Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(10 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
I shall speak also to Amendment 22N. Amendment 22L would add the term “proportionate” to the period during which a dispersal order would apply so that the use of the power is both necessary and proportionate. When this matter was discussed in the Public Bill Committee in the Commons, the Minister said that he was confident that the powers will not be used disproportionately and referred to the need for authorisation by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. My amendment would insert a degree of objectivity into the clause. This is not intended to be critical of police officers, but if the power is intended always to be used proportionately, should that not be spelled out and be capable of being challenged?
My second amendment, Amendment 22N, would provide that the authorisation must clearly identify the locality in question. That is a matter of clarity, but rereading the clause over the past few minutes, it strikes me that the term “locality” could be understood in different ways in Clause 32(1), which is the specified locality to which the order will apply, and Clause 32(2)(a), where we are directed to reducing the likelihood of members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed. In the second case, the normal meaning of “in the locality” would be in and around the area, not in the specified locality referred to in Clause 32(1). I have only just thought about this. Reading things again, they sometimes read slightly differently. I do not know whether the Minister can assist me on that.
The amendment relating to proportionality was raised in the context of concern about peaceful assembly. I think we will come to that later, but I shall just say that I, too, am concerned that we should do nothing in the Bill to prevent peaceful assembly when people in a proper manner exercise their democratic rights as citizens. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 22M in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, which would insert into the Bill the words,
“and once the relevant local authority has been consulted”.
I do so on two main grounds. One is to revert to a topic that we discussed in Committee on Monday, which concerned the importance of the powers in the Bill being exercised as part of a wider pattern and a wider agreement with local government and other interested parties. That is a general principle that we should not move away from. However, the main issue is that this is clearly a power that relates to a specific locality. It might relate to, for example, aggressive begging in a particular park, square or precinct. Therefore, you would expect the local authority or the custodian of the public space concerned to have very clear responsibilities and interests. There may well be community implications. There may well be a need to listen to what the local authority may feel will be the community impact of such an action or, indeed, to consider the local authority’s view on whether the community benefits from such an action.
I understand that the local authority should be the custodian of those public spaces and that these are the circumstances in which this power may be used so it is appropriate that it be involved. I understand that the parallel of this power, the old anti-social behaviour order regime, did involve consultation with the local authorities concerned, yet the Government have specifically excluded it in this Bill. I would be interested to know a little more about the rationale behind why this has happened in this particular case as this seems to me an obvious area where you would expect there to be consultation with local authorities.
If the argument is that local authorities have been slow in responding to consultation and that this has led to a continued problem, I would be surprised because local authorities usually are well aware of concerns that are being expressed by local communities about a problem in a particular area. If that is the case, I suspect there are some faults on the side of the local authority. These could be remedied by some expectation of what the normal period is within which the local authority should respond when asked for its views on these matters. However, I think there is an extraordinary weakness in the way that these powers could be pursued. The way in which the legislation is framed, this is a quite a broad power. The authorisation could come from a police officer and would proceed solely on the basis of the authorisation of a police inspector. This is not something that would have necessarily gone to court, although obviously it relates to people about whom there are clearly concerns.
I would like to know why it is not felt to be appropriate in these circumstances for the local authority to be consulted. If the argument is that there have been unconscionable delays associated with that, can the Minister give us some examples of where they have occurred, and can the Minister say why it would not be possible to build in to the legislation something which required a specific time period for the local authority to respond when such a power is being considered?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 22M and also comment on whether Clause 32 should stand part of the Bill. I will make a very similar point to that made by my noble friend Lord Harris. We do not have an issue with the principle of dispersal powers. In fact, we introduced such powers back in 2004, although I recognise that they were pretty controversial at that time. Our worry is that the new power now being proposed by the Government can be authorised much more easily than the existing one and also for longer. The issue we are raising is that of proper and effective democratic oversight. Local authorities must and should be consulted by the police before the issuing of dispersal orders. That is the process that currently exists.
What I find curious is that the Home Affairs Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny, recommended that there should be a duty to consult local authorities on applications for dispersal powers of more than six hours. The Government’s response to that comment by the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place was that they would ensure that the legislation allowed for that. In fact, it does not. It would appear that the commitment that the Government gave in their response to the Home Affairs Select Committee has not been brought forward in the Bill—unless it is in the pile of amendments that were issued very late last night for debate today, but I do not see them grouped here at the moment. Unless an amendment is coming forward from the Government, can the Minister explain why a response was made to the Home Affairs Select Committee to do something that does not appear to be in the Bill now?
When evidence sessions were held during the Committee stage of the Bill in the other place, there was no suggestion that the existing power was not working properly. The police have also said that working with the local authority really helps them get community consensus and support when a dispersal order is needed. That is why we consider Amendment 22M to be so important. Why fix something that is not broken? If there is an issue, why try to change the process? If the Minister can tell me that he and the Government have received representations from organisations or individuals that suggest that the current provisions are inflexible and inadequate, that would help to explain why the Government have made such changes. If he can tell us who those organisations or individuals were, what changes they sought and for what reasons, that would perhaps help to explain why a power has now been proposed that is different from the existing one.
I was reading through the debate in Committee in the other place. Damian Green, as the Minister, said then that the powers were designed,
“to allow police officers to react to a dynamic situation”.—[Official Report, Commons, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 27/6/13; col. 240.]
Have there been complaints that there has not been a response, as the Minister would like? If that is the case, there is a concern that this could lead to the powers being used recklessly and in inappropriate circumstances if there is not that check. Can the Minister say on how many occasions there has been a situation where a community has been at threat or in danger because the local authority could not be consulted about a dispersal power over the week and the power then could not be used? Have there been such cases that have led the Government to bringing forward a very different kind of procedure now?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Harris raised the question of locality. There is concern that the meaning of “locality” is not quite clear or is wider than necessary. If the Minister can address that, it would be helpful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have given the noble Baroness the information I have on our response to the Home Affairs Select Committee. I can give her no more information than I have given her already on the representations that were made. However, if the noble Baroness will permit it, I will write to her on the subject. It might be useful that I exchange the information with her. Of course, I will include any other Peers who have spoken on this group of amendments.
Lord Harris of Haringey
While the Minister’s flow has been disrupted, perhaps I could disrupt it a little bit further. Can he explain a little bit more how the Government envisage that this will work? The more I have heard about this, the more concerned I have become. Suppose, for example, there is a fairground in an area. It may be a visiting fair. During the previous evening, there were some problems with youths fighting and so on. Does that mean that an inspector could issue an authorisation or exclusion from people carrying out certain sorts of behaviour during the following day?
I think I am also right in saying that Clause 38 would permit—if the right authorisation has been given—a police community support officer, rather than a warranted officer, to carry out the exclusions concerned. What would then happen, if I am right, is that an area would be defined and police officers and police community support officers would be deployed with maps in their pockets to give to people whom they thought—in their opinion—were causing disruption or bad behaviour, and those people would then be required to leave the area shown on the map which they would be given from the back pocket of the police constable or the police community support officer.
That would then be a power for which there would be no accountability other than the authorisation by a police officer of the rank of inspector. This is one of the federated ranks—not even superintendent—so in many ways it would be a comparatively low-level authorisation. There would be no requirement to consult. It was said that it would be good practice to inform the local authority; but I think I heard the Minister say that this would be after the event, rather than before.
This could have an enormous impact on community relations. I can think of parts of London where the sudden arrival of police officers clutching maps and saying, “We are going to exclude you from this area for 48 hours”, would cause serious problems and disruption. Even if it were a proportionate response to the problem that had occurred the previous evening, it seems that this is something that should be exercised with proper consultation with the community representatives concerned. I have ended up being more disturbed by these provisions in the Bill following the Minister’s very careful and helpful explanation than I was beforehand. It would obviously have been better had he not tried to explain it to us.
Lord Harris of Haringey
That is even more disturbing because it implies that if, at 11 am, there is a concern that there is about to be disorder, that is the point at which an inspector could authorise police officers. It is always difficult to see how they are going to have the maps in their pockets to serve to people if they are dealing with a situation of that degree of urgency. I just think that what we are being told describes a series of situations where you really wonder how this is going to work in practice. The danger is that a misjudgment —and I am sure it would not be common—made by an officer of the rank of inspector could cause really serious community disruption. I can envisage circumstances where this would happen and this would provoke riotous behaviour in a wide area far worse than the disorder that was originally expected.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord is concerned about the rank of inspector, but of course operationally, inspectors are the rank that has local knowledge and information. That is one of the key elements of this legislation; we are talking about locality here, and that is one of the main reasons why the rank of inspector was included in the Bill, in response to the Home Affairs Committee’s legislative scrutiny. I should emphasise that these powers already exist, and the way in which they are being used in this Bill comes as no surprise to the police nor to local authorities. The powers are used on a regular basis; they are familiar with the issues raised by the noble Lord, and the PCCs are in a position where they provide democratic accountability on the use of these powers.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I appreciate that lots of noble Lords are present for the next debate and I am sorry that this is holding them up. The way in which the legislation is framed—and I cannot immediately see how it could be done in a different way—does not necessarily mean that the inspector who authorises it is the one with knowledge of that particular community or locality. I use the word “locality” to make sure that I get it exactly right for the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The provisions simply say, “an inspector”. I can conceive of circumstances in which a police force might decide to have an expert at the rank of inspector who will deal with dispersal orders for the whole force, who would then not have the local knowledge or input, which local councillors or neighbourhood officers might have, about the likely community reaction under those circumstances. There are some serious issues here which I hope the Minister will take away and consider.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Of course, I will consider all matters raised in this debate—I am happy to do so. We want to try to make sure that this works. But I have emphasised to the noble Lord the role of local authorities, the inspector and the police on the ground; it is all a matter of responding to a situation and having a vehicle available that harnesses powers to disperse that already exist to effectively handle that situation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I must respond to points made by other noble Lords—
Lord Harris of Haringey
If the Minister will forgive me, what he is saying is that all those different bodies will of course be working together. But that will be in the absence of an overarching plan in which the local authorities must necessarily engage—we debated that on Monday night. And it is in the absence of the specific power that used to exist whereby a local authority had to be consulted before the powers were used. That is not a recipe for saying that there will automatically be that degree of co-ordination and working together. That is the ideal, and I am sure that it is what everyone will strive to achieve, but we are talking now about things that will almost be happening in the heat of the moment, and I question how, in the heat of the moment, it will be possible to have a map that will clearly define the locality from which individuals are being excluded.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Lord is forgetting that anti-social behaviour is a concern for all public authorities, whether they are police and crime commissioners, who place it pretty high up their list of priorities, or local government and elected councillors or serving police officers. All those authorities place anti-social behaviour high up their list; they are not going to be negligent about dealing with the practical application of those powers. There will be pre-discussions between those authorities on the way in which all those powers are used.
