Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

That is fine—it is not a complicated requirement—but presumably there is then an expectation that members of the public will know about this, so presumably this has to be copied and made available to the officers on the ground so that they can explain to an individual, “These are the legal powers under which I am asking you to disperse”. Again, we have not had clarity from the Minister. Or if we have had it I have lost it in the piles of letters that he has had to send out following Committee because of the difficulties with the drafting of some parts of the Bill. We have not had clarity about how this power is to operate, the circumstances in which it is envisaged to operate or whether there is to be sufficient guidance to make sure that the nightmare that I can see round the corner does not occur. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on this point. We have waited quite a long time for this reassurance; we have still not had it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the amendments that he has brought forward. He did respond to the debates in Committee by bringing them and we welcome the provisions on freedom of expression and assembly. However, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, he and I both raised more fundamental concerns about the changes being made by the Government. I do not propose to repeat the comments made by my noble friend or comments that I made previously but the fact is that we did not receive satisfactory answers in Committee, particularly on how the dispersal orders will work in practice or on the evidence base for why they are being extended and changed.

In Committee, the Minister said that he would write to me with that information. Again, I take the same view as my noble friend Lord Harris: my apologies if I have missed the Minister’s letter to me in the many letters that we have received or have been copied into. However, I do not appear to have received the letter that he promised with information on the evidence base for changing the orders. I was very interested in the comments that the Minister made this evening when he opened and I wish that I had had them in writing previously, as I thought I would. That would have given me an opportunity to consider them properly but I will read Hansard to see what he said.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, tried to extract information about how the orders would work in practice. He made a similar point tonight, but when he made it in more detail in Committee the Minister accused him of being mischievous. It is fair to say, he does have a mischievous streak. That has been evident but it was not evident on that occasion and it is not evident this evening.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that was the phrase I used—that the noble Lord had a mischievous streak to his nature.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

No, it was not. The Minister accused him of being mischievous in that regard. He cannot rewrite Hansard. My noble friend was making then, and is making now, a genuine attempt to find out how the orders will work in practice, step by step. The points made about the police officers are ones to which I should like answers.

We are not opposed to dispersal orders. I made that point before and I will make it again. We introduced them in 2004. There was some controversy at that time but we think it was the right thing to do. The issue we have is with the significance of the changes being made in the geographical area and the timescale and the lack of involvement from the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made the point that our issue is not with any demographic oversight the PCC can provide after the event. It is with ensuring that, where there is to be a dispersal order, democratically elected community representatives ensure that the power is used to the best effect and that they do not cause any further problems and misunderstandings by not using it appropriately. That consultation and involvement with local authorities is very important.

When the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny in the other place that there should be a duty to consult local authorities over dispersal orders of more than six hours, the Government agreed and said they would amend the legislation. They have not done so and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister why the Government are not now fulfilling their commitment to HASC. There must be a reason why they are no longer choosing to do that.

As far as I understand it, the Minister said that the police have now said that they find the dispersal order powers useful. At the risk of being accused of a blunderbuss approach, I have tabled the same amendment to try to get some answers. What was the evidence base for bringing such significant changes forward? Did the police come along and say to the Government, “There is a lack of flexibility in the current orders. There are delays in implementing them. We do not want to have to liaise with local authorities. We want to go it alone. We need them to be longer. We need a wider area.”? Did they raise those concerns prior to the Government bringing this forward? I am not aware that they did or that there were any such concerns raised by the existing orders, but if there were, can the Minister let us know that? In his comments in Committee regarding the involvement of local authorities he used phrases such as “it is likely” the police will work with the local authority and he referred to draft guidance, which states that the authorising officer “may wish where practical” to consult local council or community representatives. That is very vague and it is not my understanding of the commitment made to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

I am just trying to understand why the changes were brought forward in the first place, who complained about local authority involvement and who thought that was hampering the process or the use of orders? If the Minister is unable to answer these questions at this stage we will have to conclude there is no evidence base but I would very much regret the Government bringing forward such significant changes without an evidence base. I reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We need some real understanding of how this will work in practice, given the very significant changes that are being made.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

I, too, am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Discussion, as your Lordships will anticipate, ranged far and wide over this new Schedule 8 amending Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act. Giving the perfectly proper right to stop and seize and, at the same time, preventing so far as possible any abuse of that power is a difficult balance to strike. However, it is worth recording that we concluded that the Government had made out a case for a without -suspicion power to stop, question and search travellers at ports and airports, given the current nature of the threat from terrorism, the significance of international travel, the overall threat picture and the evidence seen by the independent reviewer demonstrating the utility of non-suspicion stops at ports in protecting national security. Therefore, we also concluded that the retention of this power under Schedule 7 was not inherently incompatible with Articles 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We are in the slightly unfortunate position of still awaiting the report by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation on the David Miranda case, which will perhaps shed some light on this power generally. The Government clearly pay considerable heed, quite rightly, to what the independent reviewer of terrorism recommends but, with great respect to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, simply subcontracting responsibility, as her Amendment 56YK would, from the Secretary of State to the independent reviewer would go rather too far.

This is a very difficult balance to strike. The Government have come some way towards a balance in favour of those who might become the victims of an abuse of power. The question is whether they have come far enough.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate. The issues that have been raised are around the difficult balance between civil liberties, national security and counterterrorism measures that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to. The points made today about those issues are extremely useful and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on them.

We are greatly assisted today by the supplementary written evidence of David Anderson QC. We are indebted to him because, when giving evidence on 12 November, he was asked to spell out what changes he would recommend to the port powers in Schedule 7 and the Minister, Damian Green, had already said in the other place that he expected recommendations. At Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, I said that I thought it was optimistic of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to hope that we would be able to see any such recommendations from David Anderson while we were still debating the Bill. I thought he was being optimistic but that optimism was well founded. We are indebted and grateful to David Anderson for the efforts that he must have gone to in order to ensure that we had his recommendations before we had completed our deliberations—indeed, as we were having our Committee debates. I hope that the Minister will endorse that. That is very helpful and greatly welcomed.

I shall not comment on each individual amendment, but a number of the amendments before us today relate to his report. As I said, I will be interested to hear the Government’s response to them as there are areas to which the Government may want to give further consideration and on which they may want to bring forward amendments before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

On Amendment 56YJ and the issue of privileged material, although David Anderson reflects that identifying the details of changes is difficult before we have the Miranda judgment, he identifies this as an area where there need to be safeguards and clarity around those safeguards. It is not an area where there should be any confusion or ambiguity. It would be helpful today if the Minister were to say on behalf of the Government whether they accept the principle of David Anderson’s recommendation in this regard. We are certainly sympathetic and would welcome the opportunity to consider further the kind of safeguards that could be introduced.

Also on Amendment 56YJ, I think it was in the Beghal v DPP decision that the court supported the introduction of a statutory bar to Schedule 7 admissions in a subsequent criminal trial, although it also recognised that this would have to be given detailed consideration. David Anderson has now added his support to that of the court and that also forms part of his recommendations. Again, we would be very sympathetic to that and would be interested to know whether the Government intend to support that recommendation, which this amendment reflects.

Amendments 56YK and 100A refer to a process by which effect could be given, almost automatically, to the recommendations of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. There is some merit in looking at how recommendations could be acted on more quickly but we would welcome the opportunity to see more detailed proposals. It would be helpful to have a mechanism to take action more quickly than always having to wait for the next legislative slot for primary legislation in the Government’s timetable. However, whether secondary legislation, even with the affirmative procedure, would give adequate opportunity for effective scrutiny by Parliament, which should be making the decisions, has to be looked at in some detail.

On Amendment 62A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Avebury, we would certainly be supportive of removing the restrictions if the interview takes place in a police station. Amendments 57A, 61A and 61B would establish limits on the duty to give information and documents that are held electronically. We have concerns about how this law is currently being applied. I note that David Anderson has also called for appropriate safeguards regarding the use and retention of such data. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether the Government consider that the problem is a lack of clarity in the existing law or whether further action needs to be taken.

We would also be sympathetic to Amendment 64ZA on the periodic review of an individual’s detention. I would welcome the Government’s comments on David Anderson’s recommendation that the intervals for review should be specified in the schedule, as outlined in the amendment, and not just in guidance. There can sometimes be a lack of clarity around the purpose of guidance. The importance of it being in the schedule and not just in guidance was also included in the JCHR report. The Government have indicated that they may support this, so I am optimistic about a positive response on that one.

This is quite a difficult area in which to find the appropriate balance. The House has heard about the attention to detail that has been given to this range of issues. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify in his response the Government’s views on these issues, particularly in the light of the amendments which reflect so much of what is in David Anderson’s recommendations.

Visas: Artists and Entertainers

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend makes a very good point. In fact, I have had some briefing on this incident and I am grateful that it has been drawn to our attention. We suspect that a deficiency in the guidance of the operation of the rules rather than the rules themselves led to this incident. I do not want to go into a lot of detail about a particular circumstance but my noble friend’s comments have not gone unnoticed.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a bit of a shambles and it is also becoming highly embarrassing for the UK. Towards the end of last week a London concert by the Pakistani Sachal Jazz Ensemble was cancelled because of visa problems. The residents of New York had enjoyed packed performances at the Lincoln Center just the week before but the musicians had problems getting visas to come to the UK. A Home Office statement today says:

“Britain is open for business and genuine visitors and tourists coming here to enjoy our world class attractions, study or do business are always welcome”.

It does not appear like that to those artists and performers who are having great problems getting to this country to perform, so our citizens are denied the opportunity to see them whereas American citizens have not been. Can the noble Lord give this urgent attention? I am sorry to say that his answers so far sound slightly complacent.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope the noble Baroness will never assume that I am complacent about anything. I am well briefed on this subject too and this incident. It is part of our commitment to work with those putting on concerts and international events to ensure that they are aware of the visa application process. However, the responsibility to have the correct visas rests with people coming here and guidance is available on the website to help them before they travel. As with any other visitors to the UK, we expect individuals to meet our entry requirements. I can say no more than that.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

56MD: Before Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
“Firearms licences: assessing public safety
(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28A (certificates: supplementary) insert—
“28B Assessing public safety
(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under section 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C, the chief police officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.
(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the chief police officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.
(3) When assessing public safety within this section, the chief police officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(3) After section 113(1) (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) there is inserted—
“(1A) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are appropriate after considering the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms’ licences made under this Act.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we support the Government’s clauses on firearms but feel that more needs to be done, which is why we have tabled Amendment 56MD. Our proposed new clause calls for a broader range of better background checks to be included as part of the licensing process. It amends the Firearms Act 1968 so that a history of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness provides a presumption against the acquisition of a firearms licence, unless exceptional evidence can be provided to the contrary. It also introduces full cost recovery, to ensure that the cost of a licence reflects the cost to the police of processing it. In this amendment, firearms and shotgun applications are treated the same and the range of background checks is improved. Both the IPCC and the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place called for this.

The Minister will recall that I raised this issue at Second Reading and gave a specific example, about which I know he will share my concerns. Susan McGoldrick was murdered, along with her niece and her sister, by her partner, who legally held a firearm. As many as one in three women killed by their partner in England and Wales is shot with a legally owned weapon; 64% of these murders involve shotguns. The Government have introduced new guidance, which is welcome, and I know that we cannot stop every crime by legislation alone, but we can do better.

In the past 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents; in 2009 the figure was 100%. The IPCC and the Home Affairs Select Committee have both proposed tougher rules to prevent people with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness or violence—particularly domestic violence—from acquiring firearms licences. The IPCC called for:

“Explicit guidance around domestic violence and seeking the views of partners/family members where domestic violence is a previous factor”.

We agree with the need for explicit and clear guidance on legislation but the issue of seeking the views of partners or ex-partners is somewhat difficult, and we would not support seeking the consent of a partner or former partner because that could lead to intimidation and place people at even greater risk. Perhaps there should be wider consultation on this with a range of people.

The present position is that just one home visit is required by law for an initial application. Good practice means that there can be additional visits or checks, but that is not in the legislation. I understand why there are concerns about the impact of part of this amendment on those who have a history of mental illness. I stress that mental illness at some point in a person’s life does not disqualify them for ever but they would have to provide evidence that would allow an exceptional case to be made for their suitability to possess a weapon. Of course, we are not saying that they cannot take part in shooting—there are registered clubs—they just cannot have weapons at home.

The Government have stated that the Home Office will issue guidance and that should alleviate the issue. But we are pretty sure that guidance alone is not enough to tackle tragic domestic violence-related deaths, which have been on the rise. It is not good enough, and that is why we have tabled Amendment 56MD.

The other part of the amendment concerns full cost recovery. In so many areas, the Government are seeking full cost recovery, but not in firearms. I am curious about the reasons for this anomaly. Our amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult with police officers before setting a fee level that would enable police forces to recoup all the costs they incur when conducting proper background checks.

Currently a firearms licence costs just £50 for five years and only £40 for renewal, but if an application is processed properly it takes up a considerable amount of time, including home checks and background checks, which is not reflected in the cost of the licence. The cost of administering a firearms licence is much higher. Therefore, at present the taxpayer is subsidising the firearms licensing system by an estimated £18 million a year. Given the level of police cuts across the country, that level of subsidy seems unfair. It is difficult to understand why, at £50 for five years, the annual cost of a firearms licence is barely a third of the cost of a fishing licence, which costs £27.50 a year, and roughly equivalent to the cost of a CRB check, which costs £44 and only requires a name to be checked against a database, which is much less onerous.

