Criminal Legal Aid

Steve Reed Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

It lowers the tone of this debate when, not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman takes his lead from the hon. Member for Hammersmith by resorting to personal abuse. There have been two significant developments, which have allowed us to make the announcement. First, thanks to the economies we have made elsewhere in the MOJ, Her Majesty’s Treasury has given us a settlement that allows us greater flexibility in the allocation of funds for legal aid; and it has also become clear, as I have said, that there are real problems in pressing ahead as initially proposed. We recognise those issues and we want to do the best for the profession, and that is why we have taken this decision.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

The Minister’s Department has wasted close to £15 million now on ill-judged projects. What does this latest U-turn bring the running total to?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman talks about millions of pounds; may I just remind him of the billions that were squandered and wasted when his party was in government, and that if it was not for its squandering and mismanagement, this Government would not have had to take the tough decisions we are having to take?

Riot Compensation Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Penning]

I fully understand and also respect, not least because of the conversation that we had outside, the right hon. Gentleman’s probing amendment. I have to agree with him that “must” goes a bit too far, but I fully understand exactly where the amendment is coming from.

May I say at the outset that we are looking to put together an approved list of loss adjusters who will be responsible should riots take place? Obviously this is different from the insurance side, because these measures are for people who are uninsured.

[The Chair]

The Minister mentioned the issue of insurance and I wanted to raise that issue in this regard. The areas that tend to be worst affected by riots tend to be poorer areas, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has described. One of the issues that affected businesses in the London Road area just outside the town centre of Croydon—it was the London Road that was hit the hardest; that is where businesses tend to be poorer and to be led by ethnic minority owners—is that after the riots insurance premiums grew so rapidly that many of those businesses became uninsurable. That led to further pressure on those businesses to close down. The last thing that we want to see is areas that are already poor, and where businesses are starting to grow and bringing life back into those areas, being hollowed out and shops closing down. Do the Government have any intention of addressing the issue of insurance becoming unaffordable in areas that have previously been hit by the riots?

[The Chair]

Order. Before the Minister resumes, I want to say that I have exercised quite a bit of latitude so far in these proceedings. The hon. Member for Croydon North could well have made a very good speech consisting of exactly the words that he has just used. Interventions should be much briefer than that. I say that very gently, but advisedly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I will be brief. The proposal for the Secretary of State to be able to set up riot claims bureaux is welcome and a sensible move forward.

First, after the 2011 riots one of the problems was that communities did not have a voice in decisions taken about compensation or about models of reinvestment in affected areas. For example, in Croydon the council set up an independent riots panel with the community, but three years later, when I held a review meeting with people who had participated in the panel and with businesses and agencies affected by the riots, I found that not one of its recommendations had been implemented in full. That was extremely disappointing for the community, who had been told that they would be listened to and that action would be taken, although, regrettably, subsequently it was not.

Secondly, the riots recovery fund allocated by the Greater London Authority, a sum in excess of £20 million, was handed to the council, but half the money was spent in an area that was not among the worst affected by the riots and the other half was simply left in the bank account for several years until the GLA asked for it back—reasonably, if the money was not going to be spent. The businesses and property owners in the affected areas again felt severely let down, because not only had they been promised additional support, but it had been made available and never used.

If riot claims bureaux are to be set up, are the Government minded to ensure community representation on them? The needs and wishes of the community should be fully represented in decisions taken in the aftermath of riots, if we are ever unfortunate enough to see a repeat of the disturbances that happened in 2011.

[Mike Penning]

That is an important point. From my own constituents’ point of view, I understand the frustration when money is sitting in a bank account and not being used by the local authority. I cannot comment on why that happened, because I do not know, but I fully understand the frustration.

If we are asking local people to take part in and to be part of their community—if we believe in localism—it is critical that they are listened to. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could meet after the Committee. I will look into the recommendations that were made—I was not in post at the time—and we can see the reasons why they were not implemented and whether those reasons were logical. The Secretary of State wants the power to do something with the local community—localism in action—which is exactly what he will do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Amount and payment of compensation

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. In a riot, police resources are necessarily overstretched and they have to prioritise, and they tend to prioritise the wealthier areas. Once again it is the poorer businesses that can least afford the loss that suffer. It is those areas that would be affected by the inability to claim above the cap. What is my right hon. Friend’s view on that?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He and I are regular soldiers in the fight for very poor areas. With regard to the £1 million cap, I would say that the 2011 riots were unusual. As a Londoner born and bred, I would never have imagined that on the second day I would see the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton caught up in the riots.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I can immediately alleviate the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. No matter where the charitable donation comes from it will be outside the £1 million, and I will set that in regulations.

[Mr Reed]

Croydon, of course, is the king of the suburbs. The mayor of Croydon set up a fund immediately after the riots. Many of the generous citizens of Croydon donated to that and were aghast to see that the money that was handed out to businesses and individuals that had suffered was deducted from the compensation payments made. I hope the proposal that the Minister now makes will also address such circumstances.

[Mike Penning]

It will. I completely agree morally that charitable donations should stay outside, whether from a lady putting 50p in a tin on the high street, as I know took place, or from some of our great businessmen coming together to offer help. I will set that in regulations. I hope that alleviates concerns on amendment 4.

On the £1 million cap, we have to be honest about what the Bill is for. It is a safety net for those who are not insured should a riot affect them and their businesses. Of course, if it is taxpayers’ money a limit has to be set somewhere, and 99% of all claims following the terrible riots that took place across the country in 2011 were below that limit. I am happy to share that information with colleagues before Report.

In looking at where to set the cap, we should not encourage people not to be insured or insurers to take the view that the state will pick up the cost for which they and businesses have responsibility. That is why we set the cap at £1 million. I will make the commitment today that that will be continually reviewed within regulations without the need for primary legislation. At the moment we have very low inflation nationally, although building and residential inflation is quite high, particularly in London. We will keep a close eye on that but there has to be a limit. There cannot be a blank cheque from the taxpayer; I think we all accept that.

In response to the shadow Minister’s point, if the money comes out of the police or Home Office budget, it is still taxpayers’ money and there is a limited amount available. I think £1 million is fair and we will keep it under review. We will also ensure that charitable donations, no matter where they come from, are exempt, and I will place that in the regulations for the Bill. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Dog number control notice—

(1) This section applies where more than one dog is being kept in a domestic property in England or Wales.

(2) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that the number of dogs being kept in a domestic property gives rise to a risk that any one or more of the dogs may become dangerously out of control while in or partly in the domestic property (“the risk”), he or she may serve on the person in charge a written control notice which—

(a) states that the authorised officer is of that belief;

(b) specifies the maximum number of dogs which, in the opinion of the authorised officer, are capable of being kept in the domestic property such as to sufficiently reduce the risk;

(c) requires the person in charge to reduce the number of dogs kept in the domestic property to no more than the number specified under paragraph (b) and;

(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the control notice must be complied with.

(3) A control notice may be served on more than one person in respect of one domestic property.

(4) It is an offence for a person without reasonable excuse to fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (2).

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(6) An authorised officer may make a complaint to a Magistrates’ Court if a person in charge fails, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer, to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified.

(7) A Magistrates’ Court receiving a complaint under subsection (6) shall, if it finds that the person in charge has failed to comply with the steps required in a control notice, make an order in a summary way directing any of the dogs kept in the domestic property to be destroyed.

(8) In this section—

“authorised officer” means a person appointed by a local authority within whose area the domestic property is situated for the purposes of this section;

“domestic property” means a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or both);

“person in charge” means the owner or owners, and if different, person or persons for the time being in charge of the dogs.

New clause 17—Community protection notices (dogs)—

(1) An authorised person may issue a community protection notice (dogs) to the owner or person for the time being in control of the dog if they have reasonable cause to believe that—

(a) the dog is not under sufficient control, and

(b) preventative measures are required to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal.

