Water Cannons

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Policing and as an adviser to technology companies that, as far as I know, have no interest in providing water cannon to the policing service in this country. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on securing this debate and giving us an opportunity to discuss what I consider to be potentially an extremely important issue.

First, though, we have to ask ourselves why we are discussing this at all. I am normally someone who is regarded as being supportive—some would say oversupportive—of the police service in this country, but I have to say that I have the gravest reservations as to why we are even talking about this. The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper that I know many noble Lords will believe is the fount of all possible wisdom on many matters, told us on 23 January that it is because senior police officers now believe that the risks of future protests against the Government are so great, and those protests will be so large and difficult to control, that only the deployment of water cannon on the streets of mainland Britain will enable public order to be maintained. Indeed, according to the Telegraph,

“Police warn they expect water cannon will be required because ‘the ongoing and potential future austerity measures are likely to lead to continued protest’”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has said that the police have no specific intelligence on this. Maybe the Minister can tell us that he has intelligence about some future plan of the Government which will be so awesome in terms of the austerity measures introduced, or so offensive to the public, that this sort of response will be triggered. I do not doubt that there will be public protest about the Government. There will no doubt be public protest about the Government’s future austerity measures. But really? So large? So difficult to control? So far beyond anything that we have seen before? So much bigger? So much larger? More than the 250,000 or 500,000 who demonstrated against government cuts in public spending in March 2011? More than the 750,000 or 1 million who demonstrated against the Iraq war in February 2003? Water cannon were not needed then, so why do we envisage that they may be needed in the foreseeable future?

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has told us of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, who is not in his place today. He also spoke to me. He says that he does not believe that the case has been made. His successor as Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Sir Paul Stephenson, said in 2010, following the student tuition fee riots, that he was opposed to water cannon, saying that it would lead to an unsuitably paramilitary style of policing. Only two years ago, the present Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, warned of the limitations of water cannon in these sorts of situations.

Now we are told that the Metropolitan Police want this facility—but for what? It is actually quite difficult to work it out. Chief Constable David Shaw, who prepared a report on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, concedes that the water cannon would not have been a useful tactic, would not have been effective, during the August 2011 riots. That makes sense. Water cannon are effective at dispersing a large crowd, or at keeping two large crowds apart. That is the experience in Northern Ireland. However, the disturbances in August 2011 were not like that. Rioters were already dispersed. They were highly mobile. That was the problem. The police could not be in a sufficient number of locations quickly enough. They could not be everywhere all of the time. They could not respond to a rapidly moving situation, where crowds and individuals were moving from one place to another very quickly. Why would you want a water cannon to disperse a crowd that was already dispersed? Indeed, if anything, it would make your problem in policing that situation even worse. It would therefore have been no use in the August 2011 disturbances.

The ACPO report cites three occasions in the past decade on which water cannon might have been used: the Countryside Alliance demonstration in Parliament Square in 2004; the Gaza demonstrations against the Israeli embassy in 2008-09; and, potentially—it says “potentially”—the student protests of 2010. On the other hand, the Metropolitan Police are saying that water cannon would be rarely used and rarely seen. In fact, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley has given a pledge that the Met would never use them against protests, which would seem to rule out any of the three occasions suggested by the Association of Chief Police Officers. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not speak as with one voice with the senior leadership of the Metropolitan Police on all matters, but it seems that on this particular issue they were not entirely in accord.

What would have been the implications had water cannon been deployed on those occasions cited by ACPO? Let us consider the Countryside Alliance demonstration; a number of your Lordships may recall what that was like. During that, there was a point when the police were concerned that the demonstrators might break through their ranks and storm Parliament. That was a serious situation, which was eventually resolved by conventional policing—slightly messily, but it was resolved. However, the only way that water cannon might have assisted in those circumstances would have been if they had already been deployed, in advance of the police knowing that potentially they might lose control of the situation and that it was deteriorating. Who could have predicted in advance that the welly-clad, middle-class, pro-hunting brigade would be so violent on that particular day? The only way that the water cannon could have been deployed would have been to park them inside the precincts of Parliament, inside the Palace of Westminster, facing outwards. Does anyone really believe that that would have been sanctioned —in advance and on the basis of no intelligence that anything was going to happen—by Mr Speaker or the Lord Speaker? What sort of message would we have put out to the rest of the world? Imagine the images of the mother of Parliaments with water cannon firing jets of water out from New Palace Yard.

What about the student protests of 2010? The problem there was that an unexpected—I stress that—splinter group chose to attack Conservative Central Office. That was a break-away group which acted unpredictably. That there would be a break-away group may have been predictable, but what they would do and when they would do it was unpredictable. Therefore water cannon would not have been in the right place at the right time. Had their activities been foreseen, normal policing could have controlled the situation—enough police would have been surrounding Conservative Central Office. What if such activities are not foreseen? The break-away faction is a risk in all otherwise peaceful demonstrations, as it is mixed in with all sorts of ordinary demonstrators who are not planning to be as objectionable. Break-away factions are by their nature unpredictable—it is not possible to foresee when they will break away—so you will not have the water cannon deployed and in the right place at the right time.

What is this all about? Is it another mayoral vanity project? Maybe I am being too kind. What psychology is involved with a mayor who wants to have a large hose to douse the lower orders? I suspect that the timeline began with one of the Taliban-tendency Tory Back-Benchers, who said after the 2011 riots: “The Met needs water cannon”. The Home Secretary, who wishes to be the next Tory leader and therefore never says to a Tory Back-Bencher, “You are out of your tiny mind”, replied, “If the police think they will need them, we will consider it”. The mayor, who also wants to be the next Tory leader—possibly even more than the Home Secretary—but who certainly does not want to be out-righted by her and certainly also wants to curry favour with the same Taliban tendency, said to the Met: “Are you sure you might not need them?”. The Met said, “Okay—we’ll think about it”, and so the process starts. Before you know it we are in the process of buying three clapped-out German water cannon no one else wants, which no one knows when they might need to use, and we run the risk of them being deployed, which would make a difficult situation worse and further alienate those with a grievance.

British policing has a worldwide, proud record of managing public order events. Why are we trying to throw that away?

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dear (CB)]

My Lords, I of course welcome the amendment. It is, as the Minister said, substantially the same as the amendment in my name on which we voted on Report. I readily agree the inclusion of private housing in the same context as social housing, which has been on the statute book for a while.

I extend a vote of thanks at this juncture, first, to those who voted in support of my amendment on Report. I am very grateful to them for helping to preserve and protect fundamental rights under the law. I thank the Public Bill Office staff, who were, as they always are, unfailingly helpful to me in the progress of the amendment through to Report. I thank the staff of the Christian Institute, who gave me invaluable administrative help in the run-up to the vote on Report. Finally, I thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy and help in what were not always the easiest of discussions to make progress on in this part of the Bill. Those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him before will know that that is his default mode, and I am very grateful to him.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, sweetness and light is clearly breaking out after a slightly more difficult passage of the Bill at earlier stages. We should all be pleased that the outcome of this has been to strike a compromise between the very real concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and others expressed about the original provision. That had to be balanced, as it was in debate, by the real concern about problems faced by many tenants in both the public and the private sector, and I think that the Government have sought to strike an acceptable balance. To strike the slightest of sour notes, I think it was clear that that balance had to be struck from our debate in Committee, a very full and detailed debate. Perhaps, had the Government come forward with precisely this formulation at an earlier stage, they would have avoided a defeat. I also wish that a similar attempt to try to meet the genuine concerns of noble Lords in respect of other provisions in the Bill might have borne fruit before we got to this stage.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment he has moved today, for his letter and for the helpful way in which he approached taking on board the will of your Lordships’ House. His amendment still allows for nuisance and annoyance to be taken into the housing setting and residential areas. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that it was the Opposition who raised time and again during the passage of the Bill the fact that so much of it is not tenure-neutral. We felt that those who rented their accommodation rather than owned it were getting a bit of a raw deal. In the amendment, the Government have sought to address that problem, so that those suffering from anti-social behaviour in the form of nuisance and annoyance, whether the people who are causing the problem live in public rented accommodation, private rented accommodation or are owner-occupiers, can ensure that that problem is tackled. I am grateful for the Minister’s acknowledgement of that because we have raised it several times during consideration of the Bill. I also welcome the conversion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to this as I know that she was not happy with the amendment and voted against it on Report. The Minister can take great pride and credit in having such widespread support around the House.

I have just one question, which is on the title of the provision still being an IPNA, or an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance, under Part 1 of the Bill. I wonder whether, if I can pronounce this correctly, that should now be an IPASB rather than an IPNA. On the content, that aside, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for tabling that amendment in the first place.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey)]

92: Before Clause 111, insert the following new Clause—
“Crime and disorder reduction: development control
(1) The Secretary of State shall designate a body representative of chief officers of police for the purposes of this section.
(2) A body designated under this section shall publish guidelines that specify for a particular type of development the measures that should be included in that development to promote—
(a) crime and disorder reduction, and(b) the prevention of anti-social behaviour.(3) Guidelines under this section shall only be produced following consultation with organisations that represent—
(a) local authorities, and(b) persons engaged in the design and construction of developments requiring planning permission.(4) A planning authority may, in respect of any application that it receives for planning permission, specify as a condition for the approval of that planning permission that the development concerned must follow guidelines published under this section.
(5) A planning authority may only specify a condition under subsection (4) if it is satisfied that to do so would promote—
(a) crime and disorder reduction, or(b) the prevention of anti-social behaviour.”

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the same amendment I moved at Committee stage. I will therefore rehearse the arguments for it only briefly but also, I hope, respond to the points that were made against it in Committee.