We do not need in this Bill to tell people what to do or where their duty lies; they are quite capable of fathoming it out for themselves. We need to explain to them what power they have and the methodology whereby that power can be legitimately exercised. We are doing that in this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will understand exactly the point the Government are coming from in this legislation. If I may say so, he has a mischievous side to his nature, and I think that he is seeking to make difficulties for the legitimate aspirations of people in authority, in local government and the police, who will clearly make sure that these powers are used effectively in the interests of preventing anti-social behaviour. That is why I am so resilient in resisting his temptations on these things.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will reflect on what the noble Lord says, but I was about to address the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, some time ago.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am not being mischievous. Like the Minister, I want to make sure that these powers are effective. I also do not want to see unnecessary disorder caused because of their misapplication. That is why I am raising these issues. I actually made a self-denying ordinance that I was not going to intervene on the Minister again. However, his suggestion that I am doing this mischievously rather than because I am concerned about it led me to do so.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I accept the noble Lord’s explanation, but perhaps I can turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The noble Baroness asked about how we undertook in the draft Bill to provide the consultation with local authorities; we did not do that in the draft Bill. I have made it clear that I would expect police and local authorities to work closely together in the exercise of all anti-social behaviour powers under the provisions in the Bill. We believe that this clause and the dispersal power that arises from it are useful. The current Section 30 dispersal power has worked well in dealing with longer-term issues. Those powers are held by the police with local authority consultation. We have acknowledged the important role that local authorities have played in this and have designed the public spaces protection order to be used in much the same way by local authorities to deal with persistent, long-term problems. The arrangements set out in Clause 32 balance the need for safeguards with the flexibility vital to dealing with a wide range of anti-social behaviour. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 22QC in this group, which I will comment on in a minute or two. Since this is the first group about community protection notices, I thought that it might be helpful to say a few things on the back of that about them generally. Of all the new measures to deal with anti-social behaviour that are being put forward by the Government in their new battery of weapons, I am most enthusiastic about community protection notices if they are done in an appropriate way.
My first question to the Government is about those notices, which may be issued on reasonable grounds that,
“the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality, and … the conduct is unreasonable”.
In what ways does this differ from the criteria and the test in Clause 1 for serving an IPNA? These require that a person,
“has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
What is the difference between “nuisance” and “annoyance” on the one hand, and on the other conduct that,
“is having a detrimental effect … on the quality of life”,
of people in the locality? I am not entirely sure what the difference in meaning is but perhaps the Minister can tell me.
Secondly, what kind of things are community protection notices intended to deal with? Clearly, they are intended to deal with different things from injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance. There is a hint in Clause 54, which talks of repeals and transitional provisions of litter abatement notices and two other litter notices under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and of defacement removal notices under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which refer to graffiti really. What else is there? Is this just about litter and graffiti? I am sure that it is not, but for what other things do the Government envisage that this potentially wide-ranging power could be used?
For example, could it be used to deal with accumulations of rubbish in the back yards of empty houses, or of houses where tenants do not care too much about such things? Could it be used to deal with odour, if someone was making regular bonfires and causing lots of smoke in the area? Could it be used for animal nuisances, such as dog dirt? Could it be used for somebody who insisted on hanging out their washing across the front street rather than in other appropriate places at the back? Could it be used against gatherings in the street—for example, if people wished to use it, in the complaints being made at the moment about Roma people in Sheffield? Would this be an appropriate way of dealing with that or, whether or not it is appropriate, could it be used for that? It would be very helpful if, after this debate, the Minister could list 10 useful things it could be used for. Then we will have a fairly good idea of whether those of us who are local councillors and so on might consider that this is a power which we can use.
There are some concerns that a number of these powers and the existing ASBOs criminalise anti-social behaviour if notices are not complied with, although things such as litter already involve the criminal law. If this is an exciting new power that can be used for all sorts of things in a proportionate manner, there are concerns about the lack of resources, and of new resources, for local authorities to use it. As I keep saying in debates in this Committee: tackling anti-social behaviour and nuisances, and helping to make our residential streets more civilised places at local level, is resource-intensive. It means lots of different agencies co-operating.
For example, in my ward, every month there is a local environmental audit. People from the local neighbourhood policing team, localities officers, councillors and people from the council’s anti-social behaviour unit and its refuse collection and litter sections go round with a little wagon. If there are any accumulations of rubbish, they do not bother serving notices on anybody; they just stick it in the wagon and take it away. That kind of thing is quite resource-intensive and, at a time when all local authorities are under real pressure, it is the kind of thing that will be found difficult to keep going. Yet these powers will be no good whatever unless there are people on the ground who can investigate reported problems, see problems for themselves and have the resources to serve the notices, follow them up and deal with the people.
Amendment 22QC probes what happens in a slightly interesting situation. If you serve a notice in relation to a nuisance that refers to a piece of land and the person who you are serving it on transfers its ownership from, for example, one company that they own to another that they own or are involved in, or to their wife or their husband, you have to start all over again because you are dealing with different people. The proposal I am putting down here does not work but is there to probe. Have the Government got any ideas about how to deal with this? A remarkably high proportion of anti-social behaviour problems are caused by a few individuals who just enjoy playing the system and opposing the council. They regard it all as a great game. How on earth we deal with these people, I do not know but if my noble friend the Minister has any ideas, I would certainly like to hear them.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, at the risk of being mischievous, to some extent I am going to be. When the Minister responds to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with his list of 10 things that local authorities might use these powers for, he might tell us whether the powers would extend to a local authority issuing community protection notices in respect of, say, a string of shops down its high street that promote payday loans. That is conduct having a detrimental effect of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of those in the locality. Would it apply to the behaviour of a series of off-licences? In many high streets the only shops are betting shops, off-licences and payday loan companies. Would it be open to the local authority to serve community protection notices on those businesses setting a requirement that they should, effectively, cease to do business?
I am sure that that is not the intention of the legislation and I am not trying to belittle the important intention of the legislation in terms of the sorts of persistent nuisance that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is thinking of and that I, as a former local councillor, can certainly think of. These provisions require perhaps just a little clarification as I am sure that an inventive local authority lawyer could find all sorts of interesting ways in which you might argue that bodies are having,
“a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality”.
I could labour the point at some length with many more examples but I suspect that the Minister’s patience—already wearing thin—will not survive it.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20FA in my name. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is seeking to broaden the scope of the potential areas where it may be possible for the courts to limit the prohibitions and requirements of an injunction. I am going to raise some queries about whether or not any of this really makes sense. I do not disagree with anything that the noble Lord has said, but I wonder where we are going when we talk about religion in this context.
Noble Lords will remember that in 2001, 390,127 people put down on their census forms that their religion was “Jedi”. I wonder whether, for the purposes of excluding someone from requirements under one of these new injunctions, saying that you had to follow your religion of Jedi would enable you therefore to say, “I should be allowed to carry on exactly as I wish”. Similarly, are we including in religion Satanism or the proponents of animal sacrifice?
I pose these questions not because I seriously seek to know whether, when the Bill was being drafted, those drafting it were considering proponents of animal sacrifice or even those who consider themselves to be Jedi knights. I am, however, quite clear that I have come across plenty of people who behave in an anti-social fashion who, if they thought that there were some exemption from the requirements of an injunction, would suddenly pronounce that they had all sorts of religious beliefs, beliefs that a normal person—or to your Lordships here, if that is not the same—might consider was not really a bona fide religion. Is there a requirement now for the Government to define what they consider to be a religion? If there is such a definition somewhere, the noble Lord will have it to hand and explain it to me.
My second concern is that, even in an established religion which we would all recognise as bona fide, there are certain norms of behaviour. If, however, you pursue your belief in that religion with an excessive degree of zeal, does that excessive zealotry automatically mean that you can have exemptions from the requirements of an injunction? What is or is not reasonable in pursuit of your religion? We may get advice from one of the right reverend Prelates, although I suspect not.