(2) An “authorised person” means a police officer, local authority dog warden, or other authorised person.

(3) A community protection notice (dogs) is a notice that imposes any of the following requirements on the owner or person for the time being in control of the dog—

(a) a requirement to have the dog microchipped;

(b) a requirement to obtain third party liability insurance;

(c) a requirement for the dog to be kept on a leash in public;

(d) a requirement for the dog to be muzzled in public;

(e) a requirement for the transferring or relinquishing of ownership of the dog without notifying the enforcing authority.

(4) A community protection notice may be issued—

(a) without notice, and

(b) with immediate effect.

(5) A person issued with a community protection notice (dogs) who fails to comply with it commits an offence.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

New clause 18—Requirement to fit a post box guard where a dog is present—

(1) The Secretary of State shall bring forward regulations to require householders to fit a guard to their letterbox if—

(a) the householder owns a dog,

(b) the dog is kept in residential premises to which the letterbox is fitted,

(c) the letterbox opens directly into those premises, and

(d) a person may reasonably conclude that there is the possibility of the dog causing harm to someone using the letterbox.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall include provision in respect of—

(a) the size and style of the guard to be fitted, and

(b) the householder to be liable to a civil penalty for any harm caused as a result of failing to comply with this requirement.

(3) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

New clause 19—Written control notice—

(1) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place, as a preventative measure to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal, he or she may serve on the owner, and, if different, person for the time being in charge of the dog a written control notice which—

(a) states that he or she is of that belief;

(b) specifies the respects in which he or she believes the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog is failing to keep the dog under sufficient control;

(c) specifies the steps he or she requires the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog to take in order to comply with the notice.

(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the notice must be complied with; and

(e) specifies the date that the notice expires which will not be for a period which exceeds six months.

(2) In a control notice pursuant to subsection (1)(c) an authorised officer must require a dog to be microchipped (if not already done) and the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, register the dog with a microchip database, and may require the following steps, where appropriate, but not limited to—

(a) keeping the dog muzzled as directed;

(b) keeping the dog on a lead when in public or under control as directed;

(c) requiring the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, to seek and implement expert advice about training and behaviour for the dog;

(d) having the dog neutered where appropriate; and

(e) keeping the dog away from particular places or persons.

(3) Failure to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer may lead to a complaint to a magistrates’ court under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.

(4) The provisions of section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 shall have effect if the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog fails to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified in accordance with subsection (3) above as they would apply if a dog was dangerous and not kept under proper control.

(5) An “authorised officer” is a person that has been appointed by the local authority or police for the purposes of this Act.

(6) A “protected animal” is one that is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or is not living in wild state.

(7) A person served with a dog control notice may appeal against the notice to a magistrates’ court within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which that person was served with the notice.

(8) The grounds on which a person served such a notice may appeal are one or more of the following—

(a) that the notice contains required steps which are unreasonable in character, or extent, or are unnecessary; or

(b) that there has been some defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice.

(9) On hearing of the appeal the court may—

(a) quash the dog control notice to which the appeal relates; or

(b) vary the notice in such a manner as it thinks fit; or

(c) dismiss the appeal.

New clause 29—Improving the welfare of seized dogs—

(1) Where an expert examination is required for a dog that is alleged to be one to which section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies that examination must be carried out and completed by both the defence and prosecution within 28 days of seizure of the dog and a written report produced within one week of the examination.

(2) If the prosecution or defence fail to carry out the examination as described in subsection 1 within the requisite period the prosecution or defence, as the case may be, may not rely in evidence on any expert report involving an examination of that dog after the 28 day period unless the Court extends this period.

(3) In considering any application to extend the examination period the Court must take into account the welfare of the dog, the costs of kennelling the dog and any other relevant matters.

New clause 30—Rehoming of prohibited types of dog—

(1) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 4B(1)(b) (Destruction orders otherwise than on a conviction) after the first “owner” there is inserted “or prospective owner”, and after the second “owner” there is inserted “or prospective owner”.

Amendment 143, in clause 98, page 69, line 43, leave out subsection 2(a).

Amendment 140, page 70, leave out line 3 and insert—

(ii) for “injures any person” there is substituted “injures or kills any person or assistance dog”.’.

Amendment 144, page 70, line 6, after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.

Amendment 145, page 70, line 7, after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.

Amendment 146, page 70, line 11, after ‘(or is both)’, add

‘or in premises used partially or wholly for business purposes’.

Amendment 147, page 70, line 17, at end insert—

(iii) D (if not present at any time) could have reasonably believed V to be in, or entering the building or part as a trespasser if they had been present.’.

Amendment 134, page 70, line 23, at end insert—

‘(1C) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case where they, or an associated person, are being attacked by another person or another dog at the relevant time.

(1D) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are a vet or someone working in a veterinary practice at the relevant time.

(1E) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they themselves are the victim of any incident involving their dog.

(1F) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are removing in connection with their work.

(1G) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are required to maintain in any police or court proceedings or if they are assisting the courts as a witness (expert or otherwise).

(1H) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog that they are authorised or required to look after in connection with their work.

(1I) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are looking after by virtue of the dog being in their kennels.

(1J) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the dog is a police dog or a dog being used in an official capacity to assist with their work.

(1K) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the dog is an assistance dog.

(1L) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are registered blind.

(1M) A person (“D”) is not guilty of the aggravated offence under subsection (1) if, as a result of any disability, they were not able to physically prevent the offence.

(1N) A person (“D”) is not guilty of the aggravated offence under subsection (1) unless they encouraged the dog in its actions.’.

Amendment 133, page 70, line 28, at end insert—

‘(2A) If an owner of a dog, and if different the person for the time being in charge of a dog unreasonably omits to keep the dog under proper control, or if he causes, or encourages the dog to attack a protected animal, and any of those things lead to the injury or death of a protected animal he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2B) A “protected animal” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.’.

Amendment 141, page 70, line 28, at end insert—

(iii) for “two years” there is substituted “fourteen years”.’.

Amendment 142, page 70, line 28, at end insert—

‘(1C) In proceedings for an offence under section 3(1) it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he took reasonable steps to prevent the dog being dangerously out of control.’.

Amendment 135, page 70, line 41, at end insert—

‘(1B) Anyone authorised to seize a dog under subsection 1A is exempted from the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.’.

Amendment 98, page 70, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert

‘for the purposes of this Act, “assistance dog” means a dog which has been accredited to assist a disabled person by a prescribed charity or other organisation.’.

Amendment 97, page 70, line 46, at end insert

‘“dwelling”, for the purposes of section 3, includes enclosed buildings within the curtilage of the dwelling and associated with it, where a person might reasonably expect to find a dog, such as garages, sheds and other outbuildings;’.

Amendment 132, page 70, line 47, leave out subsection (6)(b).

Amendment 99, in clause 99, page 71, line 33, at end add—.

‘(5) After section 7 there is inserted—

“7A Fit and proper person code of practice

(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a draft code of practice giving guidance about the matters to be considered when determining whether someone is a fit and proper person for the purposes of sections 1, 4 and 4B.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—

(a) any draft code of practice prepared under this section; and

(b) an order to be made by statutory instrument providing for the code to come into force, subject to subsection (4).

(3) Before preparing such a draft code, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.

(4) Where a draft is laid before Parliament under subsection (2)(a), if neither House passes a resolution disapproving the draft within 40 days—

(a) the Secretary of State may issue the code in the form of the draft; and

(b) it shall come into force in accordance with provision made under subsection (2)(b).”.’.

[Mr Reed]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to move this new clause, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith).