The Government’s current position is that they will aim to introduce a fee regime in 2015 under which just 50% of the cost—not the full cost—is recovered by the police. I ask the Minister: why only 50% and why not until 2015? Why are fishing licences so much more expensive? Why are the Government not going for full cost recovery when they are committed to that general principle across the public sector, for example, with passports and driving licences? Why is that not extended to gun licences? At Second Reading we discussed full cost recovery on tribunal fees; that will come up again. The Government claim that they want to improve the system of background checks associated with firearms licences but will not commit to putting that in legislation. On full cost recovery, they say that they will introduce a fee regime in 2015.That is too late; it can be done sooner than that.

These issues need to be addressed now. We want to save lives and reduce the number of gun-related domestic violence deaths as soon as possible. Amendment 56MD seeks to do this and is a much more direct and effective solution than the Government’s alternative of vague guidance and promises for 2015. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I have interests in shooting and I am a firearms and shotgun licence holder. I have also been a referee for others who are such licence holders.

After the tragedy of Dunblane, it was one of my party tricks to ask chief officers of police whom I ran into how we were getting on with the police national firearms computer, which was promised in the wake of that tragedy. It took a very long time for anything that even approached that to become a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have had this short debate on what is a very important issue. The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, relates to two firearms licensing issues which were discussed extensively during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons. As the noble Baroness has explained, the first part of the proposed new clause seeks to create a presumption that if an applicant for a firearm meets one of the stated criteria, the police should not grant a licence. The stated criteria include evidence of domestic violence, mental illness and drug or alcohol abuse. While I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness about firearms being possessed or accessed by unsuitable persons, the police already have the ability to take these factors into account when assessing the risk to public safety. I would also be concerned about including mental illness as a presumption for a refusal. It would be wrong for us to suggest that all forms of mental illness, even a past episode, should prima facie disqualify a person from possessing a firearm.

I understand that there are particular concerns about domestic violence and abuse. In response to these, on 31 July, we published specific guidance on this issue which provided greater detail on how the police should handle such cases. In addition to that the revised full guidance, published as recently as October—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, may not have seen that but it is available—specifies that the police must take seriously non-convictions intelligence and information when assessing a person’s suitability to possess firearms. It also states that any incident of domestic violence or abuse which comes to the attention of the police should result in a review of the current suitability of the certificate holder. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, but the guidance is clear that evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that an application should be refused or, if a certificate has already been issued, that the certificate should be withdrawn. This new guidance is now being applied by police forces.

The proposed new clause also seeks to introduce a requirement that the police must follow any guidance issued by the Home Secretary when assessing public safety. I understand that argument, but I consider that guidance needs to remain just that. It is right that chief officers have the discretion to assess applications for firearms in their local areas, taking into account the merits of each case and the published guide. Chief officers are ultimately responsible for public safety at a local level. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on this. The Government have sought to make decision-making a local responsibility wherever possible. I would not want to undermine this.

However, we are ensuring that, where national action can support local decision- making, it does. We are working with the national policing lead for firearms licensing to ensure that police have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide. The College of Policing will also be publishing authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-refer to our guidance. I believe that this is the way forward. In order to assess standards, HMIC has carried out a scoping exercise on how firearms licensing is conducted in practice, and we will use the findings from the exercise to drive up consistency of decision-making across the country.

I turn to the second part of the proposed new clause, which seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult all chief police officers before revising the licence fees so that they achieve full cost recovery. Noble Lords should be reassured that consultation with the police is integral to the fee-setting process and we fully accept the need to consider the impact of licensing on police resources. That is why a new online licensing system is being introduced, cutting the administrative burden of a paper-based system. Primary legislation is not required to make this happen. Until we have driven out the inefficiencies in the current paper-based approach to the licensing function, it would not be appropriate to raise the fees fourfold in order to achieve a “one giant step” full cost recovery. The current fees and licensing structure has remained the same for a long time and—we all accept—needs to be reviewed. It is extremely important that we achieve a balance between an efficient system and a proper fee level. For this reason, we are considering what level firearms licensing fees should be over the long term, once these efficiencies have been made. I hope that, having demonstrated to the noble Baroness that we have made considerable progress on these issues, she will be persuaded that further legislation is unnecessary and in a position to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I would love to have been persuaded by the Minister, because the only reason we brought this amendment forward is that the current system is not working. If it were, there would be no need for such an amendment, so it is clear that we are extremely concerned. I was interested in the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the case of Michael Atherton; he said that existing legislation was adequate. I tell him that there are a number of reasons why Mr Atherton should not have had a firearms licence, perhaps most crucially his history of domestic violence. The police wanted to refuse his application, but they were given legal advice that they did not have the grounds to refuse. That is part of the problem: it indicates the change in the law that is needed. Discretion can be very difficult for police officers when they are getting legal advice that, if they use that discretion, they will be challenged in courts. That is one of the reasons we have brought this forward. I understand the concerns on mental illness, and I would never suggest for a moment that anybody who has had a mental illness should not be able to hold a licence. I think, however, that there should be a check on people who have had a mental illness who could be a danger to themselves or others; where it is coupled with domestic violence, for example, then there is a case.

I am also rather surprised by the Minister’s issue on full cost recovery, because I do not think that that principle is applied to other areas of full cost recovery. It does not really explain to me why a fisherman pays so much more to have a licence or why that licence is so much more expensive than a firearms licence.

In the light of the debate today I will take away the Minister’s comments and look at them in Hansard, and for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56MD withdrawn.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I feel slightly like the meat in the middle of a robust sandwich, because I am afraid that I shall voice a slightly different view. In addition to my declared interests in connection with the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, I am also a chartered surveyor in private practice. To some extent I become involved with issues of design, and although I am not any sort of specialist security consultant, security becomes a necessary part of that.

I re-read with some interest what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said on Second Reading. I hope that I listened with sufficient care to what he has just said, but while not actually disagreeing with any of the ingredients that he set out, I would voice a word of caution about his conclusions. First, it must be said that this is about a commercial initiative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, or rather a subsidiary company of ACPO. It is an accreditation-based approach in which, as I understand it, Secured by Design would become the accreditation body and would set the standards. As I see it, this amendment paves the way to giving this statutory backing. The question is: do the Committee think that that is appropriate or that it is proof against later mission creep?

Secondly, I asked a building control officer of my acquaintance, quite a senior man who goes around lecturing on these matters, what he thought about Secured by Design as a necessary ingredient in building control and planning matters. He did not think that security should be singled out as a category for statutory treatment, or that the regulatory burdens should in some way be increased thereby. That said, I feel sure that, where it is necessary and desirable to do so, developers and others will be pleased to adopt Secured by Design standards on a voluntary basis and as a marketing tool. That is entirely fair.

Residents also need in the context of their built environment, whether it is Secured by Design or not, themselves to be vigilant and to take reasonable steps to ensure that the opportunities for criminal activity against their homes and belongings in a residential setting are minimised. That is inevitably a movable feast. There might be a perverse incentive here. If people feel that Secured by Design somehow gives a warranty or guarantee or underpins a relatively crime-free environment, they may tend to forget those things. I think that getting people better in tune with the real risks, bearing in mind that this is a movable feast and that criminal activity is always changing and evolving, might be a better incentive. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who first raised this issue at Second Reading. It can sometimes be difficult across government to see how the actions of one department impact on another. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the reason that the amendment is before us today is that Secured by Design is in great danger of being totally undermined by the action of the Department for Communities and Local Government. There seems to be a holy grail of deregulation, to see what we can pull out of regulation, without making a proper assessment of where regulation is good or bad, of what is its impact.

Secured by Design is there to protect people in their homes. One of the non-violent crimes that causes the most distress to anybody is the intrusion into and burglary of one's home. It is not necessarily about theft of items, although they may be things of great personal, sentimental or monetary value; it is the intrusion into one’s home, the place where we expect to be the most safe, but where we suddenly feel the least safe and the most insecure. That is what Secured by Design sought to address.

I have to say: it works. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned his experience of it. I was looking at some of the case studies of what was done and how much difference it made. Secured by Design case studies are interesting because they show the situation before and after. Prior to the work being undertaken in Nottingham City Council area, a particular estate, Bells Lane and Broxtowe, suffered 227 burglaries. Following the work undertaken by Secured by Design, there was a 42% reduction in the number of burglaries, yet in the city as a whole there was a reduction of just 21%, so it was inevitable that Secured by Design had an impact there.

The Secured by Design estates in West Yorkshire outperformed the region as a whole on burglary of dwellings offences. Between August 2007 and 2008, there were 19,701 burglaries, but only two of those were in Secured by Design properties. Similar research in Glasgow demonstrated that total housebreaking crime fell by 26%, while attempted housebreaking decreased by 59% at properties with new Secured by Design doors and windows. So there is clearly a case that that is extremely effective.

That is what surprised me about the consultation by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which was introduced under housing standards, building regulations, and so on.

The noble Lord is chuntering away to me, but I cannot hear a word he is saying, so he should know that I cannot respond.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I would say it is a consultation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

It is a consultation but it was in August, and I recall that when we discussed it at Second Reading the Minister seemed to be unaware of the consultation and could not tell us then if the Home Office had responded to the DCLG. It would be helpful if he could say what response the DCLG has had now from the Home Office. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is overstating the issue when he says that the proposals being consulted on—some of us are a bit more sceptical about government consultations perhaps than others these days—undermine the standards currently being met by Secured by Design properties.

It was interesting to see the response from neighbourhood watch, in which the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said he was involved. Since neighbourhood watch arrived 30 years ago, the number of domestic burglaries has fallen sharply, due in no small part to the development of high security standards for locks, doors and windows and the design of open spaces. These kinds of issues have really made a difference.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked who asked for these changes. The noble Lord even mentioned developers. My experience of dealing with developers when I was building regulations Minister was that many of them wanted to see the higher standards. Good developers feel that they will be undercut by bad developers if they want to meet the high standards, whether in security, building regs, the kind of materials they use or environmental works in the home. They find it very difficult to compete with what they would call the cowboys, who do not meet the same high standards. I would find it difficult if developers were asking for this change. I do not think there is a national union of housebreakers in existence yet, so I doubt if it was that. It would be great if the Minister was able to say to us again, “This has been taken off the table. We wish to continue with Secured by Design. We have spoken to the DCLG. It understands our concerns and the necessity for this”. Will he answer the questions raised at Second Reading and today about why this was ever considered, because it is clearly such a ridiculous move?

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, perhaps I could seek some clarification from the noble Baroness. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, moved this amendment in the context of new-build—that was certainly the sense I got. A number of the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has outlined appear to relate to the retrofit of existing buildings. The two are not the same. We have 23 million to 24 million houses in the country, of which new-build is a tiny proportion at any given moment. If we are talking about the application of Secured by Design to existing buildings—in other words, retrofit—how is that going to be affected by this amendment?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Perhaps for the convenience of the Committee, I could respond very quickly. My amendment is couched in respect of planning permissions. If it is simply an alteration to an existing building that does not have a planning impact, obviously it does not apply. The purpose of this amendment—if I get really irritated by the Minister of course I will put it to a vote—is to try to get clarity as to why the Government are making this change and why they are doing something that is so potentially retrograde.

The point that the noble Earl has just made highlights why this is so dangerous. Most of the changes have happened in new buildings or major refurbishments. It is a slow burn. It has taken 20 years for the impact of these changes to be seen and felt. If you stop the higher standards, it will take another five, 10, 15 or 20 years before we see the consequences and the sorts of problems that used to exist in many estates and developments 20 or 30 years ago, which I am sure many of your Lordships will remember. That is why it is so important. Making the change now will not have an immediate effect in three months’, six months’ or 12 months’ time but it will have an effect over the next five, 10 or 20 years. That is why this change is so short-sighted.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, to answer the point that the noble Earl made, I gave examples of both retrofit and new-build because it is only through retrofit that we can look at the before and after figures.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

56K: Clause 96, page 67, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) The relevant bodies must decide under subsection (1)(b) that the threshold for a review is met where the person making the complaint has notified any of the relevant bodies that he or she has been a victim of anti-social behaviour or is vulnerable due to ill health, mental capacity, race, sexuality or religion.”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

This amendment is regarding the threshold for review for the community trigger. We are concerned that the community trigger will not be effective unless it takes into account the vulnerability of the victim. We all accept that vulnerability is important and how somebody responds to anti-social behaviour has a huge effect on the impact it has on them and on the community. Our worry is that the proposed trigger is too weak and will therefore be ineffective.

We put in some freedom of information requests about the number of times the triggers had been successfully activated in the pilot areas. The figure was just 13 times out of a reported 44,011 incidents of anti-social behaviour. The worry is that somebody who is vulnerable is not treated any differently to someone who is perhaps more robust and able to deal with the problem.