Many years ago, meetings of the Tottenham Labour Party used to take place on Sunday mornings, next to a black church where the singing of hymns was extremely loud. The church was extremely well attended: far better attended—and probably more fun—than the meetings of the Tottenham Labour Party. However, what constitutes reasonable pursuit of your religious beliefs? For example, is it acceptable that, in pursuit of your religious beliefs, you decide to go into the common parts of an estate and pray extremely noisily every night at 2 am? Some people might claim that was pursuit of their legitimate religious beliefs, but is that reasonable in this context?
My final point is: even if this is the reasonable pursuit of a bona fide religious belief, does that pursuit have a disproportionate impact on other people? I pity the courts that have to interpret this and the local authorities or housing agencies trying to pick their way through it. I hope that, by tabling this amendment, we will get some elucidation from the Minister on what is intended by this phrase. I absolutely support and accept the principle that these injunctions should respect bona fide religious beliefs. However, we will have to define what a set of bona fide religious beliefs is, what the normal extent of practising those beliefs is and in what circumstances their normal practice has a disproportionate impact on other people.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
(i) that the requirement is suitable and enforceable; and(ii) that it is reasonable for the person specified under subsection (1) to be responsible for compliance,and must”
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister and I have just made a fleeting appearance at the reception and dinner for the Police Service Parliamentary Scheme. It was a cameo appearance, at least as far as the Minister was concerned, as he had a speaking role. In his remarks he pointed out—I would not say with glee—that we had now completed our consideration of Clause 1 of this Bill. No doubt he is looking forward to the other 160 clauses. He did suggest that we might try to pick up speed. That was no doubt aimed at me as I was sitting directly in front of him.
This amendment, the first on Clause 2, relates to the section of the Bill that says that requirements under these injunctions “must”—I stress the word—
“specify the person who is to be responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement. The person may be an individual or an organisation”.
The purpose of this amendment is to try to flesh out what needs to be done and what the court should be satisfied about before it designates a person, either an individual or an organisation, to be responsible for the compliance with the requirements of the injunction.
Obviously the first thing is to specify the persons concerned. It would be useful for the Minister to give us a little bit more insight into the range of persons he thinks this provision will apply to. There is obviously a world of difference between that person being, for example, the parent or guardian of a young person who is accused of being responsible for anti-social behaviour and the responsible person being the local police force, the local authority or the local probation service. It would be useful to understand what the balance is expected to be between those sorts of requirements as far as the Bill is concerned.
The substance of the amendment is that before the court requires somebody to be responsible for compliance, it must be satisfied that the requirement itself is suitable and capable of being enforced, and it is reasonable for the person charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the requirements are met to take on that responsibility. But if we consider the circumstances of a parent—an individual charged with this responsibility—that may be onerous. If they are a parent, they may feel obligated to take it on, but it may be impractical. If the underlying problem is that the parent cannot control their near-adult children, what is the point of this? Is it in fact suitable, appropriate, and reasonable for that person to take on that responsibility?
If it is a local authority, probation service, housing authority or the local police service, how reasonable is it? Is the court going to hear evidence as to whether or not they will be able to enforce the requirement? Do they have the resources to enforce the requirement?
Earlier today, I was talking to someone who has been advising me on the Bill. As it happens, they witnessed a crime a few days ago. They went along to the station with another witness to report the crime. When they got to the police station they were told that, unfortunately, the police service does not have the capacity to take two witness statements at once because of the number of officers on duty at the time. If that is the situation, how confident can we be in the current financial situation that the police service will have the resources to be responsible for enforcing some of these requirements? If it is not the police service it could be local authorities, which are facing reductions in their budgets of 30% or 40%. Where will they find the resources to manage this? These issues need to be addressed.
The purpose of the amendment is to say that the court needs to be satisfied about these things. One of the great concerns about the ASBO regime was the number of breaches, but it would be very silly if we created a new system that would result in a series of breaches simply because the people charged with ensuring compliance do not have the resources, the ability or the facilities to make sure that enforcement is achieved.
I am sure that the Minister will be able to help me with something else. I have searched through the Bill and cannot find what is intended to be the consequence for the person designated under Clause 2 if they fail to ensure compliance with the requirements of the injunction. Will they themselves be in contempt of court? Does that mean that chief officers of police will be subject to two years’ imprisonment because they have failed to achieve compliance? What is the requirement? If there are no penalties for failing to achieve compliance, what is the point of this? Again, I would be grateful for the Minister to enlighten us as to precisely what will happen in the event of the person who the court “must designate”, in the words of the Bill, to ensure compliance if they fail to do so either through wilful neglect, because they do not have the resources to do so or perhaps because it is impossible to enforce compliance because the individual is beyond those sorts of controls. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 20J, 22F and 96 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser. It is a slightly strange grouping. They do not hang together that well, but I hope I can help my noble friend Lord Harris on the points that we are seeking to address.
In principle we welcome the addition of positive requirements. There is no question about that. We introduced the concept, partly through individual support orders. The submissions that were made in the other place in the committee’s evidence sessions and the correspondence that we have received from local authorities and the police show that the point is not dissimilar to that made by my noble friend Lord Harris. It provides some clarification on how the requirements will be funded.
I took the opportunity, in the huge avalanche of a rainforest of paper that we have on the Bill, to see what the impact assessment said on the costs. Basically, every cost is caveated; the impact assessment is unable to make an estimate. Not all costs could be quantified and no benefits from reduced anti-social behaviour could be quantified. The costs took no account of the gains and losses. The Local Government Association is concerned that,
“given that use of positive requirements is predicted to impose an additional financial burden on councils, the overall estimates that the injunctions will be cheaper to use than ASBOs may not be right, and councils may be placed under an additional financial burden”.
The Association of Chief Police Officers gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee; it stated its concerns about agencies’ capacity and capability to deliver this support in difficult economic times, and said that that had to be considered. I was taken aback by the remarks in Committee in the other place of the Minister, Jeremy Browne. He said that it was important to establish how possible clients would be funded at the point of injunction being issued in the court. He did not agree that individual organisations should be responsible for supervising the compliance should be liable for the costs. He said,
“to take it literally momentarily, where the local authority, for example, applied for an injunction that was to include attendance at a drug rehabilitation course, the teacher delivering that course could be put forward to supervise compliance. Although the teacher would be best placed to monitor attendance and engagement with the course, it would not be right for the teacher, or school or college, to cover the costs of the course. Instead, we could expect the local authority, as the applicant, to cover those costs”.
But he added:
“That is because the downstream benefits of changing the perpetrator’s behaviour fall to them and other agencies, such as the police”.—[Official Report, Commons, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 25/6/13; col. 172.]
Is the Minister saying that if we can change the behaviour of somebody who is involved in drugs and crime in some way, and the interventions for positive requirements reduce that offending behaviour, the police or the local authority saves money? It was as if they incurred the costs. We know that early intervention reaps rewards further down the line, but that does not help those bodies pay for the costs at a time when the Minister is imposing positive requirements on the authority.
I am interested to know what assessment the Government have made on the savings that have been made. I understand from the impact assessment that they are unable to quantify the costs, but the Minister in the other place is saying that they will save money, so they should spend the money in the first place. That does not seem to be a sensible way to pursue legislation such as this.
I am also curious to know whether any assessment has been made of the impact that having to meet those costs will have on the imposition of requirements. If a local authority or the police say that we cannot afford to do X, Y or Z, or, if we could, we cannot afford to monitor it, there is little point in imposing those requirements if there is no funding to pay for them.
It is highly likely that one of the drivers for positive requirements will be the costs involved. It is a bit of a Catch-22 situation if the usefulness of the positive measures is limited by the available funding and quality services to meet those needs. That could create a postcode lottery, because the position could differ across areas of the country. We all know that there are some vagaries in the criminal justice system, but the position for somebody in Manchester could be completely different from that for somebody in Basingstoke or Basildon, for example. That causes enormous concern. If the needs of the person on whom the requirement is being put are being met, that is fine, but the danger is that those needs will not be met because the funding is not available.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord has finished. I found the reply that the Minister gave rather disturbing as regards the issues it covered and did not cover. He spent the first half of his remarks talking about Amendment 96. We have yet to hear the reason why it is necessary to repeal all the ASBO provisions in advance of bringing in the arrangements for the new injunctions. That is quite an important point. The Minister supports a Government who I think believe in free-market principles. If the ASBO and the procedures around it are so inadequate, do not work and are so costly, what is to be lost by allowing both to coexist, at least for a period, until we see how the new regime works? In practice, people—local authorities, housing bodies or whatever—might vote with their feet and decide whether to use the IPNA route or the ASBO route. That would be consistent both with the Government’s principles about a free market and with their localism principle, and would also allow a bit of reality to creep into this—which would be unique for this Government and probably for all previous Governments. People would discover which system works by looking at the arrangements that people followed at a local level. The Government need to explain why it is not possible for the two systems to coexist so that we can see which ones work and which ones do not.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The answer is very simple: we do not think that ASBOs are effective. We are proposing a Bill that deals with anti-social behaviour and in our view the measures that currently exist do not meet the requirement that we as a Government want to present as a remedy for anti-social behaviour. That is why we do not support the retention of the ASBOs. They are expensive, not effective in reducing anti-social behaviour and not effective in providing a remedial pattern of behaviour for young people who get into trouble. We want to ditch them and replace them with those measures which the Bill provides for, which give a much better and positive way forward for young people and protect victims.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I do not think that anyone doubts that the Minister and the Government are keen to tackle issues about anti-social behaviour, as indeed were the previous Government, and as I suspect has been the case for very many years. Nobody is pretending that ASBOs are perfect or that they solve the deep-seated, underlying difficulties of anti-social behaviour. However, we are saying that these new arrangements are untried. We simply do not know whether they will work or whether they will be better. If they are so much better, as the Minister assures us they will be, then if the two coexisted on the statute book, people all over the country, when dealing with cases of anti-social behaviour, would opt for the noble Lord’s system as opposed to this dreadful, outdated system that he is apparently now so keen to scrap. However, if—just if—it turns out that under certain circumstances the ASBO route might have been better, that will no longer be available. I fail to understand what is lost by leaving in place the existing arrangements, at least for a period, to see how things work out in practice.