Dangerous dogs, or, perhaps more accurately, irresponsible dog owners, are a serious public threat. Not only do we have a duty to act, but there is widespread agreement on what form that action should take. I regret to say that the Government are the only ones standing meekly on the sidelines, refusing to take the necessary action. Having failed to lead from the start with this Bill, the Government refused to act in Committee, despite the support of their own Back Benchers for such action, but I hope, with a new Minister in place, there will be a fresh approach and a chance to move forward and tackle this menace.

I want to start by speaking to amendment 141, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). I have strong sympathy with the case he is making, and which he made in Committee, for a much stronger punishment for irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to maim and kill. We were deeply disappointed, however, that the Government failed to meet their own promise, made in an open Committee, to publish the findings of a consultation on what level of sentencing would be appropriate in such cases before the Bill returned to the Chamber.

As it was, the Minister wrote to members of the Committee last Friday, after the tabling deadline. An e-mail was sent at 5.50 in the evening, stating that the Government had not had time to review the consultation responses, and that therefore no Government amendment would be put before the House. It was in good faith that the Opposition did not table an amendment, as we believed his predecessor’s word that the consultation would result in a Government amendment. Announcing that he would not do anything after the tabling deadline was not a welcome start to the Minister’s tenure in the Home Office. I hope that we will not see a repeat of those tactics.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the families and loved ones of victims who have been injured or killed by out-of-control dogs will be very disappointed that their representatives in this House will not be able to vote on the precise measures and changes that are required to increase the sentences for such actions?

[Mr Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have read the comments that he made in Committee and sympathise with his views. I hope to address them further in my comments.

The Opposition supported increasing the guideline prison terms for manslaughter under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in Committee. We continue to support an increase, although we would prefer to have the consultation response before the House so that an informed decision can be made. Our starting point is that the current maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment for allowing one’s dog to kill someone is far too lenient. I hope that the hon. Member for Bedford will accept our support in principle for toughening the sentencing guidelines and work with us in the other place to agree on appropriate sentencing guidelines, informed by the consultation response when the Government get around to publishing it.

New clause 3 would introduce dog control notices. I believe that this measure enjoys widespread cross-party support in the House and near-unanimous support from outside organisations with an interest in dangerous dogs and animal welfare. When reading the Committee transcripts, I was struck by the strength of support from Government Back Benchers, in addition to the support from Labour Members. However, that should not be surprising. Taking responsible, tough action to protect people from dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners is plain common sense and something that Members on all sides of the House should support.

Yesterday, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) to meet the father of Jade Anderson, who was savaged to death by four dogs when she was just 14 years old. Michael Anderson and his friend Royston had cycled down from Bolton in support of the Justice for Jade campaign. They came to lobby Members of this House because they want dog control notices to be introduced in England and Wales, as they have been in Scotland. To lose a child is bad enough; to live with the knowledge of the appalling circumstances in which they died is almost too much to bear. I can offer Mr Anderson only my support, sympathy and admiration that he is seeking to make something good out of such desperate and tragic circumstances.

Sadly, Jade’s case is not an isolated one. Since 2005, nine children and seven adults have died as a consequence of dog attacks. In the three years to February 2013, 18,000 people were admitted to hospital in England and Wales after dog attacks. That is almost 20 attacks a day that result in someone ending up in hospital. Not only could many of those attacks be prevented by dog control notices, but the cost of those attacks to the NHS, the police and communities is an avoidable drain on already overstretched resources.

Dog control notices are not punitive. They provide a menu of options that local authorities and the police can use to act in the interests of their local communities against dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend and those who tabled new clause 3, which would improve the Bill. May I also commend to him and other hon. Members new clause 17, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? It would dovetail nicely with new clause 3 and would allow the notices to be published there and then at the point when they are needed, rather than waiting for an attack to take place.

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has an abiding interest in this issue, for that most helpful intervention. I will seek to address his point further in my comments.

Dog control notices include the following measures: requiring a potentially dangerous dog to be muzzled whenever it is in a public place; requiring it to be kept on a lead in places to which the public have access; neutering male dogs; and requiring dogs and dog owners to attend training classes to bring potentially dangerous animals back under control. A dog control notice would also require the dog to be microchipped and registered, so that any dogs that were found to be in breach could be identified clearly and unambiguously—something that is absolutely necessary for effective enforcement.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to new clause 19, which appears in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)? It talks about not only the dog owner, but the person who is in control of the dog at the time. I hope that he will recognise that it is important to hold that person responsible.

[Mr Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and helpful point. I recognise the sense of what he says.

It is disappointing that on Second Reading and in Committee, the Government resisted dog control notices and said that community protection notices would be sufficient. I can only hope that, having read the Committee transcripts, the new Minister will bring fresh eyes to the issue and use fresh ears to listen to the experience of outside organisations, the victims of dog attacks and Members from all parts of the House who want tougher action.

The use of community protection notices, as advocated by the Government, is simply not sufficient. They are slow to serve, can be challenged in the courts, causing further delays, and have been described by one outside organisation as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Government had a perfect opportunity to show leadership on this issue. They could have led this House and this country to act to protect children and adults alike from further dog attacks. However, the powers in the Bill and the limited changes to which the Government are clinging are not sufficient—not even close.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for new clause 3. Does he agree that one of the successes of devolution is that we in Westminster can learn from the experiences of the devolved authorities in various matters and do not have to reinvent the wheel? Will he refer later in his speech to the experiences of Northern Ireland and Scotland?

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reference to the situation in Scotland. Given that the experience of dog control notices in Scotland shows that they work effectively, it is all the more baffling that the Government refuse to support them. I hope that the House can persuade the Minister to change his position.

The position for which I am arguing is not just a Labour one. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has a coalition majority, considered the Bill and concluded:

“We consider there to be strong evidence that targeted measures would be more effective in tackling dog-related problems than the general powers proposed under the Government’s anti-social behaviour and crime legislation…We recommend that the Government reconsider its rejection of our recommendation and legislate to introduce Dog Control Notices to provide law enforcers with tailored powers to tackle aggressive dogs before they injure people and other animals.”

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend has eloquently set out the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s response on this serious issue. I do not know whether he saw the Chair of that Committee’s summary of what was in the report, in which she said that what the Government had brought forward was “woefully inadequate”. She said that unless we have a measure that deals effectively with prevention, we will not tackle the problem at its source. Does my hon. Friend agree that without the introduction of dog control notices, what the Government propose is indeed woefully inadequate?

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that sensible view on the record. Of course, I am sympathetic to it. Indeed, I will add another sensible view, that of the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who said:

“We remain unconvinced that CPNs will fulfil the same purpose as bespoke Dog Control Notices.”

I could go on to read the evidence to the Bill Committee of organisation after organisation: the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, police and crime commissioners, the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Although that would support my argument, I fear that a lengthy recitation would weary the House. However, two further sources of support for dog control notices are worth drawing to the House’s attention.

First, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) helpfully drew the Bill Committee’s attention to the fact that before the general election, the Conservative party pledged to give police and councils more power to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs through the introduction of dog control notices. As it happens, the same is true of the Liberal Democrats, who also supported such notices when in opposition. We are used to the policies of one or other Government party being lost in coalition fudges, but I am not aware of a policy supported by both parties being lost in such a way. On this occasion, not only do I agree with Nick, but I am willing to agree with Dave as well. If we all agree, for goodness’ sake let us act and bring in long-overdue and much-needed tough but fair measures to deal with dangerous dogs. Six thousand hospitalisations a year is too many simply to look the other way. I would challenge any Member to sit down with Michael Anderson, Jade’s father, as I did yesterday, and not conclude that the measures that we suggest must be on the statute book.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, who is in her place, for tabling new clause 6, which is similar to new clause 3 in many ways. It highlights her commitment to bringing her constituency issues to the House in the most powerful way possible.