I feel so strongly about this because I am reminded of one of the first cases I dealt with when I was a reasonably young county councillor in the early 1990s. A lady who came to see me and with whom I was in regular contact for some time was vulnerable. She was easily bullied. Most of us would have thought that the behaviour of some kids in her street was insignificant—eggs thrown at her windows, for example. It was annoying and irritating, and it went on for some time, but her reaction made her more vulnerable. Trying to get the authorities to act in the days before we had anti-social behaviour orders was extremely difficult. It went on for some considerable time.

That situation has not stopped. The Minister will be aware of recent cases and the case of Fiona Pilkington and 18 year-old Francecca Hardwick which goes back to 2009. They complained 33 times about harassment and anti-social behaviour. In the end, Miss Pilkington set fire to their car and they were both killed. Anti-social behaviour can have some tragic and harmful consequences, particularly where the victims are vulnerable. The amendment would ensure that the community trigger takes into account that vulnerability and the need for a 24-hour response if someone says that they are vulnerable. That should be enough to speed up the process. We do not want to see other incidents with such a tragic consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord said page 58; did he mean page 68?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I apologise if I misdirected the Committee. There is direct reference to the subjective nature of anti-social behaviour. That was on the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It also appears in the guidance, under the heading “Putting victims first”, which states on page 10:

“The Community Trigger can be used by any person and agencies should consider how to make it as accessible as possible to young people, those who are vulnerable, have learning difficulties or do not speak English”.

On the following page, under “Responding to the victim”, it repeats that the potential harm to a particular victim is one of the key matters that has to be taken into account. We have already built in the very issues that the noble Baroness has said she would like in the Bill.

I turn to Amendment 56L, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It probes the finer detail of how the community trigger threshold will work in practice. My noble friend seeks reassurance that, for instance, three members of a household cannot report the same problem and have that count as three separate incidents for the purpose of meeting the threshold. This would of course mean that they would essentially jump the queue to get their problem dealt with as a community trigger. The Bill already accounts for this, and I will happily explain how.

Clause 96(11) defines a “qualifying complaint” for the purpose of the community trigger. The complaint needs to be made within one month of the incident occurring, or a different period if specified within the review procedures. This is to prevent someone making complaints about historical incidents in order to use the community trigger. Subsection (12) allows the local agencies to set out what will be considered a “qualifying complaint” where someone makes two or more complaints about the same behaviour or incident, in particular when separate complaints relate to different aspects of one incident. That achieves the safeguard that Amendment 56L is designed to achieve.

We want to ensure that the legislation is robust enough that only genuine requests to use the community trigger meet the threshold, while allowing the procedures to be flexible enough to ensure that the trigger can help those victims who need it most. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that the procedures are set out in a way that will ensure they will not be manipulated in the manner that she fears.

As I said, we have trialled the community trigger in four parts of the country since June 2012, and the majority of requests to use the trigger were genuine. We have tested the legislation through trials and I am content that we have achieved a good balance between addressing the needs of the most vulnerable victims, which my noble friend Lady Newlove emphasised, and allowing agencies the flexibility to operate the community trigger to suit local circumstances.

Some amendments have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, to which my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred. I know that my noble friend is anxious to ensure that we standardise the definition of a local authority in the Bill. In this case, however, the wording used in Clause 97 and Schedule 4 is technically correct. His amendment 56LD inadvertently omits line 19 on page 69, which is still required. Given that our provisions are technically correct, I am not persuaded that there are sufficient grounds to make the amendments.

I hope that, having listened to what I have said, the noble Baroness is content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the Minister; I think he has heard what I said. I should like to read the details of what he said in Hansard with reference to the guidelines and the Bill, because I am not 100% sure that the points he makes fully address the issues that I brought forward today. First, he said that there is a right to demand that the authorities take action. My understanding is that it is not a right to take action, it is a right to have a review of the case. He is right to say that, sometimes, cases of anti-social behaviour are motivated by someone’s vulnerability, but sometimes it is the vulnerability of the individual that makes the anti-social behaviour more severe, because they are less able to cope with the pressures they face.

I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. She fully understands the point I am trying to make about how people react to anti-social behaviour. For the trigger to be used 13 times in more than 14,000 incidents gives me cause for concern. If I can go back to read what the Minister said and read the guidance, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56K withdrawn.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

56LF: Before Clause 98, insert the following new Clause—
“Risk assessment of seized dogs
(1) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5 (seizure, entry of premises and evidence) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
“(3A) Following seizure of a dog for an offence under section 1, 2 or 3 of this Act, within 48 hours of seizure the animal must be assessed to determine whether—
(a) it is a prohibited type of dog, and/or(b) behaviourally risk assessed by a suitably qualified behaviourist to determine whether it can be released with or without conditions placed on its management by its owner or keeper, such conditions can include but are not limited to—(i) keeping the dog on a lead when in public;(ii) keeping the dog muzzled when in public.(3B) Reasons must be given for a decision not to release the dog.””

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have grouped these amendments together for ease of debate. I thought that it would be helpful to have one debate rather than several on a similar issue. So I am speaking to the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Gale. My noble friend’s amendment on dog control notices also has our full support. In moving my amendment, I will speak also to Amendments 56MA to 56MC.

The first step is to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem. Since 2009, nine children and seven adults have died as a result of attacks by dogs. In the three years to February 2013, 18,000 people were admitted to hospitals in England and Wales after dog attacks, and 23,000 postal workers have been attacked by dogs in the past six years. As Christmas approaches and we post our letters, we ought to think of the poor postal deliverers. Since April 2011, there have been 6,000 dog attacks on those who deliver our post. So it is a serious problem and horrendous for those who have been involved, have been attacked or have witnessed attacks.

I appreciate that the Government are bringing legislation forward but I really think that there is a missed opportunity here. I referred to this last week when we discussed community protection orders. I am worried about the Government’s one-size-fits-all approach. Dog control notices were introduced to deal with a specific problem. I am not saying they are perfect. They needed updating and amending, but to replace gating orders, dog control orders and other forms of order with one community protection order does not give us confidence that the issue of dangerous dogs will be properly and effectively tackled.

Community protection notices are a reactive measure to deal with dog attacks. They can be slow to serve and they can be challenged in the courts, causing further delay. I support and welcome the Government’s proposals for increasing penalties, but prevention is better than penalty, and that is why our proposals include the dog control notice.

I read carefully what Ministers said in the other place. They seem wedded to their measures and confident that they will deal with the problem. I do not share that confidence. That brings me to Amendment 56MB, which requires the Secretary of State to review the,

“use of community protection notices in addressing dangerous dogs”.

The amendment specifies a review of the effectiveness of Government’s measures three years after they come into force and every three years after that. If the Government are confident that they will be successful—and I am sorry that I do not share the noble Lord’s confidence, although I wish I did—that review will be a way to assess their effectiveness or otherwise, whether action taken is adequate and whether further measures are needed.

This is a missed opportunity. As a first option, we support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Gale introducing dog control notices. A dog control notice is specific to the problem. It is proportionate and targeted. It seeks to prevent attacks by dogs. “Prevent” is the key word. The dog control notice is a preventive measure to stop tragedies occurring, while the community protection notice reacts to a situation that has already occurred.

The measure enjoys widespread support. My noble friend Lady Gale will say more about this. In the Commons it received support from a number of government Back-Benchers, as well as a range of individuals and organisations, including those that deal with the welfare of dogs and those whose members are at risk from attack, as well as those that deal with the aftermath of attacks or try to prevent attacks. They include: the RSPCA; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the British Veterinary Association; Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; CWU, the postal workers’ union; Unison; the Kennel Club; the Police Federation; the National Dog Warden Association; and even the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place. They all state that legislation should cover dog control notices, which would give power to the police and local councils to ensure that owners are responsible and do what can be done to stop dogs attacking people and other animals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, were music to my ears because I have introduced two Private Members’ Bills about dog control notices—one under the Government of the party opposite and one under the coalition. Funnily enough, I got a completely different response from the party opposite on both occasions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am sorry, I was not here then.

[Lord Redesdale]

Of course. It is interesting how things develop. That is probably the purpose of this House. Private Member’s Bills do get the ball rolling. When I started on my first Bill, it was written with all the dog organisations and the RSPCA. It had a great deal of support, but not from the Government. The second time I raised it, after all the publicity, a great deal more work had been undertaken by Defra, and I think that has led to the present situation.

I would have liked a separate piece of legislation which would have been clear and concise. I understand the Minister’s position—that this has gone through the Home Office. The problem is that most Governments would have taken the route that has been followed, because we are dealing with 11 pieces of legislation that would have to be amended. For ease of access, it would have been extremely useful if there had been one dog control notice, but those of us who have been fighting this fight for some years now realised that that probably was not going to be the case.

I support the background to these amendments. However, there are a couple of issues that I wish to raise. I do not believe that these amendments are going to be carried but they show some of the fundamental problems that we are facing. One of the major problems is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. That was a knee-jerk reaction which led to types of dogs being named. Amendment 56LF talks about trying to work out what prohibited dogs are; for instance, a pit bull is actually a mongrel, so is very difficult to define as a particular type of dog. Breeders of pit bulls call them long-legged Staffies; they attempt to get round it that way. An expert trying to look at this has had difficulty, and it has cost the Metropolitan Police and the police in Liverpool and in other places millions of pounds kennelling those animals. I know that this is a specific point but there are cost implications of trying to work out within 48 hours whether the dog is a prohibited animal. Behavioural assessment will also cause difficulties because a lot of this work will fall to the dog charities. At the moment they are facing a massive problem with bull breeds being abandoned.

The issue of protected animals is raised in these amendments and we might well come back to it in further pieces of legislation. It is a particularly difficult issue to deal with. I have a rather useless and cowardly dog, but next door’s cat is particularly on his wish list. I do everything I can to try to stop him chasing this cat, but if a cat were seen as a protected animal—which it is not at the moment, though I know some people are calling for it—that would be a problem we would have to look at.

I understand the tenor of these amendments, and that this is an issue that we may return to further down the line if the Bill does not achieve its objectives. The Government deserve commendation for the attitude taken by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who met and worked closely with us. That the guidance runs to more than 100 pages is a problem, because who is going to read it? If people do not read and understand the guidance and realise where it fits with other pieces of legislation, there is going to be a problem of enforcement. I have to admit that I found it difficult just reading the Bill and cross-referencing it. I hope that the Minister will consider attaching a very short précis to the start of the guidance to make the issue simpler.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have persuaded the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. It has been an interesting debate, for which I am grateful to noble Lords.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right: it has been an interesting debate. I have learnt things I could never have imagined, such as where the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, keeps his Rolos. On a serious note, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions and their support for dog control notices. I think the Minister understands why this has been brought forward. I wish I could share his confidence. I will read his comments again and look at some of the points he made in more detail. He has not addressed the point of dog attacks on dogs or other pets. I am disappointed not to have his support for the 48 hours review. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the assessment could be started within 48 hours. The reason to do that was to reduce costs and bureaucracy and for the welfare of the dogs. I am most surprised not to have the Minister’s support for a review. Given that he is so wedded to the provisions in this Bill and not notices, I thought he would have welcomed a review. I think that we are headed in the same direction and I wish that I had his confidence about the measures in the Bill. I will look carefully at what he had to say and look at the issues again. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56LF withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, I support and thank my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who has been a stalwart in the campaign on this over many years. There are problems with the amendment but it raises an important issue that we will come back to. After many years of discussion, the issue remains that some people use dogs as a way of intimidating others. This can take place even if the dog is on the lead and in a muzzle, because the person is using the dog for effect, so the muzzle is not a barrier to intimidation. I understand that this is a very difficult area to legislate in, but I hope the Minister will take into account that intimidation can be caused even if the dog is on a lead and muzzled.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, is making a serious point about how the victim, or potential victim, feels when an owner is not in control of a dog. I am grateful for her comments and although she said something about the wording here, I was grateful for her support for dog control notices. None of us guarantees that we have absolutely the right wording. We may be able to have discussions, outside the Chamber, on wording that is accurate and would suit the Government well. The noble Lord does not want to see dog control notices but we may be able to make some improvements by discussing the matter further. I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments and support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, government Amendment 56M relates to the maximum penalty for dog attacks. Following an amendment tabled in Committee in the House of Commons by Richard Fuller, Defra consulted over the summer on possible increases to the maximum sentences for offences under Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control—the very measure that we have been discussing in the previous amendment. Specifically, that is the aggravated offence where an out-of-control dog kills or injures a person or an assistance dog.

Some 3,180 people and organisations completed the online survey and a number of organisations sent written representations. In summary, some 91% of respondents considered that the maximum penalty should be increased. We have taken into account the results from the survey, the written representations and the need for the maximum penalty to be proportionate to the offence.

The amendment provides for an increase in the maximum penalty for an aggravated offence under Section 3 of the 1991 Act, to apply in England and Wales, as follows: 14 years’ imprisonment if a person dies as a result of a dog attack, five years’ imprisonment if a person is injured by a dog attack, and three years’ imprisonment for an attack on an assistance dog that results in injury or death of the dog.

These changes reflect the high public concern that two years is an insufficient penalty for these offences, and the fact that seven adults and 10 children have died in dog attacks since 2005, and some 10 assistance dogs are attacked by other dogs every month. As now, each of these offences could also be punishable by an unlimited fine instead of, or in addition to, imprisonment; and, of course, the courts have the option of passing a community sentence.

