Violent Crime Reduction Bill

---

 
Column Number: 29
 

Standing Committee B

Tuesday 18 October 2005

(Morning)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Joe Benton

†Abbott, Ms Diane (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)

†Blears, Hazel (Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety)

†Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab)

†Butler, Ms Dawn (Brent, South) (Lab)

Clappison, Mr. James (Hertsmere) (Con)

†Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)

Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon) (Con)

†Featherstone, Lynne (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD)

†Hosie, Stewart (Dundee, East) (SNP)

Jones, Mr. Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

†Keeble, Ms Sally (Northampton, North) (Lab)

†Malins, Mr. Humfrey (Woking) (Con)

†McCabe, Steve (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)

†Pound, Stephen (Ealing, North) (Lab)

†Prisk, Mr. Mark (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)

†Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)

†Sheridan, Jim (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)

Thurso, John (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

†Waltho, Lynda (Stourbridge) (Lab)

Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP)

†Wright, Jeremy (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con)

Geoffrey Farrar, Sarah Hartwell-Naguib, Committee Clerks

†attended the Committee

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Clause 1

Drinking banning orders

Amendment proposed [13 October]: No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out 'or disorderly'.—[Mr. Malins.]

10.30 am

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following amendments:

No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out 'or disorderly'.

No. 16, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, leave out ' or disorderly'.

No. 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 40, leave out 'or disorderly'.

No. 122, in clause 7, page 6, line 2, leave out 'or disorderly'.

No. 129, in clause 11, page 9, line 43, leave out 'or disorderly'.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): I welcome you, Mr. Benton, to the Chair.

At our previous sitting, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) challenged me to give an example of disorderly behaviour. When preparing for the Committee, I spent some time with the police in Northampton in order to see how measures already taken by the Government have helped the police deal with binge drinking and to see how the Bill would impact on the management of public space. I also consulted the drinks industry.

Two constables, a special constable and I, were walking along an alleyway when we came across a man urinating against a lamp post in full view of the public. It was quite a display. I understand that if it had not been in view of the public it would have been considered disorderly behaviour. However, not only was he urinating in public, he was doing so close to a pub window where a lot of women could be seen drinking. He put up quite a performance. He was drunk and disorderly in a public place.

The police issued him with a fixed penalty notice. That was the first time I have seen them used, and it seemed a good form of summary justice for dealing with a young man who, given that it was quite early in the evening, was not only very drunk but clearly intent on continuing to drink.

That might have been the end of the matter, but the young man's friends started to crowd around and jostle the police, giving them a lot of cheek. At one point, I thought that it would be impossible for the
 
Column Number: 32
 
police to finish issuing the fixed penalty notice. The young man—he was from Market Harborough—had come to Northampton town centre to cause problems. The police had to call for reinforcements, and two more officers came to deal with the friends, who were also tipsy.

Most people would recognise in a commonsensical way that such behaviour was disorderly, whether or not they were drunk. More to the point, however, was the fact that five police officers were having to deal with one incident—and that meant five fewer police officers being available to deal with burglaries and other crimes in the town.

Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con): Given the conduct that the hon. Lady describes, can she say why none of those persons was charged with a criminal offence—assaulting a constable in the exercise of his duty, or being drunk and disorderly—under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986?

Ms Keeble: I shall come to that. It goes to the heart of why some of the powers under the Bill are so important.

To have five police officers and one MP tied down trying to deal with a young man urinating in an alleyway is nonsense; but that is the sort of behaviour that destroys our town centres and makes them unpleasant for others. The Bill provides a range of powers for the police that can be implemented more easily. I am talking not only about the drinking banning order, but of other measures to deal with disorder; in particular, directing someone to leave a locality would deal with both disorder and drunkenness.

The Bill provides the police with a range of powers to manage a situation that has become intolerable in many towns. Of course, it is possible to find some other piece of legislation that applies, but the burden on the police of going through those procedures adds to the public uproar and anger about them not having enough powers to manage the situation.

In the circumstances that I described, the police could have ended up having to arrest a large number of young men, which would have been extremely difficult and would have involved more than five police officers. The range of measures in the Bill strengthens the police arm. I was horrified by the performance of the young man when he was issued with a fixed penalty notice. It is right that the police should have tougher powers with which to manage such situations. We should recognise that the problem is not only with criminal behaviour, but with disorderly behaviour.

I have spoken to representatives of the drinks trade about the situation. They had objections to alcohol disorder zones, with which I do not agree, but they did not have the same qualms about other measures in the Bill. They thought that these measures are important and that they will help to manage a difficult situation.