New clauses 17, 29 and 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), were mentioned earlier. They include a number of further sensible and proportionate measures to deal with dangerous dogs, and I am sure that Members of the other place will want to study them carefully in their less time-pressured environment and take up many of them.

I must push the Minister to accept new clause 3. To date, the Bill has been a missed opportunity for the Government. The need for tougher action is clear and well evidenced, and the desire to act has been endorsed not just by the parties of government before the last election but by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and by every major organisation that deals with dangerous dogs, animal welfare and irresponsible owners. The means to act are now before the Minister, and I urge him to take the chance to do so.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

In the many months since the Government brought forward their provisional proposals, they have failed to persuade any of those good and sensible people and organisations of their case. Those are not stupid organisations and people, and I urge Members to support them and support new clause 3.

[Mr Reed]

We wait with bated breath to see whether the new Minister has now been convinced.

[Mr Spencer]

I rise to speak to new clause 19 and amendments 97 to 99, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) tabled. Like the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), we are keen to ensure that there is provision for written notices so that not only dog owners but those in charge of a dog at any time have control of that animal and prevent it from causing injury or damage to any person or any other animal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

The provision might specify the person in control of the dog, so if I have that wrong I will correct it. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point and will reflect on it.

The measures in the Bill go further and allow officers to make innovative requirements based on the specifics of the case they are dealing with, for example by requesting that signage be put up to warn visitors to a property of the presence of a dog, or that a letterbox guard be fitted. I have genuinely heard nothing during the course of the debate to suggest that there is a gap in what is proposed in the Bill.

The Local Government Association stated in written evidence to the Public Bill Committee:

“The LGA remains to be convinced that separate tools are necessary as no details have been provided of the specific gaps in the provisions for the injunctions, community protection notices or public space protection orders that a dog control notice is needed to fill.”

We all share the objective of trying to do something about this matter, but Opposition Members seem to think that a measure cannot be effective if it does not have the word “dog” in the title, which is simply wrong.

[Mr Steve Reed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I will give way one more time.

[Mr Reed]

It is not just the Opposition who are making those points; so too are many experienced organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Veterinary Association, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and this House’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. All of those organisations have more experience in this area than either the Minister or I have, yet he is not taking their views on board.

[Norman Baker]

The shadow Minister made that point in his opening remarks. I have not been a Home Office Minister for long, but I dealt with dog legislation for many years in opposition, so I think I know what the legislation says. I have given him an absolute assurance that the issues the Opposition are concerned about, as am I, such as microchipping and neutering, could all be dealt with under the community protection notice. I have given the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) an assurance that those matters can be dealt with very quickly. Those are the two points that the Opposition are perfectly correct to pursue, and I have given answers that I had hoped would satisfy them. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As far as I am concerned, the measures they want to deal with the problem that they, and we, have identified are in the Bill.

Notwithstanding that, I understand the concern that, as Labour Members have said, any dog issues may be lost in the breadth of these measures. However, these powers recognise, first, that antisocial behaviour does not come packaged into distinct areas, and secondly, that what matters is whether it can be dealt with quickly and effectively, which is what the Bill does. The practitioners’ manual from DEFRA is the Government’s attempt to reassure people that these matters will be dealt with properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I must not, because I have lots of people to try to reply to. I am sorry.

I hope that I have been able to persuade Opposition Members that the approach put forward in the new clause is already provided for in the Bill. If they were minded to press it, I would invite the House to reject it. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is seeking to intervene while I am trying to respond to her points, proposes to reduce the time delay that can take place following the seizure of a suspected section 1 dog, such as a pit bull terrier, before it is examined by expert witnesses for the defence or prosecution to assess whether it is a prohibited dog. I understand her concerns about the impact that such delays can have on the welfare of dogs. That is why we are committed to bringing forward regulations next year to make it clear that when the police seize a suspected prohibited dog they will not be required to kennel it, but only in cases where they are satisfied that the situation of dog and owner do not present a risk to public safety. It is right to give the police this discretion, and that is the aim that we intend to take forward. It will be a condition of release, if release occurs, that the owner consents to the dog being muzzled and on a lead in public, as well as being microchipped and neutered before it can be released back to the owner. This is to ensure public safety and to prevent breeding from section 1 dogs. On that basis, we do not consider the hon. Lady’s new clause 29 to be necessary.

I now want to deal with the amendments eloquently presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which seek to extend the offence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover incidents where a dog injures or kills a protected animal. I entirely understand and sympathise with her reason for proposing that measure. She listed some of the existing legislation, which does have an effect and can be used in certain circumstances, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animals Act 1971, the Dogs Act 1871, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It is rather unfortunate that the Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies animals as goods or property in this respect.

I understand the concern of people whose cat is savaged by a dog, but the way forward is to consider other solutions. Instead of more legislation, we want better education for owners, training for dogs, and increased awareness among the public and the authorities who can use the new antisocial behaviour powers to address these incidents and help to prevent them before they happen.

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to particular resources in legislation in respect of horses, which she mentioned. The Dangerous Dogs Act would apply in a situation where a dog threatens or attacks a horse and a rider, because the rider is likely to have “reasonable apprehension” that the dog will injure them, and therefore an offence would be created. My hon. Friend also referred to the livestock issues that I mentioned earlier. We are keen to make sure that other animals are protected. However, as I said, the general nature of the legislation provides options through, for example, the injunction procedure to see whether there are other avenues that can be taken to deal with dogs that present a danger to the public and, indeed, to other animals.

On amendment 142, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I regret that because of the lack of time I will have to write to her with a specific response to the point she raises.

The actions that this Government are taking in tackling dangerous dogs are absolutely right. Everybody in the House agrees that that needs to happen better than it has done in the past, and I believe the Bill will achieve that. The provisions will enable all the dreadful acts that have been taking place to be tackled in a sensible and effective way.

[Mr Steve Reed]

I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced and we will press new clause 3 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

This group contains the largest group of amendments from the Joint Committee on Human Rights to be dealt with today. I hope that I have put the case clearly. We have no objection to the Government amendments that my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt move later. We do not support the Labour amendment that, obviously, wants to keep the law as it is and to keep antisocial behaviour orders as they are, because the Government think they have a better answer, which is why they have introduced the Bill.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) for the way in which she ably steered this Bill through Committee on behalf of the Opposition and for her work more generally as part of our shadow Home Office team before her well-deserved promotion last week. I also welcome the Minister to his new role and, along with my colleagues, I look forward to debating these important issues with him.

Antisocial behaviour orders have been the cornerstone of the fight against antisocial behaviour since Labour came to power in 1997. In that year, the previous Tory Government had failed to address a problem that blighted communities up and down the country, from suburban lanes to inner-city estates, for which people were long overdue a Government response.

ASBOs are a tough, fair and proportionate last response to persistent perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. They require a criminal burden of proof to be brought in, they are a last resort where other interventions have failed and they work because they are backed by the threat of criminal sanction. In seeking to repeal the legislation that brought in ASBOs, the Government are taking a retrograde and misguided step that will not be welcomed by the communities that live in fear of antisocial behaviour and that have come to know that the police have the power to take tough action backed by criminal sanctions if necessary.

In the Government’s most recent crime survey, 80% of respondents said they believed that antisocial behaviour was increasing under this Government since the general election. One third of respondents said that they had either been a victim of, or witness to, antisocial behaviour. They will be wondering why the Government have chosen to respond to people’s concerns not by toughening the legislation or by empowering the police to take action, but by going soft, taking away the threat of criminal sanction, taking police off the beat to attend training on new and weaker powers of response, and requiring the new injunctions to be taken out not in magistrates courts, which would mean they could be dealt with quickly and efficiently, but in county courts, which are slow and overburdened. Amendment 96 seeks not to prevent the Government from introducing injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance—they could be a useful alternative for the police to consider using—but to keep ASBOs on the statute book, leaving it to local councils and police forces to decide what best suits their local areas and needs.

