Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord’s eagerness to accept this, and it may have something to do with the hour, but, just occasionally, I have a few words to say on the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I must admit that when I first looked at these amendments I had a slight concern about the role of the community safety partnerships and their responsibilities. My own CSP has seen a massive cut in its budget and its capacity to deal with some of the issues before it. But when resources are short, planning is most essential. It would be extremely useful to have the kind of co-ordination function that is laid out in the amendments.
I am sorry that the Minister laughed when my noble friend said how helpful he was trying to be. He has been accused of many things during the course of proceedings on the Bill. He was accused of being mischievous when he was trying to be helpful. He put on record that he is trying to be helpful now and there was hilarity from the Benches opposite, which I genuinely think is most unfair. This is the kind of amendment that sets in place how the objectives of the Bill can be achieved by those responsible for implementing it.
There are new powers in this Bill. It is important that all the partners understand their role and the expectations. I give one example. The noble Lord will recall that I proposed amendments in Committee on dispersal orders. One of the issues is that there is no longer a responsibility on the police to consult the local authority when issuing dispersal orders. The new orders that the Government are proposing are wider and can last longer than the ones in place at the moment. There is also no obligation to consult the local authority, but the guidance says—I cannot remember the exact phraseology—that there is the opportunity to discuss or that that is expected or is likely. Before any dispersal orders were issued, would it not be helpful if discussions took place within the community safety partnership about what the expectations would be when it came to the point of issuing one? It is fitting to have that kind of co-ordination, to know what the expectations and responsibilities are, to ensure that the legislation being put forward by the Government has an impact, that it does not disappear into the ether somewhere but can be worked on. I would expect that this is the very least that the Government would expect—to have this way of taking the new legislation into the existing framework.
I certainly accept my noble friend’s comments that he is seeking to be helpful. It is a very helpful amendment. I trust that the Minister will be able to take that on board.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. Indeed, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am quite prepared to accept that he has a helpful side to his nature. I am very grateful that he has presented these amendments. I sense the spirit in which he has tabled them. My noble friend Lady Hamwee is always helpful. I am grateful for her contribution to this debate.
I will talk about the issue in general and then talk about how it happens specifically. This is about how police and local councils will use the powers running right through Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will deal with Amendment 90 first and then I will come on to Amendment 91. I have listened to the noble Lord’s comments on the amendment. Although I appreciate the helpful intent behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. As the noble Lord will be aware, Sections 5 to 7 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 already require local authorities and the police to co-operate with each other and other local agencies in formulating and implementing strategies to reduce crime and disorder. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is absolutely right. The Government expect local authorities and the police to co-operate together. The formulation and implementation of those strategies would manifestly include a consideration of anti-social behaviour. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware of the London Borough of Haringey’s current community safety strategy which identifies six outcomes, one of which is to:
“Prevent and reduce acquisitive crime and anti-social behaviour”.
It is in implementing such strategies that it goes almost without saying that the responsible authorities will take full account of the new powers in Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill, as well as existing less formal interventions, to tackle such behaviour.
As a result of our extensive consultation on the new powers with local authorities—the Bill has been drafted with local authority consultation as its backbone—as well as other agencies, I am confident that they are fully aware of the importance in ensuring that the use of the powers is underpinned by a coherent strategy and good partnership working. Indeed, local authorities have played a major role in shaping the new powers and would no doubt be keen to ensure that they work effectively in their areas. Moreover, along with their individual strategies and the Government’s statutory guidance, local authorities will issue their own guidance to front-line professionals on the use of the new powers and their approach to them. This is what they do with their existing powers and I see no reason why that practice would not continue.
I turn to Amendment 91. I will repeat the point that I made in Committee. The election of police and crime commissioners put the public back at the heart of our drive to cut crime, thereby giving them a greater say in how their local area is policed by these directly elected representatives. I admit that it will be a great day when I can get the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to admit that the policy has achieved that objective—but that task is not beyond us.
Under the provisions of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs are required to issue and publish a police and crime plan for their local area and must consult with their chief constable in drawing up the plan. Such plans must include objectives for reducing crime and disorder. As I indicated in Committee, 30 of the police and crime commissioners have put tackling, preventing and reducing anti-social behaviour as one of their key priorities in their plans. Another eight have put reducing the impact and keeping people safe from anti-social behaviour as one of their individual priorities; and the remaining three commissioners want to encourage the reporting of anti-social behaviour.
Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example. London’s Police and Crime Plan 2013-2016 states that,
“tackling anti-social behaviour … or quality of life crime, is critical to addressing perceptions of disorder in a neighbourhood, and although MOPAC”—
the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—
“is setting no explicit targets for the police in this area, ASB is one of the three priorities for the London Crime Reduction Board, chaired by the Mayor”.
It is obvious that the successful implementation of this and other police and crime plans when it comes to tackling anti-social behaviour will necessarily involve an assessment of how the new powers in the Bill can be put to best use.
This was reflected by Sir Graham Bright, the Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner, who said about the Bill in October last year:
“Police and Crime Commissioners have been closely following the progress of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We want the police to be given effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour that provide better protection for victims”.
Sir Graham went on to say:
“It is also important to have a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour as the police are only one part of the solution. By working with local authorities, housing associations and other agencies we can effectively combat anti-social behaviour and empower victims and communities”.
In short, the police, local authorities and other agencies recognise the importance of understanding how to use the new powers in the Bill effectively to protect the public from anti-social behaviour. The statutory guidance provided in the Bill will undoubtedly help them in this regard.
In practice, I believe that on this issue there is little between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We are at one in recognising the importance of partnership in working to tackle anti-social crime and anti-social behaviour, and of this being reflected in local crime and disorder strategies and police and crime plans. This is what the Government expect local authorities to do.
In implementing such plans, in so far as they relate to tackling anti-social behaviour, we would clearly expect the police, local authorities and other agencies to make effective use of the new powers in the Bill. While we seek the same outcome, I do not believe that these amendments are needed to achieve it. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this is one of those debates that are quite special to your Lordships’ House. I spent 13 years in the other place and I have been in your Lordships’ House for three and a half years. I think other noble Lords who served there would agree this is not the kind of debate that we often heard in the other place. This House is made all the more relevant and important because of that. It is also one of those debates that Ministers from any party in Government would perhaps refer to as “interesting” and “helpful”. It certainly has been a very interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Morris, have done this House a great service by bringing forward this amendment.
I want to be clear at the outset that I think everybody who has spoken wants to see effective and swift action to tackle serious anti-social behaviour and to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves. It is not overdramatic to recognise that, if left unchecked, anti-social behaviour can destroy lives. Ongoing anti-social behaviour can cause alarm and distress and, in some cases, leaves people feeling utterly devastated and unable to cope. It creates total misery.
In previous debates, I have spoken of my experience in supporting victims, both as a Member of Parliament and a county councillor. There is no doubt that when anti-social behaviour orders were brought in they created a significant change in the way such cases were dealt with. There were teething problems but experience has shown that they are an important tool in tackling such serious problems. That is why I just do not understand why the Government are embarking on such a dramatic change in this legislation. Obviously, improvements can always be made to any system and we would support improvements to anti-social behaviour orders. However, this really is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and does not improve the position for those suffering from anti-social behaviour.
I am not a lawyer—I am perhaps in a minority among those who have spoken today—but all my experience and instincts from dealing with this issue tell me that these proposals from the Government are ill thought-out and unworkable. Noble and learned Lords with far greater experience and knowledge than I who have spoken have come to the same conclusion. As we have heard, the concern is that the Government’s new proposed threshold for granting an injunction for engaging or threatening to engage in causing nuisance or annoyance to any person on the balance of probabilities if the court considers it to be just and convenient is too vague and too broad. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, described it as open-ended machinery that would catch people who should not be before the courts. The danger is that in the rush of those being brought before the courts for nuisance and annoyance we could lose focus on the serious cases of harassment, distress and alarm.
The very real concerns about how this power could be used and abused were raised at Second Reading and in Committee. In preparing for this debate, I started to draw up a list of activities that could be brought into the remit of Clause 1. I had to give up after several pages and hours. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, described it as an extraordinary power, and indeed it is. I appreciate and welcome the experienced and knowledgeable legal views but this is not just a legal issue. It is a moral issue of dealing with those people who are suffering the most. The Government are not targeting the behaviour causing the most serious problems but creating a catch-all clause that could affect almost everybody at some point. There is no doubt that some people and some activities inevitably cause some degree of nuisance and annoyance. However, is an injunction, which in most cases will be pretty weak and ineffective—although at the extreme end it could involve custody—the most appropriate way of dealing with these cases, or should we accept that in our everyday lives some level of nuisance or annoyance is a consequence of ensuring the liberty and freedom of the individual? Liberty and freedom are not open ended. There have to be constraints and the test of harassment, alarm and distress spoken about today is the appropriate point to place those constraints.
The ACPO lead for children and young people, Jacqui Cheer, emphasised this point in November when speaking to the APPG on children. She said:
“I think we are too ready as a society, as the police and particularly with some legislation coming up on the books, to label what looks like growing up to me as anti-social behaviour”.
There have also been concerns that one person’s annoyance may be another person’s boisterous behaviour. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Mackay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it need not be boisterous behaviour. Exercising fundamental democratic rights of protest or even just expressing views in a forceful manner can cause nuisance or annoyance.
The Minister’s amendment suggests that behaviour has to be reasonably expected to cause nuisance and annoyance. That is an admission that the Government now recognise the unreasonableness of the clause that they have previously defended to the hilt. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made clear, while that change on its own may be welcome, it does not address many of the points being raised here today. It still leaves the test as nuisance and annoyance to any person on the balance of probabilities. That is not good enough. I was interested in the points made by the noble and learned Lord on “just and convenient”. I accept his assessment of the value and usefulness of that. If the boisterous behaviour to which I referred is ongoing and causes harassment, alarm or distress, then action obviously has to be taken. But as it stands, even with the government amendment, a one-off event that causes nuisance or annoyance to any person on the balance of probabilities would still lead to injunction.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, relied largely on the definition in the Housing Act 1996. Noble Lords have concerns about paragraph (b) of the amendment. I do not share their concerns because it is appropriate in limited circumstances for the existing law aimed at people in social housing to remain to give housing providers the tools to deal with tenants in such circumstances. No change is being sought to that position and that is what part (b) of the amendment makes clear.
I will now address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in his defence of the Government, which I am sure we will hear in due course from the Front Bench as well. One great benefit of ASBOs is how seriously anti-social behaviour is taken. The issue of alarm, harassment and distress is crucial and there are appropriate sanctions for dealing with it. We could end up with more of these orders being imposed but in most cases they will be a weaker response to dealing with anti-social behaviour. The noble Lord referred to the guidance and he read it out very quickly. I have a copy of that guidance. It is somewhat confusing because it says, as he rightly quoted:
“It should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities”.
