Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

20HA: Clause 2, page 2, line 26, after “must” insert “be satisfied—
(i) that the requirement is suitable and enforceable; and(ii) that it is reasonable for the person specified under subsection (1) to be responsible for compliance,and must”

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister and I have just made a fleeting appearance at the reception and dinner for the Police Service Parliamentary Scheme. It was a cameo appearance, at least as far as the Minister was concerned, as he had a speaking role. In his remarks he pointed out—I would not say with glee—that we had now completed our consideration of Clause 1 of this Bill. No doubt he is looking forward to the other 160 clauses. He did suggest that we might try to pick up speed. That was no doubt aimed at me as I was sitting directly in front of him.

This amendment, the first on Clause 2, relates to the section of the Bill that says that requirements under these injunctions “must”—I stress the word—

“specify the person who is to be responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement. The person may be an individual or an organisation”.

The purpose of this amendment is to try to flesh out what needs to be done and what the court should be satisfied about before it designates a person, either an individual or an organisation, to be responsible for the compliance with the requirements of the injunction.

Obviously the first thing is to specify the persons concerned. It would be useful for the Minister to give us a little bit more insight into the range of persons he thinks this provision will apply to. There is obviously a world of difference between that person being, for example, the parent or guardian of a young person who is accused of being responsible for anti-social behaviour and the responsible person being the local police force, the local authority or the local probation service. It would be useful to understand what the balance is expected to be between those sorts of requirements as far as the Bill is concerned.

The substance of the amendment is that before the court requires somebody to be responsible for compliance, it must be satisfied that the requirement itself is suitable and capable of being enforced, and it is reasonable for the person charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the requirements are met to take on that responsibility. But if we consider the circumstances of a parent—an individual charged with this responsibility—that may be onerous. If they are a parent, they may feel obligated to take it on, but it may be impractical. If the underlying problem is that the parent cannot control their near-adult children, what is the point of this? Is it in fact suitable, appropriate, and reasonable for that person to take on that responsibility?

If it is a local authority, probation service, housing authority or the local police service, how reasonable is it? Is the court going to hear evidence as to whether or not they will be able to enforce the requirement? Do they have the resources to enforce the requirement?

Earlier today, I was talking to someone who has been advising me on the Bill. As it happens, they witnessed a crime a few days ago. They went along to the station with another witness to report the crime. When they got to the police station they were told that, unfortunately, the police service does not have the capacity to take two witness statements at once because of the number of officers on duty at the time. If that is the situation, how confident can we be in the current financial situation that the police service will have the resources to be responsible for enforcing some of these requirements? If it is not the police service it could be local authorities, which are facing reductions in their budgets of 30% or 40%. Where will they find the resources to manage this? These issues need to be addressed.

The purpose of the amendment is to say that the court needs to be satisfied about these things. One of the great concerns about the ASBO regime was the number of breaches, but it would be very silly if we created a new system that would result in a series of breaches simply because the people charged with ensuring compliance do not have the resources, the ability or the facilities to make sure that enforcement is achieved.

I am sure that the Minister will be able to help me with something else. I have searched through the Bill and cannot find what is intended to be the consequence for the person designated under Clause 2 if they fail to ensure compliance with the requirements of the injunction. Will they themselves be in contempt of court? Does that mean that chief officers of police will be subject to two years’ imprisonment because they have failed to achieve compliance? What is the requirement? If there are no penalties for failing to achieve compliance, what is the point of this? Again, I would be grateful for the Minister to enlighten us as to precisely what will happen in the event of the person who the court “must designate”, in the words of the Bill, to ensure compliance if they fail to do so either through wilful neglect, because they do not have the resources to do so or perhaps because it is impossible to enforce compliance because the individual is beyond those sorts of controls. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 20J, 22F and 96 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser. It is a slightly strange grouping. They do not hang together that well, but I hope I can help my noble friend Lord Harris on the points that we are seeking to address.

