Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

Let me just finish this point, then I will give way; I welcome the intervention.

In the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, the media very quickly started to say. “Well, they might have got off, but maybe they did it anyway.” A campaign then started in the gutter press. It did not matter how good the evidence was, they still came at us. They tried to damage the reputations of those individuals. What worries me is that a Secretary of State determining that a higher level of proof is required to gain compensation will affect the atmosphere that is created.

[Mark Field]

I must admit that I have quite a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He expresses a specific concern about high-profile miscarriages of justice. However, is there not a concern that this new test of a convincing case brings a whole lot more uncertainty into the law? I dare say that it will be an absolute boon for the lawyers as to precisely where that comes into play. Although I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, the benefit of what the Minister is saying is that we at least have a certain test that is already set in English law.

[John McDonnell]

In my view, the Government’s test is faulty. I am not convinced of the need for this additional test anyway. At least the House of Lords edges towards some greater level of fairness. I would rather give up on this attempt to redefine.

The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) raised the case of Barry George. There has always been an ability in our system for the court awarding compensation to take into account whether the person contributed towards their plight. That has an effect on compensation levels or even whether compensation is awarded at all. By seeking to arrive at some definition in legislation, we are digging ourselves into a very complicated and costly hole, and that cost will be on the individuals who are desperately trying to ensure that they get some compensation for the ill that they have experienced as a result of the state’s failure to live up to a proper process. Additionally, it will be extremely costly for the state. As a result of the weakness in the definition proposed by the Government, we will see case after case being dragged through the English courts and then the European courts. In trying to remedy some form of perceived ill, we will create greater damage to those who have suffered enough.

In addition, the process that is under way at the moment risks making a laughing stock of the Government. As we have heard today, there will be arguments over the difference between “do not commit” and innocence, between “conclusively” and “beyond all reasonable doubt”. The lawyers will make a fortune. I plead for a common-sense approach. The compensation arrangements at the moment are not absolutely perfect, but at least we have managed to secure some compensation for those cases that have been quashed as a result of the state’s failure, and this is about the state’s failure to act accordingly.

There are many other cases. Susan May recently passed away, unfortunately, but her case is still being pursued to demonstrate her innocence, and I think that, rather than it being proved in the long run that the evidential base was the problem, it will be demonstrated that police processes were not adhered to and it will be another case that is eventually quashed. I hope that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will posthumously provide some proof that she should never have been taken through the courts, but again, the case has been dragged out over years, demonstrating how difficult it is, even when trying to prove the failure of due process, to secure not just a decision but any compensation. The new process will make it even harder to get compensation, drag the decision-making processes out for even longer and prove to be basically unfair.

I support the Lords amendment, because at least it moves us a little further forward, although I think even it will be open to significant challenge in the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

Yes, I am happy to deal with the issue of religious beliefs. Lords amendments 2 and 19 respond to concerns by the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to the provision in clauses 1 and 21 that requires a court to avoid, so far as practicable, imposing prohibitions or requirements in an injunction or a criminal behaviour order that would conflict with a respondent’s religious beliefs. The amendments remove this wording, as the right to hold a religious belief is absolute. It was simply the manifestation of a person’s religious beliefs that we intended the provision to capture, but a court would be obliged to consider this in any case to comply with its obligations under the Human Rights Act. That being the case, the neatest solution is simply to remove the provision. That is what has happened, and I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mark Field]

While I agree with the Minister that we should agree with what the Lords have had to say on this matter, I do not necessarily think that it is the result of the workings of democracy—it is anything but. He slightly trivialised the issue of carol singers, but there is a bigger nuisance concern. For example, there might be a sense that if trick or treating was being clamped down on, it would be unfair not to clamp down on other activities, such as carol singing. I think that that is what might have been behind the Lords thoughts on this matter.

[Norman Baker]

I am not quite sure what was in the Lords thoughts. Other examples were given—bellringers and so on—and nobody in this country would want, in any way, to limit the activities of bellringers. I fear that the Government’s honest attempt to deal with genuine antisocial behaviour has been misconstrued, either inadvertently or otherwise, but we are where we are. We have accepted the form of words—“harassment, alarm or distress”—which was wanted by their lordships.

The next set of amendments in this group relate to under-18s. Lords amendments 3, 4 and 12 enable an applicant for an injunction to apply to the youth court for permission to have cases involving respondents, who are both over and under 18 years of age, to be heard together in the youth court if it is in the interests of justice to do so. If the youth court does not grant the application, the hearings will be separated, with the adults in the county court and the under-18s in the youth court. By linking these hearings, we will help to put victims first.