Where in the Bill is harm referred to? Guidance is not legislation. The legislation, as it stood, referred to alarm, distress and harassment. The Bill refers to nuisance or annoyance. Guidance suggesting there has to be harm as well does not override what is in the Bill. Noble Lords who were defending the Government’s position, when asked whether they could give examples of activities that would come under the Bill’s definition of nuisance and annoyance but not cause alarm, harassment and distress, were unable to do so. Every example they gave of where action should be taken caused harassment, alarm and distress. It is quite clear that the existing legislation is the best way to define the kind of behaviour that is disrupting lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, also raised the issue of hearsay evidence. It is currently the case with anti-social behaviour orders that professionals can give advice on behalf of those suffering so that they themselves do not have to go to court to present their case. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a very important point about the courts being clogged up and about the pressures on police officers having to respond to every case of nuisance and annoyance. Has the Minister given any consideration to how the police should respond with their increasingly limited resources to cries for help from people suffering what they consider to be nuisance and annoyance and whether they will then be able to deal with very serious cases of anti-social behaviour?
The existing test of harassment, alarm and distress recognises the seriousness of anti-social behaviour and the need to take action against those who breach an order. The definition proposed by the Government is too broad and the remedies are too weak. Setting the threshold so low undermines fundamental freedoms and tolerance. It is a great shame that, having had warning at Second Reading and in Committee of the great concern in your Lordships’ House, the Government did not come back today with something a bit better than the amendment being put forward. There are serious concerns about this, not just because it would catch too many people but because those who are really causing distress in our communities will not be the focus in tackling problems. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. The only compromise that would be acceptable today would be if the Minister were to say that he accepts that there has to be a change of definition and that he can assure us that that would be “harassment, alarm and distress” and not “nuisance and annoyance”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
Well, my Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I am not particularly thick-skinned, so I am clearly sensitive to the views that have been expressed by this House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and other noble Lords who have spoken, because they have done justice to this debate by the contributions they have made. I owe it to the House to explain the Government’s position, and perhaps I can then take this issue on.
Clause 1 is clearly an important part of the Government’s reforms, and I begin by acknowledging that there has been some common ground on the need to include it in the Bill. We have indeed reached some common ground on the elements that we need to include in Clause 1 to make it effective. First, I am glad that the civil standard of proof for the new injunction has been accepted by so many noble Lords. Secondly, I welcome the tacit acceptance of the “just and convenient” limb of the test for an injunction. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, said that this is a proper consideration for courts in any case, but it is right that we should make it explicit as one of the limbs of the test.
The terms of Amendment 1, as compared with the amendments put forward in Committee, are a welcome demonstration that this House listens carefully to the evidence put before it both by noble Lords and by front-line professionals, and that it adapts its approach accordingly. The Government have also listened to the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee and by the Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and that is why I have tabled Amendment 2, which we believe addresses the concerns about the breadth of the “nuisance or annoyance” test. Although Amendment 2 is not part of this group, it addresses exactly the same issue—the appropriate form of the test for the grant of an injunction—and, accordingly, it is important that your Lordships consider Amendments 1 and 2 together.
As I said in the debate in Committee when my noble friend Lord Faulks tabled his amendment, I believe it is inherent in the way that the court will look at any application for an injunction to consider whether it was reasonable to grant an injunction in the circumstances of the case. I am grateful for my noble friend’s contribution, and I look forward to him joining me on this Bill before we conclude our consideration of it.
I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her contribution to this debate. I also thank other noble Lords who wanted to speak but were not able to or who have forgone their right to speak in order to expedite this debate. In that I include my noble friends Lady Newlove and Lady Berridge.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I share the noble Earl’s appreciation of the late Paul Goggins, in my case from when he was a very good Prisons Minister. I am equally sad to learn of his death.
In the context of these amendments I share his concerns that we should be looking at detention for, as it were, a first offence; for something which, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, might not even be a criminal offence. If it is a criminal offence, of course, we do not need the detention powers in the first place. I look forward with interest to what my noble friend has to say. I hope that he has been allowed to be more helpful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee than he was on a previous amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his generous and kind comments, which we appreciate, for our former colleague Paul Goggins. He was an exceptional MP and, for those who knew him and were very fond him, he was an exceptional person as well. We are very sad to lose him.
On the amendments, rather along the lines of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, perhaps I may ask some questions about dispersal orders. The extension of dispersal orders that the Government are proposing seems quite strange. Previously, dispersal orders were for 24 hours, with democratic oversight in consultation with the local authority, and covered a restrained geographical area. That has changed because under the Government’s proposals they are for 48 hours with a much wider geographical area. There is no involvement of the local authority but there is the involvement of a member of the police force of the rank of inspector or above.
The Minister will recall that we discussed in Committee the lack of clarity around the operation of dispersal orders. A number of questions were put to the Minister but we did not get answers then. Given this extension and the change in how the Government want dispersal orders to operate, it is a concern that the detention, particularly for young children, would remain for a much broader and wider offence about which we have had very little information, and I read the debate again today. It raises some questions for the Minister to answer. Why does he think that these dispersal orders are appropriate? Does he think it likely that, because of the wider area, the increased length of time and the fact that there is no democratic oversight, we shall see more dispersal orders? Is it appropriate in those cases that we may see more breaches of them?
It raises a concern that something as minor as a dispersal order, which can be issued by a police offer on the spur of the moment, when there is not really a process in the way we would expect, could lead to detention. The extension of how the Government are planning to use dispersal orders in the future, retaining detention for young people if there is a breach, gives rise to concern. Will the Minister explain why he thinks it appropriate, how he thinks it will be used and on how many occasions? I am concerned that we may see an increase in dispersal orders. I am very unhappy about the Government’s proposals in any case, but if we see an increase there could be an increased number of breaches and we could then see detention of young people. Will the Minister explain how this will operate and why he thinks it is appropriate?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I start by joining in the tributes being paid to Paul Goggins. I know that my colleagues in the Home Office share this view. We were together yesterday evening when his illness was mentioned. His loss this morning is a loss to British public life and I am happy to pay tribute.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for tabling these amendments. It is right and proper that we consider these matters. His amendments raise important issues about whether detention is appropriate for someone aged under 18, and we debated this at some length in Committee. I was pleased that we had the opportunity for a productive meeting yesterday and I hope that I will be able to answer some of the points made by the noble Earl and other noble Lords.
The Government strongly support the use of informal interventions and rehabilitative approaches, particularly when dealing with young people. That is at the heart of our overall approach to anti-social behaviour. However, detention must be available to the court if the new injunction is to act as an effective deterrent and to protect victims and communities in the most serious cases. When we consulted on the new anti-social behaviour powers, 57% of those who responded were in favour of the breach sanctions for the injunction for under-18s. Only 22% disagreed, with only a further 4% against any custody for under-18s.
The injunction is a court order and must be supported by tough sanctions to ensure compliance. However, in contrast to anti-social behaviour orders, under-18s will not be unnecessarily criminalised and saddled with a criminal record for breach. However, it is only in the most serious or persistent cases of breach that a court may detain someone aged under 18. Schedule 2 to the Bill makes clear that a court may not detain a young person for breach of an IPNA,
“unless it is satisfied that, in view of the severity or extent of the breach, no other power available to the court is appropriate”.
Where this is not the case, the court may impose a supervision order on a young person and Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill sets out a number of non-custodial requirements that can be attached to such an order. The relevant requirements are a supervision requirement, an activity requirement or a curfew requirement. These are three of the requirements which may be attached to a youth rehabilitation order, the youth equivalent of a community sentence.
We would expect the youth courts to do all they can to ensure that a young person’s rehabilitation is effective. In making any decision to make a detention order, the court must consult with the youth offending team and inform any other body or individual the applicant thinks appropriate. If the court does decide to make a detention order, it must give its reasons in open court. The availability of custody as a sanction in exceptional cases reflects the current position as regards the anti-social behaviour order on application. Indeed, breach of an ASBO on application attracts a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment as well as a criminal record.
The previous Administration took the view that there needed to be effective sanctions for breach up to and including imprisonment, including in cases involving young people. While it was generous of the noble Earl to congratulate the previous Government on this aspect of their policy, we do not believe that they got the balance quite right between punishment and rehabilitation. That is why we are treating breach of the IPNA as a contempt of court rather than as a criminal offence: we believe that they were right to include the option of custody for both adults and juveniles. To remove that option for juveniles would significantly weaken the effectiveness of the injunction and thereby weaken the protection we are seeking to afford to the victims of anti-social behaviour.
I shall address some of the concerns expressed by the noble Earl and other noble Lords. Of course, a vital part of preparing for the introduction of these new powers will be appropriate training and support for the judiciary, police and other front-line professionals in how these powers are applied to young people, and the Home Office is already discussing these requirements with the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial College and the College of Policing.
I can inform the noble Earl that young offenders under 18 years of age may be placed in a young offender institution run by the National Offender Management Service, NOMS, a privately operated secure training centre or a local authority secure children’s home. Placement is made by the placements team of the youth justice board, which is notified by the court when custody is given. They will use their expertise and will be informed by the relevant youth offending team to place them in an appropriate establishment suitable for their needs. The youngest and most vulnerable young people will be placed in secure children’s homes. There are no longer any places for girls in young offender institutions, so they will be placed in a secure training centre or secure children’s home.
Under the Bill, the court must consider any representations made by the relevant youth offending team in considering whether to make a detention order against an under-18. Moreover, the applicant for a detention order or a supervision order must consult any youth offending team and inform any other body or individual the applicant thinks appropriate. I hope that helps to reassure the noble Earl.
I shall go on to the dispersal order.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord made the point about it being a contempt of court. Can he tell me in how many other cases young people can face detention for a contempt of court?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Off the top of my head, I cannot, but I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her on that. I will copy in all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and put a copy in the Library.
As for breach of a dispersal direction, I can offer the noble Earl some comfort and, in doing so, I should like to correct the impression I gave in Committee on 20 November that custody was an option for breach of a dispersal direction by a person aged under 18. I can, in fact, reassure the noble Earl, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that this is not the case. Detention and training orders—the juvenile equivalent of imprisonment —must be made for a minimum of four months. That means that where the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed is less than four months, as is the case here, a detention and training order is not an option in relation to a juvenile offender. The court will be left with the options of a youth rehabilitation order, a fine, a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge. I hope that is of some reassurance and apologise if my previous comments misled noble Lords. I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Earl as regards the dispersal powers.
In the case of the IPNA, I fear that we have to agree to differ on the appropriateness of having custody as a long-stop option for breach of an injunction by a person under 18. For the sake of victims of anti-social behaviour, we remain strongly of the view that, in exceptional cases, a detention order should be available to the courts. We should not weaken these provisions by removing that option.
