Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2013.
Examination of Witnesses
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Welcome to this morning’s sitting. We shall now hear evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and from the Association of Chief Police Officers. Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind all members of the Committee that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick strictly to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. I hope I do not have to interrupt anyone mid-sentence, but I will if necessary. Would the witnesses like quickly to introduce themselves?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Good morning, colleagues. I want to kick off with a couple of questions about dangerous dogs, and I suspect that my colleague from north Wales, Mr Pritchard, will respond. I want to explore three issues to get a flavour of the clauses in the Bill. The official Opposition welcome the clauses, but we want to explore whether additional items could be considered by the Committee.
We have received from, among others, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs Home and a variety of other animal welfare charities the recommendation that we widen the Bill’s scope to include dog control notices and other similar measures. Does ACPO or any police and crime commissioner have a view on the suitability and desirability of that approach?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
On the Bill’s antisocial behaviour measures, and reflecting what has been said to me outside the Committee, the animal charities do not believe that that is strong enough, which is why they are pressing us for dog control notices. Do you have any comments on the existing provisions in the Bill, as opposed to the potential for a dog control notice?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I have also had welcome representations about the assisted guide dogs element of the Bill. I welcome the provisions in the Bill, but I have also had representations about whether, as well as aggravated offences for guide dogs and assistance dogs, consideration should be given to animal-on-animal attacks, such as on cats and horses. I am interested in your view of the level of the problem involving cat attacks and horse attacks by dogs, and/or whether any provision would be enforceable if it were included in the Bill, and whether that would be desirable.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I have two final questions. We have had some very serious cases of dog attacks where fatalities have occurred. Can you comment on whether the current penalties are appropriate and whether they could be examined in future?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Clauses 98 and 99 relate to entry to premises. Are there any tweaks or amendments that you would consider to defences? For example, a canvasser could knock on a door and be invited in for a cup of tea. The dog could bound up to the canvasser, knock them over and action could be taken. [ Interruption. ] It does not happen in Cambridge; it is a north Wales thing, obviously. Animal charities have made representations to me about that. Without yet forming a judgment myself, I wanted to get a view from ACPO as to whether clauses 98 and 99 are sufficiently well defined to allow proper prosecutions while allowing reasonable judgment.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Is the current definition in clauses 98 and 99 sufficiently tight to ensure that we prosecute appropriately when a dangerous dog is acting in an aggressive and dangerous way?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Tony Lloyd, welcome back to Parliament, albeit under different circumstances.
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
I want to ask a couple of questions to pick up on the themes Mr Hanson mentioned. Deputy Chief Constable Pritchard, you mentioned 15 people—nine children and six adults—who had been killed by dangerous dogs since 2005. In how many of those cases do you know the penalties that were placed on the owners of the dogs?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
That would be useful for us, because many members of the public would be shocked to know that someone could be attacked and killed by a dangerous dog and that the maximum penalty that could be imposed at the moment is, I think you said, only two years. Is that correct?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
Three or four months?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
For murder?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
Well, someone died through the actions of the owner of a dog.
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
If the parents of a child who has been killed by someone’s dog see them getting three to four months, they would be shocked, wouldn’t they?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
Are there are any lessons that we can learn from the legislation in place in other jurisdictions in north America and Europe, and from the ability to enforce legislation there, that could help guide us in understanding how we can strengthen the provisions in the Bill as they relate to attacks by dangerous dogs?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
Thank you.
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
The Government’s intention in changing the antisocial behaviour laws is to streamline the powers, but that has unintended consequences. For instance, if I look at the Government’s impact assessment on the community protection order and the community trigger, in the first year it is about changing the names of things; for example, a litter clearing notice will change to a community protection notice, and a crack house closure order will change to a closure order. That sounds simple enough, except the impact assessment also says that police officers will have to be in training for 152,000 hours. Is that good use of police time?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
That deals with just the name changes of those same powers. Obviously, there is a bigger change, which is the change from an ASBO, an antisocial behaviour order, to an IPNA, an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance. I thought that that would have required more training, but the impact assessment makes no mention of it, except that “minimal training should be required”. I was looking at Baroness Newlove’s written submission of evidence to the Committee, and she was concerned that the injunction would add to the work load of front-line officers, because of their lack of knowledge of civil law. She recommends that police officers are properly trained in its use. What kind of demand on training would that be? If it is so many hours for a name change, can we assume it would be even more hours for a change in a power, an actual tool?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
Does anyone else want to chip in?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
On the community remedy, Baroness Newlove said in her evidence that she is concerned that there will be significant force by force differences in the remedies available to victims. She recommends that the Government consult with the police, local authorities and other agencies to develop a list of nationally agreed and appropriate out of court disposals that local people could choose from. What are your views on that?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
Would an apology to either a police officer or the victim ever suffice?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I want to follow up on Ms De Piero’s question about the actions that might be contained in a community remedy document. There is currently no guidance at all in the Bill as to what might be an appropriate action to be defined locally. First, do you think that it might be helpful to have such guidance in the Bill? Secondly, I wanted to ask specifically what is to stop, for example, a police commissioner putting as one of the list of actions that somebody could be put in the stocks for three hours and have tomatoes hurled at them? There is nothing in the legislation that prevents that, as far as I can see. I would be particularly grateful for comments from the elected police and crime commissioners.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Does anyone else want to add anything?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Finally—I will let you in, Mr Ball—it will not surprise you, given my interest in this part of the Bill, that I have tabled a new clause dealing with the content of community remedy documents. Can I set a piece of homework, which is to look at that amendment and perhaps to submit to the Committee
