Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I would comment briefly that having looked at these amendments, Amendment 22QA seems to be a particularly reasonable and sensible way forward. If you think of the local authority as being at the centre of its place—not just part of the local council but managing the area—it seems very reasonable and sensible. This is perhaps a case, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friend Lord Harris said earlier, of wanting the parts of the Bill that are useful to work. This may well assist the Government in ensuring that the clause is effective.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 22NC and 22QA are proposed by my noble friend to change the process at the point where a community protection notice is issued. Currently, when issuing a community protection notice, an authorised person—be that a police officer, an officer of a local authority or a person that the local authority has designated, such as a social landlord—would have to inform any body or individual that the person issuing the notice thinks appropriate. Amendment 22NC seeks to remove this requirement.
Amendment 22QA, in my noble friend’s name, then seeks to impose a requirement that an authorised person who is not the local authority must inform the relevant local authority of its issuing of a notice. I recognise that it is important that a local authority is aware that community protection notices are in operation in its area but, conversely, it is also important, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, that local authorities notify the police. The reality is that police and local authorities will be working together to tackle local anti-social behaviour and therefore it is not necessary to put into the Bill the requirement to inform the local authority. The existing provision in Clause 40(6) states that the authorising officer “must … inform” any appropriate individual or body of the issue of a community protection notice, and it is difficult to imagine any case where the relevant local authority would fall outside the definition of “appropriate”. I do not think it necessary to specify that the local authority must be informed.
However, there may well be others whom it would be appropriate to inform as well. As I have suggested, the police will often have an interest. I fear that the effect of my noble friend’s amendments would be to restrict the requirement to informing the local authority only.
Our guidance for front-line professionals states clearly that, where a community protection notice is being issued, there is clear merit,
“in involving the local council, which will have many years of experience in tackling environmental issues, when deciding whether or not to serve a CPN”.
As I and my noble friend have said on previous occasions, the guidance can be amended as we move through the parliamentary process. Of course, if there is a requirement, we can set a clearer expectation on the necessity of ensuring that the local authority is fully involved.
As an aside—I speak with some experience, although perhaps not with the same number of years’ experience as my noble friend—in my 10 years in local government, I served as both the cabinet member for the environment and then as the cabinet member for policing and community engagement. In that respect, my experience—albeit on a London council—showed that the local authority, the police and other local agencies work well on the ground, and we have faith that these agencies will continue to work well as we move forward.
Amendment 22QF concerns remedial works carried out by the local authority where there has been a breach of a community protection notice. Remedial works may be carried out if a person fails to comply with the terms of a notice served on them. The local authority may carry out the remedial work without the consent of the owner or the person who had defaulted on the notice on land “open to the air”, and Amendment 22QF would prevent this. The local authority cannot simply enter premises at will; I am sure that my noble friend knows that to be true. It must seek the “necessary consent” of the defaulter and the owner of the premises if that person is not the defaulter. However, there may be circumstances where the local authority has taken all reasonable efforts to find the owner but has not been able to do so. I do not believe that communities should continue to suffer in such circumstances, and that is why it is important that the authority is able to carry out remedial works.
I hope that my noble friend is reassured by the explanations I have given of what is behind the Government’s proposals here, and that he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, is not part of the problem that the Government are trying to sweep away a whole range of different responses to anti-social behaviour and replace them with what is essentially a single measure, at least as far as the individual is concerned, and that therefore there is no gradation? There is no way to modulate what is done or provide a specific response to individual circumstances. That seems to be what is causing this problem. If there were some gradation, there might well be measures that it would be appropriate to take against children of the age of 10 or 11, who have an understanding of when they are behaving outside societal norms. However, there would not be the same level of sanction implicit in breaching an injunction.
Part of the difficulty with all of the amendments which your Lordships will be considering today is that we are left, essentially, with one type of measure to deal with a multiplicity of problems. That is why trying to find the right balance as to how best to be effective against those problems is one difficulty. Because the Government have decided simply to do away with all the existing arrangements and replace them with one simple measure, we will face that difficulty.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, because the injunctions were clearly the major issue raised at Second Reading. I think that most noble Lords who contributed to that debate raised this issue.
However, I start by saying that the late scheduling of today’s Committee sitting is rather unfortunate. There will be noble Lords who would have wished to table amendments to today’s debate but who, given that the sitting was scheduled only on the last sitting day before Recess last week, may not have had the opportunity to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made the point that we now have a clash with the Children and Families Bill, which is also in Committee as we speak. I suspect that, given the nature of the subject before us today, many noble Lords who are in that Committee would also wish to contribute here. My final plea is that this time yesterday I was in Argentina, and I arrived in the UK only a few hours ago. I promise not to do my Eva Peron impression on this issue—although perhaps in passion if not in length. The scheduling is unfortunate, and I hope that the Minister will take that message back. I would not want noble Lords who have a contribution to make to this debate to be unable to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has done us a service with his amendment, and I am also eager to probe the Government’s thinking on this issue as well. I am certainly not against children and young people being held responsible for their actions; we defined that principle in anti-social behaviour orders. We have had some debate today about the criminal age of responsibility for young people, but the amendment and the Bill are not really about that. They are about whether a young person aged 10 is likely, on the balance of probabilities, to cause annoyance or nuisance to anyone. I am not a parent, but my experience of 10 and 11 year-old children is that they inevitably cause nuisance and annoyance to somebody at some point. I do not know whether the Bill is an appropriate vehicle to make that kind of behaviour subject, on the balance of probabilities, to such an injunction. I find that somewhat strange and I would like the Minister to develop his thinking and explain why the Government think that it is appropriate.
I can think of numerous examples where 10 and 11 year-olds would cause nuisance and annoyance: persistently kicking a ball at a fence, breaking that fence or causing disruption in the neighbourhood. That is the very point that my noble friend Lord Harris made: the Government are trying to squeeze a range of interventions into one which, inevitably, will not be appropriate in every case.
I wonder, if a complaint is made about a young person aged 10 or 11 causing nuisance or annoyance, how the police are going to investigate to see whether it is appropriate that such an injunction be placed on that young person. The JCHR made the point that there is no requirement whatsoever in the Bill to judge what is in the best interests of the child before such an injunction is imposed. It would be helpful if the Government would explain their thinking why it would be appropriate to issue an injunction when a 10 or 11 year-old may cause nuisance or annoyance.
Lord Faulks (Con)
Perhaps the noble Baroness can help the House. Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, passed by the previous Government, permitted local authorities to apply for ASBOs in respect of persons aged 10 or over, subject to conditions. Does the party opposite have a changed view now, in view of the amendment?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
We want the Government to justify their position. As I said at the beginning, I think it appropriate for young people to be held responsible for their actions, but I want to probe why the Government think that this kind of injunction is appropriate. The anti-social behaviour order, as we shall debate later, required a much higher level of proof of nuisance. In the injunctions contained in amendments made in 2003 to the Housing Act, there is a lower level, as we have heard from the housing associations which have contacted us. In this specific instance, I think that the Government need to justify why they consider this injunction appropriate as the only means of dealing with such behaviour.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for tabling this amendment, because it does seem to be a good place to start. The issue has certainly triggered a lot of arguments from colleagues, if I may say so. We have set this age of 10 because that is the age at which children are currently deemed capable of being responsible for their actions under the criminal law. My noble friend showed quite clearly that this is something that has been enshrined in legislation for some time, but I emphasise that the focus of the injunction is to nip issues and problems in the bud.
Many of us agree that the move away from automatic criminalisation of young people is a step in the right direction; noble Lords have backed the Government’s decision to move in that direction. Breach of an injunction does not result in a criminal conviction, giving the young person a chance of reform with a clean slate. This is not the case with anti-social behaviour orders, where breach is a criminal offence; this change has been widely welcomed by, among others, the Home Affairs Committee in another place. In addition to the injunction, positive requirements can be used to help address the causes of a young person’s anti-social behaviour, to help them to turn their life around before that behaviour escalates to something more serious.