The purpose of the Government’s Bill that we are considering—I am sure the Minister will have told us this many times—is all about reducing crime and anti-social behaviour. Indeed, as we know, overall crime has declined in the past 15 years or so, and the trend in burglary is particularly marked. Yet, unmentioned in the Bill, the Government are seeking to undermine the progress that has been made. During the past two decades, new developments, including homes—both new build and refurbished—schools, play areas, hospitals and many others, have increasingly been informed by and have adopted the principles of Secured by Design.

What has been achieved under this initiative carried out under the auspices of the Association of Chief Police Officers? First, Secured by Design developments— that is, those which use products and materials that it has approved—are half as likely to be burgled, and show a reduction of 25% in criminal damage. Secondly, the additional cost of using Secured by Design standards in the average home has worked out at only £170 per dwelling. In one year alone, some 700,000 burglaries could be thwarted if appropriate security devices were installed, representing an annual saving of more than £1.97 billion. Indeed, the Association of British Insurers has estimated that the Secured by Design standards across the UK would bring more than £3.2 billion-worth of savings to the economy over 20 years. Householders who are not offered security recommendations after a burglary are 69% more likely to suffer a repeat incident than those who are offered advice.

This is a success story that is widely copied internationally. It is the subject of many academic studies testifying to its efficacy and it was the subject of much support from all corners of the House when I raised it in Committee. Why, then, if it ain’t broke, are the Government taking it to pieces anyway? The Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation document in the depths of last summer, seeking views on a recent review of building regulations and housing standards. The proposals that it put out to consultation were for a two-tiered standard for security—a basic minimum level that would be generally required and a so-called enhanced standard. The basic standard is demonstrably inadequate and has been shown to have little security benefit. Specifying stronger locks is not much of a deterrent if the door is so flimsy that it could be kicked in with one firm kick.

The requirement for the lock itself, on the basic standard recommended by the Government, is based on a 26 year-old standard. It does not even require the British Standards kitemark lock. Instead, it requires a lock with only 1,000 key variations, vulnerable to the most basic forms of attack. Even the British Standards kitemark standard, which protects against drilling and cutting—I believe that these are the technical terms involved—is having to be revised upwards to allow for two increasingly prevalent forms of attack: lock snapping and lock bumping. For those who are not familiar with these techniques, I am told that there is a handy YouTube video that tells the aspiring burglar how to do it. The Government are therefore recommending a basic standard of security that does not even meet the British Standard, even though the British Standard needs to be revised because of standard attacks that are made on locks in this country.

In Committee, the Minister made much of what a step forward it was that this proposed basic security standard would now be a core requirement. It is not much of useful core requirement if the standard is totally inadequate. In 1999 and 2006, research studies compared burglaries on estates using the security standard for locks contained in the Minister’s core standard with those using Secured by Design locks. The latter suffered 70% less crime. The Government’s core standard is woefully inadequate.

What about the so-called enhanced standard that would be available in certain circumstances? Even this would be lower than the existing Secured by Design standards. However, it could be required by a local authority only where what is described as a “compelling case” exists for this higher standard to be the norm. To make this compelling case, a local authority will have to demonstrate that the development will be subject to an elevated rate of burglary and that there will be a higher than normal impact of burglary on the tenants. It goes without saying that this test is almost impossible to pass in respect of a new development, and the test has to be applied site by site in a way that is likely to produce confusion and added uncertainty for developers, who will not know when they submit a proposal whether the authority will attempt to apply the enhanced standard.

--- Later in debate ---

The issues are complex, which is why, both during the consultation period and during this further period of consideration, the Department for Communities and Local Government continues to work closely with the police and industry partners to review the evidence base. Indeed, Ministers met ACPO only last week. I am not, therefore, persuaded that at this time we should pre-empt ongoing work and mandate the police to produce guidance and prescribe both how it is developed and used. Such a course of action would be premature. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Blair of Boughton and Lord Condon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for their support for this amendment. It is also heartening to hear that neighbourhood watch schemes around the country believe that this approach is the right one. I am also aware that quite a number of senior local authority figures of all parties have expressed support for the principle.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support for the principles behind this. Quite properly, she said that Secured by Design guidelines include such issues as defensible space, lighting, sightlines and so on and she asked about the focus on locks. The reason for the focus on locks and such practical, physical measures in the course of this debate is that that is the area where the DCLG consultation, which includes the building regulations, is designed to weaken the autonomy of local authorities to decide what they think are the most appropriate standards in their areas. This is the reverse of being top-down; it is the Government who are imposing these changes top-down and preventing individual local authorities making their choices.

I have to say that I was puzzled by the Minister’s assurance that planning law does allow these things to be included in planning approvals. My understanding, as a local authority member for 26 years, is that planning approvals may include advice but only certain things can be included as mandatory as part of planning approvals. This would not be permitted under planning law to be one of those mandatory guidelines.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seemed to think that this was some back-door way of giving statutory status to a bunch of senior police officers. I have to say that I do not think that is the purpose of it. The formulation,

“The Secretary of State shall designate a body representative of”,

is quite widely used in legislation to permit, without recognising a particular body, the use of a body which is broadly representative as being able to put forward a view. It is a standard approach. He also seemed concerned that the list of the organisations that should be consulted, given in proposed new subsection (3), was not sufficient. I would be happy to accept that it would be possible to amend it further to include that.

The Minister seems to be encouraging me to bring the amendment forward again in a slightly different form. If he is saying that the amendment would be acceptable if, instead of referring to,

“a body representative of chief officers of police”,

it said, “the College of Policing”, I am quite happy to bring this forward on another occasion. Is that what he is suggesting?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is not what I am suggesting. I just pointed out to noble Lords what the noble Lord’s amendment said.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

In that case, the points about the College of Policing were clearly rather academic.

The purpose of this amendment is to give local authorities the flexibility to set higher design standards, if that is what they want to do. The Minister has said that nothing the Government are doing is intended to weaken the security standards and that the housing standards review was not intended to bring about the lowest common denominator, but that is what it is doing, in practice. He talked about supporting the police in advising on a layout of a development, but this is not just about the layout of a development—it is about the security measures physically built into the development, which I do not believe can be part of a planning approval at present.

The Minister told us at length about the importance of tidying up the policing landscape, but that, frankly, is irrelevant. There will still be chief officers of police, unless there is some hidden agenda for the Government.

[The Earl of Lytton]

I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting his flow. The Minister pointed out the difference in approach between planning and building regulations. We have heard, for instance, that certain things may not apply to social housing providers of one sort or another. Building regulations do not necessarily fall automatically within the purview of a local authority; they can be outsourced. Therefore, you can have any number of commercial companies who can provide the building control facility. The NHBC, for instance, is actually a certification process set up by—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl has had the reprimand from the Front Bench. I was enjoying the to and fro, and would happily have answered him in detail. Of course other bodies are involved, but this enables the local authority, the elected local body, to have choice and impose when appropriate the standards that it thinks are appropriate at local level. That is what will be precluded by the Government’s approach.

The Minister talked about this proposal applying only to new developments. The point is, over time, all developments would be covered by these arrangements. That is how you get to the figures in terms of burglaries that one might be talking about. He said that it does not stop Secured by Design from bringing standards to the marketplace. But the problem is that he would not be able to require something if, at local level, local authorities thought that it was necessary. Planning law simply does not allow this to happen. I am afraid that somewhere, lost between the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office, a very important principle has been destroyed—the principle that local councillors should be able to set a higher standard for security if they think that their local residents need it and crime prevention is necessary in that way.

For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Freedom Charity, which works to provide education and support for individuals who may be at risk of forced marriage. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, is right to highlight that many organisations believe that the Government are correct in trying to make forced marriage a criminal offence. The Freedom Charity is precisely one of those organisations and, in my view, the Government’s approach to this is right.

However, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Thornton, as opposed to the general principle which seems to have been aired, raises another, separate and extremely important issue—the circumstances in which an individual who has been forced into marriage lacks proper capacity to consent to that marriage. I have no doubt that we will be told by the Minister that somehow that is covered by the phrase at the end of Clause 109(1)(b) about a person entering into a marriage,

“without free and full consent”.

I understand that argument, but it seems to me that nothing is lost and rather a lot is gained by specifically highlighting the problems of those who may not have the capacity to consent to a marriage.

I am in no doubt that there are instances where young people, or not so young people, who have limited capacity are being forced into marriages, perhaps from benign motives—that is, to protect or support them—but perhaps also from less benign motives. Forced marriage is pretty abhorrent in itself, but the implications of forcing into marriage somebody who does not even understand what is happening to them seems to me particularly vile and is something that I hope this legislation will address.

That is why the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Thornton is important, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept and support it. As I said, I understand that they will no doubt say that,

“without free and full consent”,

covers the point but, unless it is highlighted and unless the particularly vulnerable state of people with limited capacity is made clear, a great opportunity is being lost. Making it a specific and separate criminal offence is important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, when I first saw the amendment, I thought that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has just said, it was covered by Clause 109(1)(b). However, I realised that it is not, because paragraph (b) comes into play only if paragraph (a) applies. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: what does “coercion” in paragraph (a) mean? If the argument is that it is covered, I think that we need to understand the extent of coercion and whether that covers the situation that the noble Baroness has set out.

