Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thought that I was going to get a rest; my noble friend did not tell me that she was not moving her amendment, or if she did, I have forgotten.

I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say about Amendment 53G. Amendment 53H is slightly more complicated. It applies yet again to the sort of area in which I live where there are county councils and district councils in a two-tier system. The district council will be responsible for making public spaces protection orders. The county council is the highways authority, which is responsible by law for maintaining public rights of way to an acceptable standard so as to ensure that people can walk on footpaths and ride horses along bridleways, for example. County councils do not always carry out those duties to a great extent, but nevertheless they are responsible in law for maintaining these rights of way. It seems wrong that the district council does not consult the county. The Minister has already said that the Government will look favourably at making sure that county councils, as highways authorities, are consulted. The question is this: what if the highways authority objects to closing one of its highways? Does it have a veto or not? I am suggesting that it should, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have a couple of quick questions on this issue. We tabled a clause stand part debate and I was slightly taken aback when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, withdrew her two amendments because they touch on the issue that I wish to raise.

First, it seems to me that there has to be a very good reason to restrict a public right of way over a highway. Will it be in guidance, as there is nothing here to say that it should be a matter of last resort and that all other options should be considered before taking that step? It would be useful to have the Minister’s comments on that. Secondly, I have clearly been dreaming about this Bill—I am affected so greatly by it. I have just checked with the noble Lord’s officials as I was absolutely convinced that I had read in a letter from the Minister that he would make the amendment anyway, but I am told he has not. Clearly it is a very good amendment and he should make it. Will he enlighten me on Clause 60(3) which states:

“Before a local authority makes a public spaces protection order restricting the public right of way over a highway that is also within the area of another local authority, it must consult that other authority if it thinks it appropriate to do so”?

Why would it not think it appropriate to do so? Why would it not consult the other authority in whose area the highway on which it wishes to restrict public access or the right of way belongs? In my dreams I thought that this had already been done, but I am told by the Minister’s officials that it has not. Can he comment on that and explain why the authority must consult the other authority in whose area the highway is only if it thinks it appropriate to do so, rather than seeking the permission of the other authority as a matter of course? I hope that the Minister will clarify this as I am puzzled by the subsection.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

I hope I can appear in the noble Baroness’s dreams in a good light. Do not have nightmares; that is all I say.

The decision to restrict activity on or access to public rights of way should not be taken lightly. Where anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder is present, local authorities will need to weigh up the impact of restricting access against the needs of the community. There are, as we have already discussed, additional consultation requirements associated with public rights of way above and beyond those expected more generally for a public spaces protection order. Those affected by the order must be notified of the proposal and be given details of how to see a copy of the restrictions. The local authority must also notify those persons of how they can make representations, and these representations must be considered before the order can be made.

Amendment 53G, proposed by my noble friend Lord Greaves, aims to protect private rights of way. I assure my noble friend that I agree with his sentiment. I am happy to confirm that the definition of public spaces included in Clause 60 will not allow for the order to be used for private rights of way. The principal access route to homes cannot be closed with a public spaces protection order. As such, I do not believe the amendment needs to be made.

On Amendment 53H, I understand the issue here relates to areas where there is a district council and a county council. Indeed, just as the noble Lord lives in such an area, so do I. In the situation described in the amendment, while the district council has the ability to make an order, the county council is likely to act as the highway authority. Therefore, in line with the consultation requirements I have just described, before restricting access the district council should consult the county council about the terms. However, I do not believe that this should come with a right of veto. In the majority of cases the evidence presented will be sufficient for both bodies, acting in the interests of the communities they serve, to agree. However, where this is not the case it should not prolong the misery for victims and communities, and so the district council should be free to make the order. On the basis of what I have said, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and I beg to move that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

On the specific question asked by the noble Baroness about the phrase in the clause,

“it must consult that other authority if it thinks it appropriate to do so”,

I can hardly see how, in the case of a public highway, it would be possible for a local authority to do other than consult those people. I have a note here which has come to my rescue. As to why it states in Clause 60(3),

“only if it is appropriate to do so”,

it is hard to imagine a situation where a council would not do so. However, it adds flexibility. Clause 60(3) was added to the Bill on Report in the Commons in response to a point raised by Gloria de Piero, the honourable Member leading on the Bill for the Opposition. It may be that the letter the noble Baroness is thinking of is the one from Damian Green to David Hanson of 7 October dealing with the Government’s amendments on Report in the Commons. I cannot remember ever discussing this issue before. However, it was added to the Bill on Report in the Commons, presumably with agreement.