In principle we welcome the addition of positive requirements. There is no question about that. We introduced the concept, partly through individual support orders. The submissions that were made in the other place in the committee’s evidence sessions and the correspondence that we have received from local authorities and the police show that the point is not dissimilar to that made by my noble friend Lord Harris. It provides some clarification on how the requirements will be funded.

I took the opportunity, in the huge avalanche of a rainforest of paper that we have on the Bill, to see what the impact assessment said on the costs. Basically, every cost is caveated; the impact assessment is unable to make an estimate. Not all costs could be quantified and no benefits from reduced anti-social behaviour could be quantified. The costs took no account of the gains and losses. The Local Government Association is concerned that,

“given that use of positive requirements is predicted to impose an additional financial burden on councils, the overall estimates that the injunctions will be cheaper to use than ASBOs may not be right, and councils may be placed under an additional financial burden”.

The Association of Chief Police Officers gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee; it stated its concerns about agencies’ capacity and capability to deliver this support in difficult economic times, and said that that had to be considered. I was taken aback by the remarks in Committee in the other place of the Minister, Jeremy Browne. He said that it was important to establish how possible clients would be funded at the point of injunction being issued in the court. He did not agree that individual organisations should be responsible for supervising the compliance should be liable for the costs. He said,

“to take it literally momentarily, where the local authority, for example, applied for an injunction that was to include attendance at a drug rehabilitation course, the teacher delivering that course could be put forward to supervise compliance. Although the teacher would be best placed to monitor attendance and engagement with the course, it would not be right for the teacher, or school or college, to cover the costs of the course. Instead, we could expect the local authority, as the applicant, to cover those costs”.

But he added:

“That is because the downstream benefits of changing the perpetrator’s behaviour fall to them and other agencies, such as the police”.—[Official Report, Commons, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 25/6/13; col. 172.]

Is the Minister saying that if we can change the behaviour of somebody who is involved in drugs and crime in some way, and the interventions for positive requirements reduce that offending behaviour, the police or the local authority saves money? It was as if they incurred the costs. We know that early intervention reaps rewards further down the line, but that does not help those bodies pay for the costs at a time when the Minister is imposing positive requirements on the authority.

I am interested to know what assessment the Government have made on the savings that have been made. I understand from the impact assessment that they are unable to quantify the costs, but the Minister in the other place is saying that they will save money, so they should spend the money in the first place. That does not seem to be a sensible way to pursue legislation such as this.

I am also curious to know whether any assessment has been made of the impact that having to meet those costs will have on the imposition of requirements. If a local authority or the police say that we cannot afford to do X, Y or Z, or, if we could, we cannot afford to monitor it, there is little point in imposing those requirements if there is no funding to pay for them.