I speak from experience. Before the people of Croydon North elected me to the House last November, I spent nearly seven years as leader of Lambeth council in south London. When Labour won power there in 2006, we found that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition had spent the previous three years stalling ASBOs on ideological grounds. One year, it issued none at all. As a consequence, antisocial behaviour remained too high, without sanction. Young people drifted from antisocial behaviour to low-level crime, and then to high-level crime, including street robberies. Gang violence rose. The fear of crime and the perception that local streets were simply not safe became endemic.

One of the first things the Labour-led council did on taking power was clamp down on antisocial behaviour. Issuing ASBOs, working closely with the police, was a key part of the response.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats represent areas that are much more prosperous; Labour MPs typically represent by and large urban constituencies, with disadvantaged communities. Is it not the case that ASBOs are much more relevant to the constituencies that Labour Members represent?

[Mr Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but antisocial behaviour can happen in any community. Government Members ought to listen to the people they represent, who do not wish to see them watering down the responses and toolkit available to tackle antisocial behaviour.

To refer again to my experience, Lambeth council increased the use of ASBOs to achieve a reduction in antisocial behaviour not for the slogans or press releases, or to try to look tough, but because it was needed to get a grip of our streets and return confidence to the law-abiding majority of residents. Government Members cannot tell me that ASBOs do not work because I saw how crime fell when a newly elected Labour council worked alongside the police to use ASBOs to great effect in making our streets and our communities safe again.

ASBOs work in part because they are backed by a criminal sanction. Breaching an ASBO is not something to be taken lightly—it is a criminal offence. Persistent antisocial behaviour is deeply damaging to local communities, and people expect effective sanctions. With Labour’s ASBOs, that is exactly what they got. Instead, the Government propose to take away the criminal sanction. Offenders can breach IPNAs in the full knowledge that they are not committing a crime. If the police or local councils want action taken against someone who has breached their IPNA and who is terrorising a local community, they will not get support from the criminal justice system. There is no automatic penalty. Instead, the breach of an IPNA will lead to the potential of civil action brought under the contempt of court proceedings. Offenders across the country will be rejoicing that the Government have gone soft, while the law-abiding majority will be horrified.

The Government’s proposal is not only a weak response to antisocial behaviour, but the police and local councils will pay for it themselves. Instead of criminal proceedings being brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, the police will have to bring a civil action in the courts at their own expense.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Why, if ASBOs with criminal penalties attached are so successful, do 70% to 80% of teenagers against whom they are made breach them?

[Mr Reed]

I have given the hon. and learned Gentleman examples of how we successfully used ASBOs to drive down antisocial behaviour and offending of that kind, so I do not take his point.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman argues the case for ASBOs passionately, but I am not sure hon. Members agree that they were as effective as he suggests. Has he seen opinion polls such as the one done by Angus Reid last year? Its survey found that only 8% believe that ASBOs have been successful in curbing antisocial behaviour in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

That might be the hon. Gentleman’s view and that of many of his colleagues, but many in the police service and elsewhere do not share it. I do not take that view.

In abolishing ASBOs and replacing them with IPNAs, the Government are not only taking away the power of the police to clamp down effectively on antisocial behaviour, but making the police pay for any action that follows from their hugely diminished budgets. One chief inspector has said, on the record, that the costs of pursuing such action through the civil courts would be in the region of £1,500 on every occasion. Based on last year’s court figures for breaches of ASBOs, the switch to IPNAs will cost councils and police forces another £1.5 million a year. That £1.5 million will be taken from two of the hardest-hit parts of the public sector. If a 20% cut to policing was not bad enough, hitting the police with a £1.5 million additional annual bill just for doing their job in tackling antisocial behaviour is a pretty low and unwelcome blow.

As with all costs, the proposal introduces disincentives. In the Public Bill Committee’s evidence-taking sessions, the chair of the Police Federation, Steve Williams, was asked whether the cost of pursuing an IPNA breach, both in financial and staff resourcing terms, would deter the police from taking action, to which he replied:

“That is a strong possibility. Yes.”—[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2013; c. 9, Q11.]

In Committee, Government Members said that IPNAs were necessary because they, unlike ASBOs, would not lead to a criminal record. They believe that criminalising children is wrong. However, breaching an ASBO is the criminal offence, not being subject to one. I must tell Government Members who share those concerns that IPNAs have been roundly criticised for lowering the burden of proof and for their lack of proportionality. Twenty-five organisations, including Liberty, the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s, put their names to a letter to The Times criticising IPNAs for their low burden of proof, and because they do not require “any form of intent”. The letter states:

“Such ill-thought out legislation will sweep up all kinds of non-criminal and non-serious behaviour, wasting police time and clogging up the courts. It threatens to divert resources from genuinely harmful or distressing behaviour, where the police and other services should be focussed”.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I remember his days as Labour leader of Lambeth very well. I understand that he would rather keep ASBOs. If the criticism he cites from the newspaper letter is right, and if he shares it, will he support the cross-party amendments from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which would make clear exactly what the standard of proof should be and introduce other protections?

[Mr Reed]

I argue that we should retain ASBOs alongside IPNAs as alternatives for the police and local councils to choose as they believe appropriate in the circumstances.

The IPNA will be available whenever behaviour is found to be likely to cause nuisance or annoyance. I can give examples from my constituency of Croydon North. I have received complaints from residents about children playing and making a noise in the street. They are at liberty to raise their grievances, but there is a question of proportionality. Under the Government’s proposals, we could be left in the farcical situation that children get handed down a court order for playing, while the hardened offender gets let off the hook with no sanction. It is a perverse and muddled policy from Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for welcoming me in that way.

I wish to put on the record a few of my concerns about the Bill’s impact on the ability of inner-city local authorities to deal with particular instances of antisocial behaviour; I know that the Minister has been informed about them by the redoubtable cabinet member, Nickie Aiken, from Westminster city council. I shall raise two main areas of concern, to which I would appreciate the Minister giving consideration, and one specific amendment, which I suspect will have to be moved in another place in due course.

First, on powers of arrest and direct access to the criminal justice system, criminal injunctions are, as we all know, more effective than civil injunctions in reducing high-level antisocial behaviour, which damages communities and harms the reputation of central London. The Bill proposes to replace ASBOs on application and ASBOs on conviction with IPNAs and criminal behaviour orders—CBOs—respectively. Breaching a CBO will automatically be a criminal offence, whereas breaching an IPNA will not. Local authorities will be able to apply for an IPNA, but will not be able to apply for a CBO. Therefore, local authorities such as Westminster city council—in a former life this would have applied to the shadow Minister in his role at the London borough of Lambeth—will no longer be able to apply directly for any order or injunction on antisocial individuals or groups that would lead to criminal proceedings in the event of a breach. Instead, local authorities, housing associations, Transport for London and even police chiefs will have to apply separately for an IPNA arrest warrant. Alternatively, local authorities will have to negotiate on a case-by-case basis with the Crown Prosecution Service, which I fear will be operating with increasingly limited resources and capabilities, to place CBOs on antisocial individuals.

[Mr Steve Reed]

At a time when the police have had to suffer a 20% cut in funding, is it appropriate to expect them to shoulder the additional burden of £1.5 million per annum in pursuing breaches of IPNAs?

[Mark Field]

I certainly do not think the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers reflect the cuts at ground floor level in the work that can be done by our local police. However, all of us appreciate that we are living in financially constrained times and will be doing so for many years to come. Where I suspect I share some of the concerns that he has expressed, not just tonight but during the passage of this Bill, is about a severe weakening of the ability of local authorities, in conjunction with the police, to deal with elements of antisocial behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

My right hon. Friend is as eager as he was when he first arrived in this House many years ago. If he will allow me, I will get to the Committee and the amendments he referred to in his opening remarks in due course.

