Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2013.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we commence, I have a few preliminary announcements. Ladies and gentlemen may remove their jackets, if they so wish. Please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off: ringing not only annoys Committee members, but interferes with the broadcast system, which is of much greater importance.

As a general rule, I and my co-Chair, Jim Dobbin—I am delighted that he is with us this morning—will not call starred amendments that have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days, so amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday.

Not everybody is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees, so it may help if I explain how we will proceed. First, the Committee will be asked to consider the programme motion that was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee the other day and by the usual channels. It can be debated for up to half an hour. Once we have disposed of that, with the motion being put and agreed, we will proceed to the motion on reporting written evidence, which I trust will be a formality. Once such motions have been agreed, we will move into a private sitting in case the Committee wishes to discuss how to approach the evidence session. Following that, we will take oral evidence.

I am told by the usual channels that the oral evidence session may finish slightly early. I anticipate that we will finish by 10 am, but the Chair has discretion to extend the session by 15 minutes if it is apparent that there are further questions that Members wish to ask and witnesses wish to answer. Without further ado, I call the Minister to move the programme motion.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 8.55 am on Tuesday 18 June) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 June;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 June;

(c) at 8.55 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 June;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 June;

(e) at 8.55 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 July;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 4 July;

(g) at 8.55 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 9 July;

(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 11 July.

(i) at 8.55 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 July.

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

TABLE

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I too welcome you, Sir Roger, and your co-Chair, Mr Dobbin, to the Committee. We look forward to serving under you for the next few weeks. There is obviously a lot to discuss.

The official Opposition are content with the programme motion as discussed and also with the witnesses, as amended, before the Committee, and we are anxious to get on and hear from them today. With Opposition Members, I look forward to questioning witnesses over the next two days, and then returning in due course to a number of amendments we intend to propose on issues to do with antisocial behaviour, dangerous dogs, firearms, the Police Negotiating Board, the College of Policing, theft and shoplifting and a range of other matters that are before the Committee. There is much to discuss, and we do not wish to delay the Committee any further.

Examination of Witnesses

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are now going to hear oral evidence from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales and the Police Federation. Before I ask Mr Hanson to ask the first question, I remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and not to general policing matters, as might be the temptation. I believe that several hon. Members wish to declare interests and place them on the record before we start, so I invite bids.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

At some point, we will be hearing evidence from the Dogs Trust, so I inform the Committee that I have previously been instructed by the Dogs Trust, albeit some time ago.

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

I am chair of the Pet Advisory Committee, which has a number of companion animal welfare groups, including those involved with dogs.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Mr Jackson, Mr Thomas and Mr Williams, thank you very much for joining us. We are indebted to you. I invite Mr Hanson to put the first question.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Good morning, gentlemen. I am interested in the clauses that relate to the review bodies for police remuneration, and I would like to get a general view from the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation on those issues. When the changes were announced, the Police Federation said that it was “extremely angry and disappointed” with the Home Secretary’s recommendation to abolish the Police Negotiating Board, and the Police Superintendents Association has argued that the board should be retained and reformed. Will you outline your view of the current models, and of the revised model proposed in the Bill?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Do you have any views on the membership of the new body? Under the proposals in the Bill, the chair will be appointed by the Prime Minister, and members will be appointed by the Home Secretary. As I understand the Bill, the current police representation from the staff side will not be present. Do you have any views on the membership?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Do you have any suggested amendments for members of the Committee to consider, given that you accept, as I think I do, that the current process needs streamlining but that the proposed process has a number of concerns from your side and potentially from ours as well?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Perhaps other Members will want to comment on this in due course. Do you have any view about the change that effectively stops a UK structure, allows Scotland to set its own terms and conditions, and brings Northern Ireland with England and Wales under the new proposed body? Does that raise any concerns about uniformity across the United Kingdom?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Despite the fact that the Home Secretary is setting up a new police negotiating body, clause 114 allows her to make changes to conditions of service for police officers without the advice of that new body. Do you have any views on that? If the new body is in place, what is the point of having a clause that allows the Home Secretary to override it without its having an opportunity to comment?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have a final question before I leave this issue. We spent many a happy hour on the Crime and Courts Act 2013 only a few weeks ago, and there was, and still is, an issue about the involvement of Northern Ireland in national Home Office-sponsored bodies such as the National Crime Agency. Yet, here, we are establishing Northern Ireland as part of the police negotiating process. Are you aware of any tensions over the fact that, before appointing the chair of a police negotiating body, the Prime Minister will, effectively, consult only Northern Ireland, when we had so many difficulties with the buy-in of the Northern Ireland Assembly to the National Crime Agency? I am genuinely interested to hear whether you have picked up any concern among members in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That is a helpful answer. [ Interruption. ]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Unfortunately, Hansard cannot record a shake of the head.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My final final question relates to the powers of the College of Policing under the Bill to set out terms, conditions and training for police officers. Again, I am interested in whether you feel that police service representatives, such as yourselves, are engaged fully in governance issues relating to the College of Policing and the decision-making process it may bring forward under potential clauses.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Thank you very much. Before we move on, are there any other questions relating to the police board or related matters? No? In that case, we now move to antisocial behaviour. I note there are a number of questions.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