It is highly likely that one of the drivers for positive requirements will be the costs involved. It is a bit of a Catch-22 situation if the usefulness of the positive measures is limited by the available funding and quality services to meet those needs. That could create a postcode lottery, because the position could differ across areas of the country. We all know that there are some vagaries in the criminal justice system, but the position for somebody in Manchester could be completely different from that for somebody in Basingstoke or Basildon, for example. That causes enormous concern. If the needs of the person on whom the requirement is being put are being met, that is fine, but the danger is that those needs will not be met because the funding is not available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord has finished. I found the reply that the Minister gave rather disturbing as regards the issues it covered and did not cover. He spent the first half of his remarks talking about Amendment 96. We have yet to hear the reason why it is necessary to repeal all the ASBO provisions in advance of bringing in the arrangements for the new injunctions. That is quite an important point. The Minister supports a Government who I think believe in free-market principles. If the ASBO and the procedures around it are so inadequate, do not work and are so costly, what is to be lost by allowing both to coexist, at least for a period, until we see how the new regime works? In practice, people—local authorities, housing bodies or whatever—might vote with their feet and decide whether to use the IPNA route or the ASBO route. That would be consistent both with the Government’s principles about a free market and with their localism principle, and would also allow a bit of reality to creep into this—which would be unique for this Government and probably for all previous Governments. People would discover which system works by looking at the arrangements that people followed at a local level. The Government need to explain why it is not possible for the two systems to coexist so that we can see which ones work and which ones do not.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The answer is very simple: we do not think that ASBOs are effective. We are proposing a Bill that deals with anti-social behaviour and in our view the measures that currently exist do not meet the requirement that we as a Government want to present as a remedy for anti-social behaviour. That is why we do not support the retention of the ASBOs. They are expensive, not effective in reducing anti-social behaviour and not effective in providing a remedial pattern of behaviour for young people who get into trouble. We want to ditch them and replace them with those measures which the Bill provides for, which give a much better and positive way forward for young people and protect victims.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I do not think that anyone doubts that the Minister and the Government are keen to tackle issues about anti-social behaviour, as indeed were the previous Government, and as I suspect has been the case for very many years. Nobody is pretending that ASBOs are perfect or that they solve the deep-seated, underlying difficulties of anti-social behaviour. However, we are saying that these new arrangements are untried. We simply do not know whether they will work or whether they will be better. If they are so much better, as the Minister assures us they will be, then if the two coexisted on the statute book, people all over the country, when dealing with cases of anti-social behaviour, would opt for the noble Lord’s system as opposed to this dreadful, outdated system that he is apparently now so keen to scrap. However, if—just if—it turns out that under certain circumstances the ASBO route might have been better, that will no longer be available. I fail to understand what is lost by leaving in place the existing arrangements, at least for a period, to see how things work out in practice.

I turn to what the noble Lord calls the “positive” elements of the arrangements. These will not be cost-free. Ensuring compliance will involve costs. If an individual is involved—and some will relate to individuals—it will involve costs in terms of that person’s time and maybe their expenditure. If it involves an agency, such as a local authority, which is required to provide particular opportunities for individuals concerned, there will be the cost of providing those opportunities. There has to be transparency as to what those costs are going to be and how it is going to be delivered. If there is not—given that local authorities are facing very significant reductions in their budgets and the voluntary sector is facing a crisis in its funding, in many instances, or in the demand on its services—there is a real risk that the Government are creating these new injunction-based powers but setting them up to fail. I believe the Minister and the Government actually want to do something positive about anti-social behaviour, so I think it unwise to be setting up arrangements, and setting them up to fail, without addressing the question of how the funding is to be taken forward.

Briefly, at the end of my remarks, I return to the amendment that I proposed. The Minister has said that the requirement I am proposing should be included in the Bill is not necessary because it is already there. He quoted the Bill as saying that,

“the court must receive evidence”.

However, that is not the same as,

“the court must be satisfied”—

which is the phraseology that I use. The court could receive evidence but the local authority might stand up or be represented at the court and say, “We no longer have the resources to provide this”. The court could still, in the light of that information, none the less say that it is satisfied and will make the order. Alternatively—and this is also quite possible—a parent or guardian could say, “We give the undertakings. We are confident that we can prevent the recurrence of this type of behaviour and will take the necessary steps”. However, receiving that evidence and being satisfied are not the same thing.

I ask the noble Lord to consider these matters again and to come back to us before Report to say whether these requirements will work—or whether we should not be assured that we are not setting up individuals or organisations to fail by asking them to do things that they cannot deliver, that they are not funded to deliver or, frankly, that no one really believes will happen but simply satisfies them. These new arrangements, in which the Minister quite properly has a great deal of confidence, could otherwise eventually be deemed a failure simply because these issues were not addressed. As I am sure I will receive this information and those assurances between now and Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20HA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

21ZA: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Local anti-social behaviour strategy
(1) An injunction under section 1 may be granted only if the Police and Crime Commissioner for the area in which the court sits (or the Mayor of London for courts in the Greater London area) has published a local anti-social behaviour strategy “the strategy” for that area.
(2) The strategy shall set out the approach to be followed in respect of anti-social behaviour by—
(a) the chief office of police for the relevant police area;(b) each of the local authorities in that area; and(c) such other bodies as the Police and Crime Commissioner (or the Mayor of London in the Greater London area) shall consider appropriate.(3) The strategy shall only be published following consultation with the persons specified in subsection (2).”