Another important issue raised in Committee relates to the application of the new powers in relation to antisocial behaviour in or around a respondent’s home, this time in relation to the criminal behaviour order. The first condition that must be met before a criminal behaviour order can be made is that the court is satisfied that the offender has engaged in behaviour that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the offender. In Committee the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) tabled an amendment to remove that limitation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made it clear at the time that the criminal behaviour order is not intended as a tool for tackling domestic violence, as other more suitable powers are available for that, and that remains the case. However, having considered the matter further, we recognise that there might be cases where antisocial behaviour is inflicted by one member of a multi-occupancy household on another and where the flexibility to apply for such an order could be helpful. Amendment 16 therefore removes that limitation.

I turn now to the amendments to clause 93, which relate to the community remedy. That welcome initiative gives victims of low-level crime and antisocial behaviour a say in the punishment of offenders out of court. Police and crime commissioners will work with the public and chief constables to compile a menu of out-of-court sanctions that can be used in appropriate cases following consultation with the victim. At the heart of the community remedy is our commitment to empowering victims and communities to say what is right for them. I do not think that that will include use of the stocks, which was referred to earlier.

We have brought forward amendments 45 to 48, which have three elements. The first two will put on the face of the Bill what had always been our expectation: the actions included in the community remedy document must promote public confidence in the use of out-of-court disposals and include an element that is punitive, restorative or rehabilitative. The third change is a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to which police and crime commissioners must have regard when preparing a community remedy document. A draft of that forms part of the document for practitioners, which we published last week.

The other Government amendments in the group are largely technical in nature, and I have placed a detailed letter in the Library. I commend the Government amendments to parts 1 to 6 of the Bill to the House.

I turn now to amendment 96, tabled by the shadow Home Secretary and spoken to today by the hon. Member for Croydon North. I am firmly of the view that antisocial behaviour still ruins too many lives and damages too many communities. There are, of course, problems in our inner cities, but there are also problems in our smaller towns, and that concerns all Members of this House.

Up to March 2013, 2.3 million incidents of antisocial behaviour were reported to the police and we know other incidents were reported to councils and social landlords. The previous Government tried—genuinely, I think—to address the problem, but after more than 10 pieces of legislation introduced before 2010 we have been left with a mishmash of powers that is confusing for the public and for the professionals who have to use them, and that is less and less effective. The antisocial behaviour order may have worked well in individual circumstances, but overall it has not worked well. Such orders are too often seen as a badge of honour and, as has been said, over 50% of them have been breached at least once and just over 40% have been breached more than once. Also, the number of orders issued has been falling year on year. People are losing confidence in ASBOs.

[Mr Steve Reed]

Why are the Government seeking to decriminalise antisocial behaviour when 80% of the public feel it is on the rise? How does that help?

[Norman Baker]

I will come on to the powers we are introducing, but the hon. Gentleman spent a lot of his contribution talking about the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance, which is one of the tools we are proposing, but we are also proposing a criminal behaviour order, a breach of which is a criminal offence. The CBO is in some ways most akin to the ASBO we are seeking to replace, the injunction being an extra tool.

I know Members on the Opposition Benches are still wedded to ASBOs, despite the evidence, but by any reasonable assessment the statistics show it has been increasingly failing. I want a system that is more effective at tackling antisocial behaviour and has the confidence of the professionals who use it. We know that agencies such as the police, local councils and social landlords are working hard to protect victims and stop antisocial behaviour, but they need the right powers to do this. That is why we are replacing the existing powers with six streamlined, more flexible, quicker and more effective ones to protect the public better.

[Mr Reed]

The Minister talked about trusting the police and local councils and adding more tools to their armoury, so instead of abolishing ASBOs why does he not leave them on the statute book so that police and councils can choose whether it is appropriate to use them or IPNAs, or any of the other tools the Government are providing in this Bill?

[Norman Baker]

First, ASBOs have been increasingly ineffective and have become a badge of honour in some cases; secondly, we want to streamline the powers so they are clear; and, thirdly, we want to use powers that are quick and efficient and that do the job, which is what Members on both sides of the Chamber want: we all want a swift reduction in antisocial behaviour.

As I have said, the main replacements for the ASBO are the injunction under part 1 of the Bill and the criminal behaviour order under part 2. In drawing comparisons with the ASBO, they should be seen together, rather than be taken individually. The injunction is a purely civil remedy. That means it has a lower test than the ASBO on application, coupled with the lower civil standard of proof, so it will be quicker to obtain than the existing order. Front-line professionals will be able to use it as a preventive measure to nip emerging problems in the bud before they escalate into something more serious—which I think is good news for victims— but, crucially, the court could also include “positive requirements” in the order. That is missing from the ASBO arrangements; indeed, that is one of their major flaws. That has meant the focus has been on stopping the behaviour, but not on getting individuals to deal with the underlying drivers of their behaviour. If we are to prevent reoccurrences of bad behaviour, it is very important we address that.

Unlike for the ASBO, breach of the IPNA will not be a criminal offence. This means there is no risk of criminalising under-18s. It will also help to reduce the burden on the police and others in gathering and providing evidence. That does not mean that the injunction has no teeth if it is breached: it does. Adults can be imprisoned for up to two years for breaching the terms of the IPNA, and the court can detain an under-18 if it thinks that, due to the severity or extent of the breach, no other power available to the court is appropriate.

We must not look at the injunction in isolation. It is complemented by the CBO, which will be available to deal with the most serious antisocial behaviour. Breach of a CBO will be a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of five years in prison. That is the same sanction as is available for the breach of an ASBO, but the CBO will be more effective than the ASBO because, like the injunction, it can have positive requirements attached to it to help the offender turn their life around.

These reforms are about putting the victim first and providing streamlined, effective powers for enforcement agencies to do just that. Amendment 96 seeks to retain a discredited regime that has left people across the country suffering from antisocial behaviour. I therefore hope, perhaps optimistically, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment in due course.

[Mr Reed]

rose—

[Norman Baker]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw it, I will gladly give way.

[Mr Reed]

I am not planning to withdraw it. I wonder whether the Minister is dismissing out of hand the views of the organisations that wrote a letter to The Times saying that this is “Ill-thought-out legislation” that will waste police time and clog up the courts. The signatories to that letter include the Standing Committee on Youth Justice, Barnardo’s, Liberty, the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services, JUSTICE, the Children’s Society, the Howard League for Penal Reform, UK Youth, the Prison Reform Trust, and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England. It is disappointing to hear the Minister dismiss the legitimate concerns raised by those well-respected organisations.

[Norman Baker]

I am certainly not dismissing them, and they have been looked at carefully, but it is important to look at the IPNA and the criminal behaviour order in tandem rather than merely concentrate on one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

The advice I am getting from officials is very clear—that this is an appropriate conclusion to reach. However, three Members have now raised that matter, and they have done so in quite strident or convinced terms, so I will write to them with a firm conclusion.

[Mr Steve Reed]

We are raising these issues because the Welsh Assembly Government have raised them. Perhaps, rather than driving something through after the UK Government have legal advice that is clearly different from the Welsh Assembly Government’s, the Minister will commit to speaking to the Welsh Assembly Government before taking further steps.

[Norman Baker]

As I understand it, we have spoken to the Welsh Assembly Government, but I think I have made a generous offer in saying that because Members have raised a constitutional point, although I believe the Government’s position is sound—that is the clear advice I am getting from officials—I will ask officials to set that down for me in writing, and I will write to the three Members who have raised the matter this evening. I think that is quite a good offer, if I may say so.