While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say that I hope my noble friend Lady Tonge will seek the leave of the House to speak to her amendments in this group. She got so carried away with enthusiasm for the noble Baroness’s amendment that she forgot to cover them. I am intrigued by my noble friend’s amendments. We were all left floundering somewhat listening to the debate on their predecessor amendments in Committee, knowing that there were good intentions behind them but not quite finding the means to support them because we were rather doubtful about them. These amendments are much more comprehensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, I totally understand and respect the noble Baroness’s position. She is correct in saying that, often, the people who may be forced into a marriage would be unaware of the situation. The point she raised about parents is also well made. However, as the legislation stands, they would not have given their “full” consent, which means that they had the capacity to give that consent. I see that the noble Lord wishes to speak.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The point here is not the consent but whether coercion has taken place. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put it very clearly: for an offence to be committed, both paragraphs (a) and (b) have to apply. It is not a question of whether consent has been given or not under paragraph (b) but a question of whether or not there has been coercion. This will not necessarily be coercion. It may simply be suggestion, which I do not think counts as coercion. The context is that you have to do both (a) and (b), so there has to be either the use of “violence” and “threats”—which does not necessarily have to happen—

“or any other form of coercion”.

However, this will not necessarily be coercion. I will carry on explaining the point to allow assistance to come from the Box. It is an extremely important issue.

There is the question of coercion, which leads to somebody entering into a marriage, and the question of consent. I think we all agree that people with limited capacity will not be able to give consent. However, that, in itself, does not create an offence, because they may not have been coerced. A highly suggestible person with learning difficulties may simply have been told, “This is going to be nice, you are going to enjoy this and this is going to be fun. So-and-so is going to look after you and take you to the cinema”. I do not know what the form of suggestion might be, or how it might be put, but that is the context in which it would happen. It is not the same as coercion—that is the difficulty. As far as I can tell—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put it very clearly—you need both coercion and the failure to consent before you have committed an offence. That is why my noble friend Lady Thornton’s amendment is so important.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their interventions and will return to that point before I conclude my comments. The point is well made and understood, but I will continue while I await clarification. My understanding on this issue is that any person taking part in a marriage would have to give their consent. The view is that, if no consent is given, it would not be deemed to be a valid contract. However, as I said, I will clarify that point in a moment.

I turn to Amendments 87A and 87B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. I shall explain that these amendments relate to the process by which a young person aged 16 or 17 may consent to the marriage. Following the Committee stage, I have had the opportunity to meet the noble Baroness and I welcome the opportunity again to discuss this important issue today. These amendments would make it an offence for the parent or guardian to consent to a marriage of a person or persons before the age of 18 unless the written consent of both parties to the marriage has been obtained. The offence would also extend to marriages contracted outside the UK.

I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned that under the current law parents may give consent to force marriage on a 16 or 17 year-old who may not wish to marry. However, I do not believe this amendment is necessary because the law already provides adequate safeguards for children who are aged 16 to 17 and are entering into marriages.

The law in England and Wales, as contained in Section 2 of the Marriage Act 1949, provides that if a marriage, be it civil or religious, is solemnized and either or both of the parties is under the age of 16 that marriage will be void. If the child is aged 16 or 17, Section 3 of the Marriage Act 1949 requires the consent of the child’s parents or guardians, unless the child is a widow or a widower.

I appreciate that Amendment 87A seeks to add additional safeguards to the current law rather than preventing the marriage of 16 and 17 year-olds outright. However, I consider that the additional need for the written consent of parties is unnecessary. If any person is forced into a marriage without their consent, the provisions in this Bill which will make it a criminal offence to seek to force someone to marry will apply regardless of the age of the party concerned. In addition, any forced marriage would be voidable under Section 12(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on grounds of lack of valid consent.

If someone is being forced into marriage, it is foreseeable that they could be forced to provide written consent. Therefore, I do not believe that this provision would achieve the noble Baroness’s desired effect of preventing forced marriages. However, I understand totally the noble Baroness’s concerns and I share her desire to ensure that we do everything we can to protect 16 and 17 year-olds—as well as others—from forced marriage. In regard to the points made by the noble Baroness, I will keep the provisions in the Bill under review and, as we have previously discussed, consider the issue of how the legislation is currently drafted to see whether there is something more that we can return to at Third Reading.

Turning to the application of such a provision to marriages contracted outside the United Kingdom, there is no legislation in England and Wales on this issue and matters of recognition of such marriages in England and Wales are for the courts to determine. However, I consider that the courts already have the necessary powers to provide adequate safeguards for children entering into marriages outside the UK. Generally speaking, the validity of a marriage contracted outside the UK will be governed by the law of the country in which it was contracted. However, if there were questions as to the capacity or age of one or both parties to such a marriage, the courts in England and Wales could refuse to recognise the marriage for the purposes of England and Wales law.

I therefore consider that the need for the written consent of parties is unnecessary in respect of marriages contracted outside the UK. We also do not believe that applying this sort of provision to marriages contracted outside the UK would be practical or appropriate. For example it would, in our view, be extremely difficult to enforce.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 87B, which seeks to make identical provision to Amendment 87A in respect of Scotland. This is a devolved issue, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, underlined.

Perhaps I may turn to the issue just raised on Section 109. The Forced Marriage Unit carried out a full review of the cases dealt with in relation to victims with learning disabilities and mental health issues and could not find any cases in which there was no element of coercion. Where there is an element of coercion, we do not wish to criminalise the behaviour concerned. Rather, the appropriate recourse is for the individual to apply to the court for the marriage to be declared void under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

90: Before Clause 111, insert the following new Clause—
“Local community safety plans
In section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (formulation and implementation of strategies) after subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) In exercising functions under subsection (1), each of the responsible authorities for a local government area must set out their approach to making use of the powers conferred by Parts 1 to 5 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.””

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

In moving Amendment 90 I shall also speak to Amendment 91. These two amendments are intended to be entirely helpful to the Government. I am surprised that that suggestion provoked hilarity from the Government Front Bench, because that is genuinely the case. If the Minister has in front of him a brief from his officials suggesting that he should oppose these amendments, I hope that by the time he has finished listening to what I have to say he will realise that that advice is perhaps an example of civil servants approaching amendments to a Bill as if not a tiny hair of its precious head should be interfered with, because obviously it is an object of complete perfection. I hope that by the end of my speech the noble Lord will realise that I am trying to improve the Bill and make it fit more coherently with other legislation on policing and anti-social behaviour.

Amendment 90 requires that each of the responsible bodies in a local community safety partnership should set out its approach to using the anti-social behaviour powers in the Bill. As part of the production of a community safety plan, the various relevant organisations —the local authority, the local police commander, and possibly the health bodies and so on—should set out how they will use the powers given to them by the Bill.

Amendment 91 requires that police and crime commissioners should include in their policing and crime plans objectives for the use of the anti-social behaviour powers in the Bill. Before the Minister assumes that I must have had some sort of Damascene conversion to the concept of police and crime commissioners, let me tell him that this is nothing of the sort. I am simply trying to make this legislation that the Government are trying to get through consistent with other legislation that Parliament has already passed. I am not saying that previous legislation is perfect or does not need changing; I am simply trying to make this legislation consistent with it.

The aim of the amendments is to integrate what is in the Bill with other legislative requirements. They would ensure that plans were made for how the various powers—the new injunction powers, the dispersal order powers and so on, which we have spent many happy hours debating—would be used in any local area. The requirement that the intentions of the various responsible authorities be set out in the local community safety plans and the force-wide policing and crime plans will ensure that there is public consultation on the approach to be taken. It will also require buy-in from all the local partners to the approach being taken. Above all, we are trying to ensure that some sort of coherent strategy for the use of Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill is articulated. At the moment, that is not an obligation for those who will enforce it.

In my view, local community safety plans are the building blocks of local collaboration. The 1998 Act that created them, and the subsequent amendments of the law that have strengthened and added elements to them, are the mechanism by which, at local level, the police service, the local authorities and other relevant parties come together to decide on the best way of dealing with what, in the original formulation and language used, was called crime and disorder. In this context, that would include anti-social behaviour. What is the best way of addressing that? My amendment would involve the local authority sitting down with the police and identifying the circumstances in which they can both make a difference, so it is about the sort of collaboration that the Minister, in responding to a number of provisions, has talked about as being the sine qua non of what the Government are trying to achieve with the Bill. Therefore, the amendment follows the principles set out by Ministers but provides a framework in which they will be discussed at local level by the relevant parties. The amendment would also provide coherence and enable the relevant intentions to be set out clearly. It sets out a mechanism for this to take place and a mechanism for partnership around what the Government want to see achieved at local level with regard to anti-social behaviour. It also sets out a mechanism whereby those approaches can be agreed.

The amendment would deliver transparency at local level with regard to how the measures in Parts 1 to 5 are to be used—without the amendment, I am afraid that the Bill simply does not have that—and introduce a much clearer system of local accountability as the local objectives in regard to the use of Parts 1 to 5 would be set out. It would also provide a mechanism to achieve consistency of approach in the way that the powers in Parts 1 to 5 are used within a force area and even within a local authority area. Above all, it would institutionalise effective collaboration. I cannot see what there is in these amendments for the Government Front Bench not to like. As I say, they are genuinely put forward in a spirit of trying to be helpful and make this piece of legislation consistent and compatible with other legislation that requires collaboration and working together to protect local communities against anti-social behaviour. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous endorsement of my intention to be helpful on this occasion. I suggest that my espousal of the current arrangement for police and crime commissioners will have to wait for another occasion; we are certainly not going to get there tonight.

I have some difficulty with his response. It is very useful that he set out for the record the Government’s commitment that the use of the powers under the terms of the Bill should be very much part of local planning in terms of the preparation and delivery of community safety plans and in terms of police and crime commissioners setting out their objectives. The reality is that most police and crime commissioners have said, “Yes, this is one of our priorities”. They have not—partly, of course, because the legislation has not been passed—specified exactly how they intend to approach these issues. But of course, at the moment, there is no obligation on them to refer to the content of the Bill. That is what would be changed.

My noble friend Lady Smith talked about the dispersal order powers. This is one example of where we beg to differ on the subject of whether there should be prior consultation with local authorities. If there was at least a formal agreement and protocol on the circumstances in which both sides will expect those powers to be used, that would be helpful to the legislation and might avoid some, although I fear not all, of the problems that were identified when we talked about this on a previous occasion.