I turn to what the noble Lord calls the “positive” elements of the arrangements. These will not be cost-free. Ensuring compliance will involve costs. If an individual is involved—and some will relate to individuals—it will involve costs in terms of that person’s time and maybe their expenditure. If it involves an agency, such as a local authority, which is required to provide particular opportunities for individuals concerned, there will be the cost of providing those opportunities. There has to be transparency as to what those costs are going to be and how it is going to be delivered. If there is not—given that local authorities are facing very significant reductions in their budgets and the voluntary sector is facing a crisis in its funding, in many instances, or in the demand on its services—there is a real risk that the Government are creating these new injunction-based powers but setting them up to fail. I believe the Minister and the Government actually want to do something positive about anti-social behaviour, so I think it unwise to be setting up arrangements, and setting them up to fail, without addressing the question of how the funding is to be taken forward.
Briefly, at the end of my remarks, I return to the amendment that I proposed. The Minister has said that the requirement I am proposing should be included in the Bill is not necessary because it is already there. He quoted the Bill as saying that,
“the court must receive evidence”.
However, that is not the same as,
“the court must be satisfied”—
which is the phraseology that I use. The court could receive evidence but the local authority might stand up or be represented at the court and say, “We no longer have the resources to provide this”. The court could still, in the light of that information, none the less say that it is satisfied and will make the order. Alternatively—and this is also quite possible—a parent or guardian could say, “We give the undertakings. We are confident that we can prevent the recurrence of this type of behaviour and will take the necessary steps”. However, receiving that evidence and being satisfied are not the same thing.
I ask the noble Lord to consider these matters again and to come back to us before Report to say whether these requirements will work—or whether we should not be assured that we are not setting up individuals or organisations to fail by asking them to do things that they cannot deliver, that they are not funded to deliver or, frankly, that no one really believes will happen but simply satisfies them. These new arrangements, in which the Minister quite properly has a great deal of confidence, could otherwise eventually be deemed a failure simply because these issues were not addressed. As I am sure I will receive this information and those assurances between now and Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Local anti-social behaviour strategy
(1) An injunction under section 1 may be granted only if the Police and Crime Commissioner for the area in which the court sits (or the Mayor of London for courts in the Greater London area) has published a local anti-social behaviour strategy “the strategy” for that area.
(2) The strategy shall set out the approach to be followed in respect of anti-social behaviour by—
(a) the chief office of police for the relevant police area;(b) each of the local authorities in that area; and(c) such other bodies as the Police and Crime Commissioner (or the Mayor of London in the Greater London area) shall consider appropriate.(3) The strategy shall only be published following consultation with the persons specified in subsection (2).”
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I suppose that we should congratulate the Minister on now having dealt with three of the 161 clauses during the course of today. The amendment addresses one of the most extraordinary absences from the Bill, which is that there is no mention, as far as I can see, of the role of police and crime commissioners—or, in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, earlier raised the issue of police and crime commissioners with the interesting suggestion that they might want to fund youth services to address issues of anti-social behaviour by juveniles.
Clearly, the role of police and crime commissioners in terms of addressing issues around anti-social behaviour should be central to the Government’s philosophy. These are the individuals who will be holding the police to account and doing so much to reduce the volume of crime and so on within their areas. So it is surprising that there is no mention of police and crime commissioners in the Bill.
In his reply to one of our earlier debates, the Minister talked about the tough financial climate in which all the agencies involved are operating and the importance of using resources wisely. That is why I put forward the amendment, which provides that there should be a proper, local anti-social behaviour strategy in every police force area. That should outline the approach that should be taken by the police service and local authorities in that area, and by other agencies that might be involved in reducing anti-social behaviour. That is so important because we all recognise that this is not an issue for which there is one magic bullet. There is no magic bullet associated with anti-social behaviour orders or with the new injunctions. There has to be a suite of measures, a series of actions taken at different levels by different organisations, to reduce the level of anti-social behaviour in a community.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the election of police and crime commissioners put the public back at the heart of our drive to cut crime. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has recognised how effective police and crime commissioners are.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Well, I welcome even modest conversions and am delighted that the noble Lord has proposed this amendment because I have always seen police and crime commissioners as being important.
Under Section 5 of the Act which introduced them, police and crime commissioners are required to issue and publish a police and crime plan, as the noble Lord said. They must do so within the financial year within which they were elected, and they are under a statutory duty to consult their chief constable in drawing up this plan.
The police and crime plan must set out the plans for, among other things, the police and crime objectives and the policing of the area for which the chief constable is responsible. In developing their plans, the police and crime commissioner must consult the public and, in particular, victims. The plan must also be scrutinised by the police and crime panel in each area before it is issued.
The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has published details on its website about the individual police and crime plans and the key priorities in them. It is no surprise, at least to me—and I do not think that it would be to other noble Lords—that tackling anti-social behaviour is consistently cited as one of the top policing and crime objectives in local force areas. Out of 41 police and crime commissioners, 30 put tackling, preventing and reducing anti-social behaviour among their key priorities in their individual plans. Eight PCCs put reducing the impact of, and keeping people safe from, anti-social behaviour as among their individual priorities, and three further plans clearly set out to encourage the reporting of anti-social behaviour. Therefore, all police and crime plans make reference to anti-social behaviour.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would create duplication and add bureaucracy. If police and crime commissioners are required to produce individual police and crime plans for their own local areas—which is part and parcel of what they are required to do under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act—why should Parliament require them to publish a local anti-social behaviour strategy for their local area in separate legislation? Why should front-line professionals and the courts have to wait to use the injunction under Part 1 as required by this amendment?
This Government are serious about tackling anti-social behaviour and so are elected police and crime commissioners, as evidenced by the figures that I have given. Our anti-social behaviour reforms are about the police and their partner agencies putting the needs of victims first. This means giving the right powers to do this. I have said already that the new injunction is one of the key planks in our reforms. Agencies and the courts must be able to use this as swiftly as possible—I hope that the noble Lord does not see his amendment as a delaying tactic.
I understand the importance of PCCs’ involvement—indeed, some of our reforms provide an active role for them; for example, the community remedy, which is in Part 6 and specifically mentions police and crime commissioners. We will draw their attention through guidance and otherwise to the new powers—I hope that the noble Lord is aware of this—but what will not help anyone in putting victims first is to duplicate and delay using the new powers, which is what this amendment would do. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, this amendment was not about trying to delay the process—I think that the Minister tries to ascribe to me motivations that I do not have. The amendment is about trying to make it work effectively.
I acknowledge that police and crime commissioners are required to draw up and should all have in place a police and crime plan. But it is a police and crime plan, and they draw it up in consultation simply with the chief officer of police for their area. That is the requirement in the legislation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
If the noble Lord will forgive me. It has to be presented to the police and crime panel as well.
Lord Harris of Haringey
It has to be presented to the police and crime panel, but the panel has no executive role, as far as that is concerned. It does not have a power to reject or amend it. It is simply there as part of a formal process. I am sure—or at least I am told somewhere—that police and crime panels are doing a good and valuable job in terms of monitoring the activities of police and crime commissioners, but they are not part of the consultative mechanism. They are not there to represent the interests of their local authorities and it is not regarded as their function to be, for example, a series of the crime and disorder leads from the various local authorities in their area.
It is a different function. It is a function about scrutiny, whereas crime and disorder leads in individual local authorities are there in an executive capacity. I do not think that the involvement of police and crime panels solves the issue. If one is to be effective in tackling anti-social behaviour, one needs to work with the local authorities and all the different agencies involved, including the housing providers. That is what this amendment is about.
Lord Greaves
I am trying to match what the noble Lord is talking about to my experience in Lancashire. It is a large, far-flung county from the Fylde coast to the Pennines, from Morecambe and Lancaster south to Skelmersdale and places like that—if there are any places like that. Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. I cannot understand what a new strategy document for the whole county, taking lots of resources in drawing it up, will add to anything in a place like Lancashire. Surely what is required is the allocation of resources and priorities at the county force level—which is Lancashire County Council, plus Blackburn and Blackpool—then local action plans and strategies at perhaps the borough level, tackling the problems on the ground.
Surely the answers, as the noble Lord said, will be different everywhere. The answers in old textile towns in Pendle and Burnley will be very different from Skelmersdale, which is a Liverpool new town suburb, or the rural areas of west Lancashire, or indeed the seaside towns of Blackpool and Morecambe, for example. What is surely needed is a series of local action plans involving the district councils and councillors and the bodies on the ground which are doing the work, as well as the police, not just another county-wide strategy which will get put on shelves and forgotten.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will forgive me if I do not join him in his encyclopaedic tour of the townships of Lancashire. In fact, this amendment does not necessarily suggest that there is a single county-wide strategy, because I, like him, would accept that what works in one area would not be appropriate in another. It talks about,
“the area in which the court sits”,
and there will be different courts in different parts of the county. The relevance of this is that each of the local authorities in the area should contribute to the preparation of the plan, because this must be something which is agreed at local level. It is the absence of that agreed joint strategy, working together at local level, which is the omission in this Bill.