Welcome, gentlemen. Parliament can pass all sorts of laws, but we rely on members of your association or federation to enforce some of those laws, and to enable our constituents to feel less at risk from antisocial behaviour. If I may, Sir Roger, I shall ask one general question and a specific supplementary. First, one of the objectives of the Bill is to streamline some of the powers that are already in place. What sort of impact do you think that will have on your members’ abilities to provide enforcement?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Mr Williams, do you want to add to that?

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

Two parts of the Bill deal with the closure of premises associated with nuisance or disorder and with public spaces protection orders. I am particularly thinking about no-alcohol zones. From my experience in Bedford, you can put up a lot of signs saying “No Alcohol Zone,” but they are not as well enforced as many residents would wish them to be. Yesterday, Newham council lost a court case to close a betting shop that the council felt would be a centre for antisocial behaviour. Will the Bill do anything to assist those who wish to see the enforcement of no-alcohol zones? Will it assist local authorities such as Newham council that wish to see certain premises not licensed because of the implications for antisocial behaviour?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

Breach of an antisocial behaviour order was a crime pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service. Breach of the new injunction would be contempt of court, so it would be pursued by you or one of the other agencies. One chief inspector told me that his legal services team thought that the cost could be in the region of between £800 and £1,500 per case. Do you agree with that estimate?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

Might you see an occasion when, because of resource constraints, you take the decision that you cannot afford to pursue the breach of an injunction to prevent nuisance and disorder—an IPNA? Might there be an occasion when that decision had to be taken because of resource and time constraints?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

When the ASBO was first introduced, it took quite a while to get off the ground. I think there were about 100 ASBOs in the first year of operation. How long does it take to get to grips with a new power? Given that about 1,500 ASBOs, perhaps slightly more, are issued annually, might we expect to see a reduction in the use of a new power until it gets off the ground?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

That brings me nicely to my next point. What circumstances can you foresee in which you would ignore calls one and two on antisocial behaviour but act if a third call were made?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

We shall continue this line of questioning. Mr Williams, Mr Jackson, is there anything you want to add so far?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

Mr Thomas, you have referred to the fact that antisocial behaviour has increasing salience in both public and political debate. Over the past 15 years, we have seen a gradual increase in the number of regulations seeking to tackle antisocial behaviour. Has the accretive, accumulative process of legislation aided the implementation of the regulations or impeded them?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

There is a persistent perception among my constituents in central Blackpool that low-level antisocial behaviour continues to go ignored. It is the bane of their lives in many ways. As you may have just hinted, do you feel that the existing suite of tools at your disposal has been adequate for tackling that persistent, low-level type of antisocial behaviour rather than sudden eruptions of more visible antisocial behaviour?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Mr Jackson, did you want to add to that?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Please do.

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

During the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South gave a good example of the impact of cumulative low-level antisocial behaviour. Can you comment on whether the lower threshold that will be introduced for antisocial behaviour will assist in tackling that? Can you reflect on some of the risks attached to it, in terms of the increasing criminalisation of what has hitherto been legal activity? How will the threshold work in practice, and what are the dangers associated with it, in your view?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

We are all familiar with the case of Fiona Pilkington, who sadly took her own life and that of her daughter because the low-level antisocial behaviour to which they were subjected reached a peak. To what extent do you think the multi-agency working and the community trigger that you have been talking of will lead to greater flexibility to anticipate newly emerging forms of antisocial behaviour? To what extent do you think they will enlarge the toolkit available to the police to tackle effectively a problem that they recognise they have failed to tackle in the past?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Antisocial behaviour causes real misery in people’s lives, and a lot of my casework deals with antisocial behaviour. There has been talk so far from all three of you about feet on the ground. We are trying to come up with a solution in terms of addressing antisocial behaviour. Mr Williams, if you had to prioritise and choose between feet on the ground—the importance of officers on the ground—or an overhaul of ASBOs, which would you choose as a solution?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Mr Jackson, on the issue of ASBOs being weakened, do you think that law-abiding residents will be happy that breaches cannot now lead to a criminal conviction?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Mr Thomas, on the community trigger, my understanding is that in the pilot that has been conducted, there were more than 44,000 reports of antisocial behaviour, yet the community trigger was activated only 13 times. Do you think the trigger is proving successful?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