I should say that it is only as a last resort. We have made it clear that the added flexibility means it is less likely that a right of way will be closed. This is covered in the guidance and we do not believe it needs to be in the Bill. It is also worth making clear that highways of strategic value cannot be restricted.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord sought to assist me, and I want to respond to his answer because he has actually puzzled me even more. He said, both before and after receiving enlightenment from the other end of the Chamber, that he really cannot conceive of the circumstances where it would not be appropriate to consult the other authority. He says that the provision was put in on Report in the other place. However, that does not really answer my question. Can he give me any circumstance where he thinks it would not be appropriate? That might help me to understand why it is there.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I wonder whether I should come in on the same issue to allow time for reflection. As I said to the Minister through his officials, I did not move my amendment because I assumed that there must be legislation which would require both authorities to agree. I read “consult” in this clause as meaning consult not around the outcome of actual closure but about the things surrounding it. I thought that, rather than taking the Committee’s time, I would simply not move it. Perhaps it would have been better if I had.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it may be that I have been misreading this particular clause. I assumed that it was evidence of the phenomenon where you have both a district council and a county council, which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred to. It may be, of course, that the highway lies in two local authority areas, and that by restricting it to one local authority, an adjacent local authority that shares the highway might be affected. In that case it clearly would be appropriate for there to be consultation between the authorities. In effect, there would be a joint highway, shared with other authorities.

However, I am hazarding a guess and seeking to inform the House on the basis of guess-work. My best position is to say to noble Lords that there is clearly some uncertainty about the meaning of this and that I am quite prepared to write to noble Lords with all the detail. This is based on current gating order legislation, which has been used for many years by councils to deal with anti-social behaviour, so we might see a similar clause there. Clause 60 needs to be read with Clause 61, in particular subsection (1), which describes which public highways cannot be restricted. It excludes strategic highways, so it is non-strategic highways that are being considered here. I will write to noble Lords explaining how these two clauses operate together, as clearly they are both of a part.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very helpful suggestion for trying to get to the bottom of what it means. When he writes, perhaps he could focus on giving us an answer about when he thinks it would not be appropriate to consult the other authority. The other points he made are relevant and helpful.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Perhaps in that letter the noble Lord could also give some examples of circumstances in which he thinks the power would be used. It seems that it may be a wider power than simply gating regulations in the past and might be used over and beyond them. We are back to the whole issue of why we should change something just for the sake of it, which might add increased ambiguity as a consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 67 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have two brief questions for the Minister on interpretation. One is an issue that I raised with him previously. He will know that the naturists have written to a number of noble Lords about their concern that the definition of “public place” in the Bill is drawn very widely and that it will unnecessarily restrain—perhaps “contain” would be a better word—their activities. It would be helpful to have an explanation of that. I raised it previously but did not get an answer. However, if there is an answer for them on that, that would be helpful.

Unitary authorities are not referred to under the interpretation of “local authority”. Do I take it that a county council, when there is no district council, includes a unitary authority, even though the unitary may not be the county council? I can see no other way in which a unitary authority would be referred to in the legislation.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

Perhaps I may make a very brief intervention. Clause 67(2) seems to contain a drafting mistake because the subsection opens with the words “This section”, but it is in fact a reference to paragraph (b) immediately before it in subsection (1), referring to “public place”. I am not seeking to press this in any way but some attention might be drawn to it between now and Report to make sure that, if I am right, it is corrected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, again, the reason for moving a clause stand part debate is that it is a more satisfactory way of addressing a number of different questions than tabling lots of individual amendments. Noble Lords will recall that I raised this matter briefly under the issue of corporate ASBOs, which is one of the things that strikes me about closure notices. We support the need to close premises, particularly if they are likely to be a nuisance to members of the public or there could be disorder, but this goes straight to closure. The point of the corporate ASBO proposal that I put forward in our previous sitting was that prevention would be better than cure, and it would be good to have a stage prior to closure to try to get organisations, companies or premises facing disorder to get their act together and prevent a nuisance taking place.

I have a few questions to raise with the Minister. Is it possible to have some further clarification on what the “reasonable grounds” would be? We do not want any confusion over the slightly vague wording. I know that there are examples in other legislation of reasonable grounds, but it would be helpful to have more explanation of what the Government consider to be reasonable grounds here. Another issue concerns the consultation in subsection (7). As the Bill stands, a police officer or a local authority can issue closure proceedings but they do not have to consult each other on this. There is no requirement for the police to talk to the local authority or for the local authority to talk to the police. In Committee in the other place, Damian Green said that he thought the police and local authorities would probably consult each other before issuing orders. It does not seem a very satisfactory way to legislate to say that they probably will. If it is appropriate that they do so, it should be formalised in the legislation. The other question is: who should they consult? The way in which the clause is drafted at present, a police officer or local authority can consult who they think appropriate, but that might not be each other. I cannot think of anyone more appropriate to consult than the police and the local authority.