in writing whether you think it deals with the issues that we have been canvassing, and whether you think it can be improved in any way?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Tony, if I could start with you, I was reading a BBC article of 28 March, which says that Greater Manchester police has to cut £134 million between 2010 and 2015. It is reducing its budget by 20%, which will lead to the loss of about 3,000 posts. My question, Tony, is have you been given any extra funding to implement these—what some might call unnecessary—changes?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Are there any other contributions on that question?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Tim, you said earlier that you are quite relaxed about the fact that you have these new powers coming in. How much have you set aside to pay for the training and to support your officers in making the necessary changes?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
How much?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Can you send us a note?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
The question to you, Ron, was that you mentioned you had consulted with other independent commissioners about the change, but have you consulted with the public, on whose behalf you speak?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
There is no big clamour for these changes from your public.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Okay. On Tuesday, we were told that there will be a significant lull in tackling antisocial behaviour while this legislation beds in. What provisions are being made to combat this lull, so that it does not occur? Perhaps we will start with you, Sara.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
My question was, what provision have you made to combat the lull that will occur? We were told by the police on Tuesday that there will be a significant lull while this change occurs. What provision have you made?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Any further contributions? No.
David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)
I am sorry I was late for the start of the meeting, Mr Dobbin.
Just a question to the officers about the College of Policing. That seems to be well received on both sides and Sir Hugh Orde seems supportive, too. Obviously, the aim is to bring this forward and incorporate it with a royal charter. Are the officers supportive of the college and the aim of moving it into a royal charter?
David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Okay. Any other contributions from officers on that? No.
Obviously, the college will have a lot of responsibility in preparing new regulations and codes of practice. What role do you think the chief constables council will have in helping influence that?
David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)
One final question to the PCCs. How do you look at the college? Are you comfortable with the governance model and how we aim to evolve it?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Does the panel or any of its police officers have any concerns about the new powers being given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission? Can we start with Chief Constable Thornton?
Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)
Briefly, on cost: Miss Thornton, would it be your assessment that the overall cost implications are an increase in cost, a neutral implication or a potential saving or lessening of cost, given that, in your remarks, you suggested the existing powers are bureaucratic, their use is low—in single figures—and training will be absorbed within existing budgets?
Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)
Yes.
Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)
Thank you; that is helpful.
Mr Lloyd, could I just come on to the College of Policing? There is a significant body of evidence, via the National Audit Office, about potential savings on procurement, which police forces have often struggled to maximise. One of the impediments cited by the NAO is the bespoking of procurement through the legal independence of individual police forces. Indeed, a number of police forces fail even to provide data to the NAO in a timely fashion.
First, may I ask for your remarks on forces failing to provide data on costs to the NAO—indeed, the permanent secretary wrote to the PAC about that—and how that might be improved? Secondly how will the College of Policing tackle areas where it has perhaps a cheaper procurement route, but individual forces, through their desire for a bespoke solution, opt to do something else?
Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)
What I am driving at is that if you look at the fire service, where they have a college, it has not overcome the obstacle of the legal independence of fire authorities. One can look at even simple measures, such as the procurement of a white shirt: I lost sight of the different options—I began to lose the will to live—for pockets on a white shirt, which different forces seemed to require, at variance to other forces. On the matter of back office mergers, the north-west in particular was an outlier in its failure to work with other forces on back office controls. What I wanted to understand—
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Order. I have to interrupt because we are out of time.
Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)
Perhaps we can have a note. The key issue is how the college will address what the NAO has found with the fire service and police procurement, to do with the benefits we all agree on, of procurement as a whole, as against the individual actions of legal entities that can do their own thing.
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted to the Committee to ask questions of these witnesses. I thank them for their contributions.
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
We will now hear from representatives of Karma Nirvana and Freedom. Would the witnesses care to introduce themselves?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
Thank you for being with us today. May I ask you broadly whether the Bill goes far enough? Are you happy with it? Would you make any changes to it?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
Thank you.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
I know from casework I have done as a Member of Parliament how important this issue is and how important the legislation on it is. Perhaps even more important is the work the agencies and voluntary organisations do with people who are forced into marriage. In terms of the capacity in those supporting agencies, how are things at the moment? Are they getting better or worse?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
This is a very basic question. May I ask you both to list quickly the main reasons for forced marriage?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
I am sorry. You have a lot of experience, but I am trying to learn the basics. Can you tell me what are the main reasons for forced marriage?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
I am sorry, but my question was, please can you list the main reasons for forced marriage? I had a good list from Ms Prem, and I wonder whether you can think of any differences from that list. She said, family control, money, immigration—either staying in the UK or coming to the UK. Are those the main reasons, or are there other reasons?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
An additional point to Ms Prem’s list is that anything to do with integration is a premise or justification. Many people would say that people not wanting their families to integrate is itself a bad social thing. That is compounded by the criminal act of forced marriage.