That it has not been used?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

If I can interrupt just for one moment: although Mr Danczuk has chosen to put his questions individually to members of the panel, it is open to anybody else to respond as well, if you wish to do so.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Thank you, Sir Roger. Does the panel have any concern that the Bill does not guarantee a response from the police or a local authority in terms of the community trigger, but simply guarantees a review? Do you think residents will be happy with that?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

We will have to wait and see.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

Do you think there is a risk that the community trigger could have the reverse effect—that if you have the threshold, you will wait to see whether you have overreached that threshold, rather than taking action immediately when an incident is reported?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

I expect that cases will be dealt with as and when they are reported, but could it lead to a feeling of waiting a bit longer to see how serious it becomes, rather than working with agencies more quickly and more effectively?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

What local police officers tell me is that one incident is one too many, and they want to deal with the first incident when it arises. Do you think the powers set out here will make it easier to deal with such incidents immediately?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

On the issue of partnership working, all the major public services are facing pressure on budgets. Given the pressures that all those agencies are facing, whether it is the council, health authorities or the police, do you think that partnership working is likely to improve? Or do you think that the financial restraint and problems that public services are facing might lead to a reduction in the good partnership working that has developed in the area of antisocial behaviour?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

This is a broad question. Could each of you say which parts of the Bill you welcome, because it will make you do your jobs more effectively, and which bits you are looking at with horror?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Ms Champion slightly pre-empted a route that I had intended to go down, which was to try to find the time to invite all three of you to make a final statement and put anything on the record that has not been covered. What often happens at the start of sittings such as this is that the Committee takes a time to get to know each other and get warmed up. Mr Rutley and Mr Barclay have both indicated that they would like to put brief questions to you. I propose to take those two and then allow Mr Thomas and Mr Williams to place any brief comments on the record, if we have time. If that takes us past 10 o’clock, so be it.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

We talked earlier about the community triggers, and antisocial behaviour is certainly a big issue across Cheshire, where Mr Mosley and I represent constituencies. I am keen to look at restorative justice and, in particular, the community remedy side of the equation. I wonder what each of you feels are the advantages to introducing community remedy, and how do you believe your members would seek to enforce and use it?

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

How many staff currently work in professional standards across England?

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We are going on to a session with the IPCC, where the intention is to transfer staff from professional standards. I was struck by the Home Affairs Committee report, which suggested that in a four-year period there were 8,500 allegations of corruption, but only 13 were found guilty, yet 200 officers a year—800 in that period—resigned in the midst of their disciplinary panels. In addition, more than 30,000 complaints came in, yet just 130 were picked up by the IPCC. The key issue is going to be the transfer of staff from professional standards, but you cannot tell us how many have been transferred?

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

In other words, the majority of corruption cases have been passed to people who did not have the skill sets to investigate them?

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is what you just said.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

With respect, Mr Thomas, that is not what the figures suggest. I thought in your evidence a moment ago you said that professional standards departments do not have the skill sets to investigate corruption.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Right, so they do. The 8,500 cases of corruption would be investigated by professional standards departments.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It may be that I am being a bit slow, but I am confused. Either this is about transferring to the IPCC staff who have the skill sets to investigate corruption, or it is about potentially getting rid of staff who do not have the required skill sets and getting in new staff in the IPCC.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It is just a bit odd that—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. We have now reached the end of the time allocated for questions. I am prepared to use my powers to extend that time, but I have already indicated that I intended to give Mr Williams and Mr Thomas the opportunity to make a very brief final statement, because it is important that we make sure that they have covered the ground that they wish to cover as well as the ground that hon. Members on the Committee wish to cover.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

That is very helpful, and I am sure that the Committee will appreciate it.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Thank you, Mr Jackson; you got your retaliation in last. That brings us to the end of the time we have available. On behalf of the Committee, I thank both the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation for your time. We know that you are busy people and we are indebted to you. That was very helpful indeed.

Examination of Witness

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

Would you like to introduce yourself?

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

We will now hear oral evidence from the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion agreed by the Committee. I hope that I will not have to interrupt anybody mid-sentence, but I will do so if I need to.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Dobbin. I also welcome Dame Anne, who has come before us today.

You will be pleased to know, Mr Dobbin—I am sure Dame Anne will be pleased, too—that the Opposition broadly support the measures in the Bill and will broadly be giving the Bill a fair wind during its passage, but I want to raise a couple of questions to see where the IPCC stands on some of the issues.