We have also built in requirements for the local youth offending team to be involved at different stages in the process, to allow for the proper and thorough consideration of the needs of the young person. This goes far beyond what was required for the anti-social behaviour order. Furthermore, on the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee, we have limited the maximum period of an injunction to 12 months where it is issued against someone under the age of 18, whereas the minimum duration of an ASBO is two years. Twelve months will provide agencies with sufficient time for them to work with other agencies to address any underlying issues driving anti-social behaviour. It strikes the right balance between providing victims with the respite they need and sending a strong message to young people that anti-social behaviour is not acceptable.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee emphasised the importance of the guidance. We have published draft guidance for front-line professionals and I hope that noble Lords will take time to have a look at it. I think they will find that it complements what the Bill seeks to do, and it is a very important document. It is available on the Home Office website, but if those who want a hard copy let me know, I will ensure that one is sent to them. It will be relevant to the youth offending teams and, in relation to Part 6 of the Bill, to police and crime commissioners; again, my noble friend mentioned how important the role of the PCCs could be. We are consulting on the draft guidance at the moment, and we would welcome comments from noble Lords on what it should include.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about reporting restrictions. We are going to come to that issue; it is in this early part of the Bill and will be debated as we have amendments down to discuss it. Amendment 21A has been tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to be involved in that debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned that the House is of course considering the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. He also questioned the risk of a lack of co-ordination across government. I hope—indeed, I have had private conversations with the noble Lord about this—that all this legislation is of a piece. It is designed to address the failure of Government to get on a child-focused agenda. The IPNA in particular is part of our Home Office legislation to reinforce child focus, and victim focus, in the same legislation so that we successfully tackle anti-social behaviour.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned the question of the guidance and whether courts could be included in it. In theory, court rules could cover this, provided that the relevant rule-making committees agreed. We will consider the utility of this, as well as whether guidance could play a useful role here. I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord on this issue.
If I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the timing of this particular day’s business, which I think all noble Lords will have found themselves swotting up on a little more earnestly than they might otherwise have done, was agreed through the usual channels, and indeed I understand from my colleague that the proposal was welcomed by the opposition Chief Whip, although I was not in the Chamber at the time.
I emphasise to the noble Baroness that the IPNA is not the only means of addressing anti-social behaviour by children. We have made it clear in the draft guidance that the police, local authorities and others should consider a non-interventionist basis in the first instance if they can do so. The Bill also provides for more serious cases at the other end with the criminal behaviour order, so there is a flexible response to the phenomenon. As I said earlier, the youth offending teams—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The penalties, set out in Schedule 2, include up to two years’ detention for children of 14 or over, but only in exceptional cases. The noble Lord has invited me to write to him on this issue and I am very happy to do so. I hope he also has the opportunity to read the guidance because that will help in his understanding of how the IPNA is meant to operate on the ground, in particular cases, and will help inform him just as much as my letter will do.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord, but I asked a question about Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the comment made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that this Bill has no requirement to consider a child’s best interests, their specific needs or learning difficulties. Why does the Bill have no reference to that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That will be the subject of a later amendment, but I can reassure the noble Baroness that, as a legal process is involved, the courts have to take into account the human rights of anybody who is before them. It is not for the Bill to make that explicit: it is a matter of practice within the courts.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, in principle I am very keen on the idea that Governments should lay down what should happen and leave the how up to local areas to decide, because there will obviously be different local conditions. I remember that fairly soon after the ASBO was introduced, there was considerable concern about what great differences there were in how it was being introduced in different parts of the country. It was shown that there was something of a postcode lottery in it. I suspect that we have heard less and less of that over time because people have got used to the ASBO.
One reason for that is because the ASBO was quite tightly defined; the definition of what amounted to an ASBO was there. What concerns me about the injunction is that I agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights that,
“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”,
is insufficiently precise. I fear that if there is no more precision in this initially, we shall have exactly the same as we had with the introduction of the ASBO: there will be a postcode lottery. If the injunction is to be enforced properly—I support the idea of it not being a criminal activity—there is a need to sharpen up the precision to prevent that and to give better guidance to the local authorities who will have to enforce it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. All speakers have sought to be helpful to the Minister, perhaps seeking to protect the Government from themselves by this amendment—they were certainly not trying to be a nuisance or annoyance in identifying so many difficult issues that arise here. So I do not expect to have an IPNA taken out against us but, on the balance of the judgment that is in the legislation before us, I suppose we should wait and see. This debate strikes at the very heart of the issue, and the contributions that we have heard today reflect the balance of opinion at Second Reading.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made a very powerful case and addressed a number of the concerns that were raised, including the concerns of those who have argued against the amendment. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, I spent a number of years as an MP, although not as many as he did. Anti-social behaviour was then and remains a very serious issue. I recall that many of those dealing with the problem welcomed ASBOs, despite some of the failings and problems we have heard about, and I think that ASBOs have improved with time and experience. The test of “harassment, alarm and distress” was rightly a higher bar than we see before us today, because it recognises the seriousness of the issue, but it also recognises the penalties for breaches of the order. That is an important point to make in the context of this debate.
I find it very interesting that, in the Second Reading debate and again today, the anti-social behaviour orders gained support from distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House with expertise in law, policing and the magistracy. There were criticisms, and I still have some criticisms about the implementation of anti-social behaviour orders and measures. There are those who do not understand how seriously and dreadfully victims of anti-social behaviour are affected. Unless you have suffered yourself or have spoken to people who have been through that totally debilitating experience, it can be hard to understand how that constant, unrelenting pressure of harassment, intimidating behaviour or excessive noise can leave people terrified of living in their own homes and very distressed. I remember one lady who I spoke to at great length on many occasions. She was so distressed by what some might regard as kids mucking around, but very seriously so, that she was terrified to live in her own home. We are now seeing ASBOs being more appropriately used and we have seen a reduction, as we have heard, in their breaches.
We have also heard that there can be injunctions for anti-social behaviour under housing legislation and that the test of causing nuisance and annoyance already exists, but that is in very limited and specific circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made that very clear in her comments. Anti-social behaviour injunctions were brought in in 2003 and have been used sensibly and wisely since then. Today, we have all had correspondence from housing associations—in many cases, very similar letters—explaining why they want to retain the power they have and explaining the benefits they have been able to bring to their tenants, in many cases, very vulnerable tenants, because of those powers. Their letters highlight a problem referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, a few moments ago, and by others; a problem which the Government have created by trying to rationalise the number of orders, procedures and interventions that can be taken against anti-social behaviour. Clearly, housing associations with very vulnerable tenants welcome the powers they have, but these are not appropriate for every single case of anti-social behaviour. We are not against all forms of injunctions but we are against making this test—on the balance of probability, for nuisance and annoyance—the test that should be applied in all cases where somebody complains about something that they consider to be anti-social behaviour.
In some cases there has been a misunderstanding that only small areas are covered; perhaps only social housing estates or council estates. In fact, anti-social behaviour, and certainly the test that the Government wish to apply, of nuisance or annoyance, is much wider spread than that. In many cases, injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance can involve similar and indeed wider matters than those raised in current ASBO applications. They can address relatively minor issues involving nuisance neighbours and minor disorder. Because as an order an ASBO can represent a serious slight upon the reputation of a respondent, as well as carrying serious consequences for breach, it is completely inappropriate for something of that seriousness to have a lower standard of proof to apply.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think that I can be very brief at this point. I have sat in the noble Lord’s place, albeit in the other place, and one thing he will have in his file is a note on the amendment saying, “Resist”. May I tempt him not to on some occasions? Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seems eminently sensible and reasonable. It actually seeks to put some necessary clarification in the Bill. The Minister said he would look very sympathetically, and I hope he will, at Amendment 20GA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. There is a serious issue about people with learning disabilities. It does not mean that they are not capable of causing distress through anti-social behaviour, but the measures by which it can be addressed and dealt with have to take into account any special measures and any learning disabilities that an individual may have. I hope that the Minister can look favourably on both those amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I may be about to surprise the noble Baroness. Well, to some degree—modestly surprise her. With these amendments we return once again to the issue of the test. I understand the concerns that noble Lords have articulated. Some of the arguments are returning to this issue and it is very important that we debate them and get them clear in our minds. I shall start with Amendment 20GA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
This amendment raises the important issue of the proper considerations which must be considered in applications for IPNAs under Part 1 against respondents with learning disabilities. The amendment may not be necessary, because I have already spoken at length about the test for the injunction and the two limbs of the injunction, but I reiterate that, in deciding whether to grant an injunction, the court will consider whether it is fair, reasonable and proportionate to do so. That is within the terms under which a court would consider any injunction. In doing so, the court will be aware of its obligations to prevent discrimination against any respondent and to ensure that a respondent’s human rights are respected. Of course, the court will also ensure that the respondent is capable of complying with the terms of the injunction—indeed, that is specifically mentioned in the guidance. If the noble Lord will look at that section he will find that it is referred to. It is all part of the “just and convenient” part of the test which goes along with the whole business of nuisance and annoyance as being a joint, two-limbed test.
