Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I should like to take further what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said about who is going to be involved at the beginning of this process. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, it is not going to be a judge; it is probably going to be a police officer. I want to think about the use of language and I am going to give two examples of the use of language which distinguishes the word “annoying” from the language in previous Bills about distress and harassment.

I want to take your Lordships back to 1970s Soho where, as a young constable, I was patrolling with a much more streetwise officer. We were approached by a rather large Westminster councillor who was objecting to people handing out leaflets about rent rises. He said that he was really annoyed by this. The officer I was with said, “Well sir, my Aunt Mabel is annoying but I’m not going to let anybody arrest her for just being annoying”. That was in the 1970s. I now want to take your Lordships to the very top of government in 2007. The right honourable Tony Blair has announced that he is about to leave and the right honourable Gordon Brown thinks he is about to be the Prime Minister but he is still the Chancellor. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, is not in his place to confirm this story as he and I were involved in it when he was the Home Secretary. The Chancellor was about to move out of No. 11 with his red briefcase to announce a Budget to a particularly unstartled world when we discovered that a man was standing amid the cameras dressed in a full union jack outfit with a notice saying “John Reid for Prime Minister”. It was reported to me, as commissioner, that the Chancellor was likely to be annoyed; it was pointed out to me in very firm terms that the putative Lord Reid was going to be extremely annoyed; and, as the commissioner, I was annoyed because the Home Secretary was annoyed, but nobody used the terms “harassment”, “distress” or “alarm”.

The difference between simple words relating to annoyance and how they will be interpreted on the street by housing officers, police officers and so on is very important. This is not a matter for judges. People will be told to move on and get out of the road by people who are in authority because that is the easiest thing to do when dealing with somebody who is complaining. This is an absolutely awful piece of legislation and we should avoid it.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, a point that has not been made sufficiently—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, referred to it in his very admirable opening speech—is the extra burden that passing Clause 1 unamended would impose on the police and local authorities. No one should underestimate that. If the only gateway for getting redress for annoying conduct, which I think we all agree is so low a test as to be almost meaningless, is via a local authority or the police, does anyone really believe that they will not be subject to a mass of citizen inquiries and applications? Of course they will. Indeed, many people who might be thought a little obsessive will no doubt badger the poor local police endlessly until they get what they call redress—that is, an application by the police for an injunction under Clause 4. Apart from all the more important civil libertarian aspects of this issue, we should not forget the potential extra burden—and, I suggest, vexatious burden a lot of the time—that will inevitably result from Clause 1 going through unamended.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to give warm support to this amendment tabled and so ably presented by my noble friend Lord Dear and others. I firmly believe that the threshold in the Bill is set far too low.

I have been a lifelong supporter of Newcastle United Football Club. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who unfortunately is no longer in his place—and I call him “friend” in the social sense, not in the parliamentary sense—is for reasons best known to him, despite having been leader of Newcastle City Council, a Sunderland supporter. If I were to chide him and say that he is foolish to continue to support that team, which has been absolutely hopeless all season, despite beating Manchester United last night, and if I were to say that the team is in fact languishing at the foot of the Premier League and in imminent danger of relegation, I think that he would be extremely annoyed because he is a loyal supporter of Sunderland. If I persisted with that theme, he would reasonably regard me as a confounded nuisance.

If one looks at this clause and interprets it in a strictly literal sense, I would potentially be in breach of this statute if I said those things. In fact, I do not for one moment believe that he would seek an injunction; at least I hope not. Having said that, I believe that the clause is absolutely unacceptable and needs to be amended. There is even a possibility that the clause as drafted could act as a sort of charter for individuals of paranoid personality or malicious intent in leading them to seek this kind of injunction much more frequently than would ever have happened in the past. This clause is unacceptable and I strongly support the amendment.