Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Flight Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Flight]

21: Clause 3, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) the anti-social behaviour in which the respondent has engaged, or threatens to engage, consists of intentional or deliberate anti-social behaviour of a potentially persistent nature”

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled this amendment in support in particular of Westminster Council—my wife is a councillor there—but it has been supported on a cross-party basis by the other main city councils of Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham and Southampton. I suggest that they cannot all be wrong in believing that there is an issue here. These major city councils have the quite demanding job of keeping public places free of nuisance for both residents and tourists, particularly in their city centres. Westminster has self-evidently the particular issue of a huge tourist presence in, effectively, most of the key places in London’s city centre.

This is not my natural territory. It has taken quite a lot of effort to get my mind round fairly obscure, and certainly complicated, legal issues. If I make the odd technical error, please accept my apology. This amendment is largely about the problem of persistent and aggressive begging in city centres. This has been an area where the ASBO has worked reasonably well. Local authorities can address the problem by applying for ASBOs; they can be obtained without the individuals involved having a criminal record, but when the ASBO is breached a criminal offence is committed and the local authority can have offenders arrested and prosecuted. Certainly, not only the politicians at Westminster but Westminster City Council staff believe that the present arrangements have worked pretty well in dealing with the problem of inner-city aggressive begging.

The first argument is, to put it simply, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. It is a difficult area. Under this Bill, as we know, ASBOs are to be replaced by IPNAs, but a breach of an IPNA is no longer an automatically arrestable offence. Local authorities can apply for an IPNA, but they would have to take evidence of a breach to court and apply separately for an arrest warrant relative to cases of persistent begging. This is not only hugely bureaucratic and cumbersome but simply would not work, because the offenders invariably have no fixed address; by the time the subsequent power of arrest were granted, it would be useless, because they would not be able to find the offenders. Concerns have been raised about the provisions in the Bill for this problem by Westminster council with Jeremy Browne, who was the Minister, and now with Norman Baker, but there have not been any meetings or no direct response has been received. Concerns have also been raised in the other place by Westminster’s MP, Mark Field.

My amendment in essence seeks to enable an IPNA to be used on a similar basis to ASBOs to deal with the aggressive begging problem. It adds a wider but not universal set of circumstances of,

“intentional or deliberate anti-social behaviour of a potentially persistent nature”,

to enable a court to be able to grant an IPNA with an automatic power of arrest if the IPNA is breached.

The Government’s response so far has been that IPNAs are designed to deal with lower threshold offences and to operate as a pre-emptive tool, so they do not want them to have beefed-up powers attaching to them across the board. My two comments are that IPNAs already are to have powers of automatic arrest for violent or a threat of violent behaviour, so the principle has already been breached. Secondly, my amendment does not give beefed-up powers across the board but only under special conditions of intentional or persistent and deliberate anti-social behaviour, which is what persistent and aggressive begging constitutes. Norman Baker’s stated objection to the stance of the main city councils was that what is proposed is a power of arrest to every injunction, but that is not correct; it is a quite specific power.

The Government’s main argument and objection to this amendment is that it is not needed as the Bill contains new powers that can deal with the problem of aggressive begging and, in particular, the two powers of the CPN and the public spaces protection order—and, I might add, in extremis the dispersal power under which police can clear an area of undesirable people. If a community protection notice’s warning is first issued and then breached, a CPN can then be issued whereby, if it is breached, police can have an automatic power of arrest. But the key is the additional stage prior to issuing a CPN, when the relevant offending individual or group has to be issued with a written warning notice.

Westminster, in particular, argues that warning notices would increase the time and costs of addressing the problems of persistent begging, and would be likely to decrease the ability of local authorities to respond promptly to these problems. If the requirement for the written prior notice of offending behaviour were removed, my understanding is that local authorities would be perfectly happy to use CPNs to address this issue. There is also the financial point that, under the present ASBO arrangements, the Crown Prosecution Service handles the prosecutions but, with CPNs, the local authorities would have to pay the prosecution costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

The language in the amendment seems to be very general;

“intentional or deliberate anti-social behaviour”,

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

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

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

[Lord Flight]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Flight, had to say in this debate. I noticed at the beginning that he was not 100% convinced that he had the right words in the amendment. That is less important in Committee than the intent of what he is seeking to do. Likewise, I was sorry not to get to the briefing last week with Councillor Aiken, but she also wrote to me. I was very struck by the comments she made in her letter. I do not think it is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made that everything is perfect now. Her concern is that there are serious problems and she would be quite happy to see improvements in the legislation to help the council address the issues it is facing. The fear is that the new legislation will weaken its ability. The noble Lord is indicating that I am correct in my understanding of her views.

Councillor Aiken, who, I understand, is the cabinet member for community protection, is probably at the sharp end of this more than any of us in your Lordships’ House are in dealing with these matters. She says:

“While I recognise that the current legislation to deal with anti-social behaviour may require review”;

I think that all of us would accept that improvements can always be made. She goes on to say:

“It is therefore worrying that a Government committed to ensuring people feel safe in their homes and communities and are intent upon freeing up crime fighting capacity, is instead seeking to pass legislation which will weaken local power to protect communities and increase bureaucratic process around enforcement”.

It takes a lot for a councillor to be writing to Ministers and Members of your Lordships’ House with those kinds of comments, when all they are seeking to do is improve their position.

My impression from her letter, as well as information which I have looked for myself, is that the council is being pretty effective in tackling this very serious problem, and there may be a case that more tools are needed to assist them in doing so. They have some suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, suggested meeting councillors to listen to their concerns. I think that they would be very pleased to know whether their approach and their tackling of this issue would be improved by the Government’s proposals and whether their fears could be allayed. Clearly, there cannot be a situation whereby a council dealing with a serious problem affecting our capital city, and, presumably, a number of other cities, is worried that it is going to lose the capacity to deal with something that has to be addressed and which causes great concern to local residents.

I hope that the Minister or his colleagues can undertake to have a meeting with the council. That would be a sensible way forward and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Flight, would report back on Report. He mentioned aggressive begging, and there are other kinds of aggressive behaviour, including harassment, that cause great distress to residents and visitors. I hope that the noble Lord will accommodate the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

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

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed response. I am hopeful that what he described will be an effective measure for dealing with this issue. The only area where I still have some uncertainty, and where Westminster and other councils have uncertainties, is the double-stage aspects of both CPNs and the new public spaces protection orders. There is concern that warnings will be given out to people who will disappear and then come back again as soon as the police have gone. But I am grateful that the Minister has accepted the request to meet not just Councillor Aiken but any other of the local authorities concerned, to go through their concerns and thrash out a mechanism that can work. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.