I should make it clear that these revised sentences will apply only to the aggravated form of the offence in Section 3 of the 1991 Act; that is, the offence where a person or an assistance dog is actually killed or injured in a dog attack. Where someone actually sets their dog on to a person, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is likely to come into play. As noble Lords will be aware, the Act comes with its own sentencing regime. Were someone to be killed by a dog set upon them, if this is found to be an act of murder or manslaughter, the maximum sentence that would apply is life imprisonment. As now, it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there is both sufficient evidence to charge a person with the Section 3 offence and whether it is in the public interest to mount a prosecution. Once a case comes to court and a person is found guilty, it will be for the judge to take into account any mitigating or aggravating factors when passing sentence. We can, and should, leave it to prosecutors and the courts to make decisions in light of the facts of each individual case.

Of course, increasing the maximum penalty for dog attacks is only one aspect of trying to target irresponsible dog ownership and to encourage more responsible approaches. The Government consulted on a range of measures to encourage responsible dog ownership in 2012, and published a summary of results and the way forward in February this year, including bringing forward the other measures in the Bill relating to dogs and the compulsory microchipping of dogs by 2016. However, I hope noble Lords will agree that increasing the maximum penalty in the way that I have described is an important additional step. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this forward and for his explanation. I know he said at Second Reading that he would bring forward the amendment and he has been kind enough to write to noble Lords about it. I think this came from amendments proposed in the other place, where Richard Fuller raised the point and the Government agreed to do a consultation on it over the summer. Therefore, we are supportive and want to see better sentencing guidelines around dangerous dogs. The culpability of those responsible and the actions taken against them are central to the measures the Government have taken. It also comes back to the point I made to the noble Lord earlier. I do not want to hark on about dog control offences too much but it is about prevention. Tougher sentences help with preventing such attacks taking place, and encourage more responsible dog ownership. That certainly is a positive.

I would like to ask the noble Lord a few questions about this. I am slightly puzzled about the reasons—if he could help me on this—that the amendment says:

“14 years if a person dies as a result of being injured”.

That will be the maximum penalty and we all recognise that in most cases the maximum penalty would not be the penalty given. Is 14 years comparable with other legislation? Are there other kinds? Where has this come from? I am sure it is not something the Minister has just dreamt up. I assume that there is other legislation that is seen as similar or relevant, which the period of 14 years would have been taken from.

I think there was some discussion in the Commons. This measure is for when a person dies as a result of being injured, but what if a dog is used as a weapon? We know that there are cases when somebody is injured because a dog is deliberately set on a person. What if they die? Is that the same penalty? What if somebody deliberately sets a dog on another animal, or a pet? With the penalty for when somebody dies as a result of being injured—in the case of an assistance dog, whether or not it dies, the penalty is three years—is there any distinction between an attack occurring when the owner has tried not to have their dog attack an individual and an attack occurring when the owner sets the dog on an individual? I do not think that it would be covered by dog fighting laws if a human were attacked. If the Minister has any information on that, it would be helpful.

Furthermore, is the five years’ imprisonment for a person being injured something that is found in other legislation? I am speaking slowly, because I think that inspiration is about to arrive for the Minister on this issue. Where do the 14 years, five years and three years come from? Is there comparable legislation? The crucial point is whether the attack is deliberate, and whether a dog is forced to attack another dog or person. Many years ago, I helped to home a dog that had been the victim of quite serious attacks by other dogs. This poor dog was quite an aggressive creature with other dogs, but it had had half of its jaw bitten off and was in a terrible state. So I have seen at first hand and cared for dogs that have been very seriously attacked by other dogs. I am trying to get to the base of whether this is about something that happened, which should have been prevented, or something that is deliberate. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord could answer these questions.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The most important thing is to recognise that the prosecution of these cases is in the hands of the prosecuting authorities and adjudication of sentences is in the hands of the court. But there are particular aspects to the legislation. The noble Baroness asked me whether there was something comparable: 14 years’ imprisonment is the same penalty as for causing death by dangerous driving, so there is a parallel with that.

The noble Baroness made a further point. I thought that I referred to it—and, certainly, I half thought that I mentioned it in my previous contribution. It is getting late and my memory may not be right, but I certainly have it here in my notes and may have said it in my speech. When a person deliberately sets a dog to injure someone, using a dog as a weapon, other offences would apply, such as murder or manslaughter, which as the noble Baroness knows carry a maximum of a life sentence, if that is shown to be the case. I am sure that I alluded to that in my previous remarks.

Why did we decide to increase the maximum penalty for injury to a person to five years? The majority of people wanted to see 10 years, but we wanted to be proportionate and felt that this was about the right tariff for injury to a person. But I think that the noble Baroness welcomes the amendments, and I am grateful for her support.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord is right: I am welcoming the amendments and am grateful to him for his explanation, which is extremely helpful. I had not realised that a dog could be used as a tool currently in a murder or manslaughter charge; that information is news to me. So I am grateful to him for explaining that more fully. He is right—we do support these amendments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

What has been helpful about these debates on the dog legislation is that they have reinforced the fact that this is an area in which the legislative framework has been imperfect. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords on the flexibility of the anti-social behaviour measures when applied to dog ownership. There is specific draft guidance being given to professionals. I shall make sure that all noble Lords who have spoken in this part of our discussions this evening, including those who might have done, such as the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Greaves, get a copy of that guidance, because it will help future discussions. I hope it will persuade noble Lords that, given the acknowledged difficulty of legislating in this area, what the Government are seeking to do is sympathetic to the sentiments of the Committee.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, although the words of his Amendment 34A may not find too much favour in the light of the previous debate, when it refers to,

“making speeches whether or not amplified”,

given the discussion that we have had about amplified speeches outside your Lordships’ House.

There is an important criterion on which, I believe, the noble Lord is seeking reassurance from the Government. People have a democratic and legitimate right to protest in public places, and we would really not want to see these powers misused, if people are campaigning or lobbying for a particular cause or issue, although I do not think that that is the Government’s intention. It would be helpful to have some comment from the Minister. Can he give reassurance that there are no circumstances in which this provision would be allowed to curtail legitimate debate, campaigning or protest? As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there are other ways in which such issues should be dealt with. We all know of cases where laws have been used for purposes other than those intended by Governments. As the Minister will appreciate, it creates huge suspicion when provisions seem open-ended. I hope that he can give reassurance and be very clear on that, perhaps stating specifically in guidance that the intention would not be to limit in any way the democratic responsibilities of the citizen.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I will not waste the Committee’s time by repeating the arguments, but this is an instance where guidance would not be enough. Unless we can have hard examples of where the provision might be properly used to restrict assembly where there is no other provision to deal with any of the problems, it would not be adequate for guidance to say something like, “The Government would not expect this to be used in such and such a situation”. This is a power that I would be very unhappy to give to anyone because of its misuse, unless there was a very good reason to allow it here and they have no other tools.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am really grateful for this debate. It has been very helpful to the Committee to be able to talk in these terms. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 55 and how it is constructed. I am not a parliamentary draftsman and sometimes legislation is difficult to read or understand, but here the tests that are required on public spaces protection orders are quite clear and explicit.

We all agree that rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are important, and we would not wish to interfere with them in this Bill. Noble Lords are right to seek from me reassurance on this. What the amendment seeks to do is not as important as the probing that lies behind it. The legislation sets a very high test that must be applied before a public spaces protection order is used, as I will explain. The first condition of the test, in Clause 55(2), states that the activities must have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality or it is likely that such activities will occur which could have this effect. The second condition is that the activity is persistent, unreasonable and is justified by the restrictions on the notice. I think that gives us a pretty clear idea of the sort of activity which a public spaces protection order is designed to cover.

I consider it highly unlikely that, in the case of a peaceful protest, or holding placards or handing out literature, or talking to people, even the first condition could be met. I do not see that as being a condition which any court would allow.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord refers to “any court”. It is of course the local authority that will be making the judgment. The court would only be involved at a much later stage, if that was challenged. The Minister says that the second condition is that it has to be,

“of a persistent or continuing nature”

and “unreasonable”. It does not have to be. It has to be “likely to”: a judgment is being made as to whether or not the effect of the activities is “likely to” do something. That is a much weaker test than that which the noble Lord implied.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Baroness has only referred to one part of the second condition; there are three tests within the second condition alone. With the extra requirements set out in the second condition, I am satisfied that we have provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that these orders cannot be used to prevent peaceful protests or free speech. It is also worth mentioning that local authorities and the courts—I am sorry to come back to the courts, but we rely on them to make sure that legislation is properly used—must exercise their obligations compatibly with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrine the rights to freedom of expression and association respectively. They are intrinsic in any matter concerning peaceful public protest or free speech.

That is not to say that public order legislation will not continue to apply; it can still apply. My remarks should therefore not be taken as licence to include threatening or abusive words on a placard, or the bearer of the placard containing that sort of wording could be liable to arrest. There is overriding public order legislation, but the test on a public spaces protection order has to satisfy the notion that it is a behaviour which is persistent and continuing, is or is likely to be such as to make activities unreasonable and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice. All three of those have to be part of the second condition, let alone the first. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I can be brief with this group of government amendments which implement the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in respect of certain of the delegated powers in Parts 1, 4 and 5 of the Bill. The amendments to Clauses 55, 56 and 57 are worthy of particular comment. The Delegated Powers Committee argued that, in relation to the public spaces protection orders, the current provisions in the Bill requiring a local authority to consult with the chief officer of police and community representatives was too narrow given the potential impact of such orders. The committee further argued that there should be a general duty to publicise the intention to make a notice. We are happy to accept the point made by the committee. The amendments to Clause 55 therefore require a local authority to publicise its intention to make an order so as to allow persons affected to make representations. In the normal way, a local authority would be bound to consider any such representations before making an order. This process is also replicated where the local authority plans to extend, vary or discharge an existing order by the amendments to Clauses 56 and 57 respectively. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I was a bit slow on to my feet; I suspected that there may be other noble Lords wishing to speak on this.

The noble Lord will recall that these are the amendments over which I last week raised our concerns about their being tabled late. The anticipation was that they would be debated the day after they were laid, so I am pleased that we have had a gap and welcome the opportunity to look at them more closely.

The amendments to Clause 55 are in response, as the noble Lord has said, to recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government had tried to confer a wide-ranging and significant power on local authorities to control the ways in which public spaces are used without any requirement to publicise the public spaces protection order before it was made. We agree with the committee that that would have been inappropriate delegation of powers. I am pleased that the Government have tabled the amendment, which would require a local authority to publish the text of the proposed order, if I understand it correctly, or an extension in duration of an existing order, or any variation in a public spaces protection order. It adds clarity, which I welcome, but there are still concerns about the amended clause that will need to be addressed later in passage of the Bill.

As the noble Lord said, government Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB on orders relating to the Housing Act—those on absolute grounds for possession of anti-social behaviour—and government Amendment 100 about the granting of injunctions will ensure that those elements are subject to the affirmative procedure. We have serious concerns about these proposals. The amendments at least provide for a greater degree of accountability of the legislative process and add greater scrutiny to these powers, which we find deeply flawed. There are loopholes and my noble friend Lord Rosser will be speaking to those in the course of today’s debate.

I will give one example. Clause 4 specifies the bodies which are authorised to apply under Clause 1 for an injunction against a person to prevent them engaging in conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance. Subsection (5) of that clause will enable changes to be made to bodies and persons who are authorised to apply for an injunction under Clause 1, including making changes to the circumstances in which a body may make such an application. The Government’s view has been challenged, and I think they now accept this: it is not a general power to amend but is restricted to adding persons who may apply for an anti-social behaviour order under Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Delegated Powers Committee said that the Home Office’s explanation does not take account of the different nature of an anti-social behaviour order from an injunction under Clause 1, including the different tests to be applied in each case when determining an application. As a result, the Government have now tabled amendments whereby this would now rightly be subject to an affirmative procedure, which is much more appropriate.

Government Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB relate to subsections (10) and (11) of Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985. One of the conditions that, if met, could be used to trigger repossession proceedings, is that the tenant,

“or a person living in or”,

even,

“visiting the dwelling, has been convicted of a ‘serious offence’; and that offence was committed in the locality of the dwelling, against a person who lives in the locality, or against the landlord or a person employed in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions”.

The Delegated Powers Committee stated that,

“the scope of the power is not limited in any way, but simply allows the addition or removal of any indictable offence. In our view, this is a significant Henry VIII power, since the way in which it is exercised will have a direct effect on the circumstances in which a court will be required to order possession”.

Therefore we certainly agree with the government amendment that it is more appropriate that these amendments subject this process to the affirmative procedure. Obviously, the repossession process can have a hugely detrimental impact on people’s lives, and as such, any such power introduced by the Government must be monitored closely. Noble Lords have to be aware that we have serious concerns about that policy. My noble friend Lord Rosser will speak about that in more depth when we come to our debate on Clauses 86 and 89 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I have tabled a clause stand part debate because I feel it is a better way of probing the intentions and contradictions in this clause than individual amendments trying to make sense of it. In many ways, the debate we have had has identified some of the contradictions.