Amendment 86, the final amendment in this group, seeks to place a new responsibility on local authorities to provide youth services to prevent young people becoming involved in anti-social behaviour. This obligation is already effectively provided for by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which places a responsibility on local authorities to formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder in their area, where crime and disorder includes anti-social behaviour and youth anti-social behaviour. That Act includes a responsibility for local authorities to keep the strategy under review, monitor its effectiveness and alter it accordingly. Local authorities must ensure that their strategy focuses on the types of problem in their area, based on an analysis of local levels and patterns of crime and disorder, and the misuse of drugs and alcohol. Therefore, if an area has a particular problem with youth anti-social behaviour, the local authority has a responsibility to put measures in place to reduce the problem. I would expect this to include preventive measures. In addition, the Children Act 1989 places an obligation on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need and to promote the upbringing of such children by their families by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. This includes services to prevent young people becoming involved in anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder, as well as services to support those young people and their families who become involved in anti-social behaviour or crime.
I hope I have reassured my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Earl that the duty he seeks to create through this amendment already exists and that local authorities have these crime and disorder reduction strategies in place. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the amendments that he has brought forward. He did respond to the debates in Committee by bringing them and we welcome the provisions on freedom of expression and assembly. However, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, he and I both raised more fundamental concerns about the changes being made by the Government. I do not propose to repeat the comments made by my noble friend or comments that I made previously but the fact is that we did not receive satisfactory answers in Committee, particularly on how the dispersal orders will work in practice or on the evidence base for why they are being extended and changed.
In Committee, the Minister said that he would write to me with that information. Again, I take the same view as my noble friend Lord Harris: my apologies if I have missed the Minister’s letter to me in the many letters that we have received or have been copied into. However, I do not appear to have received the letter that he promised with information on the evidence base for changing the orders. I was very interested in the comments that the Minister made this evening when he opened and I wish that I had had them in writing previously, as I thought I would. That would have given me an opportunity to consider them properly but I will read Hansard to see what he said.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, tried to extract information about how the orders would work in practice. He made a similar point tonight, but when he made it in more detail in Committee the Minister accused him of being mischievous. It is fair to say, he does have a mischievous streak. That has been evident but it was not evident on that occasion and it is not evident this evening.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that was the phrase I used—that the noble Lord had a mischievous streak to his nature.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
No, it was not. The Minister accused him of being mischievous in that regard. He cannot rewrite Hansard. My noble friend was making then, and is making now, a genuine attempt to find out how the orders will work in practice, step by step. The points made about the police officers are ones to which I should like answers.
We are not opposed to dispersal orders. I made that point before and I will make it again. We introduced them in 2004. There was some controversy at that time but we think it was the right thing to do. The issue we have is with the significance of the changes being made in the geographical area and the timescale and the lack of involvement from the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made the point that our issue is not with any demographic oversight the PCC can provide after the event. It is with ensuring that, where there is to be a dispersal order, democratically elected community representatives ensure that the power is used to the best effect and that they do not cause any further problems and misunderstandings by not using it appropriately. That consultation and involvement with local authorities is very important.
When the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny in the other place that there should be a duty to consult local authorities over dispersal orders of more than six hours, the Government agreed and said they would amend the legislation. They have not done so and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister why the Government are not now fulfilling their commitment to HASC. There must be a reason why they are no longer choosing to do that.
As far as I understand it, the Minister said that the police have now said that they find the dispersal order powers useful. At the risk of being accused of a blunderbuss approach, I have tabled the same amendment to try to get some answers. What was the evidence base for bringing such significant changes forward? Did the police come along and say to the Government, “There is a lack of flexibility in the current orders. There are delays in implementing them. We do not want to have to liaise with local authorities. We want to go it alone. We need them to be longer. We need a wider area.”? Did they raise those concerns prior to the Government bringing this forward? I am not aware that they did or that there were any such concerns raised by the existing orders, but if there were, can the Minister let us know that? In his comments in Committee regarding the involvement of local authorities he used phrases such as “it is likely” the police will work with the local authority and he referred to draft guidance, which states that the authorising officer “may wish where practical” to consult local council or community representatives. That is very vague and it is not my understanding of the commitment made to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I am just trying to understand why the changes were brought forward in the first place, who complained about local authority involvement and who thought that was hampering the process or the use of orders? If the Minister is unable to answer these questions at this stage we will have to conclude there is no evidence base but I would very much regret the Government bringing forward such significant changes without an evidence base. I reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We need some real understanding of how this will work in practice, given the very significant changes that are being made.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks (Con)
I, too, am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Discussion, as your Lordships will anticipate, ranged far and wide over this new Schedule 8 amending Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act. Giving the perfectly proper right to stop and seize and, at the same time, preventing so far as possible any abuse of that power is a difficult balance to strike. However, it is worth recording that we concluded that the Government had made out a case for a without -suspicion power to stop, question and search travellers at ports and airports, given the current nature of the threat from terrorism, the significance of international travel, the overall threat picture and the evidence seen by the independent reviewer demonstrating the utility of non-suspicion stops at ports in protecting national security. Therefore, we also concluded that the retention of this power under Schedule 7 was not inherently incompatible with Articles 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We are in the slightly unfortunate position of still awaiting the report by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation on the David Miranda case, which will perhaps shed some light on this power generally. The Government clearly pay considerable heed, quite rightly, to what the independent reviewer of terrorism recommends but, with great respect to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, simply subcontracting responsibility, as her Amendment 56YK would, from the Secretary of State to the independent reviewer would go rather too far.
This is a very difficult balance to strike. The Government have come some way towards a balance in favour of those who might become the victims of an abuse of power. The question is whether they have come far enough.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful debate. The issues that have been raised are around the difficult balance between civil liberties, national security and counterterrorism measures that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to. The points made today about those issues are extremely useful and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on them.
We are greatly assisted today by the supplementary written evidence of David Anderson QC. We are indebted to him because, when giving evidence on 12 November, he was asked to spell out what changes he would recommend to the port powers in Schedule 7 and the Minister, Damian Green, had already said in the other place that he expected recommendations. At Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, I said that I thought it was optimistic of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to hope that we would be able to see any such recommendations from David Anderson while we were still debating the Bill. I thought he was being optimistic but that optimism was well founded. We are indebted and grateful to David Anderson for the efforts that he must have gone to in order to ensure that we had his recommendations before we had completed our deliberations—indeed, as we were having our Committee debates. I hope that the Minister will endorse that. That is very helpful and greatly welcomed.
I shall not comment on each individual amendment, but a number of the amendments before us today relate to his report. As I said, I will be interested to hear the Government’s response to them as there are areas to which the Government may want to give further consideration and on which they may want to bring forward amendments before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
On Amendment 56YJ and the issue of privileged material, although David Anderson reflects that identifying the details of changes is difficult before we have the Miranda judgment, he identifies this as an area where there need to be safeguards and clarity around those safeguards. It is not an area where there should be any confusion or ambiguity. It would be helpful today if the Minister were to say on behalf of the Government whether they accept the principle of David Anderson’s recommendation in this regard. We are certainly sympathetic and would welcome the opportunity to consider further the kind of safeguards that could be introduced.
Also on Amendment 56YJ, I think it was in the Beghal v DPP decision that the court supported the introduction of a statutory bar to Schedule 7 admissions in a subsequent criminal trial, although it also recognised that this would have to be given detailed consideration. David Anderson has now added his support to that of the court and that also forms part of his recommendations. Again, we would be very sympathetic to that and would be interested to know whether the Government intend to support that recommendation, which this amendment reflects.
Amendments 56YK and 100A refer to a process by which effect could be given, almost automatically, to the recommendations of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. There is some merit in looking at how recommendations could be acted on more quickly but we would welcome the opportunity to see more detailed proposals. It would be helpful to have a mechanism to take action more quickly than always having to wait for the next legislative slot for primary legislation in the Government’s timetable. However, whether secondary legislation, even with the affirmative procedure, would give adequate opportunity for effective scrutiny by Parliament, which should be making the decisions, has to be looked at in some detail.
On Amendment 62A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Avebury, we would certainly be supportive of removing the restrictions if the interview takes place in a police station. Amendments 57A, 61A and 61B would establish limits on the duty to give information and documents that are held electronically. We have concerns about how this law is currently being applied. I note that David Anderson has also called for appropriate safeguards regarding the use and retention of such data. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether the Government consider that the problem is a lack of clarity in the existing law or whether further action needs to be taken.
We would also be sympathetic to Amendment 64ZA on the periodic review of an individual’s detention. I would welcome the Government’s comments on David Anderson’s recommendation that the intervals for review should be specified in the schedule, as outlined in the amendment, and not just in guidance. There can sometimes be a lack of clarity around the purpose of guidance. The importance of it being in the schedule and not just in guidance was also included in the JCHR report. The Government have indicated that they may support this, so I am optimistic about a positive response on that one.
This is quite a difficult area in which to find the appropriate balance. The House has heard about the attention to detail that has been given to this range of issues. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify in his response the Government’s views on these issues, particularly in the light of the amendments which reflect so much of what is in David Anderson’s recommendations.
Visas: Artists and Entertainers
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend makes a very good point. In fact, I have had some briefing on this incident and I am grateful that it has been drawn to our attention. We suspect that a deficiency in the guidance of the operation of the rules rather than the rules themselves led to this incident. I do not want to go into a lot of detail about a particular circumstance but my noble friend’s comments have not gone unnoticed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this is a bit of a shambles and it is also becoming highly embarrassing for the UK. Towards the end of last week a London concert by the Pakistani Sachal Jazz Ensemble was cancelled because of visa problems. The residents of New York had enjoyed packed performances at the Lincoln Center just the week before but the musicians had problems getting visas to come to the UK. A Home Office statement today says:
“Britain is open for business and genuine visitors and tourists coming here to enjoy our world class attractions, study or do business are always welcome”.
It does not appear like that to those artists and performers who are having great problems getting to this country to perform, so our citizens are denied the opportunity to see them whereas American citizens have not been. Can the noble Lord give this urgent attention? I am sorry to say that his answers so far sound slightly complacent.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope the noble Baroness will never assume that I am complacent about anything. I am well briefed on this subject too and this incident. It is part of our commitment to work with those putting on concerts and international events to ensure that they are aware of the visa application process. However, the responsibility to have the correct visas rests with people coming here and guidance is available on the website to help them before they travel. As with any other visitors to the UK, we expect individuals to meet our entry requirements. I can say no more than that.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Firearms licences: assessing public safety
(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28A (certificates: supplementary) insert—
“28B Assessing public safety
(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under section 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C, the chief police officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.
(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the chief police officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.