I do not think that the Bill requires the sort of collaboration that I think is necessary and that the Minister thinks is necessary. I think it is unfortunate that the Bill is so silent on how this fits in with community safety plans and police and crime plans, but I am at least grateful to the Minister for what he has said on the record today. In the light of that—I will read the debate carefully to make sure that he has not left too many gaps—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90 withdrawn.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas]

But if one weapon were not to hand, do people not tend to use whatever is to hand? I suspect that we will find that people who own guns are rather less likely to murder people than those who do not.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, we are in danger of having a slightly false debate on this subject. Let us start from the simple fact that firearms and shotguns are, very easily, potentially lethal weapons. What is more, they are lethal weapons that can operate at some distance. They are therefore dangerous items. It has been decided by Parliament, quite properly, that there should be a licensing regime—that checks should be applied to individuals who hold them.

The amendment is not about comparing the population of those who are licensed firearms holders with those who are not; it is about a very specific sub-category. This is not an amendment that will stop, or is intended to stop, armed robbers. It is not about people who start off with malign intent. It is about the nature of the checks, and how they should be used, in very restricted circumstances. It is about people who would set out to acquire a firearm not because they want to rob a bank, but probably for sporting purposes; that is, I assume, the reason why the noble Lords who hold such licences apply for them, and use firearms.

The amendment suggests that, as part of the checks, if there is a history of the individual concerned having been involved in incidents of,

“violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse”,

the presumption should be that that person will be denied a licence. This is not about the application of open discretion by police officers. It says that the presumption will be that that individual will not be allowed a weapon.

This is nothing to do with people who acquire weapons illegally, and nothing to do with people who are trying to acquire weapons for other purposes; it simply says that if people with that particular sort of history apply to legally hold a lethal firearm, the presumption should be that they will not be allowed to do that. I would have thought that was eminently sensible. I find it almost unthinkable that that is not the starting point that will be adopted in your Lordships’ House.

What is being proposed by this very carefully worded amendment is that, in those cases where there are prima facie reasons that people may lose control and not use the weapons for the purposes for which they have sought a firearms licence—for example, they may murder or attack their partner or be so inebriated or under the influence of drugs that they would use a firearm against another person—the presumption should be that they are not allowed a licence.

No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others will say, “Hang on, the chiefs of police have discretion in those cases”. However, the point that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon made was that, given that there is discretion and given the way in which it operates, that is not sufficient. By passing this amendment, we would give those chief police officers not just a discretion, as we would be saying, “The presumption is that you do not put a lethal firearm in the hands of somebody who has committed domestic violence or has a history of alcohol abuse or drug abuse”. Surely, that provision is sensible, is a safeguard and is something on which we can all agree.

[Lord Marland (Con)]

My Lords, no one bows more than I do to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, as I had the pleasure of engaging in debates with her for two and a half years, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that we are in danger of overkill here and I disagree with the comments of the noble Lord opposite. It is clear that we have to generate public confidence and this amendment makes a very good stab at trying to establish it, which is absolutely fundamental.

However, the process through which people have to go in applying for a firearms licence is incredibly rigorous. The checking process is rigorous, as is the storage process, but there will always be people outside that process who will abuse it, as my noble friend Lord Deben said. The problem with the amendment is that it leaves out a whole range of people who should be included in the category we are discussing. That is why I have drawn the conclusion that legislating for the sake of legislating to tighten regulation that is already tightly drawn is not the answer. Like noble Lords on the opposition Benches and those who support the amendment, I understand that public confidence has to be of the utmost. We have to let the police ultimately decide who is able to hold a firearms licence—they, and they alone, should decide that.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, there are two government amendments in this group. It may assist the House if I set out the case for the reform of the existing powers available to the police and, in doing so, also address Amendment 32, which has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

In Committee, the Opposition questioned whether the new dispersal power is needed—indeed, the noble Baroness mentioned that earlier in the debate—and whether there is any problem with the existing powers. It is true that both of the existing dispersal powers have been used successfully to deal with anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related disorder. However, they also have limitations. Section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 is used to deal with persistent anti-social behaviour in an area and requires the agreement of the local authority in designating a dispersal zone. That approach is not as swift and responsive as it could be. This Bill takes a different approach. Where there is persistent anti-social behaviour in an area, it is the council that is able to put in place the measures to promote long-term, sustainable change in an area. It uses not a dispersal power but the new public spaces protection order.

Section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 is a police-only power, so can be used more quickly; but it can be used only in relation to alcohol-related disorder, and that is too limited. In reforming the anti-social behaviour legislation, we have sought to streamline the powers and make them more flexible. That is the philosophy behind all the anti-social behaviour powers in this Bill. The new dispersal power will allow police to respond quickly so that victims do not have to suffer the anti-social behaviour while a dispersal zone is put in place. I believe that agencies should not have to label an area an ASB hotspot before the police are able to act. These labels are a stigma on communities and can hinder the hard work of local agencies to improve the quality of life in those areas. I agree that the existing dispersal powers are not “broke”—to use a well known expression—but that does not mean that we should not take this opportunity to improve them. Combining the best elements of the existing powers makes the new power a more effective tool to protect victims of anti-social behaviour.

In its written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, ACPO stated that the new dispersal power,

“will strengthen police powers to remove people from areas for poor public place behaviour in general and are not overly focussed on alcohol related disorder as at present”.

It said that the two existing powers,

“have proved to be very effective tools and combining these orders will simplify their administration and reduce costs”.

This is echoed by a number of individual police forces and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, which also welcome the new dispersal power. The Criminal Justice Alliance stated that the new power,

“could alleviate antisocial behaviour from particular areas quickly with far less administrative bureaucracy than previously”.

All these organisations caveat their statements with the note of caution that it will be important that the new power is used proportionately and sensitively, and we agree. As I have explained, the new power is designed to allow the police to act quickly to prevent anti-social behaviour from escalating. This does not mean that we expect the police to act in isolation from other agencies; indeed, we acknowledge that there will be many situations where it is appropriate to involve the local authority in the response to anti-social behaviour.

However, to require the police to consult the local authority routinely before the dispersal power is used would severely constrain its use. As for providing democratic oversight of the police, which some have suggested is the reason for local authority involvement, that is not the role of the local authority. As with all police activity, police and crime commissioners will provide the democratic accountability for the use of dispersal powers.

I believe that it is right to reform the dispersal powers. That said, we have listened to the concerns expressed in Committee that the new dispersal powers could be used to restrict peaceful protests and freedom of assembly. That brings me to government Amendments 31 and 33, which I hope will be agreed by the House. I remain satisfied that the test for the exercise of those powers precludes them from being used in such a way. However, given the strength of feeling on the matter, we have tabled the amendments. Amendment 31 makes it clear that, before authorising the use of the dispersal powers, the authorising officer must have due regard to the rights to freedom of assembly and expression as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Similarly, Amendment 33 makes clear an officer’s duty to consider those rights before issuing a dispersal direction.

Similar concerns were raised in the context of public spaces and protection orders. Although not in this group, Amendment 54 places a similar duty on the local authority to have particular regard for those two convention rights before making such an order. Again, as public authorities under the Human Rights Act, local authorities are already duty bound to act compatibly with convention rights, but we recognise that, in the context of the Bill, it is helpful to reinforce that point.

I hope that that reassures noble Lords that the new dispersal powers will not be used in a way that conflicts with an individual’s convention rights. I commend the government amendments and the provisions of Clause 32 to the House.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for Amendments 31 and 33. They are clearly intended to address one of the problems which arises from the clauses on dispersal orders. They address the issue of whether this power could be used in respect of people conducting a demonstration of some sort—at least, I assume that that is what they do. Perhaps when the Minister responds, he could tell us the strength of the words,

“have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression”,

in relation to a demonstration which may be a bit rowdy, a bit difficult or a bit challenging, as opposed to a straightforward, entirely sedate slow march or, indeed, to someone standing still waving a placard.

For example, could the power be used under circumstances in which, having given regard to the rights of freedom of expression, the inspector concerned decides that he has thought about it but, none the less, he wishes to use the power? If the Minister can reassure us about that, clearly the issue has been adequately addressed by Amendments 31 and 33.

I address my remarks to the wider issues raised by Amendment 32 in the name of my noble friend, which would remove Clause 32. I suspect that that is a rather blunderbuss approach to a matter on which we have been trying throughout the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House to get clarity on: in what circumstances the power might be used and how that might happen. We asked many questions in Committee about how this might happen, to which we have had very little in terms of answers. I certainly recall raising the issue of the rank of the police officer who would authorise the use of the power in a specified locality. I accept that the Minister described inspectors as comparatively senior police officers—and indeed they are comparatively senior police officers compared with a constable or a police sergeant—but they are not comparatively senior compared with an assistant chief constable or a superintendent. These are relative terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this gives us an opportunity to come back to a subject where there has not been a great deal of meeting of minds. I am anxious to make sure that we are all reading this situation in the same way. I will address the various points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—I accept that he is not making them out of mischievousness but out of genuine inquiry as to how the operations are going to work—and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

When we talked about setting this process up, I thought my speaking notes made it clear that information that we provided in the consultation we had on this was about making efficient dispersal arrangements and providing them in connection with the public space protection order. One of those things deals with territory and one deals with situations. I think we all agree that when we are dealing with territory, there is often quite a bit of history—there is certainly a lot of experience—and local government and the police can work very happily in hand together to deal with it. When we are dealing with situations and people, it is very important that we have a clear order of command. In areas which may well have provided trouble in the past or, indeed, in situations which are known to the police and local authorities to be likely to be troublesome, there may well be some prior discussions.