Returning to Amendment 20B, my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that the Housing Act refers to “a nuisance”, not simply “nuisance”. I can reassure her that the test for the new injunction is based on that used for anti-social behaviour injunctions in the 1996 Act. No difference is intended but one of the two usages had to be used in this case to provide that continuity. Similarly, in respect of Amendment 20C, the use of the term “annoyance” in addition to “nuisance” also derives from the Housing Act 1996. The two terms will take their ordinary meaning. The dictionary definitions we have heard from my noble friend Lord Greaves are very interesting, but there is a meaning in law, by precedent, which is clear to the courts and, indeed, the Law Society has made clear that it welcomes that definition. They are commonly used together and may cover a broader range of behaviours than either would alone. We see the benefit in retaining the familiar test that includes both; that was mentioned in previous debates.
My noble friends Lord Faulks, Lady Hamwee and Lady Berridge, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, all made similar points about Amendments 20 and 20H, as, indeed, did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Faulks was, of course, one of those recommended by the JCHR. Both amendments seek to add an explicit test of reasonableness to the threshold for making an injunction. The Government are aware of the concerns about the test for the injunction under Part 1 and I listened carefully to those concerns expressed at Second Reading and again today. I agree that it is important that the courts consider reasonableness, fairness and proportionality in deciding applications for injunctions to prevent nuisance or annoyance. The courts will consider these factors as a matter of course as part of the second limb of the test—that it is just and convenient to grant an injunction—as I said in my answer to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. However, the courts will be aware of their obligation to discharge their functions compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, an exercise which requires a consideration of necessity and proportionality. However, we will want to consider whether we have done everything necessary to ensure that this is so with the drafting of Clause 1.
That is not to say that we necessarily agree with the amendments as they are drafted. Both would revise the “nuisance or annoyance” test, and I have made it clear that we see the merit in keeping a test that is already familiar to the courts. However, we want to consider whether we can make it clearer in the legislation that the courts must be satisfied that it is reasonable to issue an injunction under Part 1. This is what the amendments seek to achieve and, in that sense, we are not very far apart on this issue, so I will reflect carefully on Amendments 20 and 20H in advance of Report.
In conclusion, the test for the new injunction is tried and tested, it has a long pedigree and I see no evidence that it has given rise to the difficulties that a number of noble Lords have suggested in this and previous debates. The previous Administration sought to recast and strengthen the “nuisance or annoyance” test for an anti-social behaviour injunction back in 2003. This House endorsed that strengthening and on this issue, as I have said before, I am happy to endorse the position then taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The police, local authorities and others will not act lightly in seeking an injunction. They and the courts must exercise such powers in a reasonable, fair and proportionate manner. As I have said, I am ready to take away Amendments 20 and 20H and explore, without commitment, whether it would be appropriate to introduce into the test an explicit reference to reasonableness. That point aside, for the sake of the victims of anti-social behaviour, who must be at the forefront of our deliberations on the Bill, I would be loath to weaken the effectiveness of the new injunction. I have no doubt that we will return to this matter on Report. I thank noble Lords for speaking to their amendments and I hope that they will be content not to press them.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister and I have just made a fleeting appearance at the reception and dinner for the Police Service Parliamentary Scheme. It was a cameo appearance, at least as far as the Minister was concerned, as he had a speaking role. In his remarks he pointed out—I would not say with glee—that we had now completed our consideration of Clause 1 of this Bill. No doubt he is looking forward to the other 160 clauses. He did suggest that we might try to pick up speed. That was no doubt aimed at me as I was sitting directly in front of him.
This amendment, the first on Clause 2, relates to the section of the Bill that says that requirements under these injunctions “must”—I stress the word—
“specify the person who is to be responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement. The person may be an individual or an organisation”.
The purpose of this amendment is to try to flesh out what needs to be done and what the court should be satisfied about before it designates a person, either an individual or an organisation, to be responsible for the compliance with the requirements of the injunction.
Obviously the first thing is to specify the persons concerned. It would be useful for the Minister to give us a little bit more insight into the range of persons he thinks this provision will apply to. There is obviously a world of difference between that person being, for example, the parent or guardian of a young person who is accused of being responsible for anti-social behaviour and the responsible person being the local police force, the local authority or the local probation service. It would be useful to understand what the balance is expected to be between those sorts of requirements as far as the Bill is concerned.
The substance of the amendment is that before the court requires somebody to be responsible for compliance, it must be satisfied that the requirement itself is suitable and capable of being enforced, and it is reasonable for the person charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the requirements are met to take on that responsibility. But if we consider the circumstances of a parent—an individual charged with this responsibility—that may be onerous. If they are a parent, they may feel obligated to take it on, but it may be impractical. If the underlying problem is that the parent cannot control their near-adult children, what is the point of this? Is it in fact suitable, appropriate, and reasonable for that person to take on that responsibility?
If it is a local authority, probation service, housing authority or the local police service, how reasonable is it? Is the court going to hear evidence as to whether or not they will be able to enforce the requirement? Do they have the resources to enforce the requirement?
Earlier today, I was talking to someone who has been advising me on the Bill. As it happens, they witnessed a crime a few days ago. They went along to the station with another witness to report the crime. When they got to the police station they were told that, unfortunately, the police service does not have the capacity to take two witness statements at once because of the number of officers on duty at the time. If that is the situation, how confident can we be in the current financial situation that the police service will have the resources to be responsible for enforcing some of these requirements? If it is not the police service it could be local authorities, which are facing reductions in their budgets of 30% or 40%. Where will they find the resources to manage this? These issues need to be addressed.
The purpose of the amendment is to say that the court needs to be satisfied about these things. One of the great concerns about the ASBO regime was the number of breaches, but it would be very silly if we created a new system that would result in a series of breaches simply because the people charged with ensuring compliance do not have the resources, the ability or the facilities to make sure that enforcement is achieved.
I am sure that the Minister will be able to help me with something else. I have searched through the Bill and cannot find what is intended to be the consequence for the person designated under Clause 2 if they fail to ensure compliance with the requirements of the injunction. Will they themselves be in contempt of court? Does that mean that chief officers of police will be subject to two years’ imprisonment because they have failed to achieve compliance? What is the requirement? If there are no penalties for failing to achieve compliance, what is the point of this? Again, I would be grateful for the Minister to enlighten us as to precisely what will happen in the event of the person who the court “must designate”, in the words of the Bill, to ensure compliance if they fail to do so either through wilful neglect, because they do not have the resources to do so or perhaps because it is impossible to enforce compliance because the individual is beyond those sorts of controls. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 20J, 22F and 96 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser. It is a slightly strange grouping. They do not hang together that well, but I hope I can help my noble friend Lord Harris on the points that we are seeking to address.
In principle we welcome the addition of positive requirements. There is no question about that. We introduced the concept, partly through individual support orders. The submissions that were made in the other place in the committee’s evidence sessions and the correspondence that we have received from local authorities and the police show that the point is not dissimilar to that made by my noble friend Lord Harris. It provides some clarification on how the requirements will be funded.
I took the opportunity, in the huge avalanche of a rainforest of paper that we have on the Bill, to see what the impact assessment said on the costs. Basically, every cost is caveated; the impact assessment is unable to make an estimate. Not all costs could be quantified and no benefits from reduced anti-social behaviour could be quantified. The costs took no account of the gains and losses. The Local Government Association is concerned that,
“given that use of positive requirements is predicted to impose an additional financial burden on councils, the overall estimates that the injunctions will be cheaper to use than ASBOs may not be right, and councils may be placed under an additional financial burden”.
The Association of Chief Police Officers gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee; it stated its concerns about agencies’ capacity and capability to deliver this support in difficult economic times, and said that that had to be considered. I was taken aback by the remarks in Committee in the other place of the Minister, Jeremy Browne. He said that it was important to establish how possible clients would be funded at the point of injunction being issued in the court. He did not agree that individual organisations should be responsible for supervising the compliance should be liable for the costs. He said,
“to take it literally momentarily, where the local authority, for example, applied for an injunction that was to include attendance at a drug rehabilitation course, the teacher delivering that course could be put forward to supervise compliance. Although the teacher would be best placed to monitor attendance and engagement with the course, it would not be right for the teacher, or school or college, to cover the costs of the course. Instead, we could expect the local authority, as the applicant, to cover those costs”.