(3) When assessing public safety within this section, the chief police officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(3) After section 113(1) (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) there is inserted—
“(1A) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are appropriate after considering the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms’ licences made under this Act.””
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we support the Government’s clauses on firearms but feel that more needs to be done, which is why we have tabled Amendment 56MD. Our proposed new clause calls for a broader range of better background checks to be included as part of the licensing process. It amends the Firearms Act 1968 so that a history of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness provides a presumption against the acquisition of a firearms licence, unless exceptional evidence can be provided to the contrary. It also introduces full cost recovery, to ensure that the cost of a licence reflects the cost to the police of processing it. In this amendment, firearms and shotgun applications are treated the same and the range of background checks is improved. Both the IPCC and the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place called for this.
The Minister will recall that I raised this issue at Second Reading and gave a specific example, about which I know he will share my concerns. Susan McGoldrick was murdered, along with her niece and her sister, by her partner, who legally held a firearm. As many as one in three women killed by their partner in England and Wales is shot with a legally owned weapon; 64% of these murders involve shotguns. The Government have introduced new guidance, which is welcome, and I know that we cannot stop every crime by legislation alone, but we can do better.
In the past 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents; in 2009 the figure was 100%. The IPCC and the Home Affairs Select Committee have both proposed tougher rules to prevent people with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness or violence—particularly domestic violence—from acquiring firearms licences. The IPCC called for:
“Explicit guidance around domestic violence and seeking the views of partners/family members where domestic violence is a previous factor”.
We agree with the need for explicit and clear guidance on legislation but the issue of seeking the views of partners or ex-partners is somewhat difficult, and we would not support seeking the consent of a partner or former partner because that could lead to intimidation and place people at even greater risk. Perhaps there should be wider consultation on this with a range of people.
The present position is that just one home visit is required by law for an initial application. Good practice means that there can be additional visits or checks, but that is not in the legislation. I understand why there are concerns about the impact of part of this amendment on those who have a history of mental illness. I stress that mental illness at some point in a person’s life does not disqualify them for ever but they would have to provide evidence that would allow an exceptional case to be made for their suitability to possess a weapon. Of course, we are not saying that they cannot take part in shooting—there are registered clubs—they just cannot have weapons at home.
The Government have stated that the Home Office will issue guidance and that should alleviate the issue. But we are pretty sure that guidance alone is not enough to tackle tragic domestic violence-related deaths, which have been on the rise. It is not good enough, and that is why we have tabled Amendment 56MD.
The other part of the amendment concerns full cost recovery. In so many areas, the Government are seeking full cost recovery, but not in firearms. I am curious about the reasons for this anomaly. Our amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult with police officers before setting a fee level that would enable police forces to recoup all the costs they incur when conducting proper background checks.
Currently a firearms licence costs just £50 for five years and only £40 for renewal, but if an application is processed properly it takes up a considerable amount of time, including home checks and background checks, which is not reflected in the cost of the licence. The cost of administering a firearms licence is much higher. Therefore, at present the taxpayer is subsidising the firearms licensing system by an estimated £18 million a year. Given the level of police cuts across the country, that level of subsidy seems unfair. It is difficult to understand why, at £50 for five years, the annual cost of a firearms licence is barely a third of the cost of a fishing licence, which costs £27.50 a year, and roughly equivalent to the cost of a CRB check, which costs £44 and only requires a name to be checked against a database, which is much less onerous.
The Government’s current position is that they will aim to introduce a fee regime in 2015 under which just 50% of the cost—not the full cost—is recovered by the police. I ask the Minister: why only 50% and why not until 2015? Why are fishing licences so much more expensive? Why are the Government not going for full cost recovery when they are committed to that general principle across the public sector, for example, with passports and driving licences? Why is that not extended to gun licences? At Second Reading we discussed full cost recovery on tribunal fees; that will come up again. The Government claim that they want to improve the system of background checks associated with firearms licences but will not commit to putting that in legislation. On full cost recovery, they say that they will introduce a fee regime in 2015.That is too late; it can be done sooner than that.
These issues need to be addressed now. We want to save lives and reduce the number of gun-related domestic violence deaths as soon as possible. Amendment 56MD seeks to do this and is a much more direct and effective solution than the Government’s alternative of vague guidance and promises for 2015. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I have interests in shooting and I am a firearms and shotgun licence holder. I have also been a referee for others who are such licence holders.
After the tragedy of Dunblane, it was one of my party tricks to ask chief officers of police whom I ran into how we were getting on with the police national firearms computer, which was promised in the wake of that tragedy. It took a very long time for anything that even approached that to become a reality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that we have had this short debate on what is a very important issue. The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, relates to two firearms licensing issues which were discussed extensively during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons. As the noble Baroness has explained, the first part of the proposed new clause seeks to create a presumption that if an applicant for a firearm meets one of the stated criteria, the police should not grant a licence. The stated criteria include evidence of domestic violence, mental illness and drug or alcohol abuse. While I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness about firearms being possessed or accessed by unsuitable persons, the police already have the ability to take these factors into account when assessing the risk to public safety. I would also be concerned about including mental illness as a presumption for a refusal. It would be wrong for us to suggest that all forms of mental illness, even a past episode, should prima facie disqualify a person from possessing a firearm.
I understand that there are particular concerns about domestic violence and abuse. In response to these, on 31 July, we published specific guidance on this issue which provided greater detail on how the police should handle such cases. In addition to that the revised full guidance, published as recently as October—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, may not have seen that but it is available—specifies that the police must take seriously non-convictions intelligence and information when assessing a person’s suitability to possess firearms. It also states that any incident of domestic violence or abuse which comes to the attention of the police should result in a review of the current suitability of the certificate holder. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, but the guidance is clear that evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that an application should be refused or, if a certificate has already been issued, that the certificate should be withdrawn. This new guidance is now being applied by police forces.
The proposed new clause also seeks to introduce a requirement that the police must follow any guidance issued by the Home Secretary when assessing public safety. I understand that argument, but I consider that guidance needs to remain just that. It is right that chief officers have the discretion to assess applications for firearms in their local areas, taking into account the merits of each case and the published guide. Chief officers are ultimately responsible for public safety at a local level. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on this. The Government have sought to make decision-making a local responsibility wherever possible. I would not want to undermine this.
However, we are ensuring that, where national action can support local decision- making, it does. We are working with the national policing lead for firearms licensing to ensure that police have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide. The College of Policing will also be publishing authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-refer to our guidance. I believe that this is the way forward. In order to assess standards, HMIC has carried out a scoping exercise on how firearms licensing is conducted in practice, and we will use the findings from the exercise to drive up consistency of decision-making across the country.
I turn to the second part of the proposed new clause, which seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult all chief police officers before revising the licence fees so that they achieve full cost recovery. Noble Lords should be reassured that consultation with the police is integral to the fee-setting process and we fully accept the need to consider the impact of licensing on police resources. That is why a new online licensing system is being introduced, cutting the administrative burden of a paper-based system. Primary legislation is not required to make this happen. Until we have driven out the inefficiencies in the current paper-based approach to the licensing function, it would not be appropriate to raise the fees fourfold in order to achieve a “one giant step” full cost recovery. The current fees and licensing structure has remained the same for a long time and—we all accept—needs to be reviewed. It is extremely important that we achieve a balance between an efficient system and a proper fee level. For this reason, we are considering what level firearms licensing fees should be over the long term, once these efficiencies have been made. I hope that, having demonstrated to the noble Baroness that we have made considerable progress on these issues, she will be persuaded that further legislation is unnecessary and in a position to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I would love to have been persuaded by the Minister, because the only reason we brought this amendment forward is that the current system is not working. If it were, there would be no need for such an amendment, so it is clear that we are extremely concerned. I was interested in the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the case of Michael Atherton; he said that existing legislation was adequate. I tell him that there are a number of reasons why Mr Atherton should not have had a firearms licence, perhaps most crucially his history of domestic violence. The police wanted to refuse his application, but they were given legal advice that they did not have the grounds to refuse. That is part of the problem: it indicates the change in the law that is needed. Discretion can be very difficult for police officers when they are getting legal advice that, if they use that discretion, they will be challenged in courts. That is one of the reasons we have brought this forward. I understand the concerns on mental illness, and I would never suggest for a moment that anybody who has had a mental illness should not be able to hold a licence. I think, however, that there should be a check on people who have had a mental illness who could be a danger to themselves or others; where it is coupled with domestic violence, for example, then there is a case.
I am also rather surprised by the Minister’s issue on full cost recovery, because I do not think that that principle is applied to other areas of full cost recovery. It does not really explain to me why a fisherman pays so much more to have a licence or why that licence is so much more expensive than a firearms licence.
In the light of the debate today I will take away the Minister’s comments and look at them in Hansard, and for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I feel slightly like the meat in the middle of a robust sandwich, because I am afraid that I shall voice a slightly different view. In addition to my declared interests in connection with the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, I am also a chartered surveyor in private practice. To some extent I become involved with issues of design, and although I am not any sort of specialist security consultant, security becomes a necessary part of that.
I re-read with some interest what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said on Second Reading. I hope that I listened with sufficient care to what he has just said, but while not actually disagreeing with any of the ingredients that he set out, I would voice a word of caution about his conclusions. First, it must be said that this is about a commercial initiative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, or rather a subsidiary company of ACPO. It is an accreditation-based approach in which, as I understand it, Secured by Design would become the accreditation body and would set the standards. As I see it, this amendment paves the way to giving this statutory backing. The question is: do the Committee think that that is appropriate or that it is proof against later mission creep?
Secondly, I asked a building control officer of my acquaintance, quite a senior man who goes around lecturing on these matters, what he thought about Secured by Design as a necessary ingredient in building control and planning matters. He did not think that security should be singled out as a category for statutory treatment, or that the regulatory burdens should in some way be increased thereby. That said, I feel sure that, where it is necessary and desirable to do so, developers and others will be pleased to adopt Secured by Design standards on a voluntary basis and as a marketing tool. That is entirely fair.
Residents also need in the context of their built environment, whether it is Secured by Design or not, themselves to be vigilant and to take reasonable steps to ensure that the opportunities for criminal activity against their homes and belongings in a residential setting are minimised. That is inevitably a movable feast. There might be a perverse incentive here. If people feel that Secured by Design somehow gives a warranty or guarantee or underpins a relatively crime-free environment, they may tend to forget those things. I think that getting people better in tune with the real risks, bearing in mind that this is a movable feast and that criminal activity is always changing and evolving, might be a better incentive. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who first raised this issue at Second Reading. It can sometimes be difficult across government to see how the actions of one department impact on another. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the reason that the amendment is before us today is that Secured by Design is in great danger of being totally undermined by the action of the Department for Communities and Local Government. There seems to be a holy grail of deregulation, to see what we can pull out of regulation, without making a proper assessment of where regulation is good or bad, of what is its impact.