This could be a subsidiary part of the police and crime plan, or it could be built from the crime and disorder partnerships which exist at local authority level, but what is missing is any cross-reference to those two different processes. If we are to be serious about anti-social behaviour, if we are to make things happen at local level and have the different agencies operating in concert, working together to try to deal with anti-social behaviour, there needs to be some linkage between the existing planning structures.
While I am quite prepared to accept that this amendment does not necessarily deal with the issue precisely, if the Minister does not bring back proposals on Report, then I might well bring proposals to try to link what is being done in this Bill with both the police and crime plan, which commissioners are asked to draw up, and the local crime and disorder arrangements, which exist between the local senior police officer in an area and the chief executive of each local authority area. On that basis of looking forward to the Minister coming forward with some further suggestions about how to integrate these documents, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, is not part of the problem that the Government are trying to sweep away a whole range of different responses to anti-social behaviour and replace them with what is essentially a single measure, at least as far as the individual is concerned, and that therefore there is no gradation? There is no way to modulate what is done or provide a specific response to individual circumstances. That seems to be what is causing this problem. If there were some gradation, there might well be measures that it would be appropriate to take against children of the age of 10 or 11, who have an understanding of when they are behaving outside societal norms. However, there would not be the same level of sanction implicit in breaching an injunction.
Part of the difficulty with all of the amendments which your Lordships will be considering today is that we are left, essentially, with one type of measure to deal with a multiplicity of problems. That is why trying to find the right balance as to how best to be effective against those problems is one difficulty. Because the Government have decided simply to do away with all the existing arrangements and replace them with one simple measure, we will face that difficulty.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, because the injunctions were clearly the major issue raised at Second Reading. I think that most noble Lords who contributed to that debate raised this issue.
However, I start by saying that the late scheduling of today’s Committee sitting is rather unfortunate. There will be noble Lords who would have wished to table amendments to today’s debate but who, given that the sitting was scheduled only on the last sitting day before Recess last week, may not have had the opportunity to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made the point that we now have a clash with the Children and Families Bill, which is also in Committee as we speak. I suspect that, given the nature of the subject before us today, many noble Lords who are in that Committee would also wish to contribute here. My final plea is that this time yesterday I was in Argentina, and I arrived in the UK only a few hours ago. I promise not to do my Eva Peron impression on this issue—although perhaps in passion if not in length. The scheduling is unfortunate, and I hope that the Minister will take that message back. I would not want noble Lords who have a contribution to make to this debate to be unable to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has done us a service with his amendment, and I am also eager to probe the Government’s thinking on this issue as well. I am certainly not against children and young people being held responsible for their actions; we defined that principle in anti-social behaviour orders. We have had some debate today about the criminal age of responsibility for young people, but the amendment and the Bill are not really about that. They are about whether a young person aged 10 is likely, on the balance of probabilities, to cause annoyance or nuisance to anyone. I am not a parent, but my experience of 10 and 11 year-old children is that they inevitably cause nuisance and annoyance to somebody at some point. I do not know whether the Bill is an appropriate vehicle to make that kind of behaviour subject, on the balance of probabilities, to such an injunction. I find that somewhat strange and I would like the Minister to develop his thinking and explain why the Government think that it is appropriate.
I can think of numerous examples where 10 and 11 year-olds would cause nuisance and annoyance: persistently kicking a ball at a fence, breaking that fence or causing disruption in the neighbourhood. That is the very point that my noble friend Lord Harris made: the Government are trying to squeeze a range of interventions into one which, inevitably, will not be appropriate in every case.
I wonder, if a complaint is made about a young person aged 10 or 11 causing nuisance or annoyance, how the police are going to investigate to see whether it is appropriate that such an injunction be placed on that young person. The JCHR made the point that there is no requirement whatsoever in the Bill to judge what is in the best interests of the child before such an injunction is imposed. It would be helpful if the Government would explain their thinking why it would be appropriate to issue an injunction when a 10 or 11 year-old may cause nuisance or annoyance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for tabling this amendment, because it does seem to be a good place to start. The issue has certainly triggered a lot of arguments from colleagues, if I may say so. We have set this age of 10 because that is the age at which children are currently deemed capable of being responsible for their actions under the criminal law. My noble friend showed quite clearly that this is something that has been enshrined in legislation for some time, but I emphasise that the focus of the injunction is to nip issues and problems in the bud.
Many of us agree that the move away from automatic criminalisation of young people is a step in the right direction; noble Lords have backed the Government’s decision to move in that direction. Breach of an injunction does not result in a criminal conviction, giving the young person a chance of reform with a clean slate. This is not the case with anti-social behaviour orders, where breach is a criminal offence; this change has been widely welcomed by, among others, the Home Affairs Committee in another place. In addition to the injunction, positive requirements can be used to help address the causes of a young person’s anti-social behaviour, to help them to turn their life around before that behaviour escalates to something more serious.
We have also built in requirements for the local youth offending team to be involved at different stages in the process, to allow for the proper and thorough consideration of the needs of the young person. This goes far beyond what was required for the anti-social behaviour order. Furthermore, on the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee, we have limited the maximum period of an injunction to 12 months where it is issued against someone under the age of 18, whereas the minimum duration of an ASBO is two years. Twelve months will provide agencies with sufficient time for them to work with other agencies to address any underlying issues driving anti-social behaviour. It strikes the right balance between providing victims with the respite they need and sending a strong message to young people that anti-social behaviour is not acceptable.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee emphasised the importance of the guidance. We have published draft guidance for front-line professionals and I hope that noble Lords will take time to have a look at it. I think they will find that it complements what the Bill seeks to do, and it is a very important document. It is available on the Home Office website, but if those who want a hard copy let me know, I will ensure that one is sent to them. It will be relevant to the youth offending teams and, in relation to Part 6 of the Bill, to police and crime commissioners; again, my noble friend mentioned how important the role of the PCCs could be. We are consulting on the draft guidance at the moment, and we would welcome comments from noble Lords on what it should include.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about reporting restrictions. We are going to come to that issue; it is in this early part of the Bill and will be debated as we have amendments down to discuss it. Amendment 21A has been tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to be involved in that debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned that the House is of course considering the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. He also questioned the risk of a lack of co-ordination across government. I hope—indeed, I have had private conversations with the noble Lord about this—that all this legislation is of a piece. It is designed to address the failure of Government to get on a child-focused agenda. The IPNA in particular is part of our Home Office legislation to reinforce child focus, and victim focus, in the same legislation so that we successfully tackle anti-social behaviour.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned the question of the guidance and whether courts could be included in it. In theory, court rules could cover this, provided that the relevant rule-making committees agreed. We will consider the utility of this, as well as whether guidance could play a useful role here. I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord on this issue.
If I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the timing of this particular day’s business, which I think all noble Lords will have found themselves swotting up on a little more earnestly than they might otherwise have done, was agreed through the usual channels, and indeed I understand from my colleague that the proposal was welcomed by the opposition Chief Whip, although I was not in the Chamber at the time.
I emphasise to the noble Baroness that the IPNA is not the only means of addressing anti-social behaviour by children. We have made it clear in the draft guidance that the police, local authorities and others should consider a non-interventionist basis in the first instance if they can do so. The Bill also provides for more serious cases at the other end with the criminal behaviour order, so there is a flexible response to the phenomenon. As I said earlier, the youth offending teams—
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he give us some examples of when he thinks it will be appropriate to use the injunction route for a child of 10 or 11? What does he envisage as the penalties in the event of breach?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, perhaps I could save the Minister some time. Following on from those two questions, it is comforting to hear that this is not as strong a method as I had been concerned about. Much of what the Minister has said has been reassuring. However, if one draws children into the support of the youth offending teams, they might say, “I am with all those others who are involved with the criminal law now if the youth offending teams are with me”. Does the Minister understand that concern? I hope that that relates to what the noble Lord was asking
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That follows on from where I was in my argument. The engagement of youth offender teams is key to this issue. They welcome the opportunity of intervening earlier—pre-offending, one might say—because one of the deficiencies of the current system is that the remedy lies in an anti-social behaviour order, which is a rather heavy hammer with which to deal with the problem. This is much more nuanced. I cannot answer the noble Lord in specifics because I am not thinking quickly enough on my feet. However, I hope I have reassured him that the early stages of anti-social behaviour are likely to be dealt with informally, as they would be at present. The injunction method gives a framework for remedial activity, particularly with a young offender, but we should remember that IPNAs apply to others as well as young people.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am grateful to the noble Lord for attempting to answer the point. The amendment deals specifically with young people. Before we come to Report, could the noble Lord write to me and other noble Lords setting out, in more detail, his thinking on the circumstances which will lead to an IPNA for a young person when everything else has failed? What does he see as being the consequences of a breach? It sounded to me as though the consequence was a referral to a criminal behaviour order and the youth offending team process. I am not suggesting he try and answer now: he clearly wants to have the information in front of him. However, it would be helpful to the Committee to have that information.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The penalties, set out in Schedule 2, include up to two years’ detention for children of 14 or over, but only in exceptional cases. The noble Lord has invited me to write to him on this issue and I am very happy to do so. I hope he also has the opportunity to read the guidance because that will help in his understanding of how the IPNA is meant to operate on the ground, in particular cases, and will help inform him just as much as my letter will do.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, we are considering the powers to grant injunctions under Clause 1, but it is important to consider the other provisions in Part 1, particularly Clause 4, which specifies those who can apply for injunctions, including local authorities, housing providers, the local chief of police and various other agencies but excluding individuals.