These public spaces protection orders will replace three other orders which were specific to certain circumstances—the designated public place order, the gating order and the dog control order. Noble Lords are right; these orders can last for a maximum of three years and can then be renewed and renewed ad infinitum. There is no time limit or renewal limit in the legislation. The debate has highlighted those contradictions and it would be helpful if the noble Lord could reassure us on some issues. I am not sure that he will be able to.

I am unclear why the Government are making changes in this way and whether all the implications of doing so have been considered. The debate we have had so far might indicate that they have not. The exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Greaves, indicates that the Government are confused, possibly because they are talking about slightly different things. We are replacing different orders, which deal with different complaints, with a single order that is trying to deal with all the complaints. Those original orders were of necessity very specific about the remedy they were trying to bring forward, whereas we are now moving to a more general order. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made the same point—that it is going to be very difficult to bring in one order to address all the different complaints.

The dog control order is being abolished and replaced with the public spaces protection order. We are yet to have the debate about whether that is adequate to deal with the problems of dangerous dogs, but Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is very concerned about this as it is worried that local authorities will have to extend the powers after three years. Not only will that create a kind of hiatus at some point but it could create an administrative burden at a crucial time when resources are being cut. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made this very point and asked why, if something has been agreed and consulted on, it is necessary to have ongoing reviews and renewals. It could mean less protection if, for example, a local authority fails to renew or gets caught up in some bureaucracy and the renewal does not happen or is delayed.

I think I am correct in saying that there are no limits but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, could give an indication of what the average number of renewals will be and how often the Government expect an order to be renewed. I wonder if the Minister understands the concerns that this could be a significant burden on local authorities, which will feel that they have to renew every three years. I looked through the impact assessment to try to find out whether that issue had been looked at, but it had not been specifically addressed. I thought it rather bizarre, given that orders can be renewed and renewed ad infinitum, that the impact assessment refers only to,

“providing councils with a flexible power to put in place local restrictions to address a range of ASB issues in public places, and prevent future problems. This would be different to the current situation as one order would be able to cover a number of issues, rather than needing to follow separate processes for each—reducing bureaucracy and cost for local authorities”.

Representations made to us, however, say that it will increase bureaucracy; that instead of having one order that lasts for the time required, it will have to be renewed beforehand.

There is also concern that in some cases a local authority may go for the maximum time, although it may not need it, because it would be overly burdensome and cumbersome to renew the order. It may think, “We need this to be in place for a year, but rather than having to renew it we will put it in place for three years and just let it lapse and not enforce it if it is not needed for the full three years”. Those are issues of concern. Then there is the other side of the coin. The Ramblers, for example, has other concerns, saying that a maximum of three years,

“is too long a period for the closure of any route of which everyday use is being made”.

I have read through the Explanatory Notes, the impact assessment and the Bill but cannot really understand why the period of three years was chosen. It is quite a lengthy maximum period to cover all the circumstances. What evidence did the Government use and what assessments were made that identified three years as the appropriate time for public spaces protection orders?

Similarly, there is a real danger in trying to address different problems in the same way. Gating orders, for example, are very clear—they do what they say on the tin. I am always very happy to admit that nothing is perfect and make changes to make something more effective, if things can be improved. However, I am not convinced that putting all three of these orders together into one less specific, and therefore weaker, general order is the right way forward.

The Minister and other noble Lords will have received letters about this from naturists who are concerned that it will impact on their activities. One of their concerns is the definition of what constitutes a public open space, which seems to rely on quite a wide description. Can the Minister offer any reassurance on that point?

I have already addressed the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but it would be helpful if the Minister could identify how many times he thinks it would be appropriate for an order to be renewed. Has any assessment been made of the costs? The impact assessment says that, because they are not separate processes, it will reduce the cost to local authorities. On what evidence was that comment made? Can he say anything about enforcement? If something is in place in every instance for at least three years, and then renewed, will there be any checks and balances in terms of appropriateness and enforcement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I will just add a supplement to my addendum to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the flexibility that lies within the clauses as they stand. Clause 55(8)(c) creates a power to specify the period; so, with great respect to the noble Baroness, it is not a fixture that it will always be three years. If one takes that flexibility along with the point that I made earlier about Clause 57, a lot of flexibility is built into this. It is a very sensitive and well designed measure, subject to the point about whether Clause 56 should be there at all.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

As a point of clarification, I am fully aware that it is not three years in every case—it is up to three years. However, one of my concerns is that, because of the cost of renewal and the uncertainties around that, a number of local authorities may think that three years has become the default. It will be easier for them to run to the maximum of three years rather than face the bureaucracy and costs of renewal by doing otherwise.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. In doing so I make the general point that sometimes in debates such as this you hear some noble Lords saying that the period is too long and others saying that it is too short, and so going down the middle is normally the solution. The noble Baroness talked about perfection. Dare I say that, perhaps on this clause, we are as near to that as we can be? I will address the amendments and the questions as far as I can but I hope, as I always do with the noble Baroness opposite, that she will gain some reassurance from what I say, if not from my words then at least from my tone.

These amendments relate to the process of reviewing and extending public spaces protection orders, as we have heard. As noble Lords are aware, there is currently no statutory review point for the orders we are replacing and they can run indefinitely. The argument has been made about where we are today. Putting in a limit is a positive way forward, otherwise—to quote the noble Baroness’s words back at her—these orders run on and on. It is important to look at how they should be reviewed. I believe that there should be a formal review point, which we have decided to set at three years.

The effect of Amendments 41B and 44A, which stand in my noble friend’s name, would of course be to limit this to 12 months. I have listened to the arguments that she put forward. As we have made clear in the guidance, orders do not have to last for three years—a point just made by the noble and learned Lord. There is flexibility within this, according to the circumstance and the situation and at the discretion of the issuing authority, including the local authority, as to what is appropriate. If appropriate, these can be reviewed or discharged before three years have elapsed. My view is more qualified and endorsed after listening to the debate and I believe that three years is a proportionate balance between the needs of users and the protection of the community, especially given the everlasting orders that we are seeking to replace.

Amendments 44B and 49A—which I take to be an alternative to Amendments 41B and 44A—would ensure that orders could not be extended more than once. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised the specific point that the legislation allows only for renewal. I am sure that he has reflected on Clause 56; there are provisions specifically to allow for the recurrence of a renewal of an order. He is nodding so I am sure that he agrees with the point I am making.

Of course, there are situations in which longer-term restrictions could be necessary; for example, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, these orders will replace, among other things, dog control orders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said. This means that a public spaces protection order will be required, as a dog control order is now, to ensure that the fouling of public land is dealt with. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that this is not a problem that can be fixed in three or indeed six years and an ongoing restriction is therefore required. As such, preventing the further renewal of orders would mean communities having to put up with dog mess as well as other potentially anti-social behaviours, such as public drinking.

Turning to Amendment 48, my noble friend will be aware that the orders being replaced by the public spaces protection order do not include a formal review and, as such, can last indefinitely. In reforming the powers, we believed that it was only right that a statutory timeframe was built in, and I am sure that my noble friend will welcome that in principle. As the legislation states, the review should be conducted every three years.

Of course, I understand the concerns raised by my noble friend about the potential impact of a three-year restriction if applied to all orders but, as I have already said, the legislation is clear that councils can limit the duration of an order to a period of less than three years. Indeed, as the draft guidance suggests, in a situation where a public right of way is being closed for the first time to try to deal with a specific issue, the council may well prefer to review this after a shorter period of time.

To make this amendment would mean that all orders covering rights of way would have to be reviewed every six months. This would include, as I have already mentioned, welcome restrictions to deal with dog fouling and the consumption of alcohol. This would turn the new power into a bureaucratic nightmare that resulted in councils that decided to use it living in a loop of constant consultation and review. As I have said before, in my own experience as a local councillor for 10 years, consultations were regularly part and parcel of our decision-making, but if we had to issue an order and then immediately start another consultation, I fear that we would be constantly in consultation mode.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I take on board what my noble friend is saying. That is why I believe that, as the clauses are drafted, there is flexibility with regard to the circumstances, the situation and indeed the tenure appropriate to the offence that is being perceived. I have already flagged up that in this instance, if an issue arose for the first time, the local authority may well be minded to apply an order of smaller duration to allow for exactly the kind of review and assessment that my noble friend is suggesting. I understand the point my noble friend makes and, as I have said, it probably refers more to the restricting of access than anything else. I have listened and we will consider how to make the guidance more specific in this regard.

Finally, Amendment 55A relates to appeals against public spaces protection orders. My noble friend has asked for clarification of whether there is a right of appeal against the extension of an order. That is a fair point. The amendment would provide an additional opportunity to challenge an order every time it was extended. This could result in additional appeals, even if the circumstances had not otherwise changed. That said, my noble friend has raised an important point and I will take it away and reflect further on it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked if I could predict the number of orders and renewals. Crystal balls are hard to come by and the important thing we are seeking to do here is to ensure that the orders are specific, time-limited and can be reviewed. Again, if the behaviour has been corrected, the order does not need to stay in place for ever. That is an important point to bear in mind. How often are we expecting the orders to be renewed? That is very much up to the local authorities to decide. One order can cover more than one behaviour with a shorter consultation process, so there is less paperwork, less bureaucracy and less delay. Reviews can be quite light-touch, so one review may be more intensive than another. It would be almost impossible to give a cost for each review.

We should not forget that there is an absolute need for democratic accountability for the continued operation of these orders. The Government feel that the balance has been struck. The noble Baroness talked about the Ramblers and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Perhaps she would like to respond and tell me whether she believes that what we are seeking to do in Clause 56 is appropriate, because the current situation means that there is no time limit. We are seeking to ensure three years, with the possibility to review, and a three-year period is allowed for only if the local authority chooses to persist with that; if it chooses to put one year down, that is its prerogative.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord invites me to say whether I think it is a good idea. The way to find that out is to review the operation after a couple of years. I am not really satisfied that saying that because some people want one year and some people want it for ever, if we find the middle number that is the right way to go. That does not address specific circumstances but I thank him for trying to answer my questions. He missed one: I asked what assessment had been made of why these were needed and what demand there was. Who has called for these changes to be made and have one order covering all three issues?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I hope I have illustrated that there is a need to decrease bureaucracy when you take three and turn it into one. Coming back to a point that the noble Baroness raised about enforcement, it makes that much easier. Certainly, my own experience in local government substantiates that. I am sure other noble Lords may share that experience.

It is right and proper that these orders should be regularly reviewed. The noble Baroness asks what evidence there is and why we have taken this route. The Government believe it is right to devolve these decisions to the people who are on the coalface, so to speak: the local authorities, the people who are closest to circumstances at a local level. I hope that I can share my own experience but also that of anyone who has served in a local authority. The last thing you need is central government or a central diktat telling you what is appropriate for your local area.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thought that I was going to get a rest; my noble friend did not tell me that she was not moving her amendment, or if she did, I have forgotten.

I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say about Amendment 53G. Amendment 53H is slightly more complicated. It applies yet again to the sort of area in which I live where there are county councils and district councils in a two-tier system. The district council will be responsible for making public spaces protection orders. The county council is the highways authority, which is responsible by law for maintaining public rights of way to an acceptable standard so as to ensure that people can walk on footpaths and ride horses along bridleways, for example. County councils do not always carry out those duties to a great extent, but nevertheless they are responsible in law for maintaining these rights of way. It seems wrong that the district council does not consult the county. The Minister has already said that the Government will look favourably at making sure that county councils, as highways authorities, are consulted. The question is this: what if the highways authority objects to closing one of its highways? Does it have a veto or not? I am suggesting that it should, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have a couple of quick questions on this issue. We tabled a clause stand part debate and I was slightly taken aback when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, withdrew her two amendments because they touch on the issue that I wish to raise.

First, it seems to me that there has to be a very good reason to restrict a public right of way over a highway. Will it be in guidance, as there is nothing here to say that it should be a matter of last resort and that all other options should be considered before taking that step? It would be useful to have the Minister’s comments on that. Secondly, I have clearly been dreaming about this Bill—I am affected so greatly by it. I have just checked with the noble Lord’s officials as I was absolutely convinced that I had read in a letter from the Minister that he would make the amendment anyway, but I am told he has not. Clearly it is a very good amendment and he should make it. Will he enlighten me on Clause 60(3) which states:

“Before a local authority makes a public spaces protection order restricting the public right of way over a highway that is also within the area of another local authority, it must consult that other authority if it thinks it appropriate to do so”?

Why would it not think it appropriate to do so? Why would it not consult the other authority in whose area the highway on which it wishes to restrict public access or the right of way belongs? In my dreams I thought that this had already been done, but I am told by the Minister’s officials that it has not. Can he comment on that and explain why the authority must consult the other authority in whose area the highway is only if it thinks it appropriate to do so, rather than seeking the permission of the other authority as a matter of course? I hope that the Minister will clarify this as I am puzzled by the subsection.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

I hope I can appear in the noble Baroness’s dreams in a good light. Do not have nightmares; that is all I say.

