Anti-social Behaviour Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Randall: When a police officer issues a caution, he presumably makes a note of it in his notebook. I presume that that will happen in this instance.

Matthew Green: I hope that that will be the case, and that the Minister will confirm it. However, Conservative Members have tabled an amendment that states that it ''must be recorded forthwith''.

We are trying to address a potential problem. I am sure that the Minister will say that the amendments are completely unnecessary because the matter is dealt with in other clauses. However, the purpose of consideration in Committee is to ascertain where problems lie. This mixed group of amendments deals with the notification of dispersal and how it is recorded, so that if such cases come to court they

Column Number: 196

can be properly dealt with. Finally, in what circumstances does the Minister foresee imprisonment being used?

Mr. Paice: As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, amendment No. 120 requires the verbal instruction to be put into writing ''forthwith''. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, it could be entered into a notebook. It is a probing amendment. Like the hon. Member for Ludlow, I am concerned that if a prosecution goes ahead under clause 31(2), there should be sufficient evidence to ensure that the process is completed and convictions obtained. It strikes me that because we are discussing groups of people, the situation could arise in which it was one officer's word against six, eight or 10 young people, all of whom flatly deny that he told them to go away or disperse. That is the issue on which I am probing the Government. How would such a situation be handled to ensure that the powers are properly used and that a prosecution under clause 31(2) could be achieved?

Mr. Ainsworth: Amendment No. 170 would ensure that publicity must be given for an authorisation both by publishing a notice in a newspaper circulated in the relevant locality and by posting an authorisation notice in a conspicuous place or places in the relevant locality. The Government believe that, in some areas, one of those methods will suffice, and that that will depend on local circumstances. We do not want to impose unnecessary bureaucracy on the police. For example, there might not be a suitable newspaper circulating in a relevant locality, and so, if the amendment were accepted, the police would not be able to authorise the action under discussion. The clause allows for either or both methods to be used, but there may be circumstances in which the use of both methods is not appropriate.

Amendment No. 171 would ensure that an authorisation notice is posted in more than one ''conspicuous place'' in a relevant locality. We agree that it is important for the public to be notified of the possible use of the powers. However, local circumstances, including the size of the area to be covered by the authorisation, may mean that one conspicuous place in the relevant locality will provide adequate publicity for the use of the powers.

Amendment No. 120 would ensure that a police officer giving a direction would record that direction forthwith. I agree with the principle that an officer should record the directions given, and those issues will be covered in a code of practice issued under clause 33. However, that is a matter of best practice and should not be included in the Bill. An officer should have some discretion as to exactly when a record is made. ''Forthwith'' might be interpreted to mean ''on the spot'', and that will not always be practical. Most sensible officers will do their recording as soon as is practical, for the sake of accuracy, but the circumstances with which they may be faced may mean that they cannot comply with the term ''forthwith''. We should encourage best practice, but should not necessarily include the ''forthwith'' direction in the Bill.

Column Number: 197

Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 would ensure that all directions would be given in writing, and that the police officer or community support officer could not give an oral direction. The Government believe that that is unnecessarily bureaucratic. In some circumstances the police may choose to give a written direction. However, in the light of local circumstances and the urgency of the situation, we believe that the constable should have the option of giving an oral direction.

Amendment No. 172 would mean that someone who ignored the direction given by a constable could not face a custodial sentence on summary conviction. We believe that imprisonment should be an option for those convicted in the worst type of cases. The maximum penalty is the same as that available under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for knowingly contravening a police direction.

Matthew Green: The Minister used the words, ''the worst kind of cases''. Could he elaborate on that phrase? Is he referring to repeat offences? What makes one offence of ignoring a direction worse than another?

Mr. Ainsworth: That is a matter for the courts. The maximum sentence includes the possibility of a prison sentence where the courts believe that to be appropriate. In effect, the amendment would deny the courts the opportunity to consider prison a sentence, even where they thought that one would be appropriate given the circumstances and the behaviour. We should not place such a restriction on the courts. As I said, the powers are exactly in line with legal provision for other situations in which people knowingly contravene a policeman's directions.