Dame Anne, my first question relates to your report on corruption in policing and the recommendations you have made to the Home Secretary on those matters. How do you think the Bill compares to the aspirations of the IPCC prior to its publication? Are there any areas where there are still outstanding matters that you think the Committee should consider?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Thanks for that. The Government’s statement of 12 February indicated that they were to transfer resources from forces’ professional standards departments to the IPCC to cover its additional responsibilities in the event of the Bill receiving Royal Assent in due course. Will you give us an update on where we are with resources, obviously given that over the past three years the IPCC’s budget has fallen by around £5 million? Where do you think you are in relation to these additional powers and your ability to execute them?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As I have said, we broadly support the clauses, so there is little difficulty. One of the areas I want to explore relates to clause 120, which allows for a requirement for a recommendation by the IPCC and a requirement for an organisation to respond to the IPCC’s statement of intent on whatever the issue might be. I want to be clear on your understanding of what happens in the event of an organisation failing to respond. As I read the Bill—again, the issue may be with me—there do not appear to be any teeth behind a failure to respond. They have to give a reason for why they do not respond, but essentially there are no teeth, unless I have misread it. Will you give me your view on where you think the IPCC stands in the event of an organisation or individual failing to respond?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Failure to take action. Clause 120 is on recommendations and the requirement to respond, which presumably means the requirement to respond to the recommendations, and presumably to take action afterwards.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have not formed a judgment on this, but I am interested in what happens when somebody refuses to implement a recommendation. Are there additional powers that we could consider with the Minister during the passage of the Bill that might strengthen the IPCC’s powers on those matters? Although I have not formed a final judgment, it seems that a failure to respond, other than “Thank you very much, we note the recommendation”, does not really move things on, even though the power of persuasion is there.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Select Committee on Home Affairs, as part of its consideration of extra powers for the IPCC, recommended that you should have the ability to hold interviews under caution for police officers. Do you have any views on that recommendation?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am looking at the outstanding requirement from the Home Affairs Committee, but perhaps it is more detailed.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Thank you for coming along, Dame Anne; it is much appreciated. I have a general question, then a couple of more specific points that were raised by the Police Superintendents Association this morning. In general terms, how do the provisions of the Bill, combined with the new elements that have been brought together in the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Act 2012, help fill the gaps that you, as head of the IPCC, had in your organisation?

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

On the points that were raised this morning, when the Committee heard from the Police Superintendents Association questions were asked about the IPCC’s powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Could you explain, perhaps with some examples, how the provisions in the Bill would help the IPCC carry out those investigations? The association was also clear in that it felt that, under the current arrangements, when police officers use powers there are safeguards. A senior officer who is not involved in the situation has to give a formal sign-off. Could you help us to understand, or give us reassurances, that under the proposals in the Bill there would be similar safeguards?

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

Before I go to Simon Danczuk, Stephen Mosley, did you want to come in on this point?

Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester)

It is related. If you are calling private contractors to give evidence to the IPCC, what form of compulsion can you use to make sure that those people give evidence? We had a debate last year in which we were told that it is a disciplinary offence for police officers, under their terms and conditions, not to give evidence. Can you force private contractors, who do not have those terms and conditions, to give evidence? If they refuse, what can you do?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Do you think that the public have faith in the IPCC?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Is some of the concern about budget cuts? On 1 February, on the “Today” programme, you said:

“We cannot do the job the public expect us to be able to do and if we are to do that job then we need to be properly resourced to do it and given the proper powers to do it.”

Is that right?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

You need more money to do what you are doing at the moment.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

The Bill increases your powers. What increased budget have you been offered in relation to those increased powers?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Do you need more resources?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

The IPCC wrote a detailed report into the death of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter, which found that there was much already going on that could have prevented that tragedy from occurring. Looking at the Bill, and the proposals for a community trigger, how do you think that that might have helped in the situation that Fiona Pilkington found herself in?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

There is a proposal in the Bill—you might have to write to us on this—that if underlying low-level antisocial behaviour is being reported on numerous occasions there will be a trigger point, to be set at a local level, which will ensure that a multi-agency approach is brought in to try to tackle those particular issues and to stop them escalating.

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

Rather than ask a second detailed question, may I ask you to go away and do some homework on whether the Bill meets any of the recommendations in your report on Fiona Pilkington?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

In particular, will you consider whether the flexibility that it creates allows for the more nuanced nature of antisocial behaviour that relates to disability hate crime and emerging types of hate crime, such as that relating to learning disability, and whether the Bill is helpful in that context?

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

What scope is there for savings in the professional standards teams of individual forces to facilitate the additional resource that you so clearly need?

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Do you have concerns about the ability to hire the skills that you need, particularly around correction investigations?

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I appreciate that discussions are ongoing. I think the new powers are very welcome and clearly needed. Do you have any ballpark estimate as to how many investigators you will have in place in 12 months’ time?

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yes.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Does the IPCC have a working estimate of the percentage of officers that it thinks is correct?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Dame Anne, I want to follow up on one of Mr Hanson’s questions. He asked specifically in relation to clause 120 and pointed to the fact that there are no teeth. You can make recommendations, but there are no enforcement powers. I think that that is right in relation to all recommendations that the IPCC makes. You have no method of enforcement other than by way of judicial review.