One of the great advantages of using inspector grades to take these decisions is that most inspectors have territorial responsibilities and local knowledge is very important. Indeed, in terms of policing—and it is an operational matter involving the police, not local authority employees, for example—it is the police who have that local knowledge. They have access to that local knowledge and an inspector would have access to it by consultation with sergeants and constables. Indeed, it need not be at inspector level that the decision is ultimately made. If it is a complex issue that requires great sensitivity, the inspector is perfectly entitled to go up to superintendent or even chief constable level before determining that the dispersal order is made. However, this legislation provides the facility for it to occur.

The noble Baroness talked about the evidence. To my mind, the evidence is pretty self-explanatory in that what we need is a clear command structure. The Government feel that this is the right thing. We have presented it to the police. I met Richard Antcliff of Nottinghamshire Police city community protection team before Christmas. He welcomes these new powers. His team is a partnership team of police officers, police staff and council officers. I went to Nottingham in October to see its work. He is very positive about the new dispersal power and sees it as a key intervention in dealing with anti-social behaviour in the city of Nottingham. The work in Nottingham is co-operative, and that is surely the sort of thing we want.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am not trying to hold up progress through the Bill. I am sure the project that the Minister went to see in Nottingham is excellent, but if it is being interpreted, on the basis of a conversation that he had with somebody there, who was no doubt in deep awe of the Minister, as a statement of police support for this change, it is going a little far. It may be that it is more than that, but the point still remains. The clause we have at the moment simply states,

“a police officer of at least the rank of inspector”.

It does not say, “a police officer of at least the rank of inspector who has, for example, an intimate knowledge of the communities concerned and the likely impact of this action”. If it said something like that, and I appreciate that that is not legislative drafting, that would reassure on that particular point, but it does not. It could simply be an inspector. I think it quite likely that some police forces, given that they are about to receive a large new volume of technical legislation, will decide to have an inspector somewhere—or maybe even a superintendent; it does not really matter which—whose sole purpose will be to ensure that all the boxes have been ticked in terms of following the legislation. That is not the same as someone with an intimate knowledge of what the community consequences are likely to be in that locality.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Although the noble Lord is not being mischievous, he is being extraordinarily cynical. Effective operation of a police force is that police force’s job; it is not our job here in Parliament, as we construct the law, to tell the police how they should effect the law. The law requires us to ensure that dispersal orders are operated properly and that full consideration is given to the rights of peaceful protest and political expression. We have made it clear what the law is, and it is up to the police to decide what they should do. The view that I have expressed—it is, of course, just an opinion—is that it is right to involve inspectors in this sort of decision-making, because, as I think the noble Lord would agree, when it comes to local knowledge of policing situations, it is frequently the inspector who is in the best position. If he does not know, he can ask a superior officer, and also consult the officers involved in policing that particular area.

I am sorry, but I feel that the noble Lord is making heavy weather of what I considered to be a fairly straightforward matter. He asked what sort of protest would not be approved of. I have already said that if people were carrying hate messages on placards they might well be considered to be out of order, and a dispersal order could be the most effective way of handling that situation. I gave that simply as an example.

As I explained in Committee, the dispersal will be authorised by an officer of the rank of inspector or above. This is in line with all the other responsibilities that police inspectors have. A neighbourhood policing inspector will have a detailed knowledge of the local area and what the consequences of using the dispersal power may be. Ultimately, as I have said, it is an operational matter.

I hope I have answered noble Lords’ questions. Have I answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith? The noble Baroness asked me about our response to the Home Affairs Select Committee. As she said, we did not make any commitment. We made it clear that we would accept the committee’s argument that the dispersal power would benefit from the additional safeguards, to ensure that its use was proportional and appropriate, and that we would change the legislation to state that the use of the dispersal power should be approved in advance by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. This ensures that the wider impact on, for example, communications can be considered properly before use. Those were the commitments that we made to the Select Committee.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am under strict instructions from my Front Bench not to pursue this point at any length. But before the Minister sits down, may I ask him whether he would accept that if, at Third Reading, there was an amendment that said, “In deciding whether to give such an authorisation, an officer must have particular regard to the likely community impact of such an order”, that would solve the problem? It would place an obligation on those in the police service, however they had chosen to organise themselves, to consider the community impact. At the moment, the officer’s only obligation is to consider whether he or she is,

“satisfied on reasonable grounds that the use of those powers in the locality during that period may be necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of”,

certain events. That is not the same as having regard to the likely community impact.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No. I am sorry. I cannot commit the Government to accepting such an amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the noble Earl knows how sympathetic I am to his amendments, particularly in regard to detention. I made a cack-handed attempt at about 11.43 pm on day 4 out of five of Committee to raise issues about Schedule 2, and I have some questions for the Minister.

I am aware that Part 1 of Schedule 2 contains some significant safeguards—I hope the Minister will not feel upset at my using that term—and that paragraph 1(3)(a) provides that the applicant for a supervision order or a detention order must consult the youth offending team. There is no explicit provision for the court to consult the youth offending team although it may be good practice. Can he give me any reassurance on that score?

Secondly, is the Minister able to give me an example—I am sorry if it seems as though I am harking back to an approach adopted in an earlier debate, but I have asked this question before and it will not come as a surprise to him—of such a severe or extensive breach that only detention would be appropriate, without that activity also being a criminal matter? Perhaps he will also say whether there is a role for guidance from the Home Office, and what that role might be, for rules of court and for sentencing guidelines in this connection.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not always felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has addressed herself to issues that are hugely important or pertinent in this Bill, although she has gone into a great deal of detail. However, the point that she has just raised about the circumstances in which the Government envisage these powers in respect of juveniles being appropriate is extremely important.

There is a risk that the Government will, no doubt inadvertently, create a perfect storm around some of these matters. The powers under the dispersal order—we will come to this later—can be exercised without proper prior consultation. This can then lead to young people in breach of a dispersal order being potentially subject to detention, with all the consequences that the noble Earl described.

I can envisage circumstances in which the perhaps over-hasty, ill thought through use of dispersal order powers will lead to young people being rounded up and to some of them, because they are in breach of a dispersal order, being potentially subject to detention. That seems to be a toxic cocktail for community relations in many of our towns and cities.

Therefore the question that the noble Baroness has just asked the Minister is extremely important. What are the circumstances in which it is envisaged that detention is the appropriate outcome of a breach of, in particular, a dispersal order? What are the circumstances? What is the context in which this will be done? Are the Government going to provide sufficient guidance to make that clear? Otherwise, I can envisage circumstances in which young people will be detained as a consequence of something that was perhaps ill thought through at the time, with enormous social consequences.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

I do not really have a view on the actual level, other than that it should be proportionate and consonant with other licensing regimes. I suspect that in reality £50 looks a bit cheap. Those are my comments on the amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this seems to be a matter of straightforward common sense. When there is a history either in which people have been involved in violence or which suggests that they may not always be in full command of their activities, because of alcohol or drug misuse, those are exactly the sort of people who should be denied access to firearms. The cases cited about firearms being used in domestic violence situations are a particularly compelling example of why this is important.

While I accept that chief officers of police must use their judgment, spelling out in legislation in this way that these are the matters they should look at, and that the presumption should be one in which they would refuse a licence application, is exactly the right way round it. That would then place the onus on those seeking the licence to demonstrate why they are suitable, notwithstanding the history of violence they may have shown or the fact that they were known to have substance abuse problems.

It is also extraordinary to hear from my noble friend Lady Smith about the difference in fees for various sorts of licence. This is surely an example where the fees should be set to reflect the fact that the checks which should be done should be thorough and all embracing, and should certainly cover the matters outlined in this amendment. On any common-sense interpretation of what Parliament should be doing about restricting the access to firearms of people who might be a danger to others, this is exactly the sort of amendment that should be put forward and agreed.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I suggest that between Committee and Report I meet my noble friend to address her specific concerns, which I hope will help with clarity and understanding at the next stage.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Does the noble Baroness agree that it might be helpful if the Minister, in writing to her, sets out a precise list of what is required and explains why it would not be possible for that list to be laid in regulations so that it is clear what information is being referred to? The way in which it is written at the moment seems extraordinarily broad.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I agree with that. I was going to press my noble friend a little on whether the Information Commissioner has been consulted. I hoped that there might be time for inspiration to flow across half the length of the Chamber but I do not think that it has.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 56QZG is intended to maintain the drive for independence in the IPCC by improving its reporting requirements. The Police Reform Act 2002 already requires the IPCC to make an annual report to the Home Secretary on the carrying out of its functions during the year. The amendment would require the IPCC to also report to Parliament on moves to strengthen its independence. This would include the volume of independent investigations carried out, the number of investigators employed who have not served in the police, any other work to strengthen the IPCC’s independence and any changes to its responsibilities during the year. The amendment would ensure that greater exposure to the work of the IPCC is achieved through the mechanism of clear, annual reporting requirements. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling this amendment. I have put my name to it because I want to probe the Government on their exact intentions and the timescales for the changes and improvements to the IPCC that the Home Secretary has announced. I note with interest that this debate is now being observed by four former Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. I cannot recall a previous instance when all four have been in the Chamber simultaneously and, as a consequence, I suspect that the Minister ought to be afraid, very afraid, about either this amendment or a subsequent one.

We need to consider this important amendment—and I look forward to the ministerial response—because it goes to the core of how we can have confidence and trust in the police service. The public want to be satisfied that, when things go wrong, their concern has been properly investigated in an independent, thorough, robust and timely manner. If it is a serious matter which may lead to criminal charges, or dismissal of officers or whatever else, that process must be above rebuke and there must be no question of bias or anything else.