But he added:
“That is because the downstream benefits of changing the perpetrator’s behaviour fall to them and other agencies, such as the police”.—[Official Report, Commons, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 25/6/13; col. 172.]
Is the Minister saying that if we can change the behaviour of somebody who is involved in drugs and crime in some way, and the interventions for positive requirements reduce that offending behaviour, the police or the local authority saves money? It was as if they incurred the costs. We know that early intervention reaps rewards further down the line, but that does not help those bodies pay for the costs at a time when the Minister is imposing positive requirements on the authority.
I am interested to know what assessment the Government have made on the savings that have been made. I understand from the impact assessment that they are unable to quantify the costs, but the Minister in the other place is saying that they will save money, so they should spend the money in the first place. That does not seem to be a sensible way to pursue legislation such as this.
I am also curious to know whether any assessment has been made of the impact that having to meet those costs will have on the imposition of requirements. If a local authority or the police say that we cannot afford to do X, Y or Z, or, if we could, we cannot afford to monitor it, there is little point in imposing those requirements if there is no funding to pay for them.
It is highly likely that one of the drivers for positive requirements will be the costs involved. It is a bit of a Catch-22 situation if the usefulness of the positive measures is limited by the available funding and quality services to meet those needs. That could create a postcode lottery, because the position could differ across areas of the country. We all know that there are some vagaries in the criminal justice system, but the position for somebody in Manchester could be completely different from that for somebody in Basingstoke or Basildon, for example. That causes enormous concern. If the needs of the person on whom the requirement is being put are being met, that is fine, but the danger is that those needs will not be met because the funding is not available.
Lord Greaves (LD)
The noble Baroness has made some extremely interesting points. I was with her for quite a long time. Will she tell us the equivalent cost for pursuing an ASBO? Why does she think that an IPNA that is breached and results in imprisonment is actually weaker than an ASBO?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The reason why an IPNA is weaker is because it is not an automatic criminal matter if it is breached. That is what makes it weaker. It is quite right that there is a higher test for bringing in an ASBO in the first place. It is not just a case of annoyance or nuisance, but harassment, harm or distress and if an ASBO is breached then it is automatically a criminal matter. It is not with an IPNA. That is why it is a weaker remedy for those suffering from severe anti-social behaviour.
Lord Greaves
Does the noble Baroness have the answer to my question about the cost of an ASBO? My understanding is that it is comparable, but I may be wrong. If I were to breach an ASBO and ended up in prison, or if I were to breach an IPNA and ended up in prison, would my experience in prison be much different?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I just hope that that never happens to the noble Lord. I am sure that he would never give this House any cause to accuse him of nuisance or annoyance and therefore breach his IPNA. Actually, it would make a difference. If somebody breaches their IPNA and it goes to the full conclusion of being taken to court and their receiving a custodial sentence, the level at which they have breached is very low. With an ASBO, there is a much higher threshold. In terms of costs, my information is from the police, who say that it is a more complex process to pursue breach of an IPNA than it is with the automatic breach of an ASBO. We also see the number of breaches of ASBOs, because of their seriousness, coming down. That is why the police indicate to us that they think that there are significantly greater costs in dealing with a breach of an IPNA.
I do not know if the noble Lord had the opportunity to read the reports in the other place of the evidence-taking sessions before the clauses were debated. Gavin Thomas, who is the vice-president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, said,
“there is a cost because we have to have people to pull together the case, take it to court and enforce it, so there is a cost”.—[Official Report, Commons, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, 18/6/13; col. 9.]
In written evidence to the Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who spoke eloquently at Second Reading, said that she was concerned,
“that the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance could potentially add to the workload of front line officers because of their lack of knowledge of civil law”.
That is a matter that has been raised by the police as well.
We hear quite horrific tales of anti-social behaviour. We should be under no illusion that it is just nuisance and annoyance on the odd occasion; there are some serious cases. As a former Member of the other place, I dealt with constituents. In one case, a man could no longer sleep in his home, another would sleep on the kitchen floor; somebody else was too frightened to go to sleep. Those were ongoing cases.
In some cases, enforcement was the problem, but we need to have the right tools. The Government are seeking in the legislation to reduce the number of tools available to those taking action and then to put in place additional costs, which will make action difficult to enforce. I am asking the Minister for an explanation of why, when ASBOs are becoming more effective, are working and have a value, they are being reduced.
The Minister is shaking his head at me, but there is a great deal of difference between somebody causing nuisance and annoyance and somebody causing harm, distress and harassment. They are very different and there are times when different measures are appropriate. So far, I do not think that the noble Lord has satisfied people in your Lordships’ House, on amendments to other clauses or on this one, as to why the Government are seeking to deal with just annoyance and nuisance while losing the measure of an ASBO, which has served us well. It is not perfect, and we are happy to see changes to it, but the changes which the Government propose do not address the problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I should begin by refuting the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about our focus on IPNAs at the expense of other measures. She has admitted that there are six measures involved in anti-social behaviour prevention and control, so the IPNA is one part of a suite of measures in the Bill. She makes no mention of the criminal behaviour order, which clearly provides much of the cover which was given by the ASBO.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord is wrong. My second amendment refers to criminal behaviour orders and I spoke to those in the course of my speech. I am surprised that he says I did not mention criminal behaviour orders when I tabled a whole amendment on them.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise for intervening on the Minister, but I wonder if he thinks he has answered the question that I asked about costs. If he does, his response was completely inadequate. I asked what assessment had been made of the costs and quoted the impact assessment, and I asked whether the Government had considered whether or not the imposition of positive requirements would be related to the funds available. The Minister has said that these will be made and funded locally, and that he makes no apologies for local government deciding how they are funded. If there are additional costs on local government, surely the Minister and the Government should have some understanding of what those costs are going to be. He may be coming to the point about what guidance will be issued, but I think that he said that there would be no guidance on what measures could be introduced.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I was coming to that point, but I shall just deal with the cost element. The impact assessment, as the noble Baroness rightly says, did not hazard a guesstimate of that figure; in many ways it would have been a meaningless guess because we cannot know all the facts. We cannot know the extent to which local organisations, local authorities and voluntary organisations are already participating in much of that activity which is designed to help young people, or indeed older people, who are in difficulties. Much of the voluntary sector is dealing with this work. The whole point of the framework of the IPNA is that it provides a framework in which groups such as this can operate effectively. We are certain that there will be savings as well as additional costs in the reduction of anti-social behaviour that is going to follow from these measures. I will continue, if I may, because the noble Baroness wanted to know about the guidance.
The emphasis on empowering front-line professionals and giving them the flexibility to respond to individual needs is the reason why we have not provided detailed guidance on this point. That said, we have published draft guidance for front-line practitioners where we have included a steer on positive requirements and issues that local practitioners might like to consider. Pages 25 and 32 of the draft guidance provide examples of the sort of positive requirements that might be possible. We have deliberately not set out to provide an exhaustive list, as we do not want to produce a limited menu. Instead, we want to allow local practitioners, who are best placed to judge what positive requirements are likely to have the greatest positive impact on an individual, to remain unfettered in their use of positive requirements and allow for new and innovative interventions to be developed.
As I said, this is a draft document and if further, more detailed guidance would help front-line practitioners we can look at this again as we work to produce a final version. If noble Lords feel they can contribute to producing the final document, they are, as I said earlier, most welcome to do so. It is a testament to our commitment that we have published draft guidance. I have stood at the Dispatch Box and had to talk about guidance which is to come, which may be part and parcel of the implementation of legislation, without having the document in front of me. In this Bill, we are fortunate: we have the draft guidance on which we can base our discussions. We intend to publish this on a non-statutory basis, but I am quite prepared to acknowledge that we are ready to consider whether our commitment to produce such guidance should be reflected in the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening, but I want to clarify, to make sure that I have not misunderstood what he said. Is he saying that, because they cannot quantify the costs at the moment, the Government do not know what those costs will be? Will he give an assurance that the Government will meet those costs or is he saying there will be no contribution from the Government to any additional costs incurred by local authorities in IPNAs or criminal behaviour orders?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can give the noble Baroness some sort of figures on the comparative costs. It has been suggested that it will cost £1,500 to pursue proceedings for breach of an IPNA and that was quoted. However, the National Audit Office reported in 2006 that the average cost of prosecution for breach of an ASBO was around £1,500. So, if the figure for pursuing a breach of Part 1 is correct, it will be no more expensive. In addition, the new injunction will be quicker to obtain than a stand-alone ASBO. The National Audit Office found the average cost of obtaining a stand-alone ASBO was about £3,100, compared with a cost of £1,600 for one of the existing injunctions which, like the new injunction, uses the civil standard of proof. The lower test and lower standard of proof will speed up the evidence-gathering process for injunctions and enable—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will finish what I am saying, if I may. I will not sit down before the noble Baroness has a chance to intervene. The lower test and lower standard of proof will speed up the evidence-gathering process for injunctions, enabling agencies to act more speedily in stopping further harm to victims.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to come back on him, because he misunderstood. I was asking about the costs and the funding of positive requirements. Although I mentioned the cost of proceeding with the breach of an IPNA, that was not the point I raised when I intervened on the noble Lord. He must have had an earlier note. I am asking if I had understood his point about the cost of positive requirements and whether the Government would make any contribution, bearing in mind the additional burdens doctrine. Was he saying that there will be no additional costs in pursuing positive requirements?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The Bill makes no provision for the funding of costs.