The anxiety that has been generated by Clause 1 is understandable. This anxiety has been excellently analysed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, but it needs to be closely examined to see whether it is justified. The Minister told the House at Second Reading that draft guidance had already been published for front-line professionals and referred to particular parts of that guidance. At page 24, it is specified that,
“in deciding what constitutes ‘nuisance or annoyance’, applicants must be mindful that this route should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities. For example, children simply playing in a park or outside, or young people lawfully gathering or socialising in a particular place may be ‘annoying’ to some, but are not in themselves anti-social. Agencies must make proportionate and reasonable judgements before applying for an injunction. Failure to do so will increase the likelihood that an application will not be successful”.
The jurisdiction to grant an injunction is given to the High Court or the county court, or the youth court in the case of a respondent aged under 18. The court has to be satisfied first that the respondent is engaged in anti-social behaviour and secondly that it is just and convenient to grant an injunction for the purpose of preventing him or her from engaging in anti-social behaviour in the future.
We should not underestimate the inherent safeguards that are present in that procedure. The expression “nuisance or annoyance” is well established in the context of landlord and tenant law and it has been statutorily incorporated into various housing Acts. The expression was introduced with little controversy by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. There is now a wealth of case law applying this test, which is applied by judges up and down the country. The words by themselves might be thought of as attracting remedies where actions complained of are relatively trivial, but in fact, for “nuisance and annoyance” to pass the threshold, it has to be to be something pretty substantial.
By the same token, judges are not easily persuaded that it is “just and convenient” to grant an injunction unless the court is satisfied that it is equitable to do so. The expression “just and convenient” is well established in law and will mean that the courts hesitate before granting injunctions, unless the behaviour complained of is such that the court considers it fair to do so. If a court were to be too draconian—as to which there has been little evidence in the past—then successful appeals would follow.
The provisions of Part 1 allow for a range of requirements to be included in injunctions, including if necessary a power of arrest. The terms of an injunction will of course depend on the particular facts of a case. Similarly, a power of arrest will be attached only if the seriousness of the allegations merits the exercise of such a power. A point made cogently by the Law Society in its briefing on this part of the Bill is that injunctions are used in the case of noise nuisance as an alternative to possession proceedings. They result in the person or their family staying in their homes, but with restrictions as to their conduct rather than their having to be evicted.
With respect, there seems to be a number of difficulties about the proposed amendments as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. They would essentially create a criminal regime—there is a criminal offence later in the Bill—for low-level anti-social behaviour, in that before an injunction could be granted there would have to be proof beyond reasonable doubt. This would mean that hearsay evidence could not realistically be used. Witnesses are often afraid of the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour and give their complaints to a housing officer who can then present evidence. One should not underestimate the misery that can be experienced by residents of, let us say, a block of flats where one of the occupants is determined to make the rest of the occupants’ lives a misery. The amendment would probably necessitate seriously frightened residents having to give evidence and be cross-examined. It is much more likely that they would simply refuse to do so.
In our anxiety to ensure that civil liberties are preserved we should neither lose sight of the victims of anti-social behaviour nor underestimate quite what a scourge it can be. I understand entirely what lies behind this amendment and the concern expressed by a number of noble Lords that essential freedoms could be at risk if the powers under Part 1 were used too enthusiastically. However, I feel that the really substantial amendments here will emasculate the right to obtain an injunction under Part 1 and result in a failure to protect those who are the victims of anti-social behaviour. Nevertheless, by way of acknowledging the very real and sincere concerns that a number of people or groups have about Clause 1, I propose in my amendment, which I will outline shortly and is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that a degree of objectivity be imported into the definition of conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance. That amendment, which I will be submitting, would help, but I am afraid that I am against these amendments.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I find myself in the difficult position of agreeing with much of the excellent speech by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and much of the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. The reason for that is the mess that this Bill is. The reality is that the original concept of anti-social behaviour orders was introduced because of a real, prevalent problem in many parts of this country. The problem outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is that of people whose lives were being made a misery by the actions of others, but because they were often frightened, or did not think that it was appropriate or possible, they would never bring those matters in a formal complaint and would be very reluctant to give evidence. That is why the test was lowered from the criminal standard of proof.
Those in this House who have been elected members, whether at local council level or who have been Members of Parliament, will have had brought to them cases of inter-neighbour disputes that have gone on for years. You tell them, “Keep a diary, keep a list” and so on, and they come back two, four or six weeks later with a completed list, none of which would be sufficient if we were still operating under the old system of a criminal standard of proof. That is why the previous Government introduced anti-social behaviour orders. I do not think that anyone suggests that anti-social behaviour orders have all worked perfectly, but they made a real difference to the lives of very many people. The reason was that we were changing the way in which those actions could be brought and lowering the standard of proof.
The problem with what the Government are doing is not that they are trying to simplify the system or make it better but that they have swept away what has over time developed and then moved to this system of applying for an injunction, or IPNA. By changing the test to one of nuisance and annoyance, they have opened up the prospect of a lower standard of proof being applied in far broader areas. We can all add to the list of things that cause nuisance and annoyance. While it is true that Clause 4 limits the list of organisations which might apply for an IPNA, it does not deal with the circumstances in which there will be very powerful local lobbying about much lower levels of nuisance and annoyance. The regime will be applied to local authorities; it will be applied to local housing providers—and an interesting question is what a local housing provider is. Is it somebody who happens to rent out one room? In which case, can they apply willy-nilly for IPNAs against all and sundry in the local neighbourhood? I am sure that this issue has been addressed in the guidance but that I have just not read it yet. There will be all sorts of cases where people raise matters which at the moment would not qualify for the ASBO procedure.
The reason why we are debating this amendment is that the Bill has created these anomalies. It would be clearly obnoxious for injunctions to be issued in respect of trivial matters on the basis of this lower level of proof. Equally, we are in danger, for those very legitimate reasons, of throwing away all the progress that has been made in the past few years by reverting to the criminal standard of proof. I think of my time as a local councillor and my time on the London Assembly, where much of my constituency work related to anti-social behaviour issues. The difference that it made for the local authority or for the housing association to be able to pursue these matters as they were able to under anti-social behaviour legislation, provided relief for many people. That is not to say that there were not problems or that some places were not more reluctant and so on. I shall propose an amendment later which states that there should be some coherent planning locally as to what the arrangements should be for pursuing IPNAs in a particular area and that there should be an anti-social behaviour strategy in local areas, but we will come to that later. However, the important point is that, because the Government have made such wholesale changes and have then tried to force them into the single IPNA process, we are in danger of sacrificing the civil liberties or well-being of many people who were protected by the regime of anti-social behaviour orders.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Policing, as chair of the anti-forced marriage charity, Freedom, and as an adviser to Airwave Solutions and to Lockheed Martin.
This debate has been enlivened by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Having twice sat on Metropolitan Police appointments panels which promoted him, and indeed having sat on a third panel which did not promote him and where he accused me of heckling him, I look forward to his future contributions in your Lordships’ House.
This Bill is a strange pot-pourri of measures. It reminds us that this coalition Government have run out of steam. And what do Governments do when they are short of legislation to make themselves look busy and purposeful? Why, they turn to the Home Office, because the Home Office can always be relied on to produce a ready-basted, oven-ready Bill, and this is the 2013 offering.
In fact, I support significant parts of the Bill—for example, the extension of the role of the IPCC, some of the new child protection measures, the creation of the new firearms offences, the extension of dangerous dogs legislation and the making of forced marriage an offence. However, it is counterintuitive to be weakening the powers to combat anti-social behaviour at the same time as 80% of the population believe that the problems have got worse in the past year. No doubt the Minister will explain that to us.
However, what is missing is the context. Overall, crime has declined in the past 15 years or so. The trend in burglary is particularly marked and has been remarkably consistent. However, the significant change in the past couple of decades is that new developments—homes, both new build and refurbished, schools, play areas, hospitals, and many others—have been informed by and have adopted the principles of Secured By Design. Indeed, this morning I spent an hour and a half looking at some of the homes that have been built on the new Olympic park site. They have all been built using Secured by Design principles.
Since its inception under the auspices of the Association of Chief Police Officers in 1989, Secured by Design has achieved a great deal. Secured by Design developments—those using the products and materials that it has approved—are half as likely to be burgled and they show a 25% reduction in criminal damage. This is at a modest cost. The additional cost of using Secured by Design standards in the average home is only £170. 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 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.
This is a success story and one which I am sure the Government and the Home Office would wish to trumpet. Is it not strange then that this same Government are now seeking to undermine this success story? The Department for Communities and Local Government published—in the depths of August, typically—a consultation document seeking views on the results of the recent review of building regulations and housing standards. The proposals it is putting forward on the security of buildings suggest a two-tiered standard: a basic minimum level that could be generally required and a so-called enhanced standard.