I have a lot of confidence in the chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Dame Anne Owers, who is working very hard to improve the capacity and capability of the IPCC. The Government, having initially not quite recognised the importance of this body, have now changed their position but we need some clarity on how quickly things are going to move. Having trust in the processes followed by the IPCC is a necessary component of having trust in the police themselves. Whether or not the police have the consent of the public is called into question unless the public can have confidence that their complaints are being investigated adequately and independently.

These amendments would, first, ensure that most investigations—particularly serious ones—are carried out by staff who are not, nor have ever been, police officers themselves. Secondly, they reduce the number of investigations delegated to another police force or to the police force itself under investigation. Thirdly, they ask the IPCC to report regularly on its progress. However, we have heard that the Home Secretary intends to increase the resources available to the IPCC. As I understand it, it is not intended to transfer officers from police forces into the IPCC but to give them new resources. What are the timescales for these changes? What do the Government expect to see happen? Do the Government accept the principle that the proportion of investigations carried out by people who have not previously been police officers should increase?

There is a general belief that, when it is a serious matter, things are swept under the carpet and I am afraid that some recent revelations and crises have not helped this. It is therefore important that clarity is given and that people have confidence that this is not just about the police investigating themselves. Noble Lords in this Committee may be very clear that this is not about a police officer who knows the individual under investigation and who is therefore investigating their mate’s performance. At the moment, the IPCC has all sorts of measures in place to avoid that being the case, but the public perception is that complaints are being investigated by current or former police officers and it is assumed that the police are investigating themselves. This amendment is important because we need clarity that there is genuine independence, and that those concerned are not former police officers who, it may be asserted—probably wrongly—know the individuals or are part of the same culture about which someone has complained.

The Minister will, no doubt, have a whole series of technical points on why this amendment is not quite right or does not work. He does not: that is even better. We can agree it tonight and that will be very good. It is important to understand the direction of travel, how quickly we are moving there and how we will see the sort of independence which will give confidence in the complaints process and, in turn, enable the police to move back to a position of public trust.

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, during my time as commissioner, I argued strongly for a fully independent and well resourced police investigation process. I have maintained that position since my retirement and I entirely support the motivation behind these amendments. However, I have concerns that Amendment 56QZF, in particular, is too prescriptive in the timescale available and that the notion of having 75% of investigators with a non-police background by January 2017 might, perversely, have the reverse effect of its intention. If it is a prescriptive requirement to get to that point, it may be tempting to employ people as investigators who are not adequately trained or have the right background to investigate these most serious and complex allegations. While admiring the intentions behind these amendments, I have concerns about the practicality of the timescales. I urge caution about such a prescriptive requirement.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

56A: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—
“Crime and disorder reduction: development control
(1) The Secretary of State shall designate a body representative of chief officers of police for the purposes of this section.
(2) A body designated under this section shall publish guidelines that specify for a particular type of development the measures that should be included in that development to promote—
(a) crime and disorder reduction, and(b) the prevention of anti-social behaviour.(3) Guidelines under this section shall only be produced following consultation with organisations that represent—
(a) local authorities, and(b) persons engaged in the design and construction of developments requiring planning permission.(4) A planning authority may, in respect of any application that it receives for planning permission, specify as a condition for the approval of that planning permission that the development concerned must follow guidelines published under this section.
(5) A planning authority may only specify a condition under subsection (4) if it is satisfied that to do so would promote—
(a) crime and disorder reduction, or(b) the prevention of anti-social behaviour.”

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the problem with this Bill and the discussions that we have had in Committee is that, throughout, it has not always been clear who wants the changes that are proposed in it. Most of the proposals made by the Government are not evidence-based and many of them are ill thought through. Furthermore, there is a serious danger that the Bill will be irrelevant. Overall, levels of crime have declined over the past 15 or so years, and the trend in burglary is particularly marked. However, there is no cause for complacency there. A report on the front page of today’s Times talks about a, “Sudden surge in property crime”. Therefore, the stability with which we have seen crime figures move downwards is not something that we can take for granted.

However, unmentioned in the Bill is the fact that the Government are seeking to do something that would have the effect of undermining all their objectives in this legislation. Indeed, they are seeking to undermine the progress that has been made over the past 20 or so years in reducing crime levels. Certainly, over the past 20 years those building new developments—new-build homes, refurbished homes and so on, schools, play areas, hospitals and many others—have increasingly been informed by or have adopted the principles of Secured by Design.

What was achieved over that 20-year period under this initiative carried out under the auspices of the Association of Chief Police Officers and adopted by many local authorities? First, Secured by Design developments—those using the approved products and materials—are now half as likely to be burgled, and show a reduction of 25% in criminal damage. That is evidence that these measures make a difference. Secondly, the additional cost of using Secured by Design standards in the average home is modest, estimated at only around £170 per property, yet, as I have already indicated, these are changes that make a real difference to the risk of burglary and criminal damage.

Thirdly, it is estimated that in one year alone, some 700,000 burglaries have the potential to be thwarted if appropriate security devices are installed—representing an annual saving of more than £1.97 billion. Fourthly, the Association of British Insurers has estimated that the introduction of Secured by Design standards across the UK would bring more than £3.2 billion-worth of savings to the economy over 20 years. Finally, householders who are not offered security recommendations after a burglary are 69% more likely to suffer a repeat incident than those who are offered advice. Therefore, the lesson is that the Secured by Design initiative has made a real difference. This is a success story that is widely copied and cited internationally, and it is the subject of many academic studies testifying to its efficacy.

What is the Government’s approach to something that clearly makes a difference and clearly works? It is the old, traditional approach of, “If it ain’t broke, take it to pieces anyway”. I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for the activities of the Department for Communities and Local Government, but we are always assured that government is a seamless whole, working together in the interests of the people of this country.

The Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation document seeking views on its recent review of building regulations and housing standards. The proposals put forward by the department suggested a two-tiered standard of security: a basic minimum level that would be generally required and a so-called “enhanced” standard. The basic standard is demonstrably inadequate and has been shown to have little security benefit. Yes, that basic standard might specify stronger locks; but if it does not say anything about the flimsiness of the doors, you may have a nice, firm lock, but the door will burst open with one firm kick while the lock remains in place. That does not do much for security, though it may please the lock-makers.

Even the so-called “enhanced” standard would be lower than the existing Secured by Design standards. It is most significant that that could be required by local authorities only where what is described as a “compelling” case exists for the higher standard to be the norm. In legal terms, “compelling” is a strong test to meet. To make a compelling case, a local authority would have to demonstrate that the development would be subject to an elevated rate of burglary—you will be expected to be able to demonstrate that before the building is even built. Moreover, you will have to determine that there will be a higher than normal impact of burglary on tenants even before a property is let.

That is nonsense. It goes without saying that this test will be almost impossible to pass in respect of a new development. As the test has to be applied site by site, it is not even clear that it will simplify matters for developers; it is likely to produce confusion and added uncertainties for them, because when they submit a proposal they will not know whether the authority will attempt to apply the enhanced standard.

As I said, the enhanced standard will not be as beneficial as the proven Secured by Design guidelines. It will not be open to a local authority to require the proven Secured by Design guidelines, even if it wishes to do so; and to apply even the so-called “enhanced” standards, it will have to go through a complicated process to demonstrate the compelling case required by the Department for Communities and Local Government, with all the implicit threats of legal action that that entails.

This is the antithesis of localism. In my naivety, I assumed that the Department for Communities and Local Government was supposed to promote localism. If this is promoting localism, it is a very strange way of doing it, because it removes from local authorities the power to set what they regard as the most appropriate standards in their area. In practice, it is a centrally driven dumbing down of standards: the Department for Communities and Local Government is dumbing down the standards of security that must be met by new developments. That is putting communities and householders at greater risk; it is putting at risk progress in reducing crime, especially burglary.

When the Minister responds, will he tell me where the demand is for this dumbing down? Who is it—apart from the burgling fraternity, obviously—saying, “We want lesser security”? I am not aware of this great demand. What representations were received by the Department for Communities and Local Government before it made these proposals? Did it consult the Home Office? If it did, what did the Home Office say? Did it say, “Yes, please, Department for Communities and Local Government; undermine all the work we have been doing to reduce crime for the past 20 years by removing these requirements for better security in the home”? Did it listen to local authorities? Did it listen to the communities affected and those who would have to live in ill-secured properties?

This has all been put forward as a simplification of the planning process. It has been suggested that, somehow, Secured by Design standards have been the cause of stalled developments. Could we be given an example of a development that has stalled because of the requirement to have Secured by Design standards? I rather suspect that no such development exists.

If there has been any communication centrally to say that these standards ought to be lessened or lifted, it has probably been produced by some intern working for one of the groups of housebuilders, who has drawn up a list of all the regulatory requirements that they are subject to and said, “We don’t like them”. Where is the evidence that there is a real problem? What world do the officials and Ministers who support this measure live in? Have any of them had to live in an area blighted by excessive crime that is facilitated by poor design and inadequate security standards? These things make a real difference to people’s lives. They are the sort of thing that the rest of the Bill is about.

If we believe in localism, local authorities should be able to choose the level of security standards that they consider appropriate for the communities that they represent. That is the whole principle. Local residents elect their local councillors to protect their local interests and to make local determinations of policy. So what is the problem that Ministers think that they will solve by preventing that local, democratic discretion? What this risks is that progress made over the past two decades in designing out crime, reducing burglary and making anti-social behaviour harder will be put into reverse. This is, in short, an act of vandalism—anti-social behaviour of the worst sort.

The measure also risks adding to the costs of the criminal justice system. Indeed, if we throw away the advantage that designing out crime has given us, how will our communities cope in the future, with a diminished police force and neighbourhood policing no more than a distant memory, while the threat of crime, as the Times reports today, rises again? Who benefits from this short-sighted policy? Obviously burglars do, and maybe developers who will see a modest increase in their profits. But yet again we seem to have a Government who neglect the many in favour of a privileged few—in this case, burglars.