Secured by Design is there to protect people in their homes. One of the non-violent crimes that causes the most distress to anybody is the intrusion into and burglary of one's home. It is not necessarily about theft of items, although they may be things of great personal, sentimental or monetary value; it is the intrusion into one’s home, the place where we expect to be the most safe, but where we suddenly feel the least safe and the most insecure. That is what Secured by Design sought to address.
I have to say: it works. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned his experience of it. I was looking at some of the case studies of what was done and how much difference it made. Secured by Design case studies are interesting because they show the situation before and after. Prior to the work being undertaken in Nottingham City Council area, a particular estate, Bells Lane and Broxtowe, suffered 227 burglaries. Following the work undertaken by Secured by Design, there was a 42% reduction in the number of burglaries, yet in the city as a whole there was a reduction of just 21%, so it was inevitable that Secured by Design had an impact there.
The Secured by Design estates in West Yorkshire outperformed the region as a whole on burglary of dwellings offences. Between August 2007 and 2008, there were 19,701 burglaries, but only two of those were in Secured by Design properties. Similar research in Glasgow demonstrated that total housebreaking crime fell by 26%, while attempted housebreaking decreased by 59% at properties with new Secured by Design doors and windows. So there is clearly a case that that is extremely effective.
That is what surprised me about the consultation by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which was introduced under housing standards, building regulations, and so on.
The noble Lord is chuntering away to me, but I cannot hear a word he is saying, so he should know that I cannot respond.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
It is a consultation but it was in August, and I recall that when we discussed it at Second Reading the Minister seemed to be unaware of the consultation and could not tell us then if the Home Office had responded to the DCLG. It would be helpful if he could say what response the DCLG has had now from the Home Office. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is overstating the issue when he says that the proposals being consulted on—some of us are a bit more sceptical about government consultations perhaps than others these days—undermine the standards currently being met by Secured by Design properties.
It was interesting to see the response from neighbourhood watch, in which the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said he was involved. Since neighbourhood watch arrived 30 years ago, the number of domestic burglaries has fallen sharply, due in no small part to the development of high security standards for locks, doors and windows and the design of open spaces. These kinds of issues have really made a difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked who asked for these changes. The noble Lord even mentioned developers. My experience of dealing with developers when I was building regulations Minister was that many of them wanted to see the higher standards. Good developers feel that they will be undercut by bad developers if they want to meet the high standards, whether in security, building regs, the kind of materials they use or environmental works in the home. They find it very difficult to compete with what they would call the cowboys, who do not meet the same high standards. I would find it difficult if developers were asking for this change. I do not think there is a national union of housebreakers in existence yet, so I doubt if it was that. It would be great if the Minister was able to say to us again, “This has been taken off the table. We wish to continue with Secured by Design. We have spoken to the DCLG. It understands our concerns and the necessity for this”. Will he answer the questions raised at Second Reading and today about why this was ever considered, because it is clearly such a ridiculous move?
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, perhaps I could seek some clarification from the noble Baroness. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, moved this amendment in the context of new-build—that was certainly the sense I got. A number of the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has outlined appear to relate to the retrofit of existing buildings. The two are not the same. We have 23 million to 24 million houses in the country, of which new-build is a tiny proportion at any given moment. If we are talking about the application of Secured by Design to existing buildings—in other words, retrofit—how is that going to be affected by this amendment?
Lord Harris of Haringey
Perhaps for the convenience of the Committee, I could respond very quickly. My amendment is couched in respect of planning permissions. If it is simply an alteration to an existing building that does not have a planning impact, obviously it does not apply. The purpose of this amendment—if I get really irritated by the Minister of course I will put it to a vote—is to try to get clarity as to why the Government are making this change and why they are doing something that is so potentially retrograde.
The point that the noble Earl has just made highlights why this is so dangerous. Most of the changes have happened in new buildings or major refurbishments. It is a slow burn. It has taken 20 years for the impact of these changes to be seen and felt. If you stop the higher standards, it will take another five, 10, 15 or 20 years before we see the consequences and the sorts of problems that used to exist in many estates and developments 20 or 30 years ago, which I am sure many of your Lordships will remember. That is why it is so important. Making the change now will not have an immediate effect in three months’, six months’ or 12 months’ time but it will have an effect over the next five, 10 or 20 years. That is why this change is so short-sighted.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, to answer the point that the noble Earl made, I gave examples of both retrofit and new-build because it is only through retrofit that we can look at the before and after figures.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) The relevant bodies must decide under subsection (1)(b) that the threshold for a review is met where the person making the complaint has notified any of the relevant bodies that he or she has been a victim of anti-social behaviour or is vulnerable due to ill health, mental capacity, race, sexuality or religion.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
This amendment is regarding the threshold for review for the community trigger. We are concerned that the community trigger will not be effective unless it takes into account the vulnerability of the victim. We all accept that vulnerability is important and how somebody responds to anti-social behaviour has a huge effect on the impact it has on them and on the community. Our worry is that the proposed trigger is too weak and will therefore be ineffective.
We put in some freedom of information requests about the number of times the triggers had been successfully activated in the pilot areas. The figure was just 13 times out of a reported 44,011 incidents of anti-social behaviour. The worry is that somebody who is vulnerable is not treated any differently to someone who is perhaps more robust and able to deal with the problem.
I feel so strongly about this because I am reminded of one of the first cases I dealt with when I was a reasonably young county councillor in the early 1990s. A lady who came to see me and with whom I was in regular contact for some time was vulnerable. She was easily bullied. Most of us would have thought that the behaviour of some kids in her street was insignificant—eggs thrown at her windows, for example. It was annoying and irritating, and it went on for some time, but her reaction made her more vulnerable. Trying to get the authorities to act in the days before we had anti-social behaviour orders was extremely difficult. It went on for some considerable time.
That situation has not stopped. The Minister will be aware of recent cases and the case of Fiona Pilkington and 18 year-old Francecca Hardwick which goes back to 2009. They complained 33 times about harassment and anti-social behaviour. In the end, Miss Pilkington set fire to their car and they were both killed. Anti-social behaviour can have some tragic and harmful consequences, particularly where the victims are vulnerable. The amendment would ensure that the community trigger takes into account that vulnerability and the need for a 24-hour response if someone says that they are vulnerable. That should be enough to speed up the process. We do not want to see other incidents with such a tragic consequence.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I apologise if I misdirected the Committee. There is direct reference to the subjective nature of anti-social behaviour. That was on the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It also appears in the guidance, under the heading “Putting victims first”, which states on page 10:
“The Community Trigger can be used by any person and agencies should consider how to make it as accessible as possible to young people, those who are vulnerable, have learning difficulties or do not speak English”.
On the following page, under “Responding to the victim”, it repeats that the potential harm to a particular victim is one of the key matters that has to be taken into account. We have already built in the very issues that the noble Baroness has said she would like in the Bill.
I turn to Amendment 56L, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It probes the finer detail of how the community trigger threshold will work in practice. My noble friend seeks reassurance that, for instance, three members of a household cannot report the same problem and have that count as three separate incidents for the purpose of meeting the threshold. This would of course mean that they would essentially jump the queue to get their problem dealt with as a community trigger. The Bill already accounts for this, and I will happily explain how.
Clause 96(11) defines a “qualifying complaint” for the purpose of the community trigger. The complaint needs to be made within one month of the incident occurring, or a different period if specified within the review procedures. This is to prevent someone making complaints about historical incidents in order to use the community trigger. Subsection (12) allows the local agencies to set out what will be considered a “qualifying complaint” where someone makes two or more complaints about the same behaviour or incident, in particular when separate complaints relate to different aspects of one incident. That achieves the safeguard that Amendment 56L is designed to achieve.
We want to ensure that the legislation is robust enough that only genuine requests to use the community trigger meet the threshold, while allowing the procedures to be flexible enough to ensure that the trigger can help those victims who need it most. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that the procedures are set out in a way that will ensure they will not be manipulated in the manner that she fears.
As I said, we have trialled the community trigger in four parts of the country since June 2012, and the majority of requests to use the trigger were genuine. We have tested the legislation through trials and I am content that we have achieved a good balance between addressing the needs of the most vulnerable victims, which my noble friend Lady Newlove emphasised, and allowing agencies the flexibility to operate the community trigger to suit local circumstances.
Some amendments have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, to which my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred. I know that my noble friend is anxious to ensure that we standardise the definition of a local authority in the Bill. In this case, however, the wording used in Clause 97 and Schedule 4 is technically correct. His amendment 56LD inadvertently omits line 19 on page 69, which is still required. Given that our provisions are technically correct, I am not persuaded that there are sufficient grounds to make the amendments.
I hope that, having listened to what I have said, the noble Baroness is content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the Minister; I think he has heard what I said. I should like to read the details of what he said in Hansard with reference to the guidelines and the Bill, because I am not 100% sure that the points he makes fully address the issues that I brought forward today. First, he said that there is a right to demand that the authorities take action. My understanding is that it is not a right to take action, it is a right to have a review of the case. He is right to say that, sometimes, cases of anti-social behaviour are motivated by someone’s vulnerability, but sometimes it is the vulnerability of the individual that makes the anti-social behaviour more severe, because they are less able to cope with the pressures they face.
I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. She fully understands the point I am trying to make about how people react to anti-social behaviour. For the trigger to be used 13 times in more than 14,000 incidents gives me cause for concern. If I can go back to read what the Minister said and read the guidance, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Risk assessment of seized dogs
(1) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5 (seizure, entry of premises and evidence) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
“(3A) Following seizure of a dog for an offence under section 1, 2 or 3 of this Act, within 48 hours of seizure the animal must be assessed to determine whether—
(a) it is a prohibited type of dog, and/or(b) behaviourally risk assessed by a suitably qualified behaviourist to determine whether it can be released with or without conditions placed on its management by its owner or keeper, such conditions can include but are not limited to—(i) keeping the dog on a lead when in public;(ii) keeping the dog muzzled when in public.(3B) Reasons must be given for a decision not to release the dog.””
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we have grouped these amendments together for ease of debate. I thought that it would be helpful to have one debate rather than several on a similar issue. So I am speaking to the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Gale. My noble friend’s amendment on dog control notices also has our full support. In moving my amendment, I will speak also to Amendments 56MA to 56MC.
The first step is to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem. Since 2009, nine children and seven adults have died as a result of attacks by dogs. In the three years to February 2013, 18,000 people were admitted to hospitals in England and Wales after dog attacks, and 23,000 postal workers have been attacked by dogs in the past six years. As Christmas approaches and we post our letters, we ought to think of the poor postal deliverers. Since April 2011, there have been 6,000 dog attacks on those who deliver our post. So it is a serious problem and horrendous for those who have been involved, have been attacked or have witnessed attacks.