The basic standard is demonstrably inadequate and has been shown to have little security benefit. Frankly, there is little point in specifying stronger locks. They are not much of a deterrent if the door in which they are located may be so flimsy that it can be kicked in with one firm kick. Even the enhanced standard would be lower than the existing Secured by Design standards, and they could be required by a local authority only where what is described as a “compelling” case existed for the higher standard to be applied in the case of an individual development. To make this compelling case, a local authority will have to demonstrate that the development will be subject to an “elevated” risk of burglary and that there will be a higher than normal impact of burglary on the tenants.
It goes without saying that this is a test that is almost impossible to pass in respect of a new development. What is more, the test has to be applied site by site in a way which is likely to produce confusion and added uncertainties for developers, who, when they submit a proposal, will not know whether the authority will be able to apply the enhanced standard. However, as has already been said, this enhanced standard will not be as beneficial as the existing proven Secured by Design guidelines. It will not be open to a local authority to require those proven guidelines, and to apply even the enhanced standards it will have to go through complicated processes to demonstrate the compelling case required by the DCLG, with all the implicit threats of legal action that that entails.
This is the antithesis of localism. I may need to be corrected on this but I believe that it is a policy of this Government that localism is a good thing. But this is saying that local authorities shall not apply these higher standards that have been drawn up and are proven to work. Surely it should be for local people through their locally-elected councillors to decide what level of security is appropriate for their own neighbourhoods. Instead, those same local people are being forced to accept a centrally driven dumbing- down of standards, which puts their communities and individual householders at risk.
This is all being put forward as a simplification of the planning process and that somehow these Secured by Design standards, which on average cost £170 per dwelling, have been the cause of stalled developments. What world are DCLG Ministers and officials living in? Have any of them had to live in an area blighted by excessive crime facilitated by poor design and inadequate security standards? Local authorities should be able to choose the level of security standards that they consider appropriate for the communities that they represent. What is the problem that Ministers think they are going to solve by preventing that local democratic discretion? What is more, we can only assume that no consideration has been given by the Government to the consequences down the line. This change, which will curtail police influence on planning for secure facilities, is dangerous and short-sighted.
What it risks is that the progress that has been made over the past two decades in designing out crime, reducing burglary and making anti-social behaviour harder will be put into reverse. What it risks is adding to the costs of the criminal justice system. 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 being no more than a distant memory while the threat of crime rises again? Who benefits from this short-sighted policy? The only people who will benefit are the developers who will see an increase in their profits. Yet again we see a Government who neglect the many in favour of the privileged few.
What representations did the Home Office make about these ill thought out proposals? Is the Home Secretary powerless in stopping her Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, discarding 20 years of progress in reducing crime? May we perhaps have an assurance that, even at this late stage, Mr Pickles will be reined back? If we do not get some progress on this there is frankly no point in having this Bill, worthy though some elements of it may be. We might as well acknowledge that this Government are prepared to give up the fight against crime, solely to placate a handful of privileged developers.
Unless we get some serious assurances from the Minister on these points, this Bill will be rendered an irrelevance. We might as well pack up now. Unless we get some assurances tonight, I for one am not prepared to support this Bill receiving its Second Reading and will be not content.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been a wide debate, which is not surprising given the content of the Bill. It is a testament to the House that we have been able to hear, from the direct experience and judgment of its Members, interesting and useful observations on the Bill. I hope this will help us in our scrutiny of it as it goes through the House. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. As I say, it has been a good debate. I was particularly pleased to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Paddick. He brought to it a touch of humour, good grace and a wealth of knowledge from 30 years in policing. When we come to Part 11 of the Bill, I look forward to hearing of his experience and knowledge in that area.
The evidence from today’s debate is that there is widespread support for a number of the measures in the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, identified a number of areas where the Benches opposite are happy with the proposals, which is a helpful start. These include the measures to tackle illegal firearms and forced marriages; the extension of the Dangerous Dogs Act to cover dog attacks that take place on private property; and the measures to strengthen the IPCC and to reinforce the College of Policing in professionalising the police.
As is to be expected, we also heard some concerns around the House about certain aspects of the Bill, in particular the test for the new injunction under Part 1. There were also some learned criticisms of the test for determining eligibility for compensation for miscarriages of justice. In the time available I shall do my best to cover the points made. Where I am unable to do so, I undertake to write to noble Lords on the points they raised during the debate.
Let me start with the beginning of the Bill, which generated the greatest oratory. I have a list of Peers who spoke about the IPNA test—I will not recite it—and I thank all noble Lords for raising their concerns. My job as Minister is to reassure noble Lords and I will seek to do so as we take the Bill through Committee.
The nuisance and annoyance test is based on the current statutory test, which has worked well in the housing sector since 1996. It is readily understood by the courts and it will allow agencies to act quickly to protect victims and communities from more serious harm developing. This test was reaffirmed by the previous Government in the ASB legislation passed in 2003. So it is not a new test.
In considering an application for an injunction, the court must have regard to the principles of proportionality, or fairness, in deciding whether it is just and convenient to grant the injunction. There is a judicial test against which the injunction is granted. As my noble friend Lady Newlove said, we must not lose sight of the needs of victims of anti-social behaviour. I wholeheartedly agree, and this view has been widely expressed by noble Lords around the House. The test for the injunction will ensure that swift action can be taken if it is needed.
A number of noble Lords—including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lady Linklater—mentioned their concern about the impact of the new injunction on young people. I share their desire not to criminalise young people at an early age. We are keen that professionals have the discretion to use informal measures such as restorative justice or acceptable behaviour contracts where they are appropriate for the victim and the community. I believe that such measures will be appropriate for many young people, and our draft guidance makes this clear. Normally a Minister stands here trying to persuade the House to accept that draft guidance is coming, usually saying that it will be here shortly or after the passage of time. However, we actually have the draft guidance and I will make sure that all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate get a copy of it. I think that in some ways it will assuage some anxieties that noble Lords have expressed. With the guidance in place, I believe it will assuage some of those fears.
The professionals and the courts also need to have the necessary powers to protect victims from the small minority of young people who persistently behave anti-socially. Where an injunction is appropriate, it is right that strong sanctions should be available if it is breached. However, unlike the ASBO, these will not result in a criminal record. I am sure that will be seen as a welcome step by the House.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, will forgive me if I do not give him a detailed response to the point that he made. I have full details here but time is short. I will write to him on the issue that he raised about the Secured by Design measures and the consultation that is going on at the moment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I do not wish to detain the House. I appreciate that, because of the mismanagement of the day, we are very late. Can the Minister just enlighten us as to whether the Home Office made representations that this was indeed a crazy thing for the Department for Communities and Local Government to be doing?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The Home Office works closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is fair to say that we are engaged, as we are on all measures, in discussing every aspect of government where we share interests in common. I do not want to go into detail on the Floor of the House, but I certainly will write to the noble Lord in this regard.
A number of views were expressed about eviction. Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Faulks, expressed concern about the strength of the powers to evict persons convicted of a related offence. As we saw in 2011, those who riot and trash communities can take away people’s livelihoods and homes. Although the law currently enables the landlord to seek to evict those who riot in the locality of their home, it does not capture the sort of riot tourism that we saw in 2011. The Bill puts that right. It will allow for landlords to apply to evict tenants where they or members of the household have been convicted of an offence at the scene of a riot anywhere in the United Kingdom where the behaviour takes place. That unashamedly sends out a strong message that rioting will not be tolerated and may carry housing consequences wherever it occurs.
However, I reassure noble Lords that we expect landlords to seek to evict in those circumstances only exceptionally and, where they do, important safeguards will be in place. In particular, the court needs to be satisfied on a case-by-case basis that it is reasonable to grant possession. The impact on the whole household and any young children is likely to be a relevant factor. Existing eviction powers make it clear that tenants are responsible for the anti-social behaviour of members of their household. This provision follows that well established principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, my noble friend Lord Redesdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, gave us the benefit of their views on the dog measures in the Bill. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will assist front-line professionals in tackling dangerous dogs, not only once an attack has occurred but to prevent such attacks. There have been calls for dog control notices today, echoing those from animal welfare organisations. The rather bright tie that I am wearing is a Dogs Trust tie; I thought that it would be appropriate to wear it today. The work of such organisations is vital to improve responsible dog ownership through education and providing support for those unable to look after their pets.
However, I do not agree that a bespoke dog control notice is needed. The Bill contains a number of anti-social behaviour powers which can be used in exactly the same way as a dog control notice. The community protection notice, for example, can be used to require a dog owner to have their dog neutered, to keep it muzzled, to keep it on a lead in a public place and to attend dog training classes. The draft practitioners’ manual explains that comprehensively. To provide for another class of notice that does exactly the same thing as existing provisions in the Bill would undermine one of our key objectives, welcomed by practitioners, which is to streamline the existing, complex mix of overlapping powers.
It was helpful to hear from my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Hussain and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about forced marriage. We know that the introduction of legislation is not of itself enough. The Government’s Forced Marriage Unit provides direct assistance to victims. It also undertakes a full programme of outreach activities to front-line practitioners and communities to ensure that people working with victims are fully informed as to how to approach such cases. Overseas, the unit also provides consular assistance for victims to secure their return to the UK, but I look forward to debating that at later stages in the Bill’s progress.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also raised the clauses dealing with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, generally welcoming them. I will write to her on the impact of those orders in the way that she described.