Lord Flight
I would like to respond to that. Yes, there are problems; persistent begging is a very hard thing to deal with. I think that the Westminster argument is that its present tools include a tool which has had some success; it is concerned that the new arrangements, because of the double doing, would be less useful.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Flight, had to say in this debate. I noticed at the beginning that he was not 100% convinced that he had the right words in the amendment. That is less important in Committee than the intent of what he is seeking to do. Likewise, I was sorry not to get to the briefing last week with Councillor Aiken, but she also wrote to me. I was very struck by the comments she made in her letter. I do not think it is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made that everything is perfect now. Her concern is that there are serious problems and she would be quite happy to see improvements in the legislation to help the council address the issues it is facing. The fear is that the new legislation will weaken its ability. The noble Lord is indicating that I am correct in my understanding of her views.
Councillor Aiken, who, I understand, is the cabinet member for community protection, is probably at the sharp end of this more than any of us in your Lordships’ House are in dealing with these matters. She says:
“While I recognise that the current legislation to deal with anti-social behaviour may require review”;
I think that all of us would accept that improvements can always be made. She goes on to say:
“It is therefore worrying that a Government committed to ensuring people feel safe in their homes and communities and are intent upon freeing up crime fighting capacity, is instead seeking to pass legislation which will weaken local power to protect communities and increase bureaucratic process around enforcement”.
It takes a lot for a councillor to be writing to Ministers and Members of your Lordships’ House with those kinds of comments, when all they are seeking to do is improve their position.
My impression from her letter, as well as information which I have looked for myself, is that the council is being pretty effective in tackling this very serious problem, and there may be a case that more tools are needed to assist them in doing so. They have some suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, suggested meeting councillors to listen to their concerns. I think that they would be very pleased to know whether their approach and their tackling of this issue would be improved by the Government’s proposals and whether their fears could be allayed. Clearly, there cannot be a situation whereby a council dealing with a serious problem affecting our capital city, and, presumably, a number of other cities, is worried that it is going to lose the capacity to deal with something that has to be addressed and which causes great concern to local residents.
I hope that the Minister or his colleagues can undertake to have a meeting with the council. That would be a sensible way forward and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Flight, would report back on Report. He mentioned aggressive begging, and there are other kinds of aggressive behaviour, including harassment, that cause great distress to residents and visitors. I hope that the noble Lord will accommodate the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is a brief amendment to probe why the Environment Agency and its Welsh equivalent, the Natural Resources Body for Wales, are on the list in Clause 4(1). I will talk about the Environment Agency, which is the one I know most about. Surely the whole question of anti-social behaviour is essentially local while the Environment Agency is a national body, organised regionally. If, within the purpose of the new injunction system, guidance will be given to people to regard injunctions as the last resort and start with local preventive measures such as teams on the ground, working directly with adults and children who are engaging in anti-social behaviour, I do not understand what resources the Environment Agency will have for that work.
If injunctions are to have positive requirements attached to them then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has been explaining, that will require resources: having people on the ground and systems to support, monitor and manage people. I do not understand what resources the Environment Agency has for that. Bodies such as the Environment Agency may well have a role to play in working with other authorities but I do not understand why it requires the ability to apply for injunctions itself, when it seems that it will not have the ability to manage those injunctions or follow them up.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord but he referred to the Natural Resources Body for Wales. I wonder whether he has spoken to the Welsh Government, because they have made it clear that they object to this Bill. For any part of the Bill to be enacted in Wales, there would need to be a legislative consent Motion in the Welsh Assembly, which seems very unlikely at this stage.
Lord Greaves
I am sorry, but I did not quite get that. Is the noble Baroness saying that the Welsh Assembly is in favour of this or not?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
No. The Welsh Assembly is not in favour of the Bill and it would need a legislative consent Motion to be passed for it to be in force in Wales.
Lord Greaves
I am very grateful for that additional information, which is entirely different from anything that was within my ken or understanding. That is an interesting point but I only included the Welsh body since it made up the set. However, I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of why he thinks that the Environment Agency not just needs these powers, since other bodies can work with it and do the work, but why it is capable—why it has the resources and competence—to manage injunctions and the people whom they will be served upon. I beg to move.
“( ) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State shall provide guidance on the length of time that relevant courts will take to reach decisions on whether or not to issue warrants under this section.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I think I can move this amendment fairly briefly. It concerns applications made for the issue of an arrest warrant for the breach of an IPNA. One of the things that strike us when we look through the clauses is that there is no timescale from the time when the application is made for an arrest warrant to when it would be issued or the application rejected—the Bill is completely silent on that issue. My attention was drawn to this by the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, when it reported on delays in county courts, saying:
“We heard that this was likely to severely slow down the process for dealing with ASB”,
and the committee said how concerned it was. Local authorities have also expressed concern about delays in the county court system. In Clause 9(2), it seems that most of the applications would be to a county court; the only time it would go to a magistrates’ court would be if it was a youth court that had granted the IPNA. In other cases it would be a county court, and in some cases the High Court. If there were delays in the county court system, that would be a serious blow to the idea of moving swiftly—one of the major reasons that the Minister has given for having IPNAs rather than anti-social behaviour orders—in the introduction of these new injunctions.
There is another point that is not covered by the amendment but is also relevant to this. All the legislation should be subject to post-legislative review after five years. That seems quite a lengthy time on an issue like this where, if there is a problem, it will have to be dealt with much more quickly than waiting five years to see if there is in fact a problem. With issues of anti-social behaviour rising so high in public concern—and indeed in the Government’s concern, given the Bill before us—it would not be reasonable if we passed legislation but were then not able to enact it because of the delays that are currently being seen in the county courts.
The proposal to the Minister is that we look at this issue first and the Government make an assessment of, and issue guidance on, how long it should take for a county court from the moment it gets an application for an arrest warrant for a breach of an IPNA to when that court has to make a decision. If the Government could issue that beforehand, that obviously would speed up justice, which I understand is the purpose of this measure. That fairly briefly sums up and describes why we are putting the amendment forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendment 21C in this group. It is extraordinarily inelegantly drafted, but I hope that the Minister is aware of my concerns that lie behind it. Where a respondent has certain requirements imposed on him as part of the IPNA and these have rehabilitative or therapeutic aspects—indeed, in many cases one would hope that they did—the further proceedings should not be taken in such a way as to prejudice the benefit of those requirements. My straightforward question—I was going to say “simple” question, but it might not be quite that simple—is to ask for some assurance from the Minister that will help to allay that concern.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a number of detailed questions. If he does not mind, I will look at the record and write to him, as I do not have the briefing here to be able to reply in detail to all that he wishes to know.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He did not fully address a couple of questions in the points that I made. One of the issues was about delays in county courts. I did not say that county courts were facing delays—that came from local government, the police and the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place. The other point I raised was that, if he is not prepared to consider guidance prior to this being introduced to ensure that county courts are able to deal with these matters in a timely way, will he agree to consider and bring back to your Lordships’ House at Report a statement on whether, rather than having guidance beforehand, it is possible to truncate the normal five-year review period to see whether it is working? This issue should be reviewed after one year to see whether there are delays in the county court system which slow down the process of justice, or whether, as the Minister said, everything is working fine and there is no problem.