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I suppose that we should congratulate the Minister on now having dealt with three of the 161 clauses during the course of today. The amendment addresses one of the most extraordinary absences from the Bill, which is that there is no mention, as far as I can see, of the role of police and crime commissioners—or, in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, earlier raised the issue of police and crime commissioners with the interesting suggestion that they might want to fund youth services to address issues of anti-social behaviour by juveniles.

Clearly, the role of police and crime commissioners in terms of addressing issues around anti-social behaviour should be central to the Government’s philosophy. These are the individuals who will be holding the police to account and doing so much to reduce the volume of crime and so on within their areas. So it is surprising that there is no mention of police and crime commissioners in the Bill.

In his reply to one of our earlier debates, the Minister talked about the tough financial climate in which all the agencies involved are operating and the importance of using resources wisely. That is why I put forward the amendment, which provides that there should be a proper, local anti-social behaviour strategy in every police force area. That should outline the approach that should be taken by the police service and local authorities in that area, and by other agencies that might be involved in reducing anti-social behaviour. That is so important because we all recognise that this is not an issue for which there is one magic bullet. There is no magic bullet associated with anti-social behaviour orders or with the new injunctions. There has to be a suite of measures, a series of actions taken at different levels by different organisations, to reduce the level of anti-social behaviour in a community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the election of police and crime commissioners put the public back at the heart of our drive to cut crime. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has recognised how effective police and crime commissioners are.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Do not push it.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Well, I welcome even modest conversions and am delighted that the noble Lord has proposed this amendment because I have always seen police and crime commissioners as being important.

Under Section 5 of the Act which introduced them, police and crime commissioners are required to issue and publish a police and crime plan, as the noble Lord said. They must do so within the financial year within which they were elected, and they are under a statutory duty to consult their chief constable in drawing up this plan.

The police and crime plan must set out the plans for, among other things, the police and crime objectives and the policing of the area for which the chief constable is responsible. In developing their plans, the police and crime commissioner must consult the public and, in particular, victims. The plan must also be scrutinised by the police and crime panel in each area before it is issued.

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has published details on its website about the individual police and crime plans and the key priorities in them. It is no surprise, at least to me—and I do not think that it would be to other noble Lords—that tackling anti-social behaviour is consistently cited as one of the top policing and crime objectives in local force areas. Out of 41 police and crime commissioners, 30 put tackling, preventing and reducing anti-social behaviour among their key priorities in their individual plans. Eight PCCs put reducing the impact of, and keeping people safe from, anti-social behaviour as among their individual priorities, and three further plans clearly set out to encourage the reporting of anti-social behaviour. Therefore, all police and crime plans make reference to anti-social behaviour.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would create duplication and add bureaucracy. If police and crime commissioners are required to produce individual police and crime plans for their own local areas—which is part and parcel of what they are required to do under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act—why should Parliament require them to publish a local anti-social behaviour strategy for their local area in separate legislation? Why should front-line professionals and the courts have to wait to use the injunction under Part 1 as required by this amendment?

This Government are serious about tackling anti-social behaviour and so are elected police and crime commissioners, as evidenced by the figures that I have given. Our anti-social behaviour reforms are about the police and their partner agencies putting the needs of victims first. This means giving the right powers to do this. I have said already that the new injunction is one of the key planks in our reforms. Agencies and the courts must be able to use this as swiftly as possible—I hope that the noble Lord does not see his amendment as a delaying tactic.