That is why I tabled this amendment. It requires the Home Secretary to ask the Association of Chief Police Officers or a successor body to draw up Secured by Design guidelines. It requires that those guidelines are produced following consultation with local authorities, builders and developers, and it gives local planning authorities the option of making the following of these guidelines a condition of any planning permission that they make. It is a localist and permissive power.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is—thankfully—not in his place today. He put forward an amendment that I assume will not be moved, which is a wrecking amendment. It would render the guidelines voluntary for the developers. I am not sure what purpose he had, although no doubt he would have explained it to us at some length had he been given the opportunity. But my amendment gives the Government the opportunity to think again. It allows them to put prevention first. Surely protecting people against crime is an investment—better than facing the spiralling costs of enforcement while waiting for the unproven measures envisaged in the Bill. It allows the Government to put localism first. If local elected councillors choose to prioritise Secured by Design, they will be able to with the amendment. If they choose not to, that, too, is their prerogative. If local people want higher security standards, they will elect local councillors accordingly. My amendment is all about localism, crime prevention and better security for communities. I beg to move.

Amendment 56AZA (to Amendment 56A) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whom I do not want to annoy because we have a lot to do today, has brought back something that he raised at Second Reading. If I was unable to respond to him then, I think he will understand that there are no proposals in the Bill about any changes to planning procedures. He is seeking to introduce a new measure which, I hope to demonstrate, rather presumes the consultation.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, should know, that consultation finished on 31 October and the Government are considering their response to it. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is rather jumping the gun in seeking to impose on the Bill a particular predetermination of that consultation in advance of the Government coming back on it. However, we can all agree on the important role that design and security measures can play in helping to prevent crime—I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben on that—and I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate gives me to explain how the Government are going about it.

In England, the police have for many years successfully worked to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour through their close engagement with developers and builders, and local planning authorities. Working alongside them from the very earliest stages of the design process, they offer specialist advice on the measures which can prevent crime and anti-social behaviour. The guidance on which they base their advice is shaped by the central police crime prevention management service—the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd—and promoted under the corporate title Secured by Design. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says, Secured by Design is a well respected brand that, among other things, provides guidance on the layout and design of developments, and on security standards. I agree with him that involving the police in shaping places and setting standards for secure buildings has been worthwhile and has undoubtedly served to prevent many crimes.

However, I disagree with his call to legislate to designate a body of police leaders and then to charge it with publishing guidelines about the measures to be included in each type of development. On a practical level, the police are already doing this and will continue to do so. It is right that they are reviewing the standards for building security. Over the years these have grown considerably in number, making a review sensible, but the police do not need a statutory duty to do this. In addition, Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd, through Secured by Design, already works closely with standards test houses, manufacturers and, increasingly, with building developers. I am not persuaded that we should seek to prescribe its working model in legislation, as subsection (3) of the proposed new clause seeks to do.

Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause seeks to define the way in which the police guidance is used by local planning authorities. The reforms we in Parliament have made to the planning system continue to place safety and crime prevention as a key part of sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework—your Lordships have been in this Chamber when listening to discussions on that document—promotes the design of places that are safe and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion, so I am at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on this issue.

The recently published draft planning practice guidance, which supports national planning policy, covers safety, crime, anti-social behaviour and counterterrorism. It continues to highlight the importance of engagement with crime prevention design advisers and counterterrorism security advisers at local level.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked what discussions there have been between DCLG and the Home Office. The noble Lord will be fully aware—that is why I am confident about replying on behalf of the Government even though my department is the Home Office and not DCLG—of the principle of collective responsibility. While DCLG takes the lead in consulting on changes to planning guidelines, these are government proposals and of course the Home Office has had discussions with DCLG on this and other issues. Councils will continue to be able to consider the locations and layouts of sites and proposals when drawing up local plans and deciding on individual applications. They do not need a further statutory duty to do this.

Turning to perhaps the most complex area—the review of housing standards, to which the noble Lord referred at Second Reading and again today—the review process is holistic, taking into account all standards applying to housing. The review is intended to make it simpler for local authorities to apply the right standards. Security is seen as one of those core standards; we want it to be an integral part of development at the right level where local authorities believe that this is necessary. That is the way we have consulted on proposals for national standards and we continue to work with ACPO—and Secured by Design, for that matter—to evaluate the best way forward.

The Government are currently working through the recent housing standards review to simplify the way in which technical standards such as those in Section 2 of the Secured by Design standards are used in new housing developments. Proposals on the recent consultation—about which I recently made a mistake: I said 31 October but it was actually 27 October and I apologise to the Committee for that error—explored how a national security standard could be introduced for the first time. The proposed standard includes two possible levels of specification, with the higher level intended to mirror the current standards in Section 2 of Secured by Design. The intention is not to weaken these standards but to ensure that households adopting the higher specification will benefit from the same level of protection as they do now.

A range of options for implementation have been proposed, including possible integration of these standards into the building regulations or allowing local authorities to retain discretion in requiring higher standards of security—as they do now—providing that there is suitable evidence of need, and that the viability of development is not unduly affected by such a requirement. These are matters on which the consultation sought views and which we are now analysing.

The fact that security is one of only four areas in which the Government are considering national standards amply demonstrates the importance of this issue, and underlines our continuing commitment to ensure that new homes are built from the outset with measures in place that we know will significantly reduce households’ vulnerability to burglary in particular.

However, moving from the current position to one where national standards are adopted brings with it some complexity. By necessity, this includes reassessing the way in which compliance can be most effectively delivered. The Government will be looking at responses to the consultation over coming weeks in deciding how to proceed; officials remain in regular dialogue with those supporting the national policing lead for crime prevention and representatives of Secured by Design. However, it would be wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of the review at this time. I believe it would be wrong for this Committee to seek to pre-empt the outcome of that review at this time. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Blair of Boughton and Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lady Smith for their support for the intention of this amendment. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made—that this is what sensible developers ought to do—is absolutely right. The problem is whether in circumstances where there is pressure on costs all developers will be so sensible.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised the legal status of ACPO, which I know is a matter of concern in a number of quarters, including the Home Office. This amendment does not specifically refer to Secured by Design or to the Association of Chief Police Officers. I did as shorthand, but I am aware that there are a lot of discussions going on at the moment about the future of ACPO and, going forward, whether any agglomeration of chief police officers should be in the form of a limited company will have to be revisited. The fact that it is a commercial initiative, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, rather disparagingly called it, does not alter the principle. The principle is that there needs to be a system of best practice that is duly recognised and takes note of the policing experience in reducing crime in a particular area.

This amendment does not refer just to housing. It also refers to developments such as schools, play areas and so on. It is about building security in at the earliest stage. I remember the very early involvement of the police in the discussions that took place about the building of Wembley Stadium and security in terms not only of counterterrorism but of the safety and everything else of the people using it.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding at length. He pointed out that this is still at consultation stage. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I am not entirely uncynical about many consultations. Many government consultations now have the tone of, “We have decided what we are going to do. We will now allow a minimum period for you to comment on it, and then we will go ahead with it anyway”. However, let me be positive and assume that this is a genuine consultation—a genuine invitation with an open mind, which I think is the phraseology used in legal cases about consultation—to seek advice.

The advice that I am giving and that many others have given is that these proposals do not work. The Minister said that this is a new clause and is not in the Bill. That is exactly my problem with the Bill. It talks about anti-social behaviour and reducing crime. Here is something that is potentially going to make crime worse, and it is not in the Bill. That is why I have tried to introduce it into the Bill. The timing is extremely beneficial in that, assuming that the Government genuinely have an open mind on these matters, they have the opportunity of reading what is said in Committee today and considering further. I hope that the Minister will take it across to his counterparts in the Department for Communities and Local Government who might not otherwise be studying the Hansard of this debate quite so avidly.

The Minister said that he agrees about the importance of involving the police at an earlier stage. My understanding of the DCLG document—which is albeit just out for consultation at the moment, although the Government have had more than four weeks to consider the results of that consultation—is that the effect of the Government’s proposals is that it would not be open to a local authority to specify standards that go beyond the minimum or enhanced standards specified. You can have a local authority, locally elected, that says, “We would really like to go along with the Secured by Design standards, but we are not allowed to because we have to go along with either the basic level or the enhanced level”. The enhanced level is not the equivalent of the Secured by Design standard; it is a lower standard in practice.

Will the Minister tell us whether or not we will know the outcome of the Government’s consideration on this point before we come back to the Bill on Report? If this is not going to be possible, will we know the outcome of the consultation before Third Reading? If the Government go ahead with these changes, will Parliament have any right to intervene before they are made?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The timing of the legislative programme is not in my hands, so I cannot give the noble Lord a clear response on that. Parliament seems to have a way of raising these issues, even if the Bill does not include a proposal from the Government in this context. Noble Lords are quite capable of raising issues at any point and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, gives a perfect example of how Parliament can be used.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the question, but I am not sure that he answered the question, which was whether we would know the outcome of the consultation by the time the Bill reaches Report and Third Reading. If he is saying that the usual channels may decide either to accelerate the Bill—they have done very well so far—or that it is going off into the distant future, then that is a different matter. If he were to give an indication of the date when the consultation will be responded to by Government and government policy becomes clear, that would help us understand whether or not we will be able to return to it in the course of the Bill.