The delays at the moment are occurring for a number of reasons—they are under pressure to reduce staffing in county courts, and my noble friend Lord Beecham also raised some of the issues. I also understand that there are more litigants in person because of the reduction of eligibility for civil legal aid. Both those issues add to the delays in the system. We do not need to have a process whereby people suffer anti-social behaviour when someone has breached their IPNA and then there is a lengthy delay while they wait for the courts to assess whether an arrest warrant can be issued. Therefore, if the Minister rejects out of hand the issue of guidance beforehand, will he agree to look at truncating the review period and review how it is working after a year rather than five years?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will take a look at the record and if I feel that it will be productive and I can add to the position they have stated I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness. I cannot commit to a particular timeframe, but if there is evidence of a problem to which the noble Baroness is able to draw my attention, I will deal with it.
Lord Beecham
The noble Lord has just reminded me that I really ought to have declared an interest. I am still a solicitor, not so much practising but an unpaid consultant in the firm for which I used to act. I am only sorry that a particular noble Baroness is not in the Chamber because I used to appear before her father in the county court when he was sitting as a district registrar—an experience not to be recommended, I have to say, to those who followed me.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw. I understand the noble Lord is going to write to me about the issue we raised.
EU: Free Movement of Labour
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I accept that the noble Lord is quite right in saying that free movement was one of the founding principles of the European Union, and we in this Government support it. Although the vast majority of individuals coming to the UK reside here lawfully and make a positive contribution to our society, a small minority abuse these rights by either becoming a burden on their local communities or turning to crime.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in each answer the Minister has spoken of abuse of the system. Does he accept that enforcement of the national minimum wage helps to prevent bad employers undercutting the wage of local workers by not allowing them to exploit foreign workers on lower wages? We know that that is a real problem but only two prosecutions have been brought since this Government took office. To help tackle this issue, will the Minister and the Government support us by giving local councils the power to enforce the national minimum wage and bring their own prosecutions?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness has expanded the Question somewhat into Labour policy and that is not necessarily something on which I can support her. However, I reaffirm the Government’s support for the national minimum wage. Indeed, it has never been part of our policy to do other than to maintain a national minimum wage, and we do so regularly.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I was almost too keen to respond to the Minister on that point.
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the measures in the Bill in such detail. It is a long, detailed Bill of 14 parts. A Home Office Bill often seems to me to be a bit like the old-fashioned Sunday afternoon drive. You head off in one direction, take various twists and turns, never knowing quite where you are going to end up, but inevitably at some point it is down a cul-de-sac. In that regard, the Bill does not disappoint.
It was introduced into the other place with 142 clauses and seven schedules, amounting to 148 pages. It has already grown to 161 clauses and nine schedules covering 200 pages. After reading through the Commons Official Report on the Bill, I believe it is a credit to your Lordships’ House that the other place puts such great value on our scrutiny role. From all sides of the other place there were genuine concerns that debates had been curtailed by the Government and that inadequate consideration had been given to a number of issues, especially when new government amendments and clauses were tabled during the passage of the Bill but were not fully considered. By Report stage, there were 89 pages of new amendments, and clearly not enough time was allowed for full debates on each of them.
There are parts of the Bill we welcome but there are also parts which raise great concerns, sometimes because we feel that they do not go far enough in addressing the issues or they weaken existing measures. There are also omissions, but we will be backing new clauses to tackle the problems that affect public safety and security. For example, it seems strange that such a wide-ranging Bill has no measures to tackle the issue of drugs and so-called legal highs when clearly existing measures are not working. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent attacks on those working in public-facing roles.
Parts 1 to 6 on anti-social behaviour are the only parts of the Bill that received pre-legislative scrutiny, with first a White Paper and then a draft Bill scrutinised by the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place. I should perhaps confess at this point that my response to anti-social behaviour is influenced by my 13 years as a constituency Member of Parliament. There are relatively few cases of very serious anti-social behaviour but it cannot be seen as just low-level incidents involving noisy neighbours or naughty kids. At its worst, it is the ongoing aggravating, at times terrorising, behaviour that grinds individuals down to the point of despair and fear of even being in their own homes. That has to continue to be tackled and prevented. Action must be proportionate and effective and we must do our best to ensure that any measures have a preventive element.
The Government have often said that they oppose the one-size-fits-all approach and yet they are reducing the measures available to tackle anti-social behaviour. I am not necessarily against streamlining but I feel uncomfortable with the position of having to squeeze a number of different kinds of problems into fewer solutions. I am sure the Minister will hear from other noble Lords of their concerns about the IPNA—an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance—which replaces a number of measures with a civil injunction. As such, it has a weaker threshold and does not have an automatic criminal sanction.
For an ASBO to be issued it had to be considered necessary to protect members of the public from harassment, alarm or distress. The new IPNA can be issued where behaviour is,
“capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
The court has only to be convinced that this would be just and convenient on the balance of probabilities. That is a low-level test.
There are also concerns about the criminal behaviour order, which can be issued on conviction of a relevant offence, as the Minister said, and a breach of that order is in itself a criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. I do not know whether noble Lords heard this week, as I did, an interview on Radio 4 with a member of a police force. I do not know whether he was from ACPO—I think he was—but he was speaking about the level of proof required for IPNAs and CBOs and whether it was appropriate. His comment was that the judge would still have to apply the test of reasonableness. That is one of the issues that worry me in a number of places in the Bill. If we do not have clarity it becomes a matter for the courts to resolve. If already the backstop is that we will have to rely on a judge or magistrate to test the reasonableness of new legislation, then your Lordships’ House must consider whether the legislation is appropriate. Surely, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported,
“the Government should make the appropriate standard of proof clear on the face of the Bill”.
I have two further concerns that we will probe further in Committee. The Government have long argued against ASBOs as being ineffective. I am not particularly wedded to any specific tool in tackling this problem—I would have been happy to have had meaningful discussions on effectiveness—but we could find ourselves in the position of having more IPNAs because of the weaker test, with less impact because of the weaker sanctions.
Owing to the time constraints I will not have time in my opening comments to address all the issues we will wish to pursue in Parts 1 to 6 on anti-social behaviour, but we will wish to probe further, including on the issues of tenancies and evictions, dispersal and other powers.
We welcome action on dangerous dogs and appreciate that the Government will be tabling new amendments relating to increased penalties, as promised in the later stages of consideration in the other place. However, I am not convinced that these measures fully address all the concerns that have been raised or would have prevented or dealt appropriately with some of the more serious cases we have all read and heard about.
On firearms, I am very disappointed with the inadequacy of the Government’s proposals, which do not address the serious problems. No one has the right to own a gun—it is a privilege—and those who do so have a duty to behave responsibly, and the vast majority do. However, noble Lords will know of cases. I refer specifically to the murder of Susan McGoldrick. Ms McGoldrick, her sister, Alison Turnbull, and her niece, Tanya, were murdered by Susan McGoldrick’s partner, Michael Atherton. Mr Atherton had the gun legally and yet he had a history of domestic violence and abuse.
The Government’s new guidance is welcome and I readily accept that, even with the most watertight legislation, not every abuse or tragedy can be prevented. However, we have a duty to do our best to strengthen the law and to do all we reasonably can to prevent further such tragedies. We will want to examine the presumption of refusal of licences in circumstances where there is evidence of a history of mental illness, domestic violence or drug abuse. We will also want to examine with the Minister whether the police are adequately resourced to undertake the checks and assessments required. This may also be an opportunity to examine the case put forward by the Home Affairs Select Committee nearly three years ago to bring together all the 34 difference pieces of legislation relating to firearms.
My noble friend Lady Thornton will be speaking to Parts 9 and 10 of the Bill on protection from sexual harm and forced marriage. We welcome the measures to tackle this issue. Action to improve the protection of vulnerable children at risk of sexual harm is crucial and we shall seek clarity about how these measures will apply to under 18s and probe further how they will be supported.
Forced marriage is a terrible violation and can destroy people’s lives. Effective support for victims and prevention through education and work in the communities concerned are essential. We will ask the Minister whether he considers that the level of the resources available is adequate for the work. We have concerns about such support, particularly in the light of cuts to legal aid. We believe it is right to have a discussion to make clear the case for criminalisation and to listen to all the different views expressed.
Part 11 deals with what the Government call “Policing etc”. I am always slightly nervous about the “etc” as it can allow anything that is almost relevant to be dumped in. I hope we see no more amendments under the heading of “etc”.
