady Hamwee that the letter has gone to Councillor Nickie Aiken from my honourable friend Norman Baker, who was the Minister responsible for crime prevention and was the lead on this Bill in the Commons. I have met with my noble friend Lord Flight. I hope that we had a very productive discussion. Much of the information that he has been able to give came out of that meeting on Friday. It is now Monday and things have moved in a rather compressed way.

I will conclude my remarks in saying what I intend to do but, first, I should express that we are aware of the problems of persistent and aggressive begging with which a number of councils are faced. I attend the meetings of the safer communities board of the LGA fairly regularly nowadays because I enjoy them and find them very useful. When I went, I think that I was able to explain to those gathered, who included the leader of Bradford City Council—a large city—that the measures provide a portfolio of remedies to deal with this sort of circumstance. The criticism from Westminster City Council came to me rather out of the blue.

However, the Government appreciate those concerns and acknowledge the impact that aggressive begging can have on individuals, businesses and communities. I am aware that Westminster is working with its partners to do what it can to tackle the problem. I think that noble Lords will realise that it is extensive. Westminster has expressed its concerns. It is important that councils, the police and others work together on all these matters, which is one of the underlying themes behind this Bill.

As I have said, last Friday I met my noble friend Lord Flight. It seems that the concerns about the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance stem from its differences from the ASBO with regard to powers of arrest. The breach of an ASBO is of course a criminal offence and, as such, someone can be arrested simply for a breach. In contrast, the new injunction is a purely civil measure with civil penalties for a breach. Consequently, we do not consider it appropriate or proportionate for it to have an automatic power of arrest. As such, we have limited the court’s ability to attach a power of arrest to the most serious cases; that is, cases where a perpetrator has been violent or has threatened violence, or if there is a significant risk of harm to another person.

I understand the intention of my noble friend’s amendment and I am sympathetic to local councils’ concerns. He has mentioned other councils and I accept that others may have notified him of their concern. However, I should like to make two points. First, the effect of the amendment may not actually achieve its aim and, secondly and more importantly—we can change the amendment but it is a question of how the Bill operates—there are more appropriate powers that could be used as provided for in this Bill.

The amendment would require a threat of,

“intentional or deliberate anti-social behaviour”.

As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, this is rather a broad brush. These words insert subjective elements that raise evidential thresholds for enforcement agencies and the courts. The courts would have to consider the state of mind of the perpetrator in ensuring that the power of arrest has been used lawfully. Before arresting an individual under the amendment, the police would need to satisfy themselves that the perpetrator had deliberately or intentionally committed anti-social behaviour. That may look easy to do on the face of it but may be different in practice. For example, it has been suggested that some of the foreign nationals who beg aggressively are coerced into these activities by organised crime gangs. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to that too. This is rather different from the current situation with the breach of an ASBO where there is no subjective element. That is why we say this amendment may not help councils in practice in the way that they hope.

However, there is a more fundamental reason why I believe the amendment is not necessary. I can understand why councils have focused on the injunction. It is, on paper at least, the direct replacement for the ASBO on application. However, it seems what the councils actually want are swift, efficient and cost-effective powers to prevent anti-social behaviour, supported by meaningful punishments. As I indicated earlier, as did my noble friend, such powers are in this Bill. The community protection notice under Part 4—which we will being coming to, I hope, soon—is intended to deal with particular ongoing problems or nuisances which negatively affect the community’s quality of life. The notice could be used to direct an individual to stop causing the problem and can, if necessary, be served on the spot. While a written warning is required, depending on the behaviour in question, it would not be necessary to wait too long before the actual notice was issued. It could almost be done immediately where appropriate and necessary.

The notice could be used to stop a specified action or wider behaviour, such as aggressive begging. It will then be available to councils as well as the police to ensure either agency was able to deal with the problem there and then. Breach of any requirement in the notice—for instance, failing to cease begging in a certain area—will be a criminal offence, subject to a fixed penalty notice or prosecution. Critically, a person may be arrested on suspicion of a breach. On conviction an individual would be liable to a fine of up to £2,500. That to my mind is a significant punishment.