I hope that I have been helpful in responding to the amendments and new clauses that Members have tabled. I think we have a good Bill, and I commend it to the House.

2011 Public Disorder (Compensation)

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue that is of great interest to my residents in Croydon North and to many other people across London and in other parts of the country that were affected by the riots in the summer of 2011.

It is almost two years now since the riots hit Croydon. Businesses were burned to the ground, shops were looted, and homes were destroyed. The Prime Minister and the Mayor of London walked along the devastated London road in the central part of Croydon and promised people that they would not be forgotten and that, while the state had failed to protect them during the riots, it would stand by them as they tried to rebuild their lives. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Croydon North last November, I have met business owners and residents whose lives were damaged by the riots. They feel completely abandoned by a Government who promised to help them when the TV cameras were on but walked away when the media glare died down.

It is instructive to know how much has actually been paid out compared with the amount that has been claimed. I put in a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan police and found out that that now, nearly two years after the riots took place, only one seventh of the £250 million that was claimed had been paid out—that is, £35.8 million. The Metropolitan police rejected outright half of all claims that were filed, yet the Government continue to claim, and I fear may claim again tonight, that the majority of cases have been settled. The Government might have closed the files, but the cases have not been settled to the satisfaction of the people who were affected. They feel very strongly that the Government have given up on them and walked away. It is no wonder that the chair of The High Street Fund, Sir William Castell, has described the Government’s compensation schemes as a “disgrace” because of how slow they have been at paying out to people who need and deserve that additional money.

I have here some quotes from the Prime Minister during the debate in this Chamber on 11 August 2011. He said:

“I confirm that any individual, home owner or business that has suffered damage to or loss of their buildings or property as a result of rioting can seek compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, even if uninsured.”

In response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he said of the money that would be made available that

“the Riot (Damages) Act has no cap at all…people will be able to apply to the police and the Government will stand behind the police.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1054-59.]

The Government’s promises were good. What the Prime Minister offered to do was exactly what they should have been doing; the tragedy is that the reality has not matched the rhetoric.

What I hope to demonstrate, and hope the Minister will respond to, is my fear, and the fear of many people who have suffered as a result of the Government’s failure to intervene, that the Government are hiding behind definitions to avoid paying up. For instance, they are refusing to replace damaged, old business equipment with new business equipment, even though in many cases businesses are unable to buy like for like, and therefore cannot replace them, get their businesses going again and get their livelihoods back.

The Government, and the Metropolitan police, have also failed to define the riots properly in some parts of London. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has been in correspondence with the Home Secretary about Chalk Farm, where the riots were defined as “public disorder”, which means that the Riot (Damages) Act does not apply to businesses and individuals in that part of London who were affected.

Statistics do not give the full scale of what happened. They fail to tell us the human side of the Government’s failure. Individual stories tell us much more than statistics. I would therefore like to refer to two specific cases involving constituents of mine whose lives remain blighted by riots that happened nearly two years ago.

First, a gentleman called Mr Mumtaz Hassan and his wife ran a dry cleaning business on the London road in west Croydon. Their business was burned down by a mob and as a result their livelihood has been destroyed. Two years later, they have not been paid a single penny in compensation. All they have been offered is like for like. It was an old business that they had taken over. They cannot afford, with what is on offer to them, to pay for new dry cleaning equipment. As a result, that family risk losing their home, because they have no livelihood or income to maintain their mortgage payments. Two years later, the riots are still creating new victims and it is time that the Government stepped up and helped people as they promised in the immediate aftermath of those events.

Secondly, Miss Charlene Munro is a single mother who at the time lived in a flat above a business on the London road with her three-year-old son. When they saw rioters rushing down the London road, smashing and looting their way through the shops, they fled their home. They returned the next day to find the shop and the flat where they lived burned down and all their possessions destroyed. Absolutely everything they owned was gone. She put in a not unreasonable claim of just £6,000 for all her possessions. She received a paltry £2,500 in payment, which is absolutely inadequate to replace all the possessions, clothes and electronic goods that the family owned. She is unable to replace them. In her attempt to build a new home for her three-year-old son, she had to go into debt and is now so burdened with debt she has been forced to file for bankruptcy. The Government say that her case has been settled. It is not settled in any meaningful way other than that the Government have simply closed the file and are refusing to provide her with the support she deserves and was promised.

Some businesses are still being held liable for rent or mortgage payments on properties that have been burned down. Many insurers are going far too slowly in dealing with claims for damaged property and goods.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has brought this issue back to the House. Is he also concerned about premiums rising in riot areas such as his and mine, and does he agree that the absence of engagement with the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 means that areas are being abandoned and that that could lead to a Detroit-type scenario in this country, with completely barren areas without any insurance presence?

[Mr Reed]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I compliment him on his work as the Member for Tottenham in standing up for riot victims not just in his constituency, but elsewhere in London. That has been of great reassurance to my constituents as well as his. I absolutely agree with him. The issue is not just that premiums have gone up in areas hit by the riots; businesses have even told me that they cannot get insurance at all.

If we hollow out whole areas of London, we will further blight the lives of people who, through no fault of their own, were victims of hooligan mobs trashing and looting their way through London. We need the Government to step up to the mark, take on the issues that confront these areas and work with insurance companies to ensure that whole areas do not get blighted because of incidents two years ago that were nothing to do with the people who were living their lives peacefully and running businesses there.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I spoke to him beforehand about wanting to make a helpful intervention. The Northern Ireland Compensation Agency has been in place for many years and has helped victims of public disorder and, indeed, terrorist attacks get redress and financial assistance quicker and more efficiently. Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be helpful for the Government to contact the agency to ask it about its processes in order to enable victims in London to get redress quicker and more efficiently and not find themselves in a morass of bureaucracy?

[Mr Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I hope that the Government will look at other parts of the United Kingdom that have more experience of disorder and that therefore have more agile and nimble ways of responding to it. It would be foolish not to consider such experience and I hope that the Minister will take the hon. Gentleman up on his generous offer and speak to him about experiences in Northern Ireland.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I compliment my hon. Friend on the way in which he has brought his communities together? I and the Home Affairs Committee visited Croydon just after the riots and I visited it again just before his election. Local people tell me that he has played an important leadership role in ensuring that their cause is brought to Parliament and is prosecuted properly.

[Mr Reed]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which, typically, was extremely generous and kind.

In many cases, compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act cannot kick in until the insurance process has been completed. Too many insurers have taken too long to complete the process, leaving businesses unable to claim under the Government schemes. As a result of all the factors I have mentioned, the compensation is falling desperately short of the claims.

In the light of the two examples I have given of people from Croydon who have suffered, I want to give a further quotation from the Prime Minister. He was asked by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe):

“Will the Prime Minister assure me that no business will be lost and no livelihood subsequently lost because of the actions of those thugs and hooligans, and that the £20 million support fund, if deemed not big enough, will be increased to make sure that those things do not happen?”

The Prime Minister replied:

“Of course we will keep the issue under review, and there is the Riot (Damages) Act as well as the £20 million scheme. I believe that should be enough, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be on the case.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1083.]

Those were the warm words, but where are the help, the compensation and the action that were promised? These people are victims, not perpetrators. The riots are still creating new victims, but the Government are not doing enough to help them. I am afraid that the Government’s promises have been shown to be hollow. By failing to act, the Government are complicit in the suffering that people continue to endure in my constituency and elsewhere.