We support a College of Policing, although there is a discussion to be had around police standards and the management and accountability of covert operations. We accept that in many cases undercover police operations are vital in the fight against serious and organised crime and terrorism. We recognise the bravery and dedication of the police officers involved. But—and this is a serious “but”—such operations must be subject to the highest ethical and operational standards. We are all aware of those cases where, in the reasonable judgment of most of us in your Lordships’ House and outside, such standards have not been met. That has caused enormous and justified distress to those affected. Those who have been inappropriately and wrongly targeted by such operations have really suffered, including my noble friend Lady Lawrence in the shocking case that showed an appalling lack of judgment on the part of the authorities responsible. There are also alarming cases where undercover officers have instigated sexual relationships, fathered children, and then abandoned and discarded their new families along with their undercover identity. That is wrong. Our view is that any such operations need greater oversight and better accountability. They must be carried out only when they are deemed necessary, and their use must be proportionate and sensitive. The Minister in the other place said that enhanced oversight would be undertaken by secondary legislation. However, the noble Lord will know the limits that places on your Lordships’ House and further discussion on this issue is essential.
It is welcome that the Government have agreed with us that the IPCC should also cover private companies. We look forward to further discussions on the range of policing issues in the Bill. This part of the Bill also proposes changes to the Terrorism Act, about which the Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed reservations. It said that,
“the legal framework should distinguish between powers which can be exercised without reasonable suspicion, such as the power to stop, question, request documentation … and more intrusive powers such as detention, strip searching”,
and,
“the taking of biometric samples”.
Clearly, on these issues, it would be right for the Government to explain fully why they consider such proposals justified.
Extradition is a sensitive issue and the amendments now in Part 12 were tabled late in the day at the end of Committee stage in the Commons. I look forward to further debate and the expertise of your Lordships’ House on this issue.
I know that the Joint Committee welcomes the proportionality test. However, we remain concerned that the Government are seeking to remove the automatic right of appeal for people being extradited from the UK. It would mean that an individual could appeal only with the permission of the High Court.
My noble friend Lord Beecham will speak to the issues in Part 13, but it might be helpful if I briefly outline our position. We are very concerned about the proposals in which the Government seek to redefine the compensation test, when an individual has been convicted of an offence but has then been deemed in law to have been wrongly convicted. The Government’s proposals would limit this to,
“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”.
I am not a lawyer, but we seem to have moved a long way from being found not guilty to having to prove innocence. We have heard the Government's explanations for this and are not convinced. We will therefore seek to amend this clause.
I regret that this is a long speech, but I hope that I have conveyed to your Lordships’ House something of the way in which we will be approaching this Bill. The issues are all serious and, in many cases, difficult, and I know that the Bill will benefit from your Lordships’ scrutiny. That was recognised in the other place by Members on all sides of the House. The Government have to accept that they cannot simply legislate to try to cut crime and anti-social behaviour when they take other decisions that make it harder to tackle these problems. There is great inconsistency in the Government bringing in new legislation that they say will tackle crime and then taking other actions that do the opposite. The issues of the numbers of police and PCSOs and the huge 60% cuts to community safety budgets come to mind. Although we have seen crime reduced, we are also seeing convictions coming down and anti-social behaviour reports increasing.
There are other examples of such actions. In my local authority area in Essex, cuts to its budget mean that it is going to switch off all the street lights every night, apart from those on some main routes. Clearly, that will have an effect on people’s attitudes and fear of crime. Local communities value CCTV as a crime prevention measure, but the Government tie up those cameras with so much red tape that it will cost between £14 million and £30 million to comply, which I suspect will lead to a reduction in CCTV. My noble friend Lord Harris has written about the same concerns regarding the DCLG’s approach to the crime prevention measures in Secured by Design.
Everyone has a right to feel safe in their home and in their community. Despite including measures that we welcome, this Bill is a missed opportunity. However, over the coming weeks, we will do our best to make it a Bill that can really make a difference.
European Public Prosecutor’s Office: EUC Report
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes (LD)
Since my noble friend described himself as a Euro-agnostic, I do not think I would offend my friend—not noble friend—on the Labour side if I called him a Euro-realist or sometimes a Euro-hesitator about a number of aspects which he analyses with great precision. I am an unashamed Euro-enthusiast and yet, none the less, I think there is agreement about this particular document and report as was seen in the way in which we couched our recommendations having studied this matter carefully.
The European Union is evolving after the Lisbon treaty in what I hope will be a gradually accelerated fashion. It is inevitably slowed down by the realities of economic austerity and slowed down in the national economies of all the member states, not just the leading ones. That is a reality that we see, as well as the constant difficulty of blending different national cultures in all sorts of areas. Perhaps one of the most difficult areas is the law and the legal sector, because of the noticeable difference of the Anglo-Saxon legal system, mainly in the UK and Ireland, the Roman legal systems of the other member states, mixed with some of the new member states since 2004.
That is just the reality; it is not to be hostile to the evolution of Europe by annunciating those realities that we are facing in all sorts of complicated sectors. This one is particularly complicated, and I think that this is an occasion where the member states expressed a general support for the notion and the concept, but maybe for the future, as the noble Lords, Lord Rowlands and Lord Hodgson, mentioned without going into the details. Subsdiarity must be a real element of the Lisbon treaty in order to provide reassurance to the national publics of each member state, particularly the one in this country, which is particularly fragile in its Euro-hesitation; this disturbs me greatly because I think it is unnecessary, but it is because of the fight between the political parties and the rise of UKIP. It is necessary to balance all those things and not to rule out this concept for the future.
There is every prospect that the EPPO concept itself will gain confidence if it goes slowly forward but the national legal systems demand that the national prosecutorial authorities have the upper hand in the initial stages of that timeframe, which may be quite long, over a number of years, to gain reassurance. We have the co-operative tradition anyway between the forces of law and order in the European cockpit. Europol is proving to be a great success—under a UK executive head, I am glad to say—and is developing apace, and so are the other instruments that were mentioned by the two previous speakers in this debate.
If that is the way to do it, it may be that in future the EPPO will have a pragmatic construct, a special piece of instrumentation by way of a regulation agreed between the Council and the European Parliament that would include the national prosecutorial authorities inside the EPPO system to reassure the public, who will feel that subsdiarity will have therefore been satisfied. Our need for subsidiarity in a number of areas needs to be expressed. People should not be nervous about doing that. This is a classic example. I am very glad to be on the same committee as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and to support enthusiastically this recommendation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rowlands for his explanation of the committee’s report. There seems to be a remarkable degree of agreement between us all this evening. I am pretty sure that the Minister is not going to demur from that.
This is a very detailed technical issue and it is quite clear from the speeches we have heard that not only does it deserve detailed scrutiny, it has received that scrutiny. This is not a new proposal. It has been raised on a number of occasions. The negative response from the Government is not new either.
Even before the 2001 Green Paper from the Commission first proposed a European public prosecutor, the idea had been discussed, particularly in discussions on the Nice treaty, when an outline proposal was put forward but then dropped through lack of member state support. In response to the Green Paper, the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place reported in 2002, saying that it was,
“unnecessary, particularly given the existence of Eurojust”.
At that time, the committee identified a number of concerns. Those concerns remain, for example: the combination of prosecution and investigative functions; the power of the EPPO to commit a person for trial and determine the location of the trial; the creation of differing standards of criminal responsibility for fraud depending on whether or not it related to fraud on the community’s financial interests; the lack of democratic accountability for the prosecution function; and, of course, the breach of the subsidiary principle and dilution of member state responsibility for prosecution of fraud.
Since then, the creation of a specialist EU prosecution authority has been raised again but still has not gained the support it would need to proceed. The 2011 European Scrutiny Committee echoed the concerns of the 2002 committee when, in recommending the 2011 communication for debate in the European Committee, it cautioned against the “inappropriate and unacceptable” use of national criminal justice systems in acting against crimes against EU finances.
However, as my noble friend Lord Rowlands made clear, it is fair to say that this proposal has not been thought up in a vacuum. It seeks to address a genuine problem and we recognise the seriousness of that problem, which is that there needs to be greater protection of the EU’s financial interests and we need to see further improvements in how the EU deals with fraud. The level of suspected fraud against the EU budget is obviously and rightly a source of concern. The report refers to the Commission’s estimate that it stands at around €500 million, or £425 million, in each of the last five years. British taxpayers bear part of the cost of that fraud, which is totally unacceptable. We must seek new and better ways of tackling this fraud, preventing it and bringing those responsible to justice.
The question that the European Union Committee was looking at was: is the EPPO the best way of achieving this? We again concur with the committee’s conclusion that it is not. We made our position clear when in government, and that has not changed. Our position remains, as my noble friend Lord Rowlands outlined very clearly, that the proposal for an EPPO breaches the subsidiarity principle. It is clear that the national-level approach, supported by existing EU mechanisms, is more appropriate.