I appreciate that the Government are bringing legislation forward but I really think that there is a missed opportunity here. I referred to this last week when we discussed community protection orders. I am worried about the Government’s one-size-fits-all approach. Dog control notices were introduced to deal with a specific problem. I am not saying they are perfect. They needed updating and amending, but to replace gating orders, dog control orders and other forms of order with one community protection order does not give us confidence that the issue of dangerous dogs will be properly and effectively tackled.
Community protection notices are a reactive measure to deal with dog attacks. They can be slow to serve and they can be challenged in the courts, causing further delay. I support and welcome the Government’s proposals for increasing penalties, but prevention is better than penalty, and that is why our proposals include the dog control notice.
I read carefully what Ministers said in the other place. They seem wedded to their measures and confident that they will deal with the problem. I do not share that confidence. That brings me to Amendment 56MB, which requires the Secretary of State to review the,
“use of community protection notices in addressing dangerous dogs”.
The amendment specifies a review of the effectiveness of Government’s measures three years after they come into force and every three years after that. If the Government are confident that they will be successful—and I am sorry that I do not share the noble Lord’s confidence, although I wish I did—that review will be a way to assess their effectiveness or otherwise, whether action taken is adequate and whether further measures are needed.
This is a missed opportunity. As a first option, we support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Gale introducing dog control notices. A dog control notice is specific to the problem. It is proportionate and targeted. It seeks to prevent attacks by dogs. “Prevent” is the key word. The dog control notice is a preventive measure to stop tragedies occurring, while the community protection notice reacts to a situation that has already occurred.
The measure enjoys widespread support. My noble friend Lady Gale will say more about this. In the Commons it received support from a number of government Back-Benchers, as well as a range of individuals and organisations, including those that deal with the welfare of dogs and those whose members are at risk from attack, as well as those that deal with the aftermath of attacks or try to prevent attacks. They include: the RSPCA; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the British Veterinary Association; Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; CWU, the postal workers’ union; Unison; the Kennel Club; the Police Federation; the National Dog Warden Association; and even the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place. They all state that legislation should cover dog control notices, which would give power to the police and local councils to ensure that owners are responsible and do what can be done to stop dogs attacking people and other animals.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, were music to my ears because I have introduced two Private Members’ Bills about dog control notices—one under the Government of the party opposite and one under the coalition. Funnily enough, I got a completely different response from the party opposite on both occasions.
Lord Redesdale
Of course. It is interesting how things develop. That is probably the purpose of this House. Private Member’s Bills do get the ball rolling. When I started on my first Bill, it was written with all the dog organisations and the RSPCA. It had a great deal of support, but not from the Government. The second time I raised it, after all the publicity, a great deal more work had been undertaken by Defra, and I think that has led to the present situation.
I would have liked a separate piece of legislation which would have been clear and concise. I understand the Minister’s position—that this has gone through the Home Office. The problem is that most Governments would have taken the route that has been followed, because we are dealing with 11 pieces of legislation that would have to be amended. For ease of access, it would have been extremely useful if there had been one dog control notice, but those of us who have been fighting this fight for some years now realised that that probably was not going to be the case.
I support the background to these amendments. However, there are a couple of issues that I wish to raise. I do not believe that these amendments are going to be carried but they show some of the fundamental problems that we are facing. One of the major problems is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. That was a knee-jerk reaction which led to types of dogs being named. Amendment 56LF talks about trying to work out what prohibited dogs are; for instance, a pit bull is actually a mongrel, so is very difficult to define as a particular type of dog. Breeders of pit bulls call them long-legged Staffies; they attempt to get round it that way. An expert trying to look at this has had difficulty, and it has cost the Metropolitan Police and the police in Liverpool and in other places millions of pounds kennelling those animals. I know that this is a specific point but there are cost implications of trying to work out within 48 hours whether the dog is a prohibited animal. Behavioural assessment will also cause difficulties because a lot of this work will fall to the dog charities. At the moment they are facing a massive problem with bull breeds being abandoned.
The issue of protected animals is raised in these amendments and we might well come back to it in further pieces of legislation. It is a particularly difficult issue to deal with. I have a rather useless and cowardly dog, but next door’s cat is particularly on his wish list. I do everything I can to try to stop him chasing this cat, but if a cat were seen as a protected animal—which it is not at the moment, though I know some people are calling for it—that would be a problem we would have to look at.
I understand the tenor of these amendments, and that this is an issue that we may return to further down the line if the Bill does not achieve its objectives. The Government deserve commendation for the attitude taken by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who met and worked closely with us. That the guidance runs to more than 100 pages is a problem, because who is going to read it? If people do not read and understand the guidance and realise where it fits with other pieces of legislation, there is going to be a problem of enforcement. I have to admit that I found it difficult just reading the Bill and cross-referencing it. I hope that the Minister will consider attaching a very short précis to the start of the guidance to make the issue simpler.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right: it has been an interesting debate. I have learnt things I could never have imagined, such as where the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, keeps his Rolos. On a serious note, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions and their support for dog control notices. I think the Minister understands why this has been brought forward. I wish I could share his confidence. I will read his comments again and look at some of the points he made in more detail. He has not addressed the point of dog attacks on dogs or other pets. I am disappointed not to have his support for the 48 hours review. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the assessment could be started within 48 hours. The reason to do that was to reduce costs and bureaucracy and for the welfare of the dogs. I am most surprised not to have the Minister’s support for a review. Given that he is so wedded to the provisions in this Bill and not notices, I thought he would have welcomed a review. I think that we are headed in the same direction and I wish that I had his confidence about the measures in the Bill. I will look carefully at what he had to say and look at the issues again. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Redesdale
My Lords, I support and thank my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who has been a stalwart in the campaign on this over many years. There are problems with the amendment but it raises an important issue that we will come back to. After many years of discussion, the issue remains that some people use dogs as a way of intimidating others. This can take place even if the dog is on the lead and in a muzzle, because the person is using the dog for effect, so the muzzle is not a barrier to intimidation. I understand that this is a very difficult area to legislate in, but I hope the Minister will take into account that intimidation can be caused even if the dog is on a lead and muzzled.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, is making a serious point about how the victim, or potential victim, feels when an owner is not in control of a dog. I am grateful for her comments and although she said something about the wording here, I was grateful for her support for dog control notices. None of us guarantees that we have absolutely the right wording. We may be able to have discussions, outside the Chamber, on wording that is accurate and would suit the Government well. The noble Lord does not want to see dog control notices but we may be able to make some improvements by discussing the matter further. I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments and support.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, government Amendment 56M relates to the maximum penalty for dog attacks. Following an amendment tabled in Committee in the House of Commons by Richard Fuller, Defra consulted over the summer on possible increases to the maximum sentences for offences under Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control—the very measure that we have been discussing in the previous amendment. Specifically, that is the aggravated offence where an out-of-control dog kills or injures a person or an assistance dog.
Some 3,180 people and organisations completed the online survey and a number of organisations sent written representations. In summary, some 91% of respondents considered that the maximum penalty should be increased. We have taken into account the results from the survey, the written representations and the need for the maximum penalty to be proportionate to the offence.
The amendment provides for an increase in the maximum penalty for an aggravated offence under Section 3 of the 1991 Act, to apply in England and Wales, as follows: 14 years’ imprisonment if a person dies as a result of a dog attack, five years’ imprisonment if a person is injured by a dog attack, and three years’ imprisonment for an attack on an assistance dog that results in injury or death of the dog.
These changes reflect the high public concern that two years is an insufficient penalty for these offences, and the fact that seven adults and 10 children have died in dog attacks since 2005, and some 10 assistance dogs are attacked by other dogs every month. As now, each of these offences could also be punishable by an unlimited fine instead of, or in addition to, imprisonment; and, of course, the courts have the option of passing a community sentence.
I should make it clear that these revised sentences will apply only to the aggravated form of the offence in Section 3 of the 1991 Act; that is, the offence where a person or an assistance dog is actually killed or injured in a dog attack. Where someone actually sets their dog on to a person, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is likely to come into play. As noble Lords will be aware, the Act comes with its own sentencing regime. Were someone to be killed by a dog set upon them, if this is found to be an act of murder or manslaughter, the maximum sentence that would apply is life imprisonment. As now, it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there is both sufficient evidence to charge a person with the Section 3 offence and whether it is in the public interest to mount a prosecution. Once a case comes to court and a person is found guilty, it will be for the judge to take into account any mitigating or aggravating factors when passing sentence. We can, and should, leave it to prosecutors and the courts to make decisions in light of the facts of each individual case.
Of course, increasing the maximum penalty for dog attacks is only one aspect of trying to target irresponsible dog ownership and to encourage more responsible approaches. The Government consulted on a range of measures to encourage responsible dog ownership in 2012, and published a summary of results and the way forward in February this year, including bringing forward the other measures in the Bill relating to dogs and the compulsory microchipping of dogs by 2016. However, I hope noble Lords will agree that increasing the maximum penalty in the way that I have described is an important additional step. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this forward and for his explanation. I know he said at Second Reading that he would bring forward the amendment and he has been kind enough to write to noble Lords about it. I think this came from amendments proposed in the other place, where Richard Fuller raised the point and the Government agreed to do a consultation on it over the summer. Therefore, we are supportive and want to see better sentencing guidelines around dangerous dogs. The culpability of those responsible and the actions taken against them are central to the measures the Government have taken. It also comes back to the point I made to the noble Lord earlier. I do not want to hark on about dog control offences too much but it is about prevention. Tougher sentences help with preventing such attacks taking place, and encourage more responsible dog ownership. That certainly is a positive.
I would like to ask the noble Lord a few questions about this. I am slightly puzzled about the reasons—if he could help me on this—that the amendment says:
“14 years if a person dies as a result of being injured”.
That will be the maximum penalty and we all recognise that in most cases the maximum penalty would not be the penalty given. Is 14 years comparable with other legislation? Are there other kinds? Where has this come from? I am sure it is not something the Minister has just dreamt up. I assume that there is other legislation that is seen as similar or relevant, which the period of 14 years would have been taken from.
I think there was some discussion in the Commons. This measure is for when a person dies as a result of being injured, but what if a dog is used as a weapon? We know that there are cases when somebody is injured because a dog is deliberately set on a person. What if they die? Is that the same penalty? What if somebody deliberately sets a dog on another animal, or a pet? With the penalty for when somebody dies as a result of being injured—in the case of an assistance dog, whether or not it dies, the penalty is three years—is there any distinction between an attack occurring when the owner has tried not to have their dog attack an individual and an attack occurring when the owner sets the dog on an individual? I do not think that it would be covered by dog fighting laws if a human were attacked. If the Minister has any information on that, it would be helpful.