I have two questions for you. First, do you think that the IPCC ought to have enforcement powers without the need for judicial review? Secondly, how many judicial reviews has the IPCC taken out in order to enforce its recommendations and what have the cost implications of those been?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

That would be very helpful. May I ask you the direct question again? When you make recommendations that have to be enforced through judicial review, would it be helpful and beneficial for the IPCC to have the power to have those enforced without the need to take out a judicial review?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Thank you very much. If you could write to the Committee, that would be very helpful.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

We have time for one more quick question. Does anybody have a burning question to ask?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

This is a point of clarification. The previous panel said that there was not an appeal process for IPCC decisions, but you have just been talking about appeals. Is there a right to appeal, or not?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Is there a right to appeal your decisions, and should there be a right to appeal?

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

Is there anything else you would like to add before we finish?

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

Thank you very much for coming along and answering our detailed questions.

Examination of Witnesses

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

Please could you introduce yourselves one by one.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

May I interrupt you at this stage? You were only asked to introduce yourself; you were not asked for an opening statement.

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

I think all my questions are directed at the local government representatives and those who represent housing interests. I start by saying that I think we all accept and we all know as Members of Parliament that antisocial behaviour is not restricted to those who live in social housing. Do those with expertise in the matter feel that the Bill is doing enough to tackle antisocial behaviour where there is a private landlord?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

Is that in your view a deficiency in the Bill that you would like addressed?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

Could you explain something? Say I lived in a block of flats and was unlucky enough to have two nuisance neighbours. On one side is a social tenant and on the other is a flat that was sold under right to buy and is owned by a private landlord. Both are nuisance neighbours. Can you, Eamon or Rebecca, explain whether the Bill protects me from both neighbours equally?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

Thank you very much for that. Does anyone else want to add anything?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

I want to move on to the community trigger, under which agencies will be forced to respond after three complaints about antisocial behaviour. Obviously, that does not take into account any measure of the vulnerability of the victim, or the seriousness of the case. Does anybody believe that that is a weakness in the proposals?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

Thank you very much. The positive requirements will be a new measure that was not available in the antisocial behaviour order. For example, an ASBO might have prevented someone from going into the town centre because they were rowdy and drunk in the town centre, but under this legislation it will be possible not only to prevent someone from going into the town centre, but perhaps to require them to attend an alcohol awareness course. That will have cost implications, and you will be some of the agencies that will have to fund it. Where are you going to get the cash from? Is anybody worried about not having the money to pursue the positive requirements with no additional cash?

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

Breach of an ASBO is a crime, as you all know. Breach of an injunction is not a crime, but it can be punishable through contempt of court. This morning we heard from the Police Federation. They were very clear when I asked whether, given their tight resources and time constraints, they might not have time to push for the breach of injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance. They said yes, that is a possibility. Can I throw that out to anybody who wants to comment on that?

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

I wish to ask a couple of questions on part 5 about housing, and one or two to Ms Gibbs about young people. First, social landlords own about 4 million homes. There are 300,000 antisocial behaviour cases each year dealt with by those housing providers, but only 2,000 tenants are evicted. What do you think are the main pitfalls in the previous legislation that have prevented more positive action against antisocial behaviour tenants?

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

I was speaking to a housing association in my constituency on Friday that said that people quite often misunderstand the powers that are available. Victims of antisocial behaviour from neighbouring social tenants in particular find it very difficult to understand that those powers are subject to some limitations. Do you think this Bill will clear up some of that misunderstanding?

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

I have a final question on part 5. You have helpfully answered my question on the benefits of these changes, but is there anything in the Bill, specifically part 5, that you think should be improved in relation to possession? Is the time frame set out in the Bill suitable for you?

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does anyone else want to come in on that?

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

Ms Gibbs, in your view, how will this affect young people? I heard what you said to Gloria De Piero about the fact that it will take away the criminal aspect of ASBOs. We know that 38% of ASBOs are issued to 10 to 17-year-olds. Do you have a view on positive requirements and how they may help in future?

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

Do you think that this effectively gives youngsters a second chance, and that they have the opportunity to turn their lives around because they get a warning rather than a criminal record?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Penelope, I have a couple more questions on your position. You said that you do not support the criminalisation of young people through ASBOs, but it does not stop there, does it? I was reading your blog at The Huffington Post on 26 July 2011, and it says:

“There is a real problem with knife crime in poor urban areas like Enfield. Recently two rival gangs fought with machetes, knives and guns there and a sixteen-year-old was stabbed…These are terrible incidents which traumatise the community as well as those actually involved.”

Then you go on to say:

“But I don’t agree that the answer is to lock them up.”