When we signed the Lisbon treaty, we made it clear that although the treaty could allow for such an office, we were strongly against it, as the noble Lord will recall. We insisted on a “double lock” to ensure that it could not be established. Indeed, your Lordships’ House was, as always, very diligent in its scrutiny of this measure and, following debate, supported the position made very clear by my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland in 2008, when she said:
“We have secured legally watertight safeguards in the treaty against any move towards a European public prosecutor or subsequently, and just as important, towards extending that prosecutor’s role. It is what we would call a double lock”.—[Official Report, 9/6/08; col. 454.]
We were not just opting out at that point but securing essential safeguards for the future, which we are able to use today.
That double lock meant that, in order to proceed, the UK would first have to opt in and then, even if a future Government decided that they wanted to opt in, there would still need to be unanimity, and that would be retained for any decision to establish a prosecutor or extend the powers of any such prosecutor. Therefore, we concur with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, on behalf of the EU committee, that the creation of the EPPO was not the appropriate response to tackling fraud.
Democratic Republic of Congo
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank my noble friend for making sure that I had seen a copy of Catherine Ramos’ report; in fact I had been briefed on the report, and the Home Office is taking it seriously. This report is being considered in detail, just as we considered the first one in the series. It was published at the beginning of this month. The initial view, considered against other evidence, including the information that we have from other European countries, is that it will not warrant a change in our returns policy.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand the concerns about the quality of decision-making? Some 30% of appeals against initial asylum decisions were allowed, meaning that nearly one-third were wrong. In more than one in 10 cases reviewed by inspectors, selective information from the country of origin reports had been used to deny claims. We have to get this right because asylum should be granted only when it is genuinely needed, but there is now a serious fear that those at great risk of violence are being denied a safe haven.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope that the noble Baroness was impressed by the figures that I gave earlier and that she understands that this process is undertaken with proper deliberation. The current country case law from the immigration and asylum Upper Tribunal concludes that there is no evidence that failed asylum seekers involuntarily returned to the DRC face a real risk of persecution or ill treatment merely because of an unsuccessful asylum claim in the UK. This was a conclusion upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2008. In 2012 the Court of Appeal found that country guidance remains the law until it is set aside or superseded.
Alcohol: Late Night Drinking
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would not want to venture into a discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the question of drugs. I believe that we have a debate on this tomorrow. Alcohol is clearly harmful if taken to excess and is responsible for considerable economic damage to the country as well as for health service costs.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is worth noting that alcohol consumption dropped by 13% between 2004 and 2010, though it seems to have increased since that time. I cannot imagine why. However, we recognise that problems remain, and more needs to be done to tackle anti-social behaviour connected with the excess drinking of alcohol. I am rather concerned at what the Minister said in response to my noble friend Lord Mackenzie, who has been president of the Police Superintendents Association, about the late-night levy and the actions that police superintendents can take. This has not been a success. Problems still continue. Only one late-night levy is about to be introduced and others have not been. Can the Minister assure me that, when the anti-social behaviour Bill is debated in your Lordships’ House, the Government will seriously consider our amendments, rather than reject them, as they did in the Commons?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot promise to accept opposition amendments to the Bill, but I am sure that noble Lords will consider all amendments that are tabled. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that this is an important piece of legislation, and I hope she recognises that the measures being introduced by the Government are designed to tackle the anti-social elements that drinking can cause.
Immigration: UK Citizenship and Nationality
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on his persistence with this issue, and welcome his efforts to secure today’s debate. The excellent speeches we have heard do great credit to your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I have had a number of debates over the years we have been in our respective positions on the issue of immigration and citizenship, and that reflects the public and political interest in this issue. It also highlights the great responsibility of government.
The timing of today’s debate is interesting as it is against the backdrop of this week’s news that the Government’s “ad van” campaign on immigration was banned, not because it was an ill-judged political stunt but because the facts it deployed were wrong. Then there is the highly critical report by the independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on the chaotic failings of the e-borders programme. The Government have refused to allow the Home Affairs Select Committee to see that report in full. Then today we have the publication of the Immigration Bill. After the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, I look forward to seeing what amendments he puts forward to that Bill.
Those events set today’s debate in the context of the wider interest and show how difficult and complex these issues can be. Clearly, it is a key government responsibility to ensure that immigration is good and beneficial to the UK and its citizens. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Noon, used the phrase “of good character”. In the case of asylum, the Government are under a moral imperative; the Minister has made that clear on a number of occasions, and I thank him for it. However, the Government have a right—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Noon, referred to this as well—not to grant citizenship, or leave to remain, to those they consider will not contribute appropriately or will pose security problems.
I want to put that in context and to make just two points. One is about responsibility and policy. We should recognise that when we talk about immigrants we are not talking about a cohesive, identifiable group but a whole range of people of different nationalities who for one reason or another are seeking permission to live, and possibly work, in the UK. They include students—as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned—together with people involved in businesses, and workers and families. There is the separate issue, which concerns us all, of those who enter the country illegally and have no right to live here.
It is therefore right that we have a genuine debate about the kinds of immigration that we need and can sustain. Policies on this issue must be evidence-based and define the boundaries and the benefits or the disadvantages to the UK. Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I struggle with the Government’s test of success as being a fall in the level of net migration. It is a crude measure which, bizarrely—I am sure this was not the Government’s intention—means that if more UK citizens leave the UK than immigrants enter the UK, the Government will have succeeded. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, highlighted an alternative way the Government could achieve their aims which I think would be equally damaging to the UK. That is not success, and the Government’s current policies can lead to all kinds of problems and concerns. The Minister has heard this many times during questions and debates in your Lordships’ House in relation to universities and businesses. For example, the Government’s approach does not even start to address the different kinds of immigration, and the different impacts they have for the immigrants and for the country.
The other crude measure that gives me cause for concern—I have raised this with the noble Lord before, and other noble Lords have raised it—is the income threshold for British citizens who want to sponsor their spouse or family to live with them. I say at the outset that I fully agree that if an individual wishes to bring their family to settle in the UK, they should never assume that they will have state support. That is why there is already an absolute requirement for them to show that they have sufficient funds to support their family. There could have been greater clarity around that because it requires discretion and investigation on the part of entry clearance officers. We do not propose greater clarity there, but a blanket threshold that does not take into account any other relevant factors will not have the effect that the Government intended.
I recall a conversation with a gentleman who lived with his parents in the New Forest. He did not earn £18,600. In order to earn that in his profession, he would have had to move to London. In that case, his housing costs would have increased to such an extent that his disposable income would have been significantly less—but he would have fulfilled the Government’s requirements for allowing his wife to enter the country, even though it would have been much more difficult for him to support his family.
On the issue of asylum, the noble Lord himself said that there was no question of the UK not being a safe haven for those who genuinely face persecution in their native country. The example of young Malala from Afghanistan, whom many of us will have seen on “Panorama” this week and who is currently living in the UK with her family, should be a source of great pride. We should take pride in the fact that a woman of this amazing capacity—a quite exceptional young woman—is living, being treated and learning in the UK. Some 70% of people in the UK agree that we should offer asylum to those fleeing persecution.
There are other exceptional cases of people who have risked their lives to help UK interests and who face continued threats now. The Minister will have heard the comments made in your Lordships’ House about the Afghan interpreters who now face threats from the Taliban as our troops withdraw. Of course, the Gurkhas have been welcomed into this country.
The Minister said in your Lordships’ House, in a short debate on the citizenship test, that,
“the whole purpose of the exercise … is … to provide facts on which people can base a life of settlement and, indeed, citizenship in this country”.—[Official Report, 26/2/13; col. 954.]
Other noble Lords have spoken about this. I appreciate that I am getting close to my time, but perhaps I may direct noble Lords to the report from Dr Thom Brooks of Durham University, which makes it quite clear that the citizenship test is not fit for purpose. The Prime Minister failed it on national television. I am sure that I would fail it, and I regard myself as a very loyal and committed citizen of the UK. It is more like a pub quiz or a game of Trivial Pursuit.
I hope that the Minister has found this debate useful, and that we will have many more debates on issues around immigration as the weeks go on. I hope that he will take back some of the concerns raised in the debate today by noble Lords who have only the interests of the UK at heart and are really concerned about the citizenship test and about some of the other barriers that we put in the way of those who will be a great asset and benefit to the UK.