The decision to restrict activity on or access to public rights of way should not be taken lightly. Where anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder is present, local authorities will need to weigh up the impact of restricting access against the needs of the community. There are, as we have already discussed, additional consultation requirements associated with public rights of way above and beyond those expected more generally for a public spaces protection order. Those affected by the order must be notified of the proposal and be given details of how to see a copy of the restrictions. The local authority must also notify those persons of how they can make representations, and these representations must be considered before the order can be made.

Amendment 53G, proposed by my noble friend Lord Greaves, aims to protect private rights of way. I assure my noble friend that I agree with his sentiment. I am happy to confirm that the definition of public spaces included in Clause 60 will not allow for the order to be used for private rights of way. The principal access route to homes cannot be closed with a public spaces protection order. As such, I do not believe the amendment needs to be made.

On Amendment 53H, I understand the issue here relates to areas where there is a district council and a county council. Indeed, just as the noble Lord lives in such an area, so do I. In the situation described in the amendment, while the district council has the ability to make an order, the county council is likely to act as the highway authority. Therefore, in line with the consultation requirements I have just described, before restricting access the district council should consult the county council about the terms. However, I do not believe that this should come with a right of veto. In the majority of cases the evidence presented will be sufficient for both bodies, acting in the interests of the communities they serve, to agree. However, where this is not the case it should not prolong the misery for victims and communities, and so the district council should be free to make the order. On the basis of what I have said, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and I beg to move that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

On the specific question asked by the noble Baroness about the phrase in the clause,

“it must consult that other authority if it thinks it appropriate to do so”,

I can hardly see how, in the case of a public highway, it would be possible for a local authority to do other than consult those people. I have a note here which has come to my rescue. As to why it states in Clause 60(3),

“only if it is appropriate to do so”,

it is hard to imagine a situation where a council would not do so. However, it adds flexibility. Clause 60(3) was added to the Bill on Report in the Commons in response to a point raised by Gloria de Piero, the honourable Member leading on the Bill for the Opposition. It may be that the letter the noble Baroness is thinking of is the one from Damian Green to David Hanson of 7 October dealing with the Government’s amendments on Report in the Commons. I cannot remember ever discussing this issue before. However, it was added to the Bill on Report in the Commons, presumably with agreement.

I should say that it is only as a last resort. We have made it clear that the added flexibility means it is less likely that a right of way will be closed. This is covered in the guidance and we do not believe it needs to be in the Bill. It is also worth making clear that highways of strategic value cannot be restricted.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord sought to assist me, and I want to respond to his answer because he has actually puzzled me even more. He said, both before and after receiving enlightenment from the other end of the Chamber, that he really cannot conceive of the circumstances where it would not be appropriate to consult the other authority. He says that the provision was put in on Report in the other place. However, that does not really answer my question. Can he give me any circumstance where he thinks it would not be appropriate? That might help me to understand why it is there.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I wonder whether I should come in on the same issue to allow time for reflection. As I said to the Minister through his officials, I did not move my amendment because I assumed that there must be legislation which would require both authorities to agree. I read “consult” in this clause as meaning consult not around the outcome of actual closure but about the things surrounding it. I thought that, rather than taking the Committee’s time, I would simply not move it. Perhaps it would have been better if I had.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it may be that I have been misreading this particular clause. I assumed that it was evidence of the phenomenon where you have both a district council and a county council, which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred to. It may be, of course, that the highway lies in two local authority areas, and that by restricting it to one local authority, an adjacent local authority that shares the highway might be affected. In that case it clearly would be appropriate for there to be consultation between the authorities. In effect, there would be a joint highway, shared with other authorities.

However, I am hazarding a guess and seeking to inform the House on the basis of guess-work. My best position is to say to noble Lords that there is clearly some uncertainty about the meaning of this and that I am quite prepared to write to noble Lords with all the detail. This is based on current gating order legislation, which has been used for many years by councils to deal with anti-social behaviour, so we might see a similar clause there. Clause 60 needs to be read with Clause 61, in particular subsection (1), which describes which public highways cannot be restricted. It excludes strategic highways, so it is non-strategic highways that are being considered here. I will write to noble Lords explaining how these two clauses operate together, as clearly they are both of a part.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very helpful suggestion for trying to get to the bottom of what it means. When he writes, perhaps he could focus on giving us an answer about when he thinks it would not be appropriate to consult the other authority. The other points he made are relevant and helpful.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Perhaps in that letter the noble Lord could also give some examples of circumstances in which he thinks the power would be used. It seems that it may be a wider power than simply gating regulations in the past and might be used over and beyond them. We are back to the whole issue of why we should change something just for the sake of it, which might add increased ambiguity as a consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 67 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have two brief questions for the Minister on interpretation. One is an issue that I raised with him previously. He will know that the naturists have written to a number of noble Lords about their concern that the definition of “public place” in the Bill is drawn very widely and that it will unnecessarily restrain—perhaps “contain” would be a better word—their activities. It would be helpful to have an explanation of that. I raised it previously but did not get an answer. However, if there is an answer for them on that, that would be helpful.

Unitary authorities are not referred to under the interpretation of “local authority”. Do I take it that a county council, when there is no district council, includes a unitary authority, even though the unitary may not be the county council? I can see no other way in which a unitary authority would be referred to in the legislation.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

Perhaps I may make a very brief intervention. Clause 67(2) seems to contain a drafting mistake because the subsection opens with the words “This section”, but it is in fact a reference to paragraph (b) immediately before it in subsection (1), referring to “public place”. I am not seeking to press this in any way but some attention might be drawn to it between now and Report to make sure that, if I am right, it is corrected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, again, the reason for moving a clause stand part debate is that it is a more satisfactory way of addressing a number of different questions than tabling lots of individual amendments. Noble Lords will recall that I raised this matter briefly under the issue of corporate ASBOs, which is one of the things that strikes me about closure notices. We support the need to close premises, particularly if they are likely to be a nuisance to members of the public or there could be disorder, but this goes straight to closure. The point of the corporate ASBO proposal that I put forward in our previous sitting was that prevention would be better than cure, and it would be good to have a stage prior to closure to try to get organisations, companies or premises facing disorder to get their act together and prevent a nuisance taking place.

I have a few questions to raise with the Minister. Is it possible to have some further clarification on what the “reasonable grounds” would be? We do not want any confusion over the slightly vague wording. I know that there are examples in other legislation of reasonable grounds, but it would be helpful to have more explanation of what the Government consider to be reasonable grounds here. Another issue concerns the consultation in subsection (7). As the Bill stands, a police officer or a local authority can issue closure proceedings but they do not have to consult each other on this. There is no requirement for the police to talk to the local authority or for the local authority to talk to the police. In Committee in the other place, Damian Green said that he thought the police and local authorities would probably consult each other before issuing orders. It does not seem a very satisfactory way to legislate to say that they probably will. If it is appropriate that they do so, it should be formalised in the legislation. The other question is: who should they consult? The way in which the clause is drafted at present, a police officer or local authority can consult who they think appropriate, but that might not be each other. I cannot think of anyone more appropriate to consult than the police and the local authority.

It would also be helpful to have the Government’s view on whether they think it would be appropriate to publish the names of those who have been consulted. Those who have been aggrieved by a closure perhaps would understand the reasons more easily and be less likely to appeal or try to stop the proposal if they understood who had been consulted and the process was more transparent. If there had been widespread consultation in an area, it would be understood that there was a serious problem, but they might be more aggrieved if they found that only one or perhaps two organisations had been consulted. That might in turn give grounds for challenges to the closure. Subsection (7) states:

“Before issuing a closure notice the police officer or local authority must ensure that any body or individual the officer or authority thinks appropriate has been consulted”.

Could they consider it appropriate not to consult anybody at all, and would that be grounds for a challenge?

There are two issues: one, whether it is appropriate and whether there is enough information about who should be consulted; and two, if it is not necessary to consult anybody, or to consult very few people—or the most appropriate or useful people to consult—would that give reasons for the decision to be overturned or challenged? I hope that the Minister can address these points, which would be helpful.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we know that in another place the Opposition stated their support for closure notices. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, means when she says that she wants to clarify some of the detail in this, and I agree that a clause stand part debate is a good method to use. Clause 69 gives the police and local authorities a simple and easy-to-use power to close temporary premises that are the focus of public nuisance or disorder. There are a number of existing powers that could be used to close such premises, but they are similar.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Did the noble Lord say, “to close temporary premises”? I am slightly confused by what he means by temporary premises.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

“Temporarily”, I said. I am sorry. I might have said “temporary” but I meant to say “temporarily”. It may be me misspeaking or the noble Baroness mishearing but: “temporarily premises that are the focus of public nuisance or disorder”.

A number of existing powers could be used to close such premises but they are similar and overlap in a number of ways. We are consolidating these existing powers into a single scheme applicable to all premises associated with anti-social behaviour. These powers are flexible and can apply to private and residential premises, and to business premises whether licensed or unlicensed. The notice allows for immediate action while the longer-term order is put in place if it is required. This will give professionals a simple and flexible means to protect the public, making it easier to act preventively.

However, noble Lords will agree that such a power requires safeguards. Of course, local agencies already work informally with individuals and businesses to mitigate the risks of crime and anti-social behaviour before resorting to formal powers. This will continue to be the case. Most businesses want to protect their customers and premises. Where there is information that premises may be the location for or contribute to crime and anti-social behaviour, they can be invited to take action to tackle it, and many do.

Clauses 69 and 70 specify a minimum rank for police officers authorising the issue of a closure notice for up to 24 hours, with a higher authority needed for both the police and local authority for the extension of the notice up to a maximum of 48 hours. The provisions also include requirements about notification and consultation, and of course only the courts can require closures of premises for longer than 48 hours.

The noble Baroness has not tabled amendments but I can use some of the information that she was seeking. The court has to be satisfied that there is likely to be serious nuisance or disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour. The second element is that it is necessary to prevent the nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring. In practice, we expect that in most cases informal measures would be the right starting point. The draft guidance directs professionals towards informal measures in the first instance, where appropriate. Indeed, if alternatives to closure are available but have not been considered, it is difficult to see, save in exceptional cases, how it could be argued that the closure notice is necessary. Professionals, as public authorities, would have to exercise their powers proportionately or risk an adverse judicial review.

Additionally, in applying the test, a court, the police or a local authority must have regard to an individual’s human rights—for example, Article 8 rights. As I said when similar issues were raised in respect of earlier parts of the Bill, such qualified rights can be infringed only where to do so is necessary and proportionate in the pursuit of a legitimate aim.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me what the reasonable grounds are. It is a matter of evidence, usually comprising of witness statements and statements of victims and police officers, in particular. CCTV evidence, for example, can also be brought into play when deciding whether there is a justification for the grounds. The term is commonly used in legislation and I hope that noble Lords will accept that.

The noble Baroness also asked who has been consulted. Given that the notice is affixed to the premises it would not be appropriate to name all the individuals who had been consulted. Guidance highlights the importance of partnership working and it is advised that the police and local authority keep a record of who has been consulted.

The noble Baroness also asked why we do not require the police and local authority to make information about the closure of the premises more publicly available, such as in a paper or some other way. The closure powers are flexible in that they can be used for residential, business, licensed and non-licensed premises. There may be circumstances where a short-term closure of the premises is needed to resolve a problem, such as closing a residential premises for 24 hours to prevent a Facebook party. That would not be of interest to the wider public in that area, and requiring the police or local authority to make a public announcement of all closures would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. That is why we require the police and local authority to consult anyone they think appropriate as well as the owner and occupier of the premises. Clause 72 requires them, where possible, to fix a copy of the notice to the premises.

I hope that I have been able to answer the questions that the noble Baronesses have posed. I hope my noble friend will accept my explanations and agree to withdraw her amendment and that noble Lords will support the provisions in this part of the Bill.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

That the House do again resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, may I raise a point about the further consideration of the Bill today? At 6.03 pm yesterday, we received quite a lengthy letter from the Minister with amendments that I am told are to be debated today. Is it appropriate to receive amendments at such late notice for debate the following day?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as with the Opposition, we have also seen all the amendments and have been working through them. They have been tabled and agreed for debate; that is the programme that is scheduled for today. I know that the noble Baroness appreciates the challenges of the number of amendments we have on this Bill, and we wish to make progress.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am sorry. I understand the need to make progress. The Minister will know from the amendments we have tabled and our contributions to this debate that we agree with him in seeking to make progress. I am, however, questioning whether it is right to table amendments and notify some Members of your Lordships’ House—not all—at 6.03 pm for debate on the following day. That seems completely inappropriate. As we are speaking, I am trying to go through all the amendments to ensure that we have a response and can fully consider them. This House prides itself on scrutiny, but this does not leave us the opportunity to scrutinise adequately these amendments tabled by the Government.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, I say to the noble Baroness that anyone who has been in the previous days of this Committee would not doubt for a moment that the House has been very careful in its scrutiny of the Bill. That is reflected in where we currently are in the progress of the Bill. As I said, these amendments have been tabled and we, as the Government, have looked at them. We look forward to the debate and the scrutiny that will take place of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone (LD)]

My Lords, I endorse that and remind the House that when ASBOs were first considered under previous legislation, that worry was aired at some length in this Chamber. Things could go either way. Either you could have it as a badge of honour or it could be a mark that affected a young person or child’s life considerably. Either way, publicity had little to offer that was positive or helpful.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I hope that the Minister can respond positively to it, because this is causing enormous concern. There is a great difference between the current regime of ASBOs—we still have them, and we propose that we keep them—and the new regime that the Government propose. We are talking about lifting reporting restrictions widely not for somebody who has caused harassment, alarm or distress, but someone who has caused merely nuisance and annoyance and breached the order. A child aged 10 who has been given an IPNA injunction for causing nuisance and annoyance—as I said earlier this week, I think that most children of 10 are at some point quite capable of causing nuisance and annoyance—could breach that injunction and find reporting restrictions lifted. That lifting of reporting restrictions does not seem to be a reasoned decision taken in certain circumstances—it is in every case. I do not understand why. I share the views expressed by other noble Lords. It is for the Minister to explain why he thinks that this is an appropriate and proper measure, because I fail to understand that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a valuable point about safeguarding: whether children who receive publicity as a result of having caused nuisance and annoyance could be at risk. Could they be subject to grooming? Could they be targeted in any way? Have the Government done any assessment or evaluation? I cannot believe that such a clause would be brought forward without a great deal of thought, but I could be wrong. Have the Government undertaken any assessment of the impact that that could have on a child aged 10, 11 or 12? Given the naming and shaming effect of civil orders on children, have the Government consulted those organisations which seek to protect children to find out their views and how they think that it would impact on them? We are extremely worried, particularly given the low threshold level required for an order.