Furthermore, is the five years’ imprisonment for a person being injured something that is found in other legislation? I am speaking slowly, because I think that inspiration is about to arrive for the Minister on this issue. Where do the 14 years, five years and three years come from? Is there comparable legislation? The crucial point is whether the attack is deliberate, and whether a dog is forced to attack another dog or person. Many years ago, I helped to home a dog that had been the victim of quite serious attacks by other dogs. This poor dog was quite an aggressive creature with other dogs, but it had had half of its jaw bitten off and was in a terrible state. So I have seen at first hand and cared for dogs that have been very seriously attacked by other dogs. I am trying to get to the base of whether this is about something that happened, which should have been prevented, or something that is deliberate. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord could answer these questions.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The most important thing is to recognise that the prosecution of these cases is in the hands of the prosecuting authorities and adjudication of sentences is in the hands of the court. But there are particular aspects to the legislation. The noble Baroness asked me whether there was something comparable: 14 years’ imprisonment is the same penalty as for causing death by dangerous driving, so there is a parallel with that.
The noble Baroness made a further point. I thought that I referred to it—and, certainly, I half thought that I mentioned it in my previous contribution. It is getting late and my memory may not be right, but I certainly have it here in my notes and may have said it in my speech. When a person deliberately sets a dog to injure someone, using a dog as a weapon, other offences would apply, such as murder or manslaughter, which as the noble Baroness knows carry a maximum of a life sentence, if that is shown to be the case. I am sure that I alluded to that in my previous remarks.
Why did we decide to increase the maximum penalty for injury to a person to five years? The majority of people wanted to see 10 years, but we wanted to be proportionate and felt that this was about the right tariff for injury to a person. But I think that the noble Baroness welcomes the amendments, and I am grateful for her support.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord is right: I am welcoming the amendments and am grateful to him for his explanation, which is extremely helpful. I had not realised that a dog could be used as a tool currently in a murder or manslaughter charge; that information is news to me. So I am grateful to him for explaining that more fully. He is right—we do support these amendments.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
What has been helpful about these debates on the dog legislation is that they have reinforced the fact that this is an area in which the legislative framework has been imperfect. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords on the flexibility of the anti-social behaviour measures when applied to dog ownership. There is specific draft guidance being given to professionals. I shall make sure that all noble Lords who have spoken in this part of our discussions this evening, including those who might have done, such as the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Greaves, get a copy of that guidance, because it will help future discussions. I hope it will persuade noble Lords that, given the acknowledged difficulty of legislating in this area, what the Government are seeking to do is sympathetic to the sentiments of the Committee.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, although the words of his Amendment 34A may not find too much favour in the light of the previous debate, when it refers to,
“making speeches whether or not amplified”,
given the discussion that we have had about amplified speeches outside your Lordships’ House.
There is an important criterion on which, I believe, the noble Lord is seeking reassurance from the Government. People have a democratic and legitimate right to protest in public places, and we would really not want to see these powers misused, if people are campaigning or lobbying for a particular cause or issue, although I do not think that that is the Government’s intention. It would be helpful to have some comment from the Minister. Can he give reassurance that there are no circumstances in which this provision would be allowed to curtail legitimate debate, campaigning or protest? As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there are other ways in which such issues should be dealt with. We all know of cases where laws have been used for purposes other than those intended by Governments. As the Minister will appreciate, it creates huge suspicion when provisions seem open-ended. I hope that he can give reassurance and be very clear on that, perhaps stating specifically in guidance that the intention would not be to limit in any way the democratic responsibilities of the citizen.
Baroness Hamwee
I will not waste the Committee’s time by repeating the arguments, but this is an instance where guidance would not be enough. Unless we can have hard examples of where the provision might be properly used to restrict assembly where there is no other provision to deal with any of the problems, it would not be adequate for guidance to say something like, “The Government would not expect this to be used in such and such a situation”. This is a power that I would be very unhappy to give to anyone because of its misuse, unless there was a very good reason to allow it here and they have no other tools.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am really grateful for this debate. It has been very helpful to the Committee to be able to talk in these terms. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 55 and how it is constructed. I am not a parliamentary draftsman and sometimes legislation is difficult to read or understand, but here the tests that are required on public spaces protection orders are quite clear and explicit.
We all agree that rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are important, and we would not wish to interfere with them in this Bill. Noble Lords are right to seek from me reassurance on this. What the amendment seeks to do is not as important as the probing that lies behind it. The legislation sets a very high test that must be applied before a public spaces protection order is used, as I will explain. The first condition of the test, in Clause 55(2), states that the activities must have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality or it is likely that such activities will occur which could have this effect. The second condition is that the activity is persistent, unreasonable and is justified by the restrictions on the notice. I think that gives us a pretty clear idea of the sort of activity which a public spaces protection order is designed to cover.
I consider it highly unlikely that, in the case of a peaceful protest, or holding placards or handing out literature, or talking to people, even the first condition could be met. I do not see that as being a condition which any court would allow.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord refers to “any court”. It is of course the local authority that will be making the judgment. The court would only be involved at a much later stage, if that was challenged. The Minister says that the second condition is that it has to be,
“of a persistent or continuing nature”
and “unreasonable”. It does not have to be. It has to be “likely to”: a judgment is being made as to whether or not the effect of the activities is “likely to” do something. That is a much weaker test than that which the noble Lord implied.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness has only referred to one part of the second condition; there are three tests within the second condition alone. With the extra requirements set out in the second condition, I am satisfied that we have provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that these orders cannot be used to prevent peaceful protests or free speech. It is also worth mentioning that local authorities and the courts—I am sorry to come back to the courts, but we rely on them to make sure that legislation is properly used—must exercise their obligations compatibly with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrine the rights to freedom of expression and association respectively. They are intrinsic in any matter concerning peaceful public protest or free speech.
That is not to say that public order legislation will not continue to apply; it can still apply. My remarks should therefore not be taken as licence to include threatening or abusive words on a placard, or the bearer of the placard containing that sort of wording could be liable to arrest. There is overriding public order legislation, but the test on a public spaces protection order has to satisfy the notion that it is a behaviour which is persistent and continuing, is or is likely to be such as to make activities unreasonable and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice. All three of those have to be part of the second condition, let alone the first. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can be brief with this group of government amendments which implement the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in respect of certain of the delegated powers in Parts 1, 4 and 5 of the Bill. The amendments to Clauses 55, 56 and 57 are worthy of particular comment. The Delegated Powers Committee argued that, in relation to the public spaces protection orders, the current provisions in the Bill requiring a local authority to consult with the chief officer of police and community representatives was too narrow given the potential impact of such orders. The committee further argued that there should be a general duty to publicise the intention to make a notice. We are happy to accept the point made by the committee. The amendments to Clause 55 therefore require a local authority to publicise its intention to make an order so as to allow persons affected to make representations. In the normal way, a local authority would be bound to consider any such representations before making an order. This process is also replicated where the local authority plans to extend, vary or discharge an existing order by the amendments to Clauses 56 and 57 respectively. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I was a bit slow on to my feet; I suspected that there may be other noble Lords wishing to speak on this.
The noble Lord will recall that these are the amendments over which I last week raised our concerns about their being tabled late. The anticipation was that they would be debated the day after they were laid, so I am pleased that we have had a gap and welcome the opportunity to look at them more closely.
The amendments to Clause 55 are in response, as the noble Lord has said, to recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government had tried to confer a wide-ranging and significant power on local authorities to control the ways in which public spaces are used without any requirement to publicise the public spaces protection order before it was made. We agree with the committee that that would have been inappropriate delegation of powers. I am pleased that the Government have tabled the amendment, which would require a local authority to publish the text of the proposed order, if I understand it correctly, or an extension in duration of an existing order, or any variation in a public spaces protection order. It adds clarity, which I welcome, but there are still concerns about the amended clause that will need to be addressed later in passage of the Bill.
As the noble Lord said, government Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB on orders relating to the Housing Act—those on absolute grounds for possession of anti-social behaviour—and government Amendment 100 about the granting of injunctions will ensure that those elements are subject to the affirmative procedure. We have serious concerns about these proposals. The amendments at least provide for a greater degree of accountability of the legislative process and add greater scrutiny to these powers, which we find deeply flawed. There are loopholes and my noble friend Lord Rosser will be speaking to those in the course of today’s debate.
I will give one example. Clause 4 specifies the bodies which are authorised to apply under Clause 1 for an injunction against a person to prevent them engaging in conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance. Subsection (5) of that clause will enable changes to be made to bodies and persons who are authorised to apply for an injunction under Clause 1, including making changes to the circumstances in which a body may make such an application. The Government’s view has been challenged, and I think they now accept this: it is not a general power to amend but is restricted to adding persons who may apply for an anti-social behaviour order under Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
The Delegated Powers Committee said that the Home Office’s explanation does not take account of the different nature of an anti-social behaviour order from an injunction under Clause 1, including the different tests to be applied in each case when determining an application. As a result, the Government have now tabled amendments whereby this would now rightly be subject to an affirmative procedure, which is much more appropriate.
Government Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB relate to subsections (10) and (11) of Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985. One of the conditions that, if met, could be used to trigger repossession proceedings, is that the tenant,
“or a person living in or”,
even,
“visiting the dwelling, has been convicted of a ‘serious offence’; and that offence was committed in the locality of the dwelling, against a person who lives in the locality, or against the landlord or a person employed in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions”.
The Delegated Powers Committee stated that,
“the scope of the power is not limited in any way, but simply allows the addition or removal of any indictable offence. In our view, this is a significant Henry VIII power, since the way in which it is exercised will have a direct effect on the circumstances in which a court will be required to order possession”.
Therefore we certainly agree with the government amendment that it is more appropriate that these amendments subject this process to the affirmative procedure. Obviously, the repossession process can have a hugely detrimental impact on people’s lives, and as such, any such power introduced by the Government must be monitored closely. Noble Lords have to be aware that we have serious concerns about that policy. My noble friend Lord Rosser will speak about that in more depth when we come to our debate on Clauses 86 and 89 stand part.
Lord Greaves
I do not think it is as difficult as that. I think it is quite easy. There are plenty of parks nowadays with by-laws that say you cannot take your dog into the park or you have to have it on a lead or whatever. These proposals will make that kind of rule much easier.
It would be possible to look at the question of whether the access itself was fundamentally different from many other things. On the other hand, having thought about that, do you really want an annual or three-yearly review of ordinary gating orders in back streets which are completely non-controversial? I am sure it is possible to think of a way through this and to find a solution.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I have tabled a clause stand part debate because I feel it is a better way of probing the intentions and contradictions in this clause than individual amendments trying to make sense of it. In many ways, the debate we have had has identified some of the contradictions.