Lords amendment 10 brings us to the prohibitions that can be included in an injunction where the respondent is under 18. As originally drafted, clause 12 meant that the injunction could be used to exclude a respondent of any age from his or her home in cases of violence or risk to others. However, in the Lords, concerns were expressed, by my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Hamwee, on whether it would ever be appropriate to exclude under-18s from their own home on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. Lords amendment 10 limits the exclusion provisions to injunctions where the respondent is over 18. Where it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from the family home, there are sufficient powers in other safeguarding legislation to ensure that that is possible without the need to resort to an injunction.

Other amendments and provisions in this group relate to tenancy injunctions, the criminal behaviour order, dispersal powers, the public spaces protection order, the recovery of possession of dwelling houses and the issuing of statutory guidance. I will be very happy to pick up on any questions that Members have on any of those particular matters.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining how the Government do not intend to oppose the Lords amendments, although it is interesting that he bows to the wisdom of the Lords on this issue, but not on miscarriages of justice. The Lords amendments, particularly on the threshold for injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance, improve the Bill, taking the threshold from “nuisance and annoyance” to “harassment, alarm or distress”, but overall we feel that the Bill still weakens the powers against antisocial behaviour, which is of growing concern to people. It is a badly worded Bill thrown together on the usual principle of, “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it”, which the Government seem to operate under. Large parts of the Bill will not offer people the protection they need.

[Mark Field]

I think the hon. Lady is being too sceptical about the genesis of these provisions. As a central London MP, I do not think that everything about the old ASBO regime was bad; elements worked well for many of my constituents. I know that Westminster City council has expressed concerns, which were raised in another place, but it is still a little unfair to suggest that nothing good is coming from the Bill. We will have to see how it works in practice.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that in many cases ASBOs worked. I have seen them work in my own area, as he has in his. As he said, it remains to be seen how the Bill will work, but I look forward to debating it in the future.

I want to comment on a number of other amendments in this group that the Minister did not mention, but I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time. We are grateful that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments on forced marriage originally moved on Report by my noble Friend Baroness Thornton and later taken up by the Government, who tabled similar amendments ensuring that where a person lacks capacity an offence would be committed where conduct was carried out for the purpose of forcing someone into a marriage. It is arguable, I agree, that this is the case under present law, but the amendment makes it clear. It is sensible because it ensures that where a person is incapable of understanding the implications of their decision, the new offence can be committed even without violence, threats or coercion. This will also apply in Scotland.

Much work still needs to be done on forced marriage, and I commend the work of the forced marriage unit and all those working in this area, but the House is making it clear in the Bill that British children and young people, whatever the colour of their skin, and including the most vulnerable who lack capacity, will have the same protections in law as anyone else, and that is to be welcomed. There are many things in the Bill on which we might disagree, but on this issue, the House is united. These provisions will take us forward.

The Government’s firearms amendments seem fairly minor: one closes the loophole around antique firearms, which seems perfectly sensible, while the other relates to suspended sentences. Currently, a three-year jail term bans someone from owning a firearm for life and a three-month sentence leads to a five-year ban. The amendment treats a three-month suspended sentence in the same way, which we welcome, although it does not go far enough. When someone has a conviction, the police have grounds for refusing an application. The problem comes when there is no conviction but the police have evidence of violent behaviour in the past. That was why we wanted an amendment to provide that where the police found credible evidence of domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse, a firearms licence could be refused. No sensible gun owner has anything to fear from such a provision.

The case of Michael Atherton is the one that I must refer to here. He was convicted of the murders of his partner, Susan McGoldrick, her sister and her niece. He had a long history of domestic violence, but he was still allowed to own four shotguns. The licensing officer’s comments on his application were chilling. He wrote:

“Four domestics, last one 24/4/04, was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner and son and daughter. Would like to refuse, have we sufficient to refuse re public safety?”

Durham constabulary decided it did not have sufficient grounds to refuse and people died as a result. This is an issue that the Opposition will want to return to in the future because it is essential to keep women safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I do not have the list of exactly who proposed what. The Government amendment we have is neutral; the one that Labour peers supported in the other place was not tenure-neutral. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that that was a flaw in it, although the other principle was there.

I welcome the change, although I remain surprised by the position of the Opposition, who felt that the version that left this place was both too draconian and too liberal. I am glad that their position has moved in a more liberal direction. The new approach is far better than the failed system of ASBOs, which many young people collected as a badge of honour. A huge number of people broke them; they simply did not work. I think that this non-criminalising approach will work much better.

Let me turn now to some of the other issues. Lords amendment 10 is important and concerns the principle that we should not be using these rules to throw children out of their own homes. The Lords pushed for that, and it is a shame that we did not manage to get it fixed in this place. The importance of care for the under-18s should have been emphasised more strongly during the Bill’s earlier stages, and I am glad that it has been emphasised more strongly now. This is another of the issues that were dealt with by the Home Affairs Committee. I am also pleased that Lords amendment 11 proposes the removal of clause 13, because it discriminated on the basis of tenure.