It really is incumbent on the Minister to explain the reasons for this clause. I hope that he has heard the concerns across the Committee. His explanation today will go a long way to seeing whether this is a matter to which we will return on Report.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank noble Lords for speaking in this short debate on an important issue, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee for moving her amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is not here, but we are aware of his sentiments through the Marshalled List, on which he gave notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill.

As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the Bill in its current form specifically states that Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is disapplied. This allows the details of under-18s subject to the new injunction to be reported unless the court imposes a restriction under Section 39 of the same Act. The same is true of the new criminal behaviour order, which is covered by a similar, parallel provision under Part 2.

My noble friend’s amendment would limit this disapplication to 16 and 17 year-olds. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, thinks that it should apply to all young people. I understand the sentiments behind these amendments, but there is a strong case for maintaining the status quo in this area. There is a real need to allow reporting on under-18s in certain cases where it is necessary and proportionate, primarily to allow for effective enforcement of the order, with communities able to play their part in tackling the anti-social behaviour by alerting the police if, for example, the offender breaches the conditions of their order.

There are further legitimate reasons for lifting reporting restrictions. Publicising that action has been taken against anti-social individuals can also provide reassurance to the public that action can and will be taken, and can act as a deterrent to other individuals behaving without due consideration for their community. However, these legitimate aims must be weighed against the effect on the young person of making it known to their community that they have been subject to a formal court order, albeit a civil one. We made it quite clear in the draft guidance that we published last month, of which noble Lords are aware, that local agencies must consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to interfere with the young person’s right to privacy and whether it is likely to affect a young person’s behaviour, with each case decided carefully on its own facts.

Furthermore, the courts are used to making sensitive decisions, having been dealing with such cases since the reporting arrangements for ASBOs were changed by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The courts reinforced this position, as illustrated by the wealth of case law on the issue, by upholding the legislation that allows for reporting of under-18s and makes it clear that it is sometimes necessary. The legislation that we are examining today has been drafted to mirror these same provisions. This has worked in the past, and the case law provides further guidance on the factors that should be considered, and on how the court should go about making such decisions.

However, the Bill has made some changes that go further towards ensuring that the rights of young people are always properly considered. We see the role of the youth offending team as key. These front-line professionals work directly with young offenders to tackle the underlying causes of their behaviour. The Bill states that the youth offending team must be consulted before an application may be made for either an injunction or a criminal behaviour order. It will be able to give an invaluable insight into the effects that reporting would have on a young person, to allow for more informed decision-making by applicants and the courts on this issue.

It is worth pointing out that once these powers are in place, all applications for injunctions will be heard in the youth court, which is not currently the situation for ASBOs. The youth courts are best placed to make such decisions, so this move will also ensure that the right outcomes on reporting for the offender and the community are achieved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is quite right. Discretion rests wholly with the court. The applicant for an injunction can express a view to the court on this matter, but the decision rests with the court.

My noble friend Lord Paddick asked whether there would be a presumption that reporting was permissible unless stated otherwise by the court, meaning that you would end up with a badge of honour situation. We are trying to change the way we deal with anti-social young people. We are focusing on working with the young person. All the debates we have had on IPNAs show how this new system provides a fresh approach to this issue. It will allow the youth offending team to be party to the decision-making process. The team is likely to be working with the young person already and will be able to advise on what current interventions are in place, whether the young person is engaging and what effects publicity may have. I think that covers the point made by my noble friend Lady Linklater.

I am a little surprised by the view taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, because the previous Administration introduced these provisions in Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. I shall quote the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who was then a Home Office Minister, because it is very important to show that there has been a degree of unanimity on this among those of us responsible for dealing with these matters. Publicising procedures is a very important part of the local agencies’ attempts and efforts to deal with anti-social behaviour. The noble Lord said:

“It is about people being aware of those who have been challenged over the effects of their behaviour through the ASBO process. That challenge is very important. I believe, and I know that my colleagues believe, that we need to demonstrate to young people what unacceptable behaviour is. We need to draw a line. People need to understand exactly when behaviour is acceptable and when it is unacceptable. It is in the absence of those clear messages—those clear dividing lines—that young people get into the habit of the abusing behaviour that can have such a profound and damaging impact in our communities. So, yes, I do agree that publicity surrounding proceedings is an important part of the process. It is not about naming and shaming. I do not accept that tag, or title, at all”.—[Official Report, 23/4/08; col. 1612.].”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Those are wise words indeed, but will the Minister confirm that my noble friend Lord Bassam was speaking about anti-social behaviour in terms of harassment, distress and alarm, and not an IPNA, which is to cause nuisance and annoyance?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Baroness will know that an IPNA can be applied also in cases where there may have been harassment, alarm and distress, so although nuisance and annoyance is the test for an IPNA, it is not the absolute or exclusive text.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

This clause would apply to those who have committed a breach of an IPNA by causing nuisance and annoyance. Would that be correct?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Baroness is quite right, but what we are seeking to do is to enable the IPNA-based process—at the discretion of the court, which I must emphasise to noble Lords, and in conjunction with the advice of the youth offending team—to determine whether this is the best way of dealing with this young person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have intervened on the Bill. I should declare an interest as leader of a London borough council; indeed, it is the council that I now learn is the world’s centre of mooning. I should apologise to Lady James of Blackheath for the offence that was caused. I will try to avert my eyes when I next go to Twickenham.

I express my immense support for my noble friend Lord Goschen and his amendment. He is exactly correct to point out the scourge of fly-tipping and I hope that the Government will be supportive. Equally, I am extremely supportive in principle and in practice of my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s amendment. I am going to anticipate what I fear the Minister might say about it, in the hope of averting the risk that he will push it aside. There are issues of policing that local authorities would have to face with this. It is not as easy to identify a car from which a piece of paper has been thrown as it is to find a parked car of which you can take a photograph and stick it on the web, so that the person who has parked the car can see the offence that they have committed. The proposed process imitates the process for dealing with a parking offence, and will still have issues of proof and so on attached to it. I am sure that the Minister may well be tempted to say that. None the less, I am sure that there are ways in which, with a will, these kinds of problems could be overcome. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take it forward in a positive spirit.

I should add to what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said about motorways, where the situation is appalling. Last time I went up the M1, I saw the astonishing investment by the Highways Agency in having ridiculously exaggerated numbers of cameras at the first few junctions. Millions must have been spent on them, the side notices and so on. Yet along the side of the road, totally neglected, were piles of litter. Something ought to be done by the Highways Agency to prioritise investment and deal with this problem, which is a terrible advertisement for our country along its main highways and which a small local authority is not by itself competent to deal with.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, on this issue. It should not have been a surprise to your Lordships’ House that when we debated the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, there was enthusiastic—indeed, passionate—support for the objectives he put forward. If one talks to the public at large, they regularly raise the state of the streets and pavements, and the impact that has on their community. That is why both these amendments are so relevant to this Bill.

Noble Lords may be aware of the “Panorama” programme that my noble friend Lady Bakewell presented a few weeks ago, in which she was able to show the cumulative impact of litter on anti-social behaviour in a local community, and the pride otherwise taken by that community in how it looked and about whether that litter was cleared. At Second Reading, we were very pleased to support the Private Member’s Bill. I am not going to suggest, nor is the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggesting, that every word in it was perfect; we would have welcomed the opportunity to debate it further in Committee. But if the Minister were able to take it away and look at the objectives that it is seeking to achieve, that would be very welcome.

On the issue of fly-tipping, one of the problems has been that so many local authorities have been forced into the position of cancelling their door-to-door collections of larger and bulkier items. While some people have tried to make alternative arrangements, some think it is easier to dump it in the car, drive somewhere and tip it out. Local farmers—and local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said—speak about the increasing costs that they incur in having to deal with fly-tipping and litter.

I have never been subject to mooning on the motorway—I am not quite sure whether that is within the scope of the amendment—but if an area looks bad then behaviour becomes bad as well, which is of great concern to many people on private and public housing estates across the board. I hope that the noble Lord can take away the serious sentiment that, by dealing with litter and fly-tipping, we would improve our communities and make them better places to live.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

22A: After Clause 20, insert the following new Clause—
“Corporate anti-social behaviour order
(1) It is an offence for a corporate body to act in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons.
(2) In this section “corporate body” has the same meaning as in Part 12 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (see section 1005 of that Act).
(3) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set out the circumstances under which an offence has been committed under subsection (1).”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment on a subject not too dissimilar from the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Our new clause is about corporate anti-social behaviour. Other than the community protection order, which includes the power to close premises that cause severe problems associated with anti-social behaviour, the Bill’s emphasis is not on the corporate but on the individual.

Too often the public feel, sometimes justifiably, that although they as individuals have to obey the law or be taken to task, companies seem not to be targeted until things get very serious and action is taken that could lead to their closure. A corporate anti-social behaviour order would be targeted at actions by a corporation or company that are deliberately socially harmful, and cause harassment, alarm or distress at a local rather than a national level. It would not target legitimate businesses or business activities—even businesses that some might regard as unpalatable. For example, there is a lot of talk about payday loans, and some people do not like gambling. The order would not focus on business activity, and there is no intention to comment on business activities that may cause distress at a national level; it would be used only where local disregard for the public and for the environment could cause harassment, alarm or distress.

The purpose of such an anti-social behaviour order would be preventive. It could identify low-level behaviour and seek to prevent it increasing in frequency or becoming more serious, as is often the case. Some of the examples I shall give tie in with the comments about litter in the previous debate—examples such as takeaways and other businesses that fail to deal with rubbish outside their premises, or premises that are unnecessarily noisy. I remember, when I was a Member of Parliament in the other place, dealing with a business in a residential neighbourhood. It had to have delivery vehicles coming and going—but at 5 am, did those vehicles really need to leave their engines running, causing considerable distress to those who could not sleep, or were woken first thing in the morning?

There could also be a pre-sanction stage, with an acceptable behaviour contract, to deal with problems. I think that such a provision would be welcomed by businesses that do their best to deal with such problems, but find themselves up against other companies that cut corners and do not fulfil their obligations to local communities. An anti-social behaviour order for local businesses would complement the community protection order by offering sanctions targeted at businesses, which might be used before more serious action that could lead to closure of the business was taken.

A corporate anti-social behaviour order would be business-friendly, because it would nip the problem in the bud and give the business the opportunity to deal with it before it faced far more serious action. It also gives the opportunity for preventive measures; I am thinking particularly about littering and noise pollution. At the moment the legislation focuses on individual behaviour—that is where the community protection order comes in—rather than on the actions of companies. It is a preventive measure, designed to be more effective, more helpful and more friendly towards business. It could also lead to better engagement between businesses and the local authority, which would have a reason to hold early discussions about problems that could arise and how it would deal with them, and also to better relations with local residents, by nipping any such problems in the bud before they get too serious. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. I have been wondering about other examples, and the one that immediately came to mind was the noise of aircraft coming into Heathrow in the middle of the night, which is a big issue in my area—but perhaps the order is not intended to be as extensive as that.

I have a serious question for the noble Baroness, which is whether it is appropriate for criminal offences to be created by regulations. That is in effect what subsection (3) of the proposed new clause would do, as it states:

“The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set out the circumstances under which an offence has been committed”.

I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, so I do not want to be too tedious about it, but that struck me as a point of principle that one might want to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I believe that the clause as drafted could apply to an individual or an organisation. When we discuss that wording, it will be clarified. This applies to an individual or an organisation—which incorporates the issue raised by the noble Lord. In addition, where the use of business premises has resulted, or is likely to result, in nuisance to members of the public or disorder nearby, the new closure powers that we are introducing, to which the noble Baroness referred, will be able to close a premises immediately. The police and/or local authorities can act quickly where a business acts anti-socially. Again, breach is a criminal offence with the potential for a significant fine.