If under-18s are running around with guns and stabbing people, you do not think they should be locked up?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

I understand that.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Let me stop you there, because I understand the road that you are going down. You were saying that young people under 18—17, 16-year-olds—who breach an ASBO should not be sent to prison or be convicted. I understand that; but I am reading your article. You also believe that young people of 17 or 16, running round with guns—it is your article I am referring to—should not be locked up either. That is what you have said. Let me ask you the next question. What about adults? Do you think adults who breach their ASBO should be convicted, or not?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

But could it lead to a conviction? Currently it can, but do you think that is acceptable?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

But you do not want to comment on whether you think adults can breach ASBOs either. You do not have a view on that.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Okay, that is fine. A broader question for the rest of the panel: the rate of ASBOs issued per head of population is nearly seven times higher in Greater Manchester than in places such as Lincolnshire or Wiltshire, so there is a real contrast between inner cities and rural areas, as you will know, Rebecca, coming from Manchester. Do you think the new proposals, the IPNA, will help to deal with the substantial contrast between the different types of areas that I have just described: rural versus inner-city?

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

My questions are primarily directed at Mr Lynch, and they are to do with recovering possession of dwelling houses. As Members of Parliament, we have a special responsibility to taxpayers, as they are the ones who have gone out and earned the money, and paid the taxes, that pay for social housing. That responsibility is even more acute now, after the country has lived beyond its means for 20 years. Every penny counts, and we have to do more with less.

A little earlier, someone was talking about the private sector, where there are good and bad landlords. As we are responsible as a landlord, per se, in situations such as this, should we reflect on the very low level of tolerance that many of our constituents have for antisocial behaviour in the properties that their taxes have paid for? Do you think that the measures go sufficiently far in protecting people’s investments in social houses to ensure that the right sort of people use them in the right sort of way?

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

To put the other side of the political position, is there a risk that we might become too intolerant of people, and that the powers will allow people to come forward with claims because they think certain people are an irritant, rather than actually causing significant antisocial behaviour? Might they try to get them evicted because they do not like them?

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

I am going to pick on that in my final question, which is on the issue of judges. Sometimes I hear that a social landlord may make the best case, in which it is clear that antisocial behaviour is going on, and take it to the county court, but the judge, for whatever reason, may not want to pursue it because they think it is too draconian. Is that something to do with the fact that a lot of our judges simply do not live in the same neighbourhood as some of the people they are trying to deal with, and that they do not understand what nuisance has been caused? Does the Bill do anything to address that issue, if indeed it is an issue?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Some of the cases of antisocial behaviour that I have dealt with in my area that are the most difficult and protracted to resolve involve private tenants. We have heard quite a lot about that already. Social housing providers are often very effective at dealing with antisocial behaviour and are more proactive. Are there any additional powers that you can identify that could help, in the legislation, in working with private landlords to tackle antisocial behaviour by their tenants? Is it the experience elsewhere in the country that it is sometimes cases in the private sector that are most difficult to resolve?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

Accredited schemes can be very helpful, but in one ex-Coal Board street in my constituency, there are a number of absentee landlords, and it took the council a very long time even to identify who those landlords were; some of them were based in Hong Kong. Clearly, that meant that, in the intervening period, they were unable to tackle the antisocial behaviour as effectively as they would have liked. Do you think that a register of landlords might help to identify those people and tackle antisocial behaviour, where it is happening, at an earlier stage?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

In terms of the community trigger, I am interested in how we make sure that we consider the qualitative nature of antisocial behaviour, not just the quantitative. We need to consider the vulnerabilities and risks of those affected by antisocial behaviour, not just the numbers. Will the legislation affect that, or will it not have an impact?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Good afternoon, everyone. I have a general question. Are you, as experts in each of your respective fields, fearful that the overall impact of the legislation, specifically the antisocial behaviour measures, will be to weaken or compromise significantly your ability to deal with antisocial behaviour complaints? Would anyone rather not have the Bill at all and stick with what we have currently?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am confused. I am not inviting anyone to be party political, but there was an article that concerned me in the Sunday Mirror the Sunday before last. It said:

“Theresa May’s plans to water down Asbos will cost millions of pounds and leave people at the mercy of thugs, Labour has warned.”

In the article, the shadow Home Secretary said:

“We need stronger not weaker action against crime”

in the context of the Bill. However, you have reassured me that the Bill is not making it weaker, and that that is an inaccurate interpretation.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

But inasmuch as there are concerns, your concern is that these measures are too strong, not too weak?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

You can put my mind at rest that people in the areas you serve will not be left at the mercy of thugs if we put this legislation through?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

On that very subject—this is directed particularly at Rebecca Bryant, because yours was one of the pilot areas—do you want the new community trigger to be as envisaged in the proposed legislation, or would you rather retain the existing system, where there is no backstop, and, in theory at least, somebody could complain a dozen, two dozen or three dozen times to the authorities and be ignored without any sense of redress? Do you think a flexible community trigger, able to be operated as fits that area, is a better solution?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

On a related question on a different aspect, people have made representations to every Committee member that there should be specific measures on dogs—dog control notices—and others who have said that the flexible powers could be used to achieve the objectives that people wish, in terms of restraining—constraining—dogs. I am curious to know whether you feel, any of you, that you need a specific, branded dog control notice or that, looking at the six strands of the antisocial behaviour powers, those would enable you to do what you needed to do to protect people from antisocial behaviour perpetrated by dogs/their owners.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

As long as you do not go in their house when delivering the leaflet, because then you fall foul of the provision.