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
Is that land and property rights here in the UK?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
Ms Prem, you mentioned immigration. In your experience, what proportion of forced marriages relate to the desires to bring spouses from outside, or to stay in the UK? Is that commonplace?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
Thank you. Does that apply to British women and British men equally, or is it mainly British women who are used, through forced marriage, to allow someone to come to this country?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
You are saying that it is not only an issue of family control and honour; it is being targeted on the more vulnerable people in the family.
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
Is there a distinction between a marriage arranged for immigration purposes and a forced marriage?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
How would you describe the difference?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
I fully understand what arranged marriage is. I am talking about arranged marriage for immigration purposes being distinct from forced marriage. Is it truly distinct, and what makes it distinct?
Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)
This is my final question. You gave a very interesting answer. Do you think that the Bill should include those circumstances, perhaps not to categorise it directly as forced marriage, but to send out a signal that such behaviour is not only unwelcome, but unlawful?
Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)
Do you feel that rebranding—that is, criminalising forced marriage—without wider support networks being in place would actually result in fewer victims coming forward? How far will those victims be able to pursue a conviction in light of the cuts to legal aid?
Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)
To clarify, criminalisation alone is not enough. There needs to be more provisions in the Bill for wider support networks and more agencies to become involved?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
Building on what my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, 20 years ago I volunteered at a secondary school. Unfortunately, it was reasonably common that Asian girls would do their GCSEs and not come back to do their A-levels. We found out that that was because of forced marriage.
Miss Sanghera, you said that the law did not go far enough; I, too, am concerned that it does not go far enough. Could you be very specific and say what sort of changes in the law should be made by this Bill to protect children like those I used to work with?
Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)
On the same point about the role of schools and the Department for Education, you have both spoken very strongly about that role. Often, the Department seems to be the weakest link when it comes to violence against women and girls, and on the issues that you are talking about here. When it comes to monitoring and reporting, are you recommending that the Department should mandate that schools collect this information and that it should be held centrally?
Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)
Presumably, if we are not recording the information, it is difficult to identify the people who will be helped by a change in the law?
Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)
On a separate issue of immigration, which we touched on earlier, where you have reluctant sponsors who are contacting the Home Office, or the UK Border Agency as was, to report that they are not a willing participant in a marriage, or where you have someone subsequently reporting abuse that is taking place and they no longer wish the spouse to remain in the country, how is that information acted on? Is it always acted on properly and thoroughly?
Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)
If we assume that the victim has gone through the marriage and they then report that abuse has taken place and that the marriage was not with their consent, is the victim kept updated about what is happening—about whether that immigration status may be revoked or the person may be removed?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
We do not have any more time for any further questions. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of this panel.
Examination of Witness
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
We will now hear evidence from Victim Support. 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 that the Committee has agreed. I hope I do not have to interrupt mid-sentence, but I will do so if need be. I call first Gloria De Piero.
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
Baroness Newlove submitted written evidence. I will read a short paragraph to see what you think:
“My only concern with this provision is the requirement for a minimum number of qualifying complaints before an application for a review can be made. This is potentially problematic because it implies that a certain number of incidents are acceptable before any action needs to be taken by the authorities.”
I wondered what you thought of that. Her final point is that she does not think the term “community trigger” works because it does not actually trigger anything. She suggests calling it a “community review” or “alert”. I am interested in your views on Baroness Newlove’s evidence.
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
I have a question about the community remedy. Interestingly, the word “remedy” is used and not “restorative justice”, which we might normally use. It is really important. Restorative justice can work; I think everybody here would agree with that. However, it is given a bad name where it is seen as soft justice. Could you maybe give us some advice on behalf of victims of how the community remedy might be tightened up to ensure that it is not soft justice?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
Sometimes an apology is given by the perpetrator, or to the police. At what kind of level of incidence of antisocial behaviour would you say something as low or minimal as an apology might work?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
That is very helpful. Thank you.
David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)
We met with some police and crime commissioners in an earlier session today. They have been given support for local commissioning of services for witnesses and victims. That will provide opportunities for a more competitive approach to getting provisions in place. However, from your perspective, what sort of support do you envisage that the PCCs will need to make sure that that approach will be truly effective?
David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)
That is interesting. It leads me to my next point: you said clearly that victims’ needs vary. Given the new approach that will be taken, there will be, in theory, opportunities for better integration of local services in support of individual victims. Do you feel optimistic that that will happen?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
On that point, clause 123 says:
“A local policing body may provide or arrange for the provision of…services”.