11.15 am

Mrs. Brooke: In light of the new legislation and the new emphasis on community sentences, and in light of the fact that we are talking about antisocial behaviour, a sentence in the community rather than costly imprisonment might be a real alternative to a fine for young people.

Mr. Ainsworth: We are talking not about antisocial behaviour but about people defying a police officer's direction. However, the hon. Lady is right. In many circumstances, a court may feel that community sentences are appropriate. My point is that the amendment would prevent them from considering a prison sentence in all circumstances. That is not appropriate, and it is out of line with provisions for other circumstances in which people defy a direction given to them by a constable. The option to consider a prison sentence must be open to the courts.

Matthew Green: Several issues have been raised. The Minister provided some clarification on the issue of recording people's details, but there is still concern about what would happen where quite a large group was given a dispersal order. Where two officers tell a group of 30 people to disperse, there may be concerns about their ability to write down exactly to whom they gave the order. If someone is caught the next day, his

Column Number: 198

defence might be, ''I wasn't in that group of 30 people.'' The Minister may want to deal with those issues in guidance. People may, of course, discover when and where the powers do not work as they use them in practice. Obviously, there will not be such a problem if there is CCTV in the area. None the less, there is a potential problem, although the Minister has gone some way towards dealing with it.

We heard the Minister's justification for the use of imprisonment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), I hope that the courts will use community sentences in many cases, because they will probably be far more appropriate. The Minister says that the provisions are in line with other legislation, and that may be the case. However, some issues remain open, and he may want to consider them before issuing guidance to police officers. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Powers of community support officers

Mrs. Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in

clause 32, page 26, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 174, in

clause 32, page 26, line 7, leave out subsection (3).

Mrs. Brooke: I shall probably be entirely consistent in moving the amendment, because I shall doubtless use some of the phrases that I used during consideration of the Police Reform Bill.

I am concerned about community support officers being put in exceedingly difficult situations as a result of the amount of training that they are given. This is a probing amendment, and I am sure that the Minister will give me many examples to show how useful community support officers will be. Indeed, I am in the process of requesting community support officers in my constituency to deal with certain situations.

My concern, which was shared by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, is that a large, rowdy group of young people with lots of alcohol can present a difficult situation to deal with. We have had to deal with such situations in my constituency, and on one occasion in my leafy green constituency—it is not a city centre—young people were swinging from trees, yelling abuse at police officers and consuming vast quantities of vodka. Community support officers would not have been the right people to deal with that situation.

I seek assurances from the Minister about appropriate deployment depending on the situation. I hope that other Members will share my concern that people with limited training should not be put into difficult situations.

Column Number: 199

Mr. Paice: As the hon. Lady said, the official Opposition opposed the concept of community support officers in the Police Reform Act 2002, and we remain extremely dubious about the wisdom of going down that road. However, CSOs are in place and have settled in remarkably well in some parts of the country. As we said clearly on Second Reading, we do not like the idea that, even though they have been in place for only weeks or months, the Bill will extend their powers.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is right to ask questions about CSOs' training and ability to deal with difficult situations, but that debate took place during the passage of the 2002 Act. The Government decided to override our concerns, which were shared by the vast majority of police officers, and have gone on to establish CSOs. We have not opposed the clause because we believe that we need a little time for the system to settle down to see whether our concerns prove to be justified. I do not believe that the additional powers will make a dramatic difference to how CSOs work, so I shall not oppose the clause.

However, the Government should not take that to mean that we agree with the principle of community support officers. We believe that it would be better at least to allow chief officers to use the money to employ full-time police officers rather than CSOs if they want, but we must face reality. I leave the marker that it is unwise for the Government, particularly in view of the assurances given during the passage of the 2002 Act, to continue to add to the powers of CSOs when they are still in their infancy and the jury is out on their efficacy.

 

---

Prepared 13 May 2003