Alternatively, where a persistent problem is detrimental to the local community’s quality of life, the public spaces protection order could be used by the council to impose restrictions. For instance, in areas where aggressive begging is a problem, a blanket ban could be imposed on it, ensuring that the council or police can act quickly when it occurs. In addition, the order can be used preventively, so if the council reasonably believed that the problem would simply move to another location—which is a real problem—it could use the new order there too. Local authorities would need to consult the police and other interested parties before seeking to impose an order, but the decision to use the new power would be theirs. It would be vested in local authorities. Again, breach of the order would be a criminal offence, subject to a fixed penalty notice or prosecution. Here again, a person could be arrested on suspicion of a breach. On conviction the offender could face a fine of up to £1,000.

My noble friend mentioned the dispersal power under Part 3, which may be useful to deal with individuals or groups causing problems by allowing the police to move them on immediately and away from the area where they habitually operate, for up to 48 hours. We will talk about how dispersal orders operate when we come to consider relevant amendments. Failure to comply with a direction is a criminal offence which will normally be tried in the magistrates’ court or a youth court for people under the age of 18.

There is a portfolio of measures in this Bill which can be used by local authorities, I think, effectively. The fact that begging persists here in the capital is an indictment of the fact that we still do not have effective measures to deal with it. I think that the Bill provides them.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend of my earnest desire to get this matter sorted. I am very pleased to meet with Nickie Aiken or for that matter any other councillors responsible for this area of activity in their local authorities, to try to explain to them how in practice they can use the measures provided for in the Bill to deal with what is a very serious problem.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the Minister has given a very detailed reply as to the measures available, but I am sure that he would agree that none of that reduces the need to deal with trafficking and immigration control, which I think is actually behind quite a lot of what is happening which is so offensive.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

In some circumstances there is undoubtedly some suggestion that people involved in begging have been brought here as part of criminal gang activity. But that is another crime and there are other measures to deal with it. Meanwhile, local authorities’ concern is to make sure that members of the public, tourists and businesses are not interfered with by beggars in public places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I think I can move this amendment fairly briefly. It concerns applications made for the issue of an arrest warrant for the breach of an IPNA. One of the things that strike us when we look through the clauses is that there is no timescale from the time when the application is made for an arrest warrant to when it would be issued or the application rejected—the Bill is completely silent on that issue. My attention was drawn to this by the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, when it reported on delays in county courts, saying:

“We heard that this was likely to severely slow down the process for dealing with ASB”,

and the committee said how concerned it was. Local authorities have also expressed concern about delays in the county court system. In Clause 9(2), it seems that most of the applications would be to a county court; the only time it would go to a magistrates’ court would be if it was a youth court that had granted the IPNA. In other cases it would be a county court, and in some cases the High Court. If there were delays in the county court system, that would be a serious blow to the idea of moving swiftly—one of the major reasons that the Minister has given for having IPNAs rather than anti-social behaviour orders—in the introduction of these new injunctions.

There is another point that is not covered by the amendment but is also relevant to this. All the legislation should be subject to post-legislative review after five years. That seems quite a lengthy time on an issue like this where, if there is a problem, it will have to be dealt with much more quickly than waiting five years to see if there is in fact a problem. With issues of anti-social behaviour rising so high in public concern—and indeed in the Government’s concern, given the Bill before us—it would not be reasonable if we passed legislation but were then not able to enact it because of the delays that are currently being seen in the county courts.