It does not say “will” or “must”, but “may”. In the new commissioning framework, an amount of money is set centrally. There is currently £66 million going to victim support issues, distributed nationally. If there is a split, with a portion of the money for the witness services, which is done nationally, and a portion of money is devolved to 43 police and crime commissioners, what guarantees have you got that they will do what is currently being done rather than allocate that to additional police community support officers or police officers, or something else?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
That means that eight did not.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
The simple point is that changing one word in the clause, approved by this Committee, would mean they would have to. Changing “may” to “must” or “may” to “will” would mean they would have to. Would you welcome that or not?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
That is before the comprehensive spending review.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Are you clear at Victim Support what the total bag of money is that is being kept centrally by the Ministry of Justice and other Departments, and what is potentially going to be devolved for distribution by PCCs?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Do you think anybody can provide victim or witnesses services locally? Should there be minimum standards? Should there be some quality check? Can I set myself up as a victims support person and bid for this money from PCCs next year?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Should there be a quality check at the moment? Clause 123 says,
“A local policing body…under this section…may make grants in connection with the arrangements.”
It does not say to whom, where or how; it can do what it wants. Should there be some quality control of the service? Is it effectively for the PCC locally to determine how much to give as a grant to a service, whoever they grant that service to and on whatever conditions—be it price, quality or whatever?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
But at the moment the Bill does not allow a quality threshold; it simply says “may”. My challenge to you, and us, is that if we are to have this, is that something we should consider? I am quite relaxed about it but you are the people who are currently providing services and are going to have to face a competitive tender with whoever wants to provide that service.
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
We went straight into the individual clauses. I am interested to know your views of the Bill overall.
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
Do you have any views on the dangerous dogs clauses? Obviously some people who come to Victim Support may well have been the victim of a dog attack.
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
My final question is on children as victims. Do you think that the Bill goes far enough to protect children who are victims of antisocial behaviour, or of other offences in the Bill?
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
Do you think that extra protections should be put into the legislation?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
I want to ask about the community trigger. I have been reading the Rochdale Observer newspaper—I do not know whether you are familiar with that august publication, but I certainly am—which has reported on a particular case from the Smallbridge area. A gang of young people made local residents’ lives a real misery around Stevenson square. It was serious stuff and they made things really difficult. The article states:
“Residents were initially too frightened to speak out”
against the gang members. With the community trigger, on the one hand there is the reporting threshold that the legislation proposes. On the other hand, there are the victims: elderly people whose lives are being made an absolute misery, who are reluctant to report or to get involved in reporting anything, or to be identified. How do you think the two will tally?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Do you share my concern? From my experience of casework and people coming to see me about antisocial behaviour, I get the impression that, if the Bill is implemented as the Government propose, when I contact the police on behalf of a resident or constituent, the police will say, “We haven’t had the three phone calls, or the three reports coming in to us. That is why we haven’t taken action so far.” It will become formalised like that, and make it more difficult for victims of this type of crime to get action taken.
Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester)
I am interested in the community remedy. From your experience with victims, how would they feel about having a policeman come along, offer them a list of remedies and then selecting one of them? There will be different types of remedy on offer. Different people react in different ways. Some people might think something deserves more than someone else.
If they think it is a first offence, they might be quite light. If they know it is someone who has done something similar to seven houses down the road, they might go for something more serious. Can you explain from a victim’s point of view, how they would make a choice on how severe to be? Should they know about previous incidents and whether people have done something similar?
Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester)
Playing the devil’s advocate a bit here, one could imagine a situation where a young kid throws an egg at someone’s window. Depending on whose window they hit, they might get very different community remedies. They might have 100 hours community service or just get to say sorry to the person. Do you think it is fair that, for the same offence, you get wildly different remedies?
Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)
We all want to see improved support for victims and victims being at the heart of this. You talked about victims often feeling like an afterthought. How would you judge the impact that is likely to result from the cuts to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, in terms of how victims might feel about that, as well as the impact on the work of victim support in supporting people to make claims where eligible under the scheme?
Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)
I had a couple of cases, when the scheme was operating as previously, involving dangerous dogs and dog attacks, where victims’ families had sought to make claims for criminal injuries compensation. However, because the law is a bit unclear in that area, it was leading to some confusion about the claim for compensation, with the guidance under the scheme. Do you think that greater clarity is needed in the legislation on dangerous dogs, and might that help victims?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Thank you, Mr Pemberton. There do not seem to be any further questions for you.
Examination of Witnesses
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Our next panel of witnesses is from Fair Trials International. For the record, could you introduce yourselves briefly?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
Can you tell us what the Bill does well and whether it can be improved?
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
Whichever you feel best.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
How does the UK’s proposal on the 14-day period compare with other European partners or other countries abroad generally?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Before you move on, Ms Clarke, you referred to the seven-day time limit and said that it was for filing a notice of appeal. Forgive me; I am unfamiliar with that area of the law and of practice. Is that simply a short notice of appeal document that must be filed within seven days, unaccompanied by any materials? Why is seven days not long enough?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
That is obtaining the evidence. I understand that that might take considerably longer than seven days, but lodging the document with the grounds on which it is said that the original decision was wrong can be done in a matter of minutes.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I do not want to interrupt, but are there not two points in that? First, why does one need a longer time limit to deal with the incompetence of lawyers? Secondly, how will a longer time limit deal with that issue in circumstances in which the lawyer has obviously missed the point the first time around? There is no guarantee that it will occur to them in the second seven-day period that you are suggesting they be given.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
So it is pot luck—getting a lawyer who is not as incompetent as the first lawyer—and people might stand a better chance of that pot luck turning up trumps, to mix my metaphors, if they had 14 days instead of seven. Is that right?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I will go and read Lord Mance’s speech, but is the much more sensible solution not your first solution—that you leave it at seven days and there is discretion to extend in the interests of justice? That would encompass the client having been badly advised or the case having been badly argued.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Did you want to move on to your second area? I interrupted you.