These public spaces protection orders will replace three other orders which were specific to certain circumstances—the designated public place order, the gating order and the dog control order. Noble Lords are right; these orders can last for a maximum of three years and can then be renewed and renewed ad infinitum. There is no time limit or renewal limit in the legislation. The debate has highlighted those contradictions and it would be helpful if the noble Lord could reassure us on some issues. I am not sure that he will be able to.
I am unclear why the Government are making changes in this way and whether all the implications of doing so have been considered. The debate we have had so far might indicate that they have not. The exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Greaves, indicates that the Government are confused, possibly because they are talking about slightly different things. We are replacing different orders, which deal with different complaints, with a single order that is trying to deal with all the complaints. Those original orders were of necessity very specific about the remedy they were trying to bring forward, whereas we are now moving to a more general order. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made the same point—that it is going to be very difficult to bring in one order to address all the different complaints.
The dog control order is being abolished and replaced with the public spaces protection order. We are yet to have the debate about whether that is adequate to deal with the problems of dangerous dogs, but Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is very concerned about this as it is worried that local authorities will have to extend the powers after three years. Not only will that create a kind of hiatus at some point but it could create an administrative burden at a crucial time when resources are being cut. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made this very point and asked why, if something has been agreed and consulted on, it is necessary to have ongoing reviews and renewals. It could mean less protection if, for example, a local authority fails to renew or gets caught up in some bureaucracy and the renewal does not happen or is delayed.
I think I am correct in saying that there are no limits but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, could give an indication of what the average number of renewals will be and how often the Government expect an order to be renewed. I wonder if the Minister understands the concerns that this could be a significant burden on local authorities, which will feel that they have to renew every three years. I looked through the impact assessment to try to find out whether that issue had been looked at, but it had not been specifically addressed. I thought it rather bizarre, given that orders can be renewed and renewed ad infinitum, that the impact assessment refers only to,
“providing councils with a flexible power to put in place local restrictions to address a range of ASB issues in public places, and prevent future problems. This would be different to the current situation as one order would be able to cover a number of issues, rather than needing to follow separate processes for each—reducing bureaucracy and cost for local authorities”.
Representations made to us, however, say that it will increase bureaucracy; that instead of having one order that lasts for the time required, it will have to be renewed beforehand.
There is also concern that in some cases a local authority may go for the maximum time, although it may not need it, because it would be overly burdensome and cumbersome to renew the order. It may think, “We need this to be in place for a year, but rather than having to renew it we will put it in place for three years and just let it lapse and not enforce it if it is not needed for the full three years”. Those are issues of concern. Then there is the other side of the coin. The Ramblers, for example, has other concerns, saying that a maximum of three years,
“is too long a period for the closure of any route of which everyday use is being made”.
I have read through the Explanatory Notes, the impact assessment and the Bill but cannot really understand why the period of three years was chosen. It is quite a lengthy maximum period to cover all the circumstances. What evidence did the Government use and what assessments were made that identified three years as the appropriate time for public spaces protection orders?
Similarly, there is a real danger in trying to address different problems in the same way. Gating orders, for example, are very clear—they do what they say on the tin. I am always very happy to admit that nothing is perfect and make changes to make something more effective, if things can be improved. However, I am not convinced that putting all three of these orders together into one less specific, and therefore weaker, general order is the right way forward.
The Minister and other noble Lords will have received letters about this from naturists who are concerned that it will impact on their activities. One of their concerns is the definition of what constitutes a public open space, which seems to rely on quite a wide description. Can the Minister offer any reassurance on that point?
I have already addressed the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but it would be helpful if the Minister could identify how many times he thinks it would be appropriate for an order to be renewed. Has any assessment been made of the costs? The impact assessment says that, because they are not separate processes, it will reduce the cost to local authorities. On what evidence was that comment made? Can he say anything about enforcement? If something is in place in every instance for at least three years, and then renewed, will there be any checks and balances in terms of appropriateness and enforcement?
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I will just add a supplement to my addendum to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the flexibility that lies within the clauses as they stand. Clause 55(8)(c) creates a power to specify the period; so, with great respect to the noble Baroness, it is not a fixture that it will always be three years. If one takes that flexibility along with the point that I made earlier about Clause 57, a lot of flexibility is built into this. It is a very sensitive and well designed measure, subject to the point about whether Clause 56 should be there at all.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
As a point of clarification, I am fully aware that it is not three years in every case—it is up to three years. However, one of my concerns is that, because of the cost of renewal and the uncertainties around that, a number of local authorities may think that three years has become the default. It will be easier for them to run to the maximum of three years rather than face the bureaucracy and costs of renewal by doing otherwise.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. In doing so I make the general point that sometimes in debates such as this you hear some noble Lords saying that the period is too long and others saying that it is too short, and so going down the middle is normally the solution. The noble Baroness talked about perfection. Dare I say that, perhaps on this clause, we are as near to that as we can be? I will address the amendments and the questions as far as I can but I hope, as I always do with the noble Baroness opposite, that she will gain some reassurance from what I say, if not from my words then at least from my tone.
These amendments relate to the process of reviewing and extending public spaces protection orders, as we have heard. As noble Lords are aware, there is currently no statutory review point for the orders we are replacing and they can run indefinitely. The argument has been made about where we are today. Putting in a limit is a positive way forward, otherwise—to quote the noble Baroness’s words back at her—these orders run on and on. It is important to look at how they should be reviewed. I believe that there should be a formal review point, which we have decided to set at three years.
The effect of Amendments 41B and 44A, which stand in my noble friend’s name, would of course be to limit this to 12 months. I have listened to the arguments that she put forward. As we have made clear in the guidance, orders do not have to last for three years—a point just made by the noble and learned Lord. There is flexibility within this, according to the circumstance and the situation and at the discretion of the issuing authority, including the local authority, as to what is appropriate. If appropriate, these can be reviewed or discharged before three years have elapsed. My view is more qualified and endorsed after listening to the debate and I believe that three years is a proportionate balance between the needs of users and the protection of the community, especially given the everlasting orders that we are seeking to replace.
Amendments 44B and 49A—which I take to be an alternative to Amendments 41B and 44A—would ensure that orders could not be extended more than once. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised the specific point that the legislation allows only for renewal. I am sure that he has reflected on Clause 56; there are provisions specifically to allow for the recurrence of a renewal of an order. He is nodding so I am sure that he agrees with the point I am making.
Of course, there are situations in which longer-term restrictions could be necessary; for example, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, these orders will replace, among other things, dog control orders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said. This means that a public spaces protection order will be required, as a dog control order is now, to ensure that the fouling of public land is dealt with. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that this is not a problem that can be fixed in three or indeed six years and an ongoing restriction is therefore required. As such, preventing the further renewal of orders would mean communities having to put up with dog mess as well as other potentially anti-social behaviours, such as public drinking.
Turning to Amendment 48, my noble friend will be aware that the orders being replaced by the public spaces protection order do not include a formal review and, as such, can last indefinitely. In reforming the powers, we believed that it was only right that a statutory timeframe was built in, and I am sure that my noble friend will welcome that in principle. As the legislation states, the review should be conducted every three years.
Of course, I understand the concerns raised by my noble friend about the potential impact of a three-year restriction if applied to all orders but, as I have already said, the legislation is clear that councils can limit the duration of an order to a period of less than three years. Indeed, as the draft guidance suggests, in a situation where a public right of way is being closed for the first time to try to deal with a specific issue, the council may well prefer to review this after a shorter period of time.
To make this amendment would mean that all orders covering rights of way would have to be reviewed every six months. This would include, as I have already mentioned, welcome restrictions to deal with dog fouling and the consumption of alcohol. This would turn the new power into a bureaucratic nightmare that resulted in councils that decided to use it living in a loop of constant consultation and review. As I have said before, in my own experience as a local councillor for 10 years, consultations were regularly part and parcel of our decision-making, but if we had to issue an order and then immediately start another consultation, I fear that we would be constantly in consultation mode.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I take on board what my noble friend is saying. That is why I believe that, as the clauses are drafted, there is flexibility with regard to the circumstances, the situation and indeed the tenure appropriate to the offence that is being perceived. I have already flagged up that in this instance, if an issue arose for the first time, the local authority may well be minded to apply an order of smaller duration to allow for exactly the kind of review and assessment that my noble friend is suggesting. I understand the point my noble friend makes and, as I have said, it probably refers more to the restricting of access than anything else. I have listened and we will consider how to make the guidance more specific in this regard.
Finally, Amendment 55A relates to appeals against public spaces protection orders. My noble friend has asked for clarification of whether there is a right of appeal against the extension of an order. That is a fair point. The amendment would provide an additional opportunity to challenge an order every time it was extended. This could result in additional appeals, even if the circumstances had not otherwise changed. That said, my noble friend has raised an important point and I will take it away and reflect further on it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked if I could predict the number of orders and renewals. Crystal balls are hard to come by and the important thing we are seeking to do here is to ensure that the orders are specific, time-limited and can be reviewed. Again, if the behaviour has been corrected, the order does not need to stay in place for ever. That is an important point to bear in mind. How often are we expecting the orders to be renewed? That is very much up to the local authorities to decide. One order can cover more than one behaviour with a shorter consultation process, so there is less paperwork, less bureaucracy and less delay. Reviews can be quite light-touch, so one review may be more intensive than another. It would be almost impossible to give a cost for each review.
We should not forget that there is an absolute need for democratic accountability for the continued operation of these orders. The Government feel that the balance has been struck. The noble Baroness talked about the Ramblers and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Perhaps she would like to respond and tell me whether she believes that what we are seeking to do in Clause 56 is appropriate, because the current situation means that there is no time limit. We are seeking to ensure three years, with the possibility to review, and a three-year period is allowed for only if the local authority chooses to persist with that; if it chooses to put one year down, that is its prerogative.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord invites me to say whether I think it is a good idea. The way to find that out is to review the operation after a couple of years. I am not really satisfied that saying that because some people want one year and some people want it for ever, if we find the middle number that is the right way to go. That does not address specific circumstances but I thank him for trying to answer my questions. He missed one: I asked what assessment had been made of why these were needed and what demand there was. Who has called for these changes to be made and have one order covering all three issues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I hope I have illustrated that there is a need to decrease bureaucracy when you take three and turn it into one. Coming back to a point that the noble Baroness raised about enforcement, it makes that much easier. Certainly, my own experience in local government substantiates that. I am sure other noble Lords may share that experience.
It is right and proper that these orders should be regularly reviewed. The noble Baroness asks what evidence there is and why we have taken this route. The Government believe it is right to devolve these decisions to the people who are on the coalface, so to speak: the local authorities, the people who are closest to circumstances at a local level. I hope that I can share my own experience but also that of anyone who has served in a local authority. The last thing you need is central government or a central diktat telling you what is appropriate for your local area.