Mr. Malins: I asked the hon. Lady to give examples of disorderly behaviour that is not criminal, but she has not done so. Everything that she has talked about this morning is criminal, so let us have some examples.
 
Column Number: 33
 

Ms Keeble: That is not the case. As I said, I understand that if the young man had not been in public and had been a bit further up the alleyway, his behaviour would not qualify as being drunk and disorderly in a public place and would be regarded as disorderly conduct. As for the other young men, the arguments are the same as those when we discussed antisocial behaviour orders—the legislation may apply to a range of types of behaviour, and that will be tested as the powers are put in place. Obviously, the Minister cannot be too prescriptive about what behaviour is relevant, because that has to be tested in the courts.

The Bill gives the police a range of powers to use appropriately to manage a situation that is intolerable for many people and in many town centres. I say to the Liberal Democrats in particular that there is no point in putting around leaflets saying that they are opposed to disorderly behaviour and, ''Isn't it terrible what happens in the town centre?'', and then moving or supporting wrecking amendments in respect of measures that would deal with precisely those problems, which we all know exist in town centres, and with which we need to deal.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is straying slightly off the amendment.

Ms Keeble: The amendment would exclude disorderly conduct from the Bill, but that goes right to the heart of the Bill. Therefore it is a wrecking amendment, because it would make it impossible for the proposed legislation to deal with one of the main mischiefs in our town centres, which people want the police to deal with quickly and firmly without using too many resources. I hope that the amendment will not be pushed to a vote.

Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): Does the hon. Lady seriously suggest that the new powers would mean that only one policeman would be engaged in the situation of which she spoke? The issue is about the resources available in our town centres, not whether there is another sheaf of new powers for the police, and therefore paperwork for them to complete. The simple, practical, awful reality is that some people behave in the way that the hon. Lady describes. That is an operational issue; it has nothing to do with new laws.

Ms Keeble: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The issue is not merely resources; it is the range of powers that the police have to deal with the problems. He is right that problem behaviour has to be controlled and managed, but it is wrong to say that such behaviour is criminal, and that it has to pass a higher test. That is why the disorderly behaviour element is so important. If we consider merely increasing police resources, we will find that, as in Northampton and elsewhere, more and more police are tied up managing disorderly behaviour because they do not have the range of measures at their disposal to enable them to reduce the problem and make their town centres places where a wide range of people can go and enjoy themselves.

I have provided an example that fits—

Mr. Malins: No, it does not.
 
Column Number: 34
 

Ms Keeble: Yes, it does. I have demonstrated that this is not a small amendment to an important piece of legislation, but a wrecking one.

Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I would take issue with the description of the amendment as a wrecking amendment. More, it is a probing amendment in respect of the concept of disorderly behaviour, which could lead to the inappropriate use of the measure if it came into legislation without any caveat. Disorder is not defined in law, but the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 define ''anti-social behaviour'' as

''behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress''.

That definition could be of help here. I am speaking to amendments Nos. 6, 17, 122 and 129, but I also support what the hon. Member for Woking is trying to do. Town centres have been mentioned, but the measure is not limited to town centres. Would disorderly conduct be the same wherever it occurred? It is difficult to distinguish. I accept that the Government are trying to do something difficult: if behaviour is disorderly—it is causing harassment, alarm or distress—we would wish to have a measure available that, although not as strong as a criminal Act, could stop it. However, whenever such powers are given to the police, questions arise about the use of their powers and their discretion. I sat for five years on the Metropolitan Police Authority, so I know that in some circumstances one can be on a slippery slope in trying to distinguish between high spirits and disorder or in deciding which communities to target, given the sort of people who tend to be out in town centres at certain times of night, as has been said.

This is not a wrecking amendment. Liberal Democrats support the Government's intentions. In my constituency, we have extreme problems in Wood Green, and those are easily understood. However, in other areas, such as Muswell Hill and Highgate, there is a different order of disorder. Any measure that revolves around disorder would be far better if ''disorder'' could be more closely defined.

For example, there have been difficulties with applying antisocial behaviour orders to those with mental health issues. The British Institute for Brain Injured Children reports that a 12-year-old autistic boy was punished for swearing over his neighbour's fence. Another young person with Tourette's syndrome was given an ASBO for swearing. Those may be extreme and rare examples, but, as I said in an earlier debate, we must protect those who might be understood to be behaving in a disorderly manner when in fact they are not. There is a lot of haziness around the term ''disorderly'', and I would welcome a move by the Government to define it more closely.

10.45 am

---

Prepared 18 October 2005