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, which is a member of the coalition in the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. Penelope, most youth justice charities recognise there is a strong correlation between ASBO breaches that lead to imprisonment and speech, language and communication needs. For example, crossing the road might be part of what someone cannot do as part of their ASBO and they might not realise that that applies, even though that is the only way to get to their relative, for example. We seem to punish individuals for their inability to comprehend a sanction being applied to them.

Critics of the Bill accuse us of watering down the protections for the community against antisocial behaviour. To what extent do you feel that that particular conveyor belt was an effective way of tackling it?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

Previously we heard about how an IPNA can comprise a positive requirement, which I am sure we all agree is welcome. You have just added the point that you want pre-order assessment of health, welfare and mental health needs. Just to help the Committee in shaping how we view the legislation overall, could you speculate on how you might be able to incorporate these pre-order assessments into a positive requirement? Could the two accompany each other in some way?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

Thank you. That is a helpful contribution.

Finally, can I direct a question at the two representatives from Manchester? In the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the last Labour Government introduced what were called individual support orders. Those were essentially the positive requirements that we are now going to insert into the IPNAs. Clearly, the last Government were not great fans of their use, because only 367 were issued from May 2004 to the end of 2011. As I am an ignoramus, can you explain why they were not much used by practitioners on the ground?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

So who do you feel they were aimed at?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

Yes. Who would you have applied them to?

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

Angela?

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

Before we bring anybody else in, we are expecting a vote in a minute or so. For those who do not know the procedure, the Division Bell will ring. I intend to suspend the sitting at that moment for 15 minutes and then move on to the next panel at 4 o’clock.

Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester)

The Minister asked earlier whether this was tougher than existing regulations. One area that definitely seems tougher is part 4, the community protection notices. Under the Bill, local authorities and social housing providers will be able to issue community protection orders. If those orders are not complied with, it is a criminal offence, and they can be issued for a wide range of behaviour. The document describes it as any behaviour that is

“detrimental to the local community’s quality of life”.

It gives a case study of having rubbish in somebody’s garden. This gives local authorities’ housing associations a huge amount of power. I was wondering what checks and balances you think need to be in place to ensure that that power is not misused.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

Order. I suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. I ask Members to be back in their places then so that we can see the next set of witnesses. I thank all the witnesses for their contribution. If there is anything that any of you feel you have not been able to point out or contribute on, please feel free to write to the Committee.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

Order. We will move on to questions to the next panel of witnesses. We will hear oral evidence from the College of Policing and from the independent chair of the Police Negotiating Board and the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. Welcome. Will the new witnesses please introduce themselves for the benefit of the Committee?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Thank you, colleagues, for coming in. I have a couple of questions about the Police Negotiating Board and the College of Policing.

Welcome, Mr Randall. My first question is a general one. You are being abolished and replaced. Do you have any regrets about that, any points of concern or any issues that you think we need to reflect on, given that I understand the need to reduce the size and scope of the current Police Negotiating Board?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

On that point, paragraph 41 of your helpful submission to the Committee says:

“Consideration should be given to whether a duty should be placed on the police remuneration review body and the new Scottish negotiating body to have a regard to facilitating interoperability and career movement on a UK-wide basis.”

How do you think that should be facilitated, if you think consideration should be given to it? Where do you think that should fall currently—in the Bill?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Police Federation and the superintendents, in evidence this morning and in comments prior to the evidence, both made clear their concern about some aspects of the new review body and the lack of engagement that it might have. Do you share their concerns that they will have as a police staff less engagement with the new proposed body than they did with the previous body?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

On that point, how do you feel that the Police Federation, given the discussions this morning, will interact with the new body and indeed, potentially, in the crossover later on for our other two colleagues, with the new College of Policing on issues to do with terms and conditions, salary levels and other things which are now, in a sense, taken away from the Home Secretary and the Police Negotiating Board?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Would it be fair to characterise the situation, rightly or wrongly, in the following way: the current procedures mean that the Police Federation is at the table; the future procedures mean that the Police Federation is outside the room presenting through the door to the table?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Just as a proposition for consideration as the alternative model, at the moment ACPO, the police authorities as were and the police commissioners as are, and the Police Federation are around the table negotiating for things that they ultimately will have to deliver. The police pay review body may well not have the level of ultimate responsibility to deliver what it agrees. Is that a potential area of difficulty?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It has been put to us that because the Police Federation does not have what would be normally understood as industrial rights, it has a special position to be heard as part of the table rather than outside the room. Do you have any views on that?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I just have two questions with regard to the College of Policing issues, because—broadly speaking—the Opposition support the model and will give the Bill a fair wind on those issues. However, I am interested to hear from both Professor Pearce and Chief Constable Marshall as to how they would define the areas where the college now has a responsibility under clause 105 of the Bill, versus what the Home Secretary may want to stop, decline or veto downstream. Where do you see the boundary from your perspective, because that independence is enshrined in the Bill? I just want to get a sense while you are in front of us as to where you see that independence being the dividing line.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I do not seek to create tensions where there may be none, but clause 105 of the Bill says:

