Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Parliamentary update
Services which may be impacted by this Bill
· Public Health and Protection
· Community Safety
· Children, Schools and Families
· Housing
The Anti-Social Behavior, Crime and Policing Bill was announced in the Queens Speech on 8 May 2013.
Further details and the full Bill can be found at http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/antisocialbehaviourcrimeandpolicingbill.html
Purpose
The Bill contains a variety of measures including policies to tackle anti-social behaviour, forced marriage, dangerous dogs and illegal firearms used by gangs and in organised crime.
House of CommonsFirst reading / 1st reading: House of Commons 9 May, 2013
Bill presented to Parliament
Second reading / 2nd reading: House of Commons 10 June, 2013
Opening the debate and outlining the rationale for the measures in the Bill, Home Secretary Theresa May stated that the provisions "will ensure that the police, local authorities and others have a comprehensive set of fast, flexible and responsive powers to tackle the scourge of anti–social behaviour". She explained that the police and local authorities would be able to take preventive measures to tackle specific local issues: for example, "it would be open to the police or local council to issue a community protection notice against the owner of an aggressive dog".
In her reply, Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper argued that the "risk for the Home Secretary is that, by trying to squeeze a wide range of problems into a narrow number of powers, she may make it harder" to tackle anti–social behaviour. She also said the Bill had missed the opportunity to deal properly with the serious problems of dangerous dogs and firearms.
Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East) re–iterated the committee's recommendations that there should be a national threshold of three complaints to set off the community trigger, and argued against the idea of localising the setting of the threshold. Fellow Home Affairs Committee member Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge, LGA Vice–President) highlighted the concerns of the LGA, including the need for clarity "from the Home Office on the cost of imposing positive requirements" on perpetrators of anti–social behaviour.
No objections made and passed without vote.
LGA briefing raises following:
· welcomes the added flexibility to tackle anti-social behaviour that the Bill provides
· bill creates opportunity to consider how anti-social behaviour rules should apply to young people.
· calls for community trigger threshold to be set by local partners, including the police and council.
· extension of powers for the police and councils to deal with dangerously out of control dogs on private property is welcome.
· concern about closure notices only being made if ‘reasonable' efforts have been made to inform the owner in advance – particularly where premises need to be shut down immediately for the protection of the public
· clarity needed over interaction of council’s homelessness duty with proposed powers to recover possession of dwelling-houses
Committee stage (opportunity to submit comments) / Due to commence 18 June 2013
Following the Second Reading of the Anti–Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill on 10 June, the legislation has now moved into Committee Stage, with a politically–weighted group of MPs selected to scrutinise the Bill line–by–line.
To inform their discussions they have issued a call for written evidence. Submissions of no more than 3,000 words should be sent to as soon as possible.
LGA have submitted the following:
· On tackling anti-social behaviour (ASB) committed by tenants in private rented accommodation – a call for the Scottish system to be rolled out across the UK, preventing private landlords from obtaining their rent from tenants if they fail to act against ASB committed in their properties.
· On possession of dwellings- highlighted that it can take "a significant period of time to get possession orders through the court…and it is very difficult to keep witnesses on board while a court case goes on for more than 12 months. [The Bill] may speed things up, which would certainly be welcomed."
· Benefits of a community budget approach to tackling ASB, highlighting the benefit it could bring in terms of "early intervention to try to prevent crime and tackling some of the root causes" as well as the fact that the "financial savings are quite significant."
· On the community trigger – noting that local authorities have duties around the safeguarding of adults and children that would trigger earlier action far more quickly than the community trigger. Welcome the community trigger as an added safeguard in the system.
· On dispersal powers – criticism of the fact that, under the Bill as drafted, the police will no longer have to consult with local authorities on the use of these powers.
· On dangerous dogs - highlighted the LGA's support for the extension of the legislation to private land which will help councils and the police tackle problems in their areas.
The legislation’s impact on dangerous dogs was also discussed at a Westminster Hall debate on Thursday 13 June.
Further amendments include a probing amendment, discussed on 25 June, from shadow Crime Prevention Minister Gloria de Piero MP to clarify how the requirements will be funded, noting that the "Government's impact assessment for the injunctions does not quantify the cost of imposing positive requirements." The Shadow Minister referenced by name the LGA's concern that councils may be placed under significant financial burden. In response, Crime Prevention Minister Jeremy Browne MP said he would "expect the local authority, as the applicant, to cover those costs. That is because the downstream benefits of changing the perpetrator's behaviour fall to them and other agencies, such as the police." He added that "not all positive requirements will necessarily incur costs. A court might direct an individual to repair something they have broken…We should not forget that leaving antisocial behaviour unchecked also comes at a cost…the cost of, for example, a drug rehabilitation course, if drug abuse were the root cause of a person's antisocial behaviour, would be small compared to the ongoing costs associated with not addressing the causes of the behaviour."
On 27 June, the shadow ministerial team put forward an amendment on dispersal powers that local authorities should be consulted before such powers are used in their area, as is currently the case. De Piero noted that the LGA highlighted in its Second Reading briefing that use "of such powers can on occasion prove very controversial, which is why their use should be dependent on democratic oversight." The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, Damian Green MP, responded that the problem with the current system was that dispersal powers "cannot be used quickly or flexibly enough. The current powers can be used only once a dispersal zone is in place. Before they can designate a dispersal zone the police must consult the local authority-precisely what the amendment would require. That introduces a degree of delay and inflexibility that may, in practical terms, inhibit or indeed prevent the police from taking effective action." De Piero noted the support of the Home Affairs Select Committee who felt local authorities should be consulted where a dispersal power was applied for longer than six hours. As a result of what she described as the "overwhelming number of submissions made by so many local authorities of different political persuasions" she moved the amendment to division. The amendment was narrowly defeated by 8 votes to 6.
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill has been re-published, following the end of the House of Commons Committee Stage. An updated Bill, with the alterations highlighted as tracked changes, can be found here. The main alterations were Government amendments made to the measures on extradition, passports, and financial arrangements of chief officers of police. The Bill will now move back to the main Commons chamber for Report Stage, the date for which is still to be confirmed.
Report stage / Report stage: House of Commons 14 October, 2013
Amendment tabled to enable courts to issue a "child sexual abuse prevention order". Under the terms of the amendment, backed by a cross-party group of 67 MPs, the order could be issued even where a defendant had not been convicted of anything, providing there was evidence of the danger they pose to children.
Third reading / 3rd reading: House of Commons 15 October, 2013
MPs approved the third reading of the Bill without a vote and it has now completed all its stages in the Commons and moves to the House of Lords for consideration.
House of Lords
First reading / 1st reading: House of Lords 16 October, 2013
The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Second reading / 2nd reading: House of Lords 29 October, 2013
The LGA briefed Peers ahead of the debate welcoming the added flexibility for councils to tackle anti-social