Concern was expressed about PCCs commissioning victim services and whether that would lead to some services not being delivered as they have been. My noble friend Lord Dholakia mentioned that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was concerned about the impact on rape counselling. Although it makes sense for support for victims of such crimes, which have high impact but are low in volume, such as homicide, rape and human trafficking, to be commissioned centrally, the majority of victim services are best commissioned locally. That is how this issue will be divided. Police and crime commissioners are best placed to decide on the sort of issues that are needed within their communities. Major crimes will still be addressed through national funding.
PCCs will be able to respond to local needs and ensure the best use of funding. In his evidence to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee Adam Pemberton, assistant chief executive of Victim Support, agreed that the move to local commissioning of victims’ services provided an opportunity for better integration of local services in support of victims. We agree. That is why we are legislating to ensure that PCCs have clear powers. I welcome the support of my noble friend Lady Newlove for these provisions.
There has been widespread support for the Police Remuneration Review Body. It is good to hear from the noble Lords, Lord Condon and Lord Dear. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond referred to the new policies for determining police pay. The Police Remuneration Review Body will deliver pay and conditions that are fair not only for police officers but for the public as well. The move to an independent evidence-based method of determining police pay and conditions is the right way forward. The current negotiating system is time-consuming, inefficient and adversarial. I can, however, assure my noble friend Lady Harris that police officers will continue to have a voice in determining their pay, as their representatives will have the opportunity to inform the annual remit letter, which will be provided by the Home Secretary and sets out issues for the body’s consideration. They will also present evidence to the new body in the same way as any other interested parties along with the Government and police and crime commissioners.
My noble friend Lady Harris asked about the applications of these provisions to Northern Ireland. Policing, as noble Lords will know, is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. This provision was introduced with the full support of the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland. However, this is an important change for Northern Ireland. The Department of Justice has consulted policing organisations, including representatives of police officers in Northern Ireland—those who, between them, are responsible for maintaining the police service in Northern Ireland—to ensure that they have a full opportunity to feed in their views. The Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland is considering those views and will respond in due course. I might say, while we are talking about police matters, that I greatly valued the observations of my noble friend Lord Wasserman.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends, Lady Berridge, Lord Faulks, Lord Dholakia, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the changes we are making to the powers in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act. I welcome the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that,
“the Government has clearly made out a case for a without suspicion power to stop, question and search travellers at ports and airports”.
I also welcome the committee’s support for the amendments to the Schedule 7 powers we have made in the Bill. These are important changes, including a reduction in the maximum period of detention by a third.
The difference between the Government and the Joint Committee is whether the changes in the Bill to Schedule 7 go far enough. In particular, there are some who would continue to argue that the provisions in Schedule 7 are disproportionate and at odds with the convention rights and that these modifications are insufficient to cure that. Given the continuing threat we face from terrorism, the Government profoundly disagree. This is not simply the view of the Government, the police and the intelligence agencies. I refer the House to the judgment of the High Court in proceedings brought by an individual examined under Schedule 7 earlier this year. In that judgment, the court said that,
“we have concluded that the Schedule 7 powers of examination survive the challenges advanced before us. In short, the balance struck between individual rights and the public interest in protection against terrorism does not violate the fundamental human rights in question”.
I hope that noble Lords will agree with that as we debate this issue. I should add that it is our aim to respond to the JCHR’s report before we enter Committee.
Identity Cards
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, surely the point is that the Government opposed the previous identity card on the basis that it was compulsory. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is suggesting a voluntary arrangement, one which would cost the Government nothing but would bring great convenience to many people including the carriers of such a card and those who wanted an authoritative proof of identity. Surely this is something that the Government should consider again. The ability to assure one’s own identity is increasingly necessary.
Police: Racism
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
For my part, I am reassured that any drivers that ensure that the police more fully reflect the communities that they serve must be a good thing, so I cannot join with my noble friend in this regard. A lot of progress has been made in increasing the number of police officers from BME backgrounds but there are still too few, and there are still too few in the higher ranks of the police force. I hope that one of the considerations of the direct entry scheme will be to ensure that some of the higher levels of the policing profession are from British minority ethnic backgrounds.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many senior officers of ACPO rank there are from black and minority ethnic communities as a proportion of the total? Can he also say what steps will be taken to ensure that individuals who come in by direct entry from those communities are not set up to fail because they will not have been through the normal ranks structure?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Of course, that hazard would apply to any candidate. However, I am confident about that policy and I believe it will enhance the policing profession. I have some figures here. There are 6,604 BME officers in the 43 forces in England and Wales, representing 5% of total police officer strength. The proportion of those of chief inspector rank or above is only 3.7%. I think that bears out the point that the noble Lord is making, one with which I do not disagree. There are too few at that level.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Condon
My Lords, I support Amendment 1A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the reasons that she has set out. I find myself agreeing with much of what the Minister said, apart from the mechanism that he advocates should be used in deciding this issue.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, this issue is so important to the national interest that the only mechanism that should be used to transfer responsibility for the lead on terrorism from the Metropolitan Police to the NCA or related agencies is primary legislation. Like the noble Baroness, I cannot imagine any urgent situation where primary legislation would impede the notion of national security and a super-affirmative order would be the better mechanism to use.
Lest I should be out of date in my feelings about this issue, I consulted the current Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police last Friday to see if my views and his were on the same wavelength. He is content for me to relay to your Lordships’ House that he shares my concerns that if there should be change—I am not against the notion of change—primary legislation is the vehicle that will best take care of the public interest on this issue.
I have said before in your Lordships’ House that I am not implacably opposed to any transfer. In saying that, I remind the House of my recorded interests in policing and that for seven years as commissioner this was a role that I discharged in leading the force that had this co-ordinating and leading responsibility. I believe that a super-affirmative order is the wrong way to take care of all the arguments and to preserve the public interest.
Important issues that will have to be considered if there is to be a change include the fact that more than 80% of terrorist offences on the mainland are played out, sadly, in London, and that in fighting terrorism hearts and minds and prevention are as important as detection. Therefore, an integrated approach, which the Metropolitan Police has built up over decades with school visits, visits to mosques and neighbourhood policing, is as important in the fight against terrorism as the drama of executing warrants early in the morning and dramatic seizures of explosives. This is an integrated effort that has been built up over decades.
In the 12 months to September 2012, arrests for terrorism increased over the previous 12 months from 153 to 245, an increase of 60%. The current arrangements are working very well in preserving the national interest on this issue. I am not aware of any arguing or lobbying by the security services for this change to take place. Perhaps I am out of date on that issue, but to my knowledge the Metropolitan Police Service and the other agencies involved in the fight against terrorism are not advocating these changes.
My fear is that the creation of the NCA—this fledgling, embryonic new body, which is not even fully functioning, which is already struggling with border issues and which I fear will be underresourced—has led to the administrative tidiness of considering the transfer of terrorism from the Metropolitan Police to the NCA. That may be the right thing to do in time. It is unlikely to demand an emergency overnight or within-a-few-weeks change that would lead to the notion of a super-affirmative order. I believe the national interest demands that only primary legislation should be used in this case and I urge your Lordships’ House to support Amendment 1A.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, a few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, raised the question of the quality of scrutiny of legislation by your Lordships’ House. This amendment raises exactly the same set of questions about the quality of scrutiny that is possible for executive decisions. The Minister said that no decisions have been taken and that whether this is something the Government will want to do is an open question. He said that we need to see how the National Crime Agency develops and that only then will it be necessary to review and perhaps bring forward proposals. If that is the case, why do we need to legislate in this Bill for this process to happen in this particular way? If the Minister was saying that for the next 10 years the Home Office will not be presenting any Bills to Parliament and therefore this is the only legislative opportunity that exists, then maybe there would be a case for it. However, I do not recall a year when the Home Office has managed with no Bills. Sometimes it has had as many as four Bills before the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, it is likely that there will not be a suitable legislative opportunity at whatever time in the future it is considered appropriate to carry out this review.
Such a review having been carried out, the assumption that any transfer would be a simple matter which could be considered through even the elevated super-affirmative process is naïve. The integration, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, stated, of counterterrorist work with mainstream policing is extremely important. I have probably said this in your Lordships’ House before but I live close to the Finsbury Park mosque. On the occasion that the Finsbury Park mosque was raided, as I arrived at the Underground station Metropolitan police officers were distributing leaflets explaining to the local community what had happened, why it had happened and what safeguards had been taken to protect the religious parts of that mosque. That was because counterterrorism is integrated into mainstream policing and there was a recognition that the Metropolitan Police would have to continue to police those streets after such a raid. That is why the integration of and arrangements with the counterterrorist units within the various forces around the country are so important. Shifting some or all of that to the National Crime Agency is complicated. These are not straightforward issues and they certainly ought to be debated properly in Parliament. That is what we are likely to miss.
I have another concern. We all now need the National Crime Agency to be a success and I believe it probably will be but it is going to take a while. Every reorganisation takes time. Every time you throw all the pieces up in the air and wait for them to settle, there is a period when the organisations have to come together. This is saying to an organisation which is not yet formally established, as this legislation is not yet through, that there may be some massive change to its remit just around the corner. I do not believe that is good for the current functions of the National Crime Agency; nor do I think it is necessarily good for counterterrorism if that change is to be made at some point in the future.
The Government have never answered the question of what is the problem that they are trying to fix. They say, “There might be a problem. We might have a review at some point in the future and if we do have a review, we want to be able to push this through by super-affirmative resolution”. That is simply not good enough. These are important questions. There must be proper parliamentary scrutiny in the future when these matters are considered.