It is also worth saying that sometimes it may be a particular individual who is the root cause of the anti-social behaviour—for instance, the business owner or a store manager—and not the business as a whole. In those circumstances, the police, council or others listed in Clause 4 could apply to the court for an injunction against the individual on the test of nuisance or annoyance. Hopefully that would deal with the issue and, while breach in this case may not be a criminal offence, it could still result in a large fine or even a custodial sentence.

In putting forward this amendment, the noble Baroness said that it was a probing amendment to seek clarification. I hope that on the basis of the example I have given, by drawing the attention of noble Lords to the fact that we will be discussing this issue under Part 4 and with my explanation, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I am not sure whether it will be helpful to probe the matter further when we get to community protection notices, because they deal with individuals. If there is a persistent litter problem in certain premises, it would not be possible to have a community protection notice against every individual. My worry with his other proposal, the closure of premises, is that it would deal with the problem by closing the business. Often, it might be better to take preventive action with the corporate body, the business, to prevent closure and to deal with the problem, rather than to act against individuals and then, if that does not work, close the business. I am trying to find a pre-emptive way to prevent the problem rather than deal with it once it had happened. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking the point seriously. Perhaps we can return to it and discuss it further when we consider community protection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

We keep being reminded that while we are looking at what we do with young people, whom we perceive to be such a problem, we are always thinking about the victim. There are ways and means of making a far more positive outcome for those who have been affected by crime if they can go through a restorative process. We should be looking at and developing this. This amendment proposes that, instead of incarceration, a youth rehabilitation order would be the constructive way forward. I urge my noble friend the Minister to look at these kinds of option very seriously.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made some interesting and useful points. We sympathise with the comments that he made and with these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, I do not want to repeat the comments made in the earlier debate on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. However, I asked questions in that debate that the Minister did not answer, and similar questions apply in this debate.

The Minister will recall that I asked about the evidence base for the proposals brought forth by the Government. In that case, it was about what assessment had been undertaken to evaluate the safeguarding of the risk to children. He was not able to reply then and I am happy for him to write to me. The same questions apply here. They concern the evidence base on which the Government are bringing forward these clauses. A number of children’s and young people’s charities have contacted Members of your Lordships’ House with concerns about whether, in the clauses we are debating and in our previous debate, the breach of civil orders is against the rights of children and whether it would do more harm than good.

As I said then, I hoped that the Government have an evidence base on which they are bringing forward these amendments, but the Minister was not able to answer. I hope that he can on this occasion. One part of my question is about consultation around these proposals and the previous provisions. The second part of it is on the assessment that is undertaken to evaluate, in the previous case, the risk and, in this case, the effect of the Government’s proposals. Are the Government prepared to have a review period in both cases to see whether they have been effective and what changes should be made?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for picking up the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and presenting them in the way that he has. In replying, I am very happy to have a meeting with those Peers who are interested in the impact of the Bill and its provisions in general on young people. That would be useful. We have had some productive debates on the issue here in Committee. I hope that I have been and am able today to show that we see our role in seeking to prevent anti-social behaviour as one that tackles the difficulties that some young people have, and in rehabilitating and supporting them.

This brings us back to whether it is right for young people to face the full range of criminal sanctions when they act in a way that is seriously anti-social: I emphasise “seriously”. I understand the points that have been made by all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Linklater, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. They have all expressed the importance of rehabilitation, especially in cases concerning young people. That is why it is so important that the injunction under Part 1 and the criminal behaviour order that we are discussing here can include positive requirements to help them turn their lives around.

Youth rehabilitation orders are often a fair and proportionate way to deal with a young person who has been convicted of an offence as an alternative to custody. Use of such orders is in line with the intentions of the Bill: that informal interventions and rehabilitative approaches should be used first and foremost, in particular, when dealing with young people. However, it is right that tough sanctions are available on breach.

Amendments 22KB and 22KC seek to restrict the sanctions on breach of a criminal behaviour order for under-18s so that a youth rehabilitation order must be made. Breach of a criminal behaviour order is an offence. There is no danger of this criminalising someone for the first time because an order can be made only once they have been convicted of a criminal offence. It is worth remembering that the criminal behaviour order is aimed at tackling the most serious offenders, and that by the time that it is breached an offender may already have failed to respond to positive requirements aimed at addressing the underlying cause of their anti-social behaviour. They may also already have had a youth rehabilitation order made in respect of their offending. We would expect the youth courts to do all they can to ensure their rehabilitation when considering the sanction for a breach. This may well be a rehabilitation order but it is right that they have the discretion to impose the most appropriate penalty in a given case, including a fine or, in the most serious cases, custody.

On the dispersal power, there needs to be an effective and serious consequence to breaching a dispersal order which is imposed by a police officer. Clause 37 provides the option to apply a fine or a prison sentence of up to three months. We expect the court to use these sentences appropriately and proportionately in accordance with sentencing guidelines. The three-month sentence is the maximum sentence available to the court and it may impose a lower sentence if appropriate, including a youth rehabilitation order if the offender is under 18. However, there may well be some young people for whom a fine or even detention is appropriate, and I would not wish to tie the hands of the youth courts which, after all, will have access to all the evidence and will be best placed to make a decision in individual cases.

I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Earl that the sanctions available on breach of the CBO and the dispersal power will help the courts. From the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, one could be forgiven for thinking that breach of an ASBO was not an offence subject to a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, which is what the previous Government legislated for. This sanction applies to the ASBO and the sanction of imprisonment applies to young people as it does to adults. Like the previous Administration, we believe that tough remedies should be applied on breach where it is appropriate. It is for the courts to test what is appropriate, and the test for the CBO is analogous to that for the ASBO, as the noble Baroness would expect.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Greaves (LD)]

The noble Baroness was not in the House when we dealt at some length with the question of what “locality” means, specifically in relation to town greens and village greens in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act when it went through this House rather a long time ago—about 13 years ago—and the Commons Act more recently. The courts had got themselves into terrible difficulties about the definition of “locality”, about whether localities and neighbourhoods are the same thing and about the question of neighbourhoods within localities. There was a lot of abstruse discussion and debate and I am not sure that we actually clarified the matter. The important thing is that locality is not the same as location. A location is a specific place on the surface of the Earth. A locality, however you define it, is wider in some respect or other.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Having listened to the noble Lord, I am sorry that I missed that debate. However, I get his point about locality and location; I just seek further clarification on how that can be dealt with.

I have a couple of other points. The 48 hours that the Government propose for these dispersal orders are twice the period in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. I understand that the only other legislation that permits dispersal powers in this way is the Violent Crime Reduction Act. I would understand why a longer timescale would be used in connection with violent crime. However, we are not talking about violent crime but about anti-social behaviour. There must be some evidence base for why the Government think that 48 hours rather than 24 hours is appropriate.

It would be helpful if the Minister could talk us through “Directions excluding a person from an area”. I have had conversations with those who could be practitioners in this area of legislation, and some of them seem to be slightly confused by how it will work. It is quite clear how the current process works, but how will such a direction to exclude an individual or group of individuals from an area work? If they are to be excluded from a locality for 48 hours, does somebody draw a handwritten map—“This is the area that you’re going to be excluded from”—to make clear where it is? Who else should be notified? Forty-eight hours is quite a long time. If there has been no local authority consultation and it has all been done very quickly, how do the person and other authorities know that they are to be excluded for 48 hours? If the direction is to be withdrawn or varied, how will they and others be notified? This lack of involvement and consultation with the local authority gives rise to a number of practical questions. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would on this occasion be able to answer my questions—which he has not, so far, been able to do on any other occasion, although I am getting used to it—and talk us through the process.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I might have preferred to be participating in the passage of the CRoW Act, although it seems to have been a merciful release that I was not here to be involved in those debates. This is the first time we have had a chance to talk about dispersal orders, so it would be useful to give the background of what we want to achieve by them and try to answer the questions that noble Lords have asked me.

The new dispersal power will allow the police to deal quickly—I emphasise that word—with anti-social behaviour centred on a particular locality, nipping such behaviour in the bud before it escalates and providing immediate respite to the victims of the anti-social behaviour that is the cause of the difficulty. The new power combines the best elements of the current legislation into a single, more effective and less bureaucratic tool. When I come on to the business of liaison with local authorities, I think that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will see what I mean by that.

The current process can be very slow, and as a result victims and communities can suffer for a number of months before the police can act. Part of the problem is that the existing dispersal power can be used only once a dispersal zone is in place, and a zone can be designated only following consultation with the local council. The new power will not require prior consultation, so it can be used more quickly. However, we recognise that there should be some supervision of the new power, and in this respect the provision has benefited from scrutiny by both the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Responding to points made by the HASC, we have included the safeguard that the dispersal power must be authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. The authorisation may be given if the officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that use of the dispersal power may be necessary in a specified locality during the specified 48-hour period.

The requirement for the officer to be satisfied “on reasonable grounds” was included on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We had intended it to be part of the test when the Bill was introduced, and we believed it to be implicit. However, in this instance we agreed with the committee that it would be clearer to have that explicit in the Bill. I am grateful to the committee for drawing this to our attention. The addition of “reasonable grounds” further emphasises that the test for authorising use of the power is objective.

On Amendment 22L, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the two elements of the test will mean that officers consider whether use of the dispersal power is a proportionate response to the problem at the particular time and locality. As a public authority, the police must also exercise their powers proportionately under general public law principles and human rights obligations. It is not, therefore, necessary to include “proportionate” in the Bill. I am firmly of the view that the safeguards in the legislation will ensure that the dispersal power is used appropriately, based on local knowledge of the area and on intelligence that there are likely to be problems at a specific time.

I return to the question of locality. My noble friend has put forward Amendment 22N to ensure that an authorisation clearly identifies the locality where the dispersal power can be used. The authorisation for the use of the power must be given in writing, must be signed by the officer giving it, and must specify the grounds on which it is given. These grounds must include the specified locality and time period for which the authorisation applies. My noble friend’s amendment is therefore provided for in Clause 32(1), which states that the time and location for which the dispersal may be used are as specified in the authorisation. Perhaps I can elaborate on that.

Clause 32(1) and (2) are concerned with this authorisation process, so the intention is that the reference to locality in both subsections has the same meaning; i.e. they cover the same geographical area to be specified in the authorisation. As drafted, the Bill makes this clear. The new dispersal power will allow the police to respond swiftly and flexibly. For example, on a particular housing estate where there is likely to be anti-social behaviour at the weekend, an inspector could pre-approve use of the new power by his or her officers. Alternatively, if an incident occurred at a different time of the week when it had not been anticipated, a police officer could contact an inspector for authorisation to use the dispersal in that specific instance.

Amendment 22M, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, raises an important issue for the Local Government Association regarding consultation with local authorities. As noble Lords know, I have had meetings with the Local Government Association Safer Communities Board. The association has expressed some concern about the impact of these dispersal powers on community relations and has therefore argued for them to be subject to democratic oversight. I understand this point, but to require consultation would seriously undermine the flexibility and utility of the power and would reinstate precisely the difficulties we seek to remove from the current system.

However, the draft guidance states that the authorising officer may wish, where practical, to consult with the local council or community representatives before making the authorisation, in particular where there are concerns about community relations and the use of the dispersal in a particular area. Therefore, for example, when planning the policing of a football match, the police might decide to authorise use of the dispersal in the area surrounding the stadium. It is likely that the police already work with the local authority in planning this kind of event, and this would include a discussion on the use of powers in such a dispersal.

This issue was raised when I met with the Local Government Association recently. I agreed to include in the guidance that it is good practice for the police to inform the local authority after the dispersal authorisation is used. This will help the local authority work with the police to plan longer-term solutions in areas where there are persistent problems. I remind your Lordships that the Government have published this guidance in draft to assist with scrutiny of the provisions.

I agree that accountability is important, and Police and Crime Commissioners now have a vital role in holding forces to account on behalf of the public. Police forces will be required to keep records of the use of the dispersal power and, while there is no duty to do so, they may wish to publish data in the interests of transparency. Police forces can share data about the use of the dispersal power with councils to assist in their crime prevention planning, and plan longer-term solutions to hot-spot areas. The draft guidance that accompanies the legislation emphasises the importance of involving the community in taking a problem-solving approach in areas with persistent problems. Clearly, this would be a case in which we would expect police forces and local authorities to work closely together.

The current Section 30 dispersal power has worked well in some areas to deal with longer-term issues. Those powers are led by the police with local authority consultation. We have acknowledged the important role that local authorities have played in this and have designed the new public spaces protection order to be used in much the same way by local authorities to deal with persistent, long-term problems.

I will deal with some particular questions asked by the noble Baroness. On the question of dispersal orders, she thought that people might be confused about what is actually involved in being dispersed. Much of the new power is available to the police now, but guidance will share good practice on how the dispersal orders should be used. In most cases, the officer will provide this information in writing and, in many forces, officers actually provide a map for the person given the dispersal order to show them the area from which they are excluded.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I do not want to disrupt the Minister as he answers other noble Lords’ questions, and I am grateful to him for answering one of the questions that I raised. I just wondered whether he is going to come to the other questions I asked, about the representations he received that the current process was inflexible, and what examples he had of those. I also asked why the Government have not abided by their response to the Home Affairs Select Committee, as they committed themselves to do.

[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.