Lords amendments 23 and 24 deal with the rights of free expression and free assembly. The Home Affairs Committee recommended that we should ensure that dispersal powers were not used in a way that could damage those rights. Before my hon. Friend became a Minister in this Department, the Government moved some of the way towards this, and I am glad that he has now been able to persuade them to move the whole way, so that we can protect all forms of free expression and free assembly.

Lords amendments 59 to 64 deal with cases of riot. Riot is of course very serious, and we have already seen what it can lead to in this country. As a result of what happened, the Prime Minister said that he wanted stronger powers to deal with the families of people who were rioting. Many of us felt that, although we could understand the tensions that existed at the time, his suggestion went too far. It did not seem appropriate to throw everyone out of a house because a 16-year-old child had committed a minor offence where a riot was happening. I do not in any sense condone either the riot or the behaviour, but throwing an entire family out of their home seems to be a disproportionate response. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his work in this regard, which has led to the proposal that an automatic eviction should take place only if the offence is committed by an adult, and only if it is a serious, indictable offence. A trivial offence that happened to be committed near a riot would not lead to such an eviction; nor would an offence committed by a child.

Finally, let me raise two issues that we had very little time to discuss during our initial debates in this House, and that were not particular topics of interest at that stage. The first involves surveillance and the Terrorism Act 2000. Lords amendment 102 and related amendments deal with the powers of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to deal with complaints about the surveillance commissioners and their decisions. The IPT does not necessarily work as well as it needs to, and it is not as transparent and open as it needs to be, but I am glad that we are taking a step towards more transparency. Surveillance oversight is an extremely important subject, and the Bill does not finish what we need to do about it. There is much more to be done, but although the amendments represent just a tiny piece of the jigsaw, I welcome them.

Lords amendment 100 and related amendments deal with schedule 8, which amends schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act. Schedule 7 became very topical at the time of the detention of David Miranda. I am pleased that, after a great deal of argument in this House, we have managed to get some changes made in the House of Lords. People must be questioned within an hour of detention, reviews must take place within two hours of that, and people’s right to consult a solicitor is made clear. That fundamental right was omitted by the Terrorism Act when it was passed by the last Government. There is much more to be done about that as well, but I am very pleased with all the amendments. I commend the Minister and his team for their work, and look forward to our passing the amendments promptly.

[Mark Field]

I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that it is a shame that the Government did not take more account of the pre-legislative scrutiny, relying instead on the other place. I accept that all too often, whichever Government are in play, the electoral arithmetic ensures that legislation is rushed through and guillotined here in the House of Commons, and some sensible suggestions are then made in the House of Lords, many of which—as in this instance—we end up not seeking to oppose. Given the relative paucity of legislation in the House of Commons over the next 15 months, I hope that we will pay the House a little more respect, and ensure that whatever Bills come before us during the fifth year of this five-year Parliament are given proper scrutiny.

I support what the Government are doing in Lords amendments 40, 41 and 44 to 47, which relate to public bodies that can issue a public spaces protection order. That has particular resonance in my constituency, and I am glad that a number of friends—in the broadest sense—of the City of London corporation in another place were able to make some important changes. Numerous other bodies which operate open spaces under local Acts—such as the Wimbledon and Putney commons conservators, to name but two of them—will also benefit from what the Government are doing. The proposed new clause would enable bodies other than local authorities administering open spaces under byelaws to use public spaces protection orders. I believe this is particularly relevant to trustees or local conservators who operate under byelaws inferred by private Acts of Parliament, many of which go back not just many decades but some centuries. I hope the Minister agrees with that point.

The City of London corporation operates some of the most important open spaces in London and the south-east, including Epping forest and Hampstead heath. There are also important local authority parks. In Newham there is West Ham park and there is Queen’s park in the London borough of Brent. It was often under private Acts of Parliament, frequently through bequests of what were the curtilage of large mansion houses, that these local parks and amenities were founded, often back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Conservators have exactly the same issues as local authorities in terms of the public open spaces they administer, so it is sensible to include these places in order not to have duplication but to ensure there is not an opportunity for some of these powers to slip through the net. Conservators are not required to use the orders, and they can keep to the local byelaws if they so wish. If they do make an order, however, and the local authority for the area makes its own, the local authority’s order will take precedence. That is right.

These clauses are sensibly drafted. The powers of the City of London corporation would not in any way usurp those of the relevant local authority, but this does provide a belt-and-braces approach to ensure there is a proper focus on public order within those important open spaces.