“If the College of Policing submits to the Secretary of State draft regulations”,

the Secretary of State can effectively veto them if they would

“impair the efficiency or effectiveness of the police, or…it would be unlawful to do so, or”—

this is the issue that I am concerned about—

“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so.”

Could you just give me your examples of when you might think it

“would for some other reason be wrong to do so”?

That seems to be very much the old favoured Henry VIII approach of “If I don’t like it, I can veto it.” I am interested in what you would perceive as the Secretary of State deciding that something you did was “wrong to do so”. What would be your definition of that?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Am I, as a Member of Parliament, to trust a future Home Secretary of any political hue or none in that, if they wish to, they can choose any reason that it would be “wrong to do so”, by vetoing anything you decide to do without giving any reason because under clause 105(1)(c)

“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so”?

Am I wrong in thinking that such a provision just gives carte blanche to a future Home Secretary?

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have one question for Mr Randall, following from the conversations about the PNB and the proposed successor body. You talked about the pros and the cons. As you look at them and think about the new review body, do you anticipate that any changes to remuneration and pay and conditions would come through quicker as a result of the new proposals?

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

One of the concerns expressed by Mr Hanson was about voice, and whether staff associations would get a voice in the process. I want to clarify your thoughts on that. Clearly, there would be a process and people outside the process would include the Home Secretary and the staff associations all trying to get to the table to talk about such things but then—hands off. Would that process give staff associations a voice? They have been used to it. Will they still be able to have their views put clearly on the table?

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have a couple of quick follow-up questions to Professor Pearce on the college. Now that the college is finally moving forward, do you think that means it will have the same influence in the professions of policing as other professional bodies would have elsewhere? Do you think the powers are sufficient to enable you to have that authority?

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

One further point of clarification. On Second Reading, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee suggested that police officers would be required to pay £1,000 for what he termed a certificate of knowledge. Does that figure ring any bells with you?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I was going to raise that last point. Potentially, post-2015-16, there is a budget shortfall in the college funding. I am interested in how that budget proposal is likely to be met downstream, given where we are in the comprehensive spending review. In a sense, I was going to touch on Mr Rutley’s point about what is the regime for charging.

In relation to the clauses that the Committee will discuss in due course, there is no mention of charging or not charging in the draft regulations. I wanted some clarity from the professor and the chief constable as to the likely trajectory of those matters and the budget shortfall in relation to the services in the Bill.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am interested in the same model in relation to the new police negotiating body. How do ordinary rank and file members, through the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association or the Association of Chief Police Officers, have input in the work of the board under the chairmanship of Professor Pearce?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My final question is on the territorial scope of the policing college. For example, the Bill mentions the National Crime Agency, which, in theory, operates in Northern Ireland as well as in England and Wales, but in practice, it does not because of the lack of a legislative consent motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly. Do you have an assessment of the geographical scope of the policing college and whether there are challenges with devolved Administrations that we need to explore in Committee or outside the Committee?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My bottom-line point is whether the legislative framework in the Bill gives you legal cover to do that. The Bill mentions the Secretary of State, England and Wales, then there is Scotland, and the National Crime Agency that will cover Northern Ireland, but not yet. Is the legislative consent sufficient for you to have an operation wider than simply England and Wales?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

But at the moment it does not operate in Northern Ireland because there is no legislative consent for the crime agency. In a sense, you are negotiating and setting terms under the Bill that would not necessarily be adopted by Northern Ireland but could be, in relation to the National Crime Agency’s operations there.

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

I want to ask about police remuneration. I have the pleasure of living next door to a police constable and have two more police constables living on my street. I also had 150 letters on the Winsor reforms. Should I be hiding, given the changes proposed in the Bill? Is there anything in particular that will upset them, or is it just a structural change, and as federated ranks they will not notice much difference in their day to day business?

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

This is effectively a structural process change. Ultimately, the way a police constable’s pay is determined, though decided by different people, will still be beyond their control. What is in their pay packet at the end of each month is really nothing to do with them, as is the case at the moment.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

If there are no further questions, I thank our three witnesses for their contributions.