I ask the Minister to look at three things. First, please will he look again at the claims that are disputed? He may consider them to be settled, but too many people whose lives face ruin do not. Secondly, he must consider allowing old business equipment that was destroyed during the riots to be replaced by new equipment where there is no reasonable possibility of the business owner acquiring like-for-like replacements at the value of the property that was lost. Thirdly, please will he consider funding the businesses and individuals who are still being forced to pay mortgages on property that was destroyed? If the property does not exist, it is impossible for the business person to make an income to pay the mortgage. If they are forced to dip into their own finite resources, they will end up being bankrupted and will again be victimised, having already suffered loss during the riots.

Frankly, it is scandalous that people in Croydon who lost so much are still waiting for compensation nearly two years later. People in Croydon, across London and in all affected areas of the country looked to the Prime Minister and believed that the failure of the police to protect them, their homes and their livelihoods during the riots would be made good. That has not happened and it must be put right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I do not have the figures to hand, but if the Department has them, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and place a copy in the Library. I assume that he is referring to insurance claims rather than to Riot (Damages) Act claims. When it comes to insurance, there are three distinct classes. First, there are the people who are fully insured and who may over-claim, As we know, there are people who always over-claim. Secondly, there are the people who have insurance but subsequently find that they are underinsured. I consider many of those cases to be among the most complex and difficult. Thirdly, there are those with no insurance. It is the second and third groups who are eligible for compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act.

It may well be that the claims of some of those people will not be met in full. No doubt the hon. Member for Croydon North will be aware that some people in Croydon have withdrawn parts of their claims. It would obviously be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases, so I shall not do so, but I am happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman privately.

[Mr Reed]

I agree with the Minister that it is wrong to refer to individual cases, but let me draw his attention to the overall statistics. The total amount claimed was £250.1 million, and nearly two years later only £35.8 million has been paid. Is the Minister not concerned about the fact that that is a far lower proportion than would normally apply to claims for damages, even if allowance is made for normal loss adjustment?

[Damian Green]

It would concern me more if part, or all, of the claims of a large number of people had still not been met. The figures that I have given, however, show that the number of such claims is very small. Ideally, of course, we would have resolved all the claims by now, but I think that that is the key statistic. One of our main aims is to secure a complete resolution of the remaining few cases, but when there is a large batch of claims, some of those claims will always be more complex than others, and will take longer to resolve.

As I have said, many of the outstanding cases relate to claimants who were underinsured. It took time for the insurance element of those claims to be settled before the underinsurance element was submitted to PCCs or to MOPAC for consideration under the Riot (Damages) Act¸ which is why 5% of the insurance claims from small and medium-sized businesses remain outstanding after the 2011 riots.

Let me now focus specifically on what I take to be the hon. Gentleman’s central point, which is that some people have received smaller amounts of compensation. It is important to bear in mind the fact that such compensation is ultimately paid for by the taxpayer, and that claims therefore need to be properly substantiated. All uninsured claims were reviewed by loss adjusters using standards applied in the insurance industry. All victims were dealt with sympathetically. Where documents such as receipts for goods purchased were destroyed, secondary evidence was requested, such as bank statements, to substantiate lifestyle.

In addition to losses that cannot be substantiated, there are other reasons for individuals and businesses receiving less compensation than they sought. A number of claimants sought compensation for things not covered by the Act, such as personal injury, vehicle damage and business interruption. Excluding the costs associated with the reinstatement of buildings, adjustments were made downwards because claims made under the Act were assessed on an indemnity, rather than a new-for-old, basis. I take on board the point that that causes much of the disappointment, but that is the way the law is framed. In some ways this issue directly links to the purpose of the Act.

[Mr Reed]

It is more than a matter of disappointment for people who are unable to re-establish their livelihood and are therefore facing the loss of the family home because they can no longer meet the mortgage payments. The Government stood up after the riots and said nobody would lose their business or their home, so they did not intend for this to happen. Surely the Minister should act.

[Damian Green]

I was about to come on to that point. The Act is a safety net, which exists to provide some level of compensation. It should not be seen as a direct replacement for an insurance policy. The aim now is to encourage as many people as possible to obtain insurance, and we will need to look at any difficulties in that regard.

Turning specifically to Croydon, I am aware of the claims relating to the terrace on London road. The situation there is complex because of the number of people who were underinsured and because of the sums of the losses involved. Before rebuilding work can commence, it is important that most, or all, of these claims are resolved.

In recent months, the Home Office, Croydon council, the Metropolitan police, MOPAC, the insurers and the loss adjusters have been working together to finalise settlements on these claims. At the local level, Croydon council has been working with the landowners on London road to try to bring forward a suitable and appropriate development. They have already engaged with an architect to assist in this process. Meetings have also taken place between officials and MOPAC and the insurers, and the offer of a further meeting chaired by the deputy mayor for policing and crime has been proposed if it is thought that that will help speed things up. MOPAC and Croydon council, as well as the Home Office, are therefore doing their best to speed things up.

Metropolitan Police Service

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Thomas]

It is good to have the hon. Gentleman here. However, looking at the figures between March 2010 and April 2012, I see that Croydon lost 175 PCSOs and police officers, and it experienced the same percentage cut in police numbers—a cut of 19%—as Harrow did. Moreover, the figures for 2010—just in terms of police officers for Croydon—compared with the figures for 2015 suggest that there will be a net increase of just one police officer in Croydon. Add in the likelihood of further significant cuts to the number of PCSOs, in the way that I have described, and I suspect that the reality of police numbers in Croydon will be a significant fall.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I just want to point out that it depends on what people’s starting point is in 2011 as to whether we end up with more or fewer police officers in Croydon. If we take as our starting point the month immediately after the riots that deeply traumatised people in the borough, we end up with fewer police officers than at that time, and the public generally view the number that we had immediately after the riots as wholly inadequate—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for securing this important debate on an issue of such vital concern to residents in the areas that colleagues and I represent.

I put on the record my concern about proposals to cut policing in Croydon, particularly in Croydon North, so soon after the worst riots in a generation, for which Croydon was one of the focal points nationally. This was a huge issue in the by-election just a few weeks ago, when I was elected to represent Croydon North, although at that point the proposals were not as severe or damaging as those that we now have before us.

People living in that constituency are still shaken by what they saw during the riots. London road, which is one of the main shopping areas running through the constituency, was in flames. People were appalled to see gangs of looters and rioters smashing through local shops, stealing whatever they could find.

Many people do not just have the memory of those riots: they are still experiencing the after-effects. Mr and Mrs Hassan ran a launderette on the London road that was burnt out by arsonists. They have not only received no compensation to enable them to set up their livelihood again, but they have no other means of income. As a result, they cannot pay the mortgage on their home and are threatened with losing it.

Charlene Munro, a young single mother, and her three-year-old son had to flee their home when they saw a gang of rioters approaching. They returned next morning to find their flat burnt out and all their possessions destroyed. They also received little support. Charlene has been left in debt and her son, now aged four, is still traumatised by the experiences that he suffered.

Those are just two of many examples of how people in Croydon North are still suffering from the riots. The riots are not in the past; people have to live with them today. At a time when people in that community so desperately need reassurance about their public safety, how extraordinary that the Mayor should introduce proposals to cut the police, offering people greater fear about their personal safety, instead of reassurance.

Croydon North is a densely populated area. It is relatively poor. It is a challenging area to police. It is extraordinary that the Mayor is proposing to close every police station in Croydon North and to leave police numbers below the wholly inadequate level that existed immediately after the riots. Croydon is losing out twice. The Mayor’s justification for closing down the police stations is that it frees up resources to provide additional police on the streets. Croydon North will suffer on both counts; it will not get the additional policing that the Mayor has promised. This is a breach of the promises that people in Croydon North were made after the riots.

Crimes such as street robbery, domestic violence and hate crime are on the rise in Croydon. The legacy of the riots is still strong in people’s minds. I hope that the Minister will support me in urging the Mayor of London to bring forward alternative proposals that meet his earlier promises and are fair to Croydon.