I suspect the Minister’s silence suggests that he does not have the information to hand. Perhaps he could write to me so that I am aware of the timetable for this. If security is a core standard, why will local authorities not be able to go to the higher standard? It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an assurance that they will be able to choose their standard and are not obliged to follow either the basic or so-called enhanced rate. In the hope that the Minister will enlighten us on some of these points between now and Report, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56A withdrawn.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I accept that, of course, and the possibility of seeking permission. But we have not experienced the problem of people moving into Abingdon Green, and so on. I think that my noble friend will understand my slight caution about that part of the amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I realise that when the House is in a mood of almost unanimity the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, can be relied on to inject a notion of something or other into the discussion. It is therefore very dangerous to say that perhaps this amendment is not quite right, but I do so as somebody with an office in Millbank House. I notice that the boundaries that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has created would effectively mean that Millbank House could be completely surrounded by demonstrators, which would be entirely consistent with what has been said.

I am not sure that if they were to use loud-hailing equipment it would make a substantial difference. I wonder whether the boundaries are set quite right to cover the full extremities of the parliamentary estate, bearing in mind the way in which sound carries. If the Government are going to take away this amendment—as I hope they are—and think about it carefully and positively, I suggest that they look at precisely those boundaries to make sure that the whole of the parliamentary estate is covered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I want to interrupt this string of Liberal Democrat speakers to correct the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He implied that the reason why parish councils were not referred to more explicitly in the Bill is that so many officials live in London and London does not have parish councils. However, London has the power to create parish councils. Indeed, last year a parish council was created in Queen’s Park following a referendum of local residents who voted for it by two to one, with about 1,000 residents voting in favour and about 500 voting against. Therefore, it is possible to create parishes in London and many local authorities have looked at this as a way of ensuring adequate local community and neighbourhood representation. Where such parishes or adequate community and neighbourhood structures exist, you would expect them to be consulted on the orders about which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is concerned.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendments in this group. I am happy to say that I believe there is merit in a number of his suggestions. I hope that he will be pleased by my response to his amendments.

Amendments 35, 45 and 50 would see the landowner consulted, if this is not the council—the council could, of course, be the landowner—before a public spaces protection order is made. I accept that it is entirely appropriate that the council should take reasonable steps to consult either the landowner or occupier of any land to be covered by a public spaces protection order. It is conceivable that this could be done through a relevant community representative under Clause 55(7)(b), but I acknowledge that the owner or occupier is in rather a different position and should be consulted directly where they can be identified. Likewise, Amendments 37, 47 and 52 would add parish councils, county councils and community councils to the list of bodies to be consulted where appropriate. Again, I accept that there is a case for having these bodies on the face of the legislation for the avoidance of doubt, and I would like to consider this matter further between now and Report. The viability of parish councils can vary enormously. I come from one of the largest parishes in England. Holbeach has a population of not far off 10,000 people and has its own resources, including a park and sports areas, so it is a considerable body in its own right.

Amendments 38, 49 and 53 would make provisions for prior public consultation where an authority wishes to issue, vary or extend an order. These go into more detail than the requirement to consult,

“whatever community representatives the local authority thinks … appropriate”.

As my noble friend Lord Ahmad said on the previous group of amendments, we have considered the points made by the Delegated Powers Committee about publicising orders and accept that such a requirement should be written into the Bill. Our amendments will require orders to be publicised before they are made, extended, varied or discharged. I hope my noble friend will accept that the government amendments achieve the substance of his Amendments 38, 49 and 53. It follows that having publicised its intention to make an order, a council is duty bound to consider any representations it receives in response to such a notification. We do not need to provide for this on the face of the Bill.

If I understand my noble friend’s scheme correctly, Amendments 36, 46 and 51 are consequential upon Amendments 38, 49 and 53. These amendments would remove the more generic reference to consulting “community representatives”. However, I still see merit in leaving reference to community representatives, which could include residents’ associations or other local, or indeed national, bodies.

This brings me on to Amendment 56ZC, which seeks to remove any doubt as to whether a national body falls within the category of community representative. While I believe that the Bill already covers the situations that my noble friend envisages, this additional clarity would be helpful and I would like to assure my noble friend that I will consider it.

I am also sympathetic to the sentiment behind Amendments 39 and 40, which relate to publicising an order once it has been made. Amendment 39 would specify that when an order is publicised this should include putting it on the local authority’s website. It was always our intention to keep the regulations light touch to ensure maximum flexibility at a local level. However, I suggest that in order to future-proof the legislation we avoid referencing websites specifically in the Bill so that if more appropriate media are developed in 10 years we do not require primary legislation. But we can certainly make clear in the regulations that the council should publish the order, at the very least, on its website.

Similarly, Amendment 40 seems to set a reasonable expectation that once an order is in place it will be available for inspection. Indeed, we would expect this to be best practice, although perhaps publishing the order on the website might make it more widely accessible than making it available at the council’s offices, as the amendment proposes. The point is well made but this matter is best addressed in guidance.

My noble friend Lord Redesdale opened up a tricky issue in an almost pre-emptive strike on our debates on dogs, if I may say so. However, quite a number of aspects of this matter are covered in the draft Home Office guidance on controlling the presence of dogs. When deciding whether to make requirements or restrictions on dogs and their owners, local councils will need to consider whether there are suitable alternatives for dogs to be exercised without restrictions. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, dog owners are required to provide for the welfare needs of their animals. This includes providing the necessary amount of exercise each day. Councils should be aware of the publicly accessible parks and other public places in their area that dog walkers can use to exercise their dogs without restrictions. I therefore hope that my noble friend is reassured about that, although he should also understand that we need to keep the public safe from dogs that are out of control. We will no doubt be discussing that delicate balance when we reach the dog provisions in the Bill.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lord Greaves on at least a number of the points he has raised through these amendments. I hope he will accept that the government amendments to Clauses 55 to 57 go some considerable way to addressing his concerns. I have also said that I will take away Amendments 35, 37, 45, 47, 50, 52 and 56ZC and consider them further in advance of Report. I make no commitment to bringing forward government amendments at that stage but will certainly reflect very carefully on the points he has made. With that commitment, I ask my noble friend not to press his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, which covers very much the same ground as covered by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, so I shall not pursue it further. I merely support everything my noble friend said.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I understand the nature of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in terms of restricting the length of time of a public spaces protection order, but I believe that the proposals go in the wrong direction. I wonder why there is an automatic process of the orders essentially expiring after a period of three years. The power to make orders sets a whole series of conditions for how the process is to be done. It requires extensive consultation, the nature of which we have discussed already. I am assuming that the orders are made in the context of consensus having been reached in a community that that is the way forward. If such a consensus has been reached, why do we have to go through this process regularly? It would be on an annual basis if the amendment moved by the noble Baroness is passed. Surely the point of the Government’s proposal is that a local authority will apply for the orders on the basis of having consulted widely, including with the chief officer of police and all the others specified in the order. That would include consultation with the local community. If the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, had his way, there would be explicit reference to the importance of parish councils, and I would certainly not object to that. So there we have a community consensus around the protection of public spaces in the area, and then it is said that the order should not have effect for a period of more than three years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, there are two problems here. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is partly right and partly wrong because it depends on what kind of public spaces protection order is being made. If the public spaces protection order is made to prevent dogs going into a children’s play area—the example given earlier by the Minister—there is no reason why that should require a formal procedure to consult and so on every three years because once dogs are banned from a children’s area they will be banned for ever. It may be controversial at first but, once it has been done, no one will complain about it afterwards. If, on the other hand, you are using it as a quick, easy procedure to close a right of way instead of going through the proper closure procedure under the Highways Act, it certainly should be reviewed. My noble friend and I are saying that it should be reviewed within a year or within six months if it concerns a right of way.

This is because of the nature of the right that you are taking away from people who are not guilty of any offences. You are reducing the liberties of perfectly innocent citizens, and the nature of that reduction ought to be subject to reconsideration. How can you differentiate in the Bill between the routine orders that no one is going to complain about—orders that would otherwise be in the local playground by-laws or other rules and regulations—and serious orders that take away people’s historic rights of access to particular areas? I would be happy with a provision that the prevention of access would have to be reviewed if the public spaces protection order involved the removal of people’s rights to access land that they would otherwise have access to. This would apply to any access, whether or not it was to a common or a green or whatever. That is fairly fundamental and would have to be reviewed.

As to the lesser protections that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to as not having to be reviewed, there is a way through that if it can be written into the Bill.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I can see the distinction the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, draws between disruption of an historic right of way and preventing dogs fouling a children’s play area, but I am not sure how you would get around the problem that, essentially, you are saying to a dog owner, “You do not have access to this area”, or, “You do not have access to the area if you are with your dog”. That is also a restriction on rights of access to a particular area—in that case, a children’s playground. I can see what the noble Lord is trying to get at but the solution he is now proposing—admittedly it is not in an amendment before us—would be very difficult.

We come back to the quality of the consultation in the first place. If there has been a proper consultation and there is a general community view that this restriction on people’s access to a particular area is appropriate, surely that is what you go with rather than this constant process of renewal for what may be very limited sets of circumstances.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but if the desire is to give all this freedom to local authorities, I am still not clear why Clause 56 is needed at all. As has been pointed out, Clause 55(8)(c) states, “must … specify the period”, so you cannot just say, “We’ll just whack it in and see what happens”, and Clause 57 allows for variation. While I am on my feet and so as not to interrupt later, in case the Minister does not have the answer in his notes, I would be interested in his response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as to the objection to changing “must” to “may” in Clause 56(5), so that there might be a less onerous process for the renewal of orders.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I never object to any noble Lord interjecting and asking questions. I have sought to explain why a defined period is specified in Clause 56. I shall certainly take back the suggestion on this matter made by my noble friend Lord Faulks and speak to officials. However, Clause 56 provides a key link through from Clause 55 to Clause 57 and sets out quite specifically the details behind the order. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee on the understanding that I will further consider Amendment 55A.