The proposal to the Minister is that we look at this issue first and the Government make an assessment of, and issue guidance on, how long it should take for a county court from the moment it gets an application for an arrest warrant for a breach of an IPNA to when that court has to make a decision. If the Government could issue that beforehand, that obviously would speed up justice, which I understand is the purpose of this measure. That fairly briefly sums up and describes why we are putting the amendment forward. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendment 21C in this group. It is extraordinarily inelegantly drafted, but I hope that the Minister is aware of my concerns that lie behind it. Where a respondent has certain requirements imposed on him as part of the IPNA and these have rehabilitative or therapeutic aspects—indeed, in many cases one would hope that they did—the further proceedings should not be taken in such a way as to prejudice the benefit of those requirements. My straightforward question—I was going to say “simple” question, but it might not be quite that simple—is to ask for some assurance from the Minister that will help to allay that concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I propose to speak to this; I realise that a number of people in the Chamber will be aware of that, but not the Chairman. I do not know whether the Committee would wish me to do that now or to save my fire-power. I am just aware of interest in the time, and the very creative way in which the time that I think we had agreed to finish had been reached.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I put it that Schedule 2 be the second schedule to the Bill, but I did not take the voices on that, so the noble Baroness is entitled to speak on this if she wishes.

Debate on whether Schedule 2 should be agreed.

[Baroness Hamwee]

In that case, my Lords, I apologise to the House but I do want to raise at this point whether Schedule 2 should stand part of the Bill. The Minister is aware of the particular concern that I have, which is that the schedule provides for sanctions in the event of a breach of the injunction. My concern is about the sanction applicable to children—the sanction of imprisonment. Children who breach an IPNA can be given a supervision order or, if they are over 14, up to three months’ detention. I do not think that the Minister will be surprised at concern as to whether such a sanction is proportionate, productive and compatible with children’s rights, for reasons of which the Committee will be very well aware.

Detention of any length in the case of children is something that many noble Lords are concerned about—whether it is not only not effective but also particularly harmful for children. I am not aware of evidence that imprisonment for breaching an ASBO acts as a deterrent for children committing anti-social behaviour. We are all aware of the potential harm for children’s development and the impact on their rehabilitation. We all know stories about fast-tracking children into the criminal justice system by dealing with them inappropriately at a very early stage in what may or may not—one hopes not—turn out to be a criminal career. Only the most serious crimes committed by children lead to custodial sentences. The IPNA is, of course, a civil measure, and detention is a very disproportionate sanction for a breach when the child has not actually committed a criminal offence. In brief—and I have kept it brief—I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee how detention for children can be justified in this way.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I rattle through my notes here, as I am aware of the lateness of the hour. I am grateful that my noble friend Lady Hamwee has raised this issue; it is an important point about the justification of detaining under-18 year-olds if they have breached the terms of an injunction in Part 1.

It is important to remember that, although the test for an injunction is the civil standard of proof, in the event of the breach of the test what applies will be the criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt. The court must also consider whether the young person has a reasonable excuse for breaching the injunction. Only a young person over the age of 14 can be detained and for not more than three months. Currently, under the anti-social behaviour regime, a young person can be detained for up to two years. It is also important to say that detention can be used only as a very last resort,

“where the court determines that because of the severity or extent of the breach no other power available to it is appropriate”.

Secondly, when the breach is established, it will be a civil contempt of court. This means that a young person will not be saddled with a criminal record, unlike with the breach of the anti-social behaviour order. We have also said in draft guidance that informal approaches should be used in most cases involving young people. When agencies believe that a more formal intervention is necessary, the courts must have the power to deal with young people who have not responded to the informal approaches or who wilfully ignore the terms of their injunction.

I hope that I have made it clear to my noble friend that these powers are used extremely sparingly. They are certainly not a power of first resort—they are of last resort only.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have already made clear this afternoon my concern about reliance on guidance. I wonder whether, if this sanction is so rare, a child would find himself faced with it, and there is no other basis on which to consider detention—that is, if you believe that detention, even used sparingly, is a correct approach. I expect to come back to the matter, and apologise to the Committee that, in the rush to get amendments tabled with the change of timing of this Committee stage, I missed this last week.

Schedule 2 agreed.