It would also be helpful to have the Government’s view on whether they think it would be appropriate to publish the names of those who have been consulted. Those who have been aggrieved by a closure perhaps would understand the reasons more easily and be less likely to appeal or try to stop the proposal if they understood who had been consulted and the process was more transparent. If there had been widespread consultation in an area, it would be understood that there was a serious problem, but they might be more aggrieved if they found that only one or perhaps two organisations had been consulted. That might in turn give grounds for challenges to the closure. Subsection (7) states:

“Before issuing a closure notice the police officer or local authority must ensure that any body or individual the officer or authority thinks appropriate has been consulted”.

Could they consider it appropriate not to consult anybody at all, and would that be grounds for a challenge?

There are two issues: one, whether it is appropriate and whether there is enough information about who should be consulted; and two, if it is not necessary to consult anybody, or to consult very few people—or the most appropriate or useful people to consult—would that give reasons for the decision to be overturned or challenged? I hope that the Minister can address these points, which would be helpful.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we know that in another place the Opposition stated their support for closure notices. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, means when she says that she wants to clarify some of the detail in this, and I agree that a clause stand part debate is a good method to use. Clause 69 gives the police and local authorities a simple and easy-to-use power to close temporary premises that are the focus of public nuisance or disorder. There are a number of existing powers that could be used to close such premises, but they are similar.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Did the noble Lord say, “to close temporary premises”? I am slightly confused by what he means by temporary premises.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

“Temporarily”, I said. I am sorry. I might have said “temporary” but I meant to say “temporarily”. It may be me misspeaking or the noble Baroness mishearing but: “temporarily premises that are the focus of public nuisance or disorder”.

A number of existing powers could be used to close such premises but they are similar and overlap in a number of ways. We are consolidating these existing powers into a single scheme applicable to all premises associated with anti-social behaviour. These powers are flexible and can apply to private and residential premises, and to business premises whether licensed or unlicensed. The notice allows for immediate action while the longer-term order is put in place if it is required. This will give professionals a simple and flexible means to protect the public, making it easier to act preventively.

However, noble Lords will agree that such a power requires safeguards. Of course, local agencies already work informally with individuals and businesses to mitigate the risks of crime and anti-social behaviour before resorting to formal powers. This will continue to be the case. Most businesses want to protect their customers and premises. Where there is information that premises may be the location for or contribute to crime and anti-social behaviour, they can be invited to take action to tackle it, and many do.

Clauses 69 and 70 specify a minimum rank for police officers authorising the issue of a closure notice for up to 24 hours, with a higher authority needed for both the police and local authority for the extension of the notice up to a maximum of 48 hours. The provisions also include requirements about notification and consultation, and of course only the courts can require closures of premises for longer than 48 hours.

The noble Baroness has not tabled amendments but I can use some of the information that she was seeking. The court has to be satisfied that there is likely to be serious nuisance or disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour. The second element is that it is necessary to prevent the nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring. In practice, we expect that in most cases informal measures would be the right starting point. The draft guidance directs professionals towards informal measures in the first instance, where appropriate. Indeed, if alternatives to closure are available but have not been considered, it is difficult to see, save in exceptional cases, how it could be argued that the closure notice is necessary. Professionals, as public authorities, would have to exercise their powers proportionately or risk an adverse judicial review.

Additionally, in applying the test, a court, the police or a local authority must have regard to an individual’s human rights—for example, Article 8 rights. As I said when similar issues were raised in respect of earlier parts of the Bill, such qualified rights can be infringed only where to do so is necessary and proportionate in the pursuit of a legitimate aim.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me what the reasonable grounds are. It is a matter of evidence, usually comprising of witness statements and statements of victims and police officers, in particular. CCTV evidence, for example, can also be brought into play when deciding whether there is a justification for the grounds. The term is commonly used in legislation and I hope that noble Lords will accept that.

The noble Baroness also asked who has been consulted. Given that the notice is affixed to the premises it would not be appropriate to name all the individuals who had been consulted. Guidance highlights the importance of partnership working and it is advised that the police and local authority keep a record of who has been consulted.

The noble Baroness also asked why we do not require the police and local authority to make information about the closure of the premises more publicly available, such as in a paper or some other way. The closure powers are flexible in that they can be used for residential, business, licensed and non-licensed premises. There may be circumstances where a short-term closure of the premises is needed to resolve a problem, such as closing a residential premises for 24 hours to prevent a Facebook party. That would not be of interest to the wider public in that area, and requiring the police or local authority to make a public announcement of all closures would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. That is why we require the police and local authority to consult anyone they think appropriate as well as the owner and occupier of the premises. Clause 72 requires them, where possible, to fix a copy of the notice to the premises.

I hope that I have been able to answer the questions that the noble Baronesses have posed. I hope my noble friend will accept my explanations and agree to withdraw her amendment and that noble Lords will support the provisions in this part of the Bill.