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Are you going back to your previous statement?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Where is the leave requirement in the amendments created by clause 127?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
It is that, and subsections 2(b) and 3(b) of that clause.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Is the complaint that there is no indication of on what grounds permission may or may not be granted?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Are these proceedings criminal or civil in nature?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Will it not simply be the ordinary test for permission to appeal in the High Court, therefore?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
What is wrong with a requirement that the appellant, or the proposed appellant, shows a reasonable prospect of success for the appeal succeeding? Is that something you would be content with?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
That is inconsistent with what you said a moment ago. It was your concern that it was the standard and not the process.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
But they have already had a day in court, Ms Clarke, and they have lost.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I am happy to look at it. But the problem with having a standard of an arguable case is that it is extremely low. An arguable case is simply a case that any competent advocate can get on his feet and argue without having a red face. That essentially means that there is no leave requirement at all.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Because you have essentially removed the requirement for there to be a leave requirement in the first place if that is the standard. That is the point. You are seeking to get in by the back door your first argument, which is that there should not be a leave requirement at all.
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Any further questions? Any further points to make yourselves?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Thank you very much. The Committee has heard your views on the Bill. Thanks for giving evidence.
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Yes, we take that point on board. Thank you for coming along. [Interruption.] You want to do it now?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
I thought you said that you were going to submit them.
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)
What kind of time scale? How long will it take you to explain?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Thank you very much. We now hear evidence from Liberty.
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Welcome to the evidence session.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Do you not welcome the Government’s watering down of legislation to tackle antisocial behaviour?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Can you explain that?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
I was reading your article of February 2011 in The Independent about what you called “Gangbos”, in which you say that gang members need support rather than to be criminalised. Do you take that view in relation to people who display antisocial behaviour—that perpetrators need support rather than being criminalised?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Okay. Do you ever think about the victims when you are formulating your views?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
I will just make the point that “victim” is not a four-letter word, but you had not used it until I raised it. I wonder if your emphasis is strong enough in terms of representing victims better. Could you give us a couple of quick examples of where you have put the victim first in terms of your proposal?
David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)
On the same theme of victims, we met the PCCs earlier; they will have victim support services working with them to provide support at local level. What do you think can be done to better support the PCCs in providing those services, and for the best and most effective approach to helping the victims?
David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Okay, but given that there is a high probability that they will be given the responsibility—that is the Government’s proposal—what support should be given to the PCCs to enable them to do the job properly? You may not like it, but they are going to be given the responsibilities, so what can be done to enable them to do the job well?
David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)
Turning to a different subject, I have a question on port and border controls. Do you acknowledge that terrorists travel to plan, raise money and recruit? They take part in activities that are terrorist by nature and can cause untold damage to innocent victims. In relation to that, do you think that your proposals for significantly reducing the powers in schedule 7 would detract from the ability of the police and other authorities to detect terrorists, and would hinder those important efforts?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
In Liberty’s written evidence on the draft Bill to the Home Affairs Committee, it said that its concerns about the use of ASBOs were well documented. Its principal concern, as I understand it, was that ASBOs dangerously blur the distinction between serious criminal activity and nuisance. Given that, surely the one thing in the Bill that Liberty must welcome is the fact that ASBOs will disappear and antisocial behaviour will be dealt with in the civil courts, which will not lead to a criminal record, rather than in the criminal courts. I ask this, Ms Sankey, because Liberty always appears to be against absolutely everything that any Government come forward with that public want to protect them and make their lives better—I think that was the line that Mr Danczuk was going down with his questions on whether you ever stand up for the victims.
I want to know two things. First, do you welcome the absence of the criminalisation of young people in particular by the removal of ASBOs? Secondly, why do you not start standing up for victims—the constituents we represent —a little bit more?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Let us concentrate on antisocial behaviour. Given that you welcome the removal of the ASBO and the fact that these matters will be dealt with in a civil court, not in a criminal court, what is wrong with the proposals in the Bill?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I do not want to stop you, but is that not simply a matter of opinion? You think that it is used inappropriately, but it is used lawfully in accordance with what Parliament said can happen. If this Bill passes, it will be what Parliament says can happen in relation to the behaviours that this Bill is targeted at. What you really mean when you say that is that it can be used in a way that Liberty does not like.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Let us leave it there.
Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester)
It is funny that that is precisely the discussion that I wanted to move on to in terms of community protection notices. When we had the local authorities and housing associations here on Tuesday, I asked them what checks and balances they would put in place, because not only the police will be able to issue community protection notices; housing and local authorities will be able to as well. If you do not comply with such notices, it is a criminal offence. When I asked the question on Tuesday, we were interrupted by a Division and I did not really get an answer, so I will ask the question now. What protection needs to be in place to stop local authorities issuing notices inappropriately?
Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester)
One thing that concerns me, especially with the community protection notice, is that the council can issue it, and if you do not think that that is a valid notice—it has been applied for bad reasons—it is then up to you to go to the magistrates court to appeal it. To me that sounds like you are turning justice upside down. You are guilty unless you go to court to prove you are innocent.
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)
Hello. Good afternoon. Katie, or Ms Johnston, I have in front of me the briefing that you sent to everybody on the Committee. I assume so, because it is addressed to “Dear Committee member”. It has a list of what you would ideally like to change in the legislation. Some things on the list are predictable. That does not mean that people cannot be for or against them, but I was surprised by some of them. For example, you think that the Committee should remove the new criminal offence of forced marriage from the Bill. Why do you think that that is a bad provision?
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)
I understand that there is always a difficulty with criminalising an activity that largely requires you to report your own relatives—probably your parents —to the police.
We heard evidence just before lunch from chief executives of two organisations—Karma Nirvana and Freedom—and one of the witnesses had personal experience of forced marriage. They said that there was not going to be a problem of driving it underground if it was criminalised because it was already a subterranean activity, if you like. Nobody went round advertising the fact that they were coercing their child into marrying someone they did not wish to. They did not appear to share your concerns. Given that this issue has been discussed for 10 years, surely we could get on with introducing a criminal offence, unless Liberty has an aversion to criminalising anything ever.
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)
May I ask about another on the list from Ms Johnston? Liberty would like Members to table an amendment—I am sure there will be members of the Committee willing to table your amendments—that we should remove the provision to give elected police and crime commissioners power to arrange victim and witness services in their local areas. I do not understand why anyone would feel a deep level of hostility to an elected person arranging services for victims in the area that they are elected to serve. I am curious to know why you are hostile to that.
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)
So it is really an aversion to the idea of elected PCCs seeking to discharge their duties in a way that they think will meet the sympathies of the residents of that area?
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)
Thank you. Another one of the bullet points is that we should prevent children from being detained for breach of an injunction. Quite a few people have made points about under-18s, criminal behaviour and the injunction. I am just curious to know what sanction you think should apply. For example, there is a 17-year-old who is widely thought to be causing unhappiness to many people in a community. An injunction is applied for against him and is successful. Then he, with a complete disregard for the injunction, carries on behaving exactly as he was before, so inflicting misery on people in that community. I am just wondering what sanction you think should apply in those circumstances if that person so flagrantly breaches the injunction.
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)
I am keen to maintain the distinction in law between an adult—18-years-plus—and those under that threshold, and I recognise that there are distinctions, which is partly why I am not in favour of 16-year-olds having the vote, although my party is. There is a line and the age of 18 is a reasonable place to draw that line, although I recognise that in my constituency, and I suspect that of every member of the Committee, there are groups of teenagers, many of whom are under 18, who can on occasions, particularly on hot summer evenings, cause a lot of distress to, for example, elderly people who worry about going outside their flat because the children are throwing things around or ringing their door bell in the night and distressing them in various ways. It feels to me that we have to have some sort of sanctions to underpin these measures in those circumstances otherwise the people who might be on the cusp of adulthood, 16 and 17-year-olds, and groups of 18 and 19-year-olds will not feel any obligation to cease to terrorise people in their neighbourhood. If you were a Member of Parliament and someone came to you and said that these groups of 16, 17-year-olds were making their life thoroughly miserable, what would you do in those circumstances?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Let me take you back to the issue of forced marriage. I have received the briefing, as I think every member of the Committee has. You urge us to take out the sections of the Bill dealing with forced marriage, and I want to be clear about your evidence. Liberty does not have any evidence that criminalisation will lead to fewer reports being made to the relevant authorities. Is that right?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Forgive me—my iPad has just shut down—but I just re-read your briefing and you were telling us to take out the forced marriage provisions of the Bill.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Slightly more wanted it criminalised than did not. I am concerned with the credibility of your lobbying on the Bill, because it seems to me that you are urging the Committee to take a course of action—namely, removing the criminalisation of the very serious problem of forced marriage from the Bill—off the back of absolutely no evidence. It is just a position that Liberty has taken, and I would, of course, say that it is because you are just the awkward squad.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Do you want to read the e-mail, Ms Johnston, with the bullet point in it, which says, “We urge the Committee to remove the forced marriage provisions in this Bill and the criminalisation of forced marriage”? I am dealing with the e-mail.
Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)
I do not want to unnecessarily gang up on you, but I have the e-mail. It is from “KatieJ@Liberty-human-rights.org.uk”, and it says, “Dear Committee member, please find attached Liberty’s Committee stage briefing on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. While Liberty is supportive of a number of proposals in this lengthy and substantial Bill, we also have serious concerns about certain of its provisions. Accordingly, this updated briefing contains a number of amendments, including amendments to…remove the new criminal offence of forced marriage”.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Just a small point—you said earlier, a few minutes ago, that members of the Committee did not have enough experience to be able to comment on forced marriage. That is not the case. Some of my case work, in terms of being a Member of Parliament, has dealt with that very issue. I feel I do have some experience that is worth bringing to the Committee and contributing to the formulation of legislation on it. I just wanted to clarify that for you, Ms Sankey.