I understand the importance of PCCs’ involvement—indeed, some of our reforms provide an active role for them; for example, the community remedy, which is in Part 6 and specifically mentions police and crime commissioners. We will draw their attention through guidance and otherwise to the new powers—I hope that the noble Lord is aware of this—but what will not help anyone in putting victims first is to duplicate and delay using the new powers, which is what this amendment would do. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, this amendment was not about trying to delay the process—I think that the Minister tries to ascribe to me motivations that I do not have. The amendment is about trying to make it work effectively.

I acknowledge that police and crime commissioners are required to draw up and should all have in place a police and crime plan. But it is a police and crime plan, and they draw it up in consultation simply with the chief officer of police for their area. That is the requirement in the legislation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If the noble Lord will forgive me. It has to be presented to the police and crime panel as well.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

It has to be presented to the police and crime panel, but the panel has no executive role, as far as that is concerned. It does not have a power to reject or amend it. It is simply there as part of a formal process. I am sure—or at least I am told somewhere—that police and crime panels are doing a good and valuable job in terms of monitoring the activities of police and crime commissioners, but they are not part of the consultative mechanism. They are not there to represent the interests of their local authorities and it is not regarded as their function to be, for example, a series of the crime and disorder leads from the various local authorities in their area.

It is a different function. It is a function about scrutiny, whereas crime and disorder leads in individual local authorities are there in an executive capacity. I do not think that the involvement of police and crime panels solves the issue. If one is to be effective in tackling anti-social behaviour, one needs to work with the local authorities and all the different agencies involved, including the housing providers. That is what this amendment is about.

[Lord Greaves]

I am trying to match what the noble Lord is talking about to my experience in Lancashire. It is a large, far-flung county from the Fylde coast to the Pennines, from Morecambe and Lancaster south to Skelmersdale and places like that—if there are any places like that. Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. I cannot understand what a new strategy document for the whole county, taking lots of resources in drawing it up, will add to anything in a place like Lancashire. Surely what is required is the allocation of resources and priorities at the county force level—which is Lancashire County Council, plus Blackburn and Blackpool—then local action plans and strategies at perhaps the borough level, tackling the problems on the ground.

Surely the answers, as the noble Lord said, will be different everywhere. The answers in old textile towns in Pendle and Burnley will be very different from Skelmersdale, which is a Liverpool new town suburb, or the rural areas of west Lancashire, or indeed the seaside towns of Blackpool and Morecambe, for example. What is surely needed is a series of local action plans involving the district councils and councillors and the bodies on the ground which are doing the work, as well as the police, not just another county-wide strategy which will get put on shelves and forgotten.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will forgive me if I do not join him in his encyclopaedic tour of the townships of Lancashire. In fact, this amendment does not necessarily suggest that there is a single county-wide strategy, because I, like him, would accept that what works in one area would not be appropriate in another. It talks about,

“the area in which the court sits”,

and there will be different courts in different parts of the county. The relevance of this is that each of the local authorities in the area should contribute to the preparation of the plan, because this must be something which is agreed at local level. It is the absence of that agreed joint strategy, working together at local level, which is the omission in this Bill.

This could be a subsidiary part of the police and crime plan, or it could be built from the crime and disorder partnerships which exist at local authority level, but what is missing is any cross-reference to those two different processes. If we are to be serious about anti-social behaviour, if we are to make things happen at local level and have the different agencies operating in concert, working together to try to deal with anti-social behaviour, there needs to be some linkage between the existing planning structures.

While I am quite prepared to accept that this amendment does not necessarily deal with the issue precisely, if the Minister does not bring back proposals on Report, then I might well bring proposals to try to link what is being done in this Bill with both the police and crime plan, which commissioners are asked to draw up, and the local crime and disorder arrangements, which exist between the local senior police officer in an area and the chief executive of each local authority area. On that basis of looking forward to the Minister coming forward with some further suggestions about how to integrate these documents, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21ZA withdrawn.