I wish the Minister and Government well in getting this change into the Bill and I hope there will be no opposition from any corner of this House.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I will not detain the House for long. I want to touch briefly on the dangerous dogs element of the Bill. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of which I am a member published its report on dog control and welfare on 6 February 2013. In that report we recommended that all dog-related issues should be consolidated in a comprehensive Bill. This would pull together the fragmented legislation referring to dog control and welfare and allow us to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 where necessary.

Such consolidation is essential because there are yawning gaps in our legislation. Voluntary compliance with guidelines on responsible ownership has proved to be limited and slow, but that is not surprising as there are 8 million dogs in this country—a huge number. The vast majority are well cared-for, kept and controlled, but there are exceptions. Dangerous dogs have killed seven people, five of them children, since 2007. In my own constituency a small child had her eye savaged by a West Highland terrier, but more about that later because there are certain circumstances there which I want the Minister to cover when he responds to the debate. Dangerous dogs have attacked specially trained dogs for the blind, causing untold grief and difficulties—and let us not forget the postmen and postwomen who all too often are assaulted by animals as they deliver our mail.

Irresponsible dog breeders, driven only by greed, run puppy farms where a single bitch can legally produce up to five litters a year. That is not good for the welfare of the bitch or her litter. Subsequent failure to socialise these puppies properly has the potential to create more badly behaved and dangerous dogs.

Under the law as it stands, it has proved impossible to prosecute the owners of vicious dogs if the attack takes place on private property. In such cases it has also frequently proved difficult to prove ownership. The proposals in this Bill include many of the Committee’s recommendations on dog control and welfare, such as compulsory micro-chipping by 2016, stricter oversight of puppy farms, and extending dangerous dogs legislation to private property in clauses 98 and 99, and I wholly endorse them. The tougher sentences in the two amendments in question for those whose dogs attack, injure or kill people or guide dogs for the blind are also necessary and proportionate.

I have just one concern, which I ask the House to consider. If we legislate to allow enforcement agents on to private property to handle or destroy a dangerous dog after an attack, we are impinging on important rights to privacy in our own homes. While I—and, I am sure, the other members of the EFRA Committee—fully endorse the amendments to the current legislation, any new legislation must be careful to protect those rights.

I want to give an example from my constituency, and I hope that the Minister will listen to it, because I would be interested to hear his response. A couple and their four-year-old daughter were invited to a party next door. It was a dog party, and there were several dogs—and several people—there. In the resulting mêlée of people wandering around and having tea, the couple lost sight of their daughter. Suddenly, they heard the most appalling noise. There had been some form of communication with a dog by the girl, but we do not know whether she had poked it in the eye or put her hand in its mouth. Whatever she had done, the dog—a West Highland terrier, which had done no harm at all up till then—responded by leaping up and latching on to the left side of her face. It would not let go, and caused horrific damage to her eye.

I ask the Minister’s guidance on this point. I assume that, under the proposed new law, the lady who owned the dog would face a criminal prosecution. If that is the case, the change in the law will provide a salutary warning to dog owners who keep their dog in their home, as many millions of people do. When the law is passed, they will have to be very careful what they do with their dog when inviting people into their house. I suspect that not many people have even considered the matter up to now. I have two dogs, and I do not think about whether they are going to attack anyone who comes into my house. From now on, however, I am going to have to think carefully. If a child comes into my house, I am going to have to think about whether my dogs could assault that child.

Obviously, it goes without saying that a dog owner must take responsibility for their dog, but I raise this question because I wonder whether the process of the law has been thought through by everyone outside this place. Can the Minister confirm that, if the new law had applied at the time of that incident, the lady in question would not have faced five years in jail, and that the judge would have considered all the facts of the case and perhaps recommended that the dog be put down, with the lady facing no further consequences? Will the Minister also tell us how and when the enforcers would go into the owner’s house in such a case? If a complaint was made, would they go in on the same night to remove the dog, informing the owner that it could either be put down or returned, depending on the result of the ensuing investigation? I ask the Minister to clarify those points if he can.

I assume that if the dog owner were someone with a bad reputation—let us be blunt: if they were well known to the police for breeding properly vicious dogs, rather than West Highland terriers, for ill-gotten gains—the enforcer would simply go into the house and take the appropriate action. That is exactly as it should be. Such a case would be very different from the one that I have described, in which a perfectly innocent lady was going about her business when an appalling accident happened. Yes, that accident could have been avoided if the dog had been locked up, and that is the point that I would like to have clarified. I welcome the Lords amendments to allow people who have dogs on private property to be reached by the law. That is incredibly important, but I would be most grateful if the Minister could comment on the example that I have raised.