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
Thank you for giving evidence this afternoon.
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
We have witnesses from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Dogs Trust.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Welcome to the Committee, Mr Grant and Ms Baldwin. I support the clauses in the Bill and the Opposition will give them a good, fair wind, but we are concerned that there are some gaps in the legislation. I should welcome your view. If you had a free hand and our elected position, what steps would you take to improve the relevant clauses, to ensure that we both respect dogs and animals and have greater control over animals that cause damage?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
We are where we are and we have an opportunity in the next few weeks to table amendments, both in Committee, with all the Members here, and potentially on Report later on, to strengthen the clauses in the Bill that deal with attacks in the home and consider dog control notices and other issues, which I know, from evidence submitted by the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Communication Workers Union and others—cemented by comments from the ACPO lead from the police this morning—are worthy of consideration. I welcome your view about the priorities, given that there is a chance for us to amend the legislation in the next few weeks.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I am anxious to follow up on that, because I broadly support the vision to take action in the home; that is important, given the number of incidents that have taken place in the home. However, I would welcome some clarity either now or in submissions afterwards on this: what amendments would you seek to ensure that the legislation reflects the defence that you put?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I may have seen them before.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I look forward to seeing suggestions on that.
I have two more points, the first of which relates to wider protected animals. We have had representations on potential dog attacks on horses, cats and others. Given the aggravated offence in the Bill for attacks on assistance dogs, how do we get that balance? Do you have any suggestions on that? Is that an appropriate extension of the Bill or would that not find favour with you?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
My final question. We heard evidence this morning from ACPO with regard to the level of sentence for an offence that has led to, in many cases, the manslaughter and death of an individual in the home. The current sentence is for a period of two years. Have you formed a judgment as to whether that sentence is appropriate in circumstances where an individual has been killed by a dog, albeit not deliberately?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Given the strong support you have offered to some of the suggestions that are around, do you have any assessment as to why the Government have not done this?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
“This” being any suggestions on dog control notices and/or other measures. What is your assessment of why that is not in the Bill?
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
I was going to ask both of you whether you thought this was the right Bill to be updating and amending legislation. I think it is pretty clear from your answers thus far that you do not, so let me ask you a slightly different question. Would you rather that these clauses were removed and that you then wait for future legislation? It could take a significant time to deal with some of the issues that you raise elsewhere about dogs.
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
So if you do not get your wish, and the clauses go ahead as are currently drafted, do they provide a sufficient defence for responsible dog owners?
Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)
I hear everything you are saying but we are where we are. To go back to an earlier point, Cats Protection circulated their evidence to us and said:
“The current law is proving ineffective in its stated aims of preventing harm, injury and death to cats and other protected animals.”
Do you think this Bill will do anything to address that, or what specific amendments should be made so that it covers other protected animals?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I want to follow up on Ms Crouch’s questions. We probably all agree that we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good, so the question in the minds of some members of the Committee will be whether there is enough good in the Bill that these provisions should remain in it, given the risk of delay in waiting for consolidated legislation to be forthcoming from DEFRA to deal with the entire issue. I want to press you for a straight answer. Ms Baldwin gave a straight answer to the question: do you think these provisions should come out of the Bill? That surprised me but you, Mr Grant, were much more equivocal.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Let us leave those to one side. Is there enough that is good in the Bill in its current form to make it worth while for the Committee to send part 7 back to the House as part of the Bill, or should we simply remove it?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
That is fine. That is a suitable qualification. Ms Baldwin, do you want to add anything?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
If this is the only choice we have, would you be happy for us to send it back to the House with part 7 as part of the Bill?
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
I thank both our witnesses for coming along this afternoon and giving us the benefit of their expertise.
Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)
We now come to the last session of the day. We will give our tired Ministers the opportunity to sit down in peace and quiet and listen to a very exhausted panel. We have been sitting here all day.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I am sure my two ministerial colleagues will be grateful to know that we do not intend to ask too many questions, because we will have a lot of opportunity during the Committee to test Ministers on the provisions. What I want to do is touch on two or three issues that have not been raised in the evidence session to test whether we need to examine them in more detail in the Committee. I will start with clause 133, which will make changes on low-value shoplifting. My first question to the Ministers is, what consultation was undertaken on those proposals?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Why have I received representations, as has every member of the Committee, from the Association of Convenience Stores and many other retailers? Last week, I met with Co-op, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s. I quote from the Association of Convenience Stores, which said, “The business community was not informed of the changes to the Bill, even though shop theft accounts for almost half of all crime against the business community.” Should we be at least consulting with those people who are having property stolen from them?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
On page 71 of the explanatory notes, it says that the changes will enable
“defendants in summary cases to be given the opportunity to plead guilty by post.”
Exactly how many guilty pleas for shoplifting does the Minister expect to be submitted by post annually, as opposed to the defendant appearing in court?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Are traffic offences comparable with shoplifting offences?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
On what basis was the £200 threshold figure selected?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I am interested because I may or may not table amendments to the clause. Will the Minister give a commitment to the Committee to consult the retail community prior to the consideration of these clauses? It is important that they have an opportunity to put their views to Ministers.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
In general terms, during the passage of the Bill, can we expect to see any new clauses tabled by Ministers on any issue that is not yet covered by it?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
“Possibly” is an interesting answer. It is important. In the Crime and Courts Bill Committee, several very large clauses were tabled very late in proceedings, which gave both outside bodies and members of the Committee little time to scrutinise them. I am therefore simply giving you an opportunity to say, in principle, whether you are going to add any topics to the Bill in new clauses. If so, will you indicate what they might be so that we can discuss them, or at least so that outside bodies can do some preparation for their representations? In the Crime and Courts Bill Committee, in some cases we had only one week’s notice of major clauses.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
We have heard some strong evidence today on dangerous dogs from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the RSPCA and others. Has any of that given the Government pause for thought in relation to potential amendments on those particular clauses, or are they still minded not to pursue the paths that were well trodden in the discussions that took place before the Bill was introduced?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
We shall have some debate on that in Committee. ACPO was clear this morning that the guidance did not meet the objectives, but that is a matter for debate as opposed to cross-examination. I shall allow other colleagues to participate.
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
My first question was going to be: what on earth is part 7 doing in the Bill? I just wondered whether you could explain that.
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
But it is pretty well recognised by the Home Office that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was a disaster. Is this not a case of further exacerbating the problems that have come out of that legislation?
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
I shall leave dogs there. You are quite right that we will have more debate on that in Committee.
Do you think the measures in part 1 protect young victims of crime?
Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)
Victims.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
I want to start by asking how the Bill came about. Mr Green, on 9 June 2010 you said:
“The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) made the good point that all the major parties in the House have a spectrum, with some at the authoritarian end and others at the civil liberties end. I can assure him that the civil libertarian end is now in the ascendance in the Conservative party”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 433.]
Leading up to where we are on the Bill, it could be suggested that, having got into the proverbial bed with the Liberal Democrats, you have decided to shift position to where you are now formulating policy, which places greater emphasis on protecting the perpetrator and less emphasis on defending the victim. Is that not the case?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
In July 2010, the Home Secretary said she wanted officers to be able to use their common sense to deal with antisocial behaviour, with punishments being
“rehabilitating and restorative, rather than criminalising”.
Why are you so worried about criminalising criminals, Minister?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
But the breach of a new order is not a criminal offence, is it?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Breaching an ASBO could lead to a criminal offence, could it not? You are watering down the opportunity to address some of the concerns that ordinary residents have when their lives are being made a misery through something that you might call nuisance, but that I would call something stronger.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Going back to earlier evidence, in particular from Victim Support, which has a real problem with the community trigger, would you be prepared to look again at the idea that something has to be reported three times? Would you be prepared to consider amending the legislation around the community trigger?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Minister Green, you propose giving the College of Policing significant powers and responsibilities, but I think I am right in saying that the College of Policing is currently a company limited by guarantee. Why are you not putting it on a statutory footing?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Why are you not putting the College of Policing on a statutory footing?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Is it really appropriate to give these sorts of powers and responsibilities to a body that is a private company limited by guarantee as opposed to giving it corporate personality as a statutory entity in this legislation?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
But it would not be a delay, would it? It needs one line or one clause in the Bill simply to say that there should be a body corporate called the College of Policing. That is all it needs.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
No, you do not.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
We obviously cannot take that one any further. Who is answering the DEFRA questions, given that there is no DEFRA Minister?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
No comment. At the moment, as I understand it—I have to say that I had not appreciated this—if a dangerous, out-of-control dog kills a baby, the maximum custodial sentence that a court could impose is two years. Do the Government really think that is appropriate?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
But you are answering, Mr Browne.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Merely because the sentence was completely wrong beforehand is not a reason to perpetuate the fact that it is still wrong.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I am sorry, Minister Browne, but that is absolutely hopeless. Part 7 of the Bill will amend the Dangerous Dogs Act, which contains provisions on what constitutes an offence and what the maximum sentence is when that offence is committed. The Bill amends the Dangerous Dogs Act, so—this is right, is it not?—there is no reason at all why that sentence could not be changed by amending that Act.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I welcome that and it is great, but nothing whatsoever need stop the Government, through this Bill, looking again at the appropriateness of the sentence for an offence of having an out-of-control, dangerous dog in either the public space or a private space.
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
We have all got that point. You have made it four times.
On clause 93, in part 6, why is there no provision on the contents of a community remedy document? Do the Government not think—it seems to me to be obvious—that the Bill should contain such provision?
Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
I will ignore that very unsubtle dig. I agree that prescription is not the way forward, but you surely need to set some boundaries around what is and is not lawful. You obviously have not yet had the opportunity to look at the amendments that I tabled and were printed yesterday, which I will be moving in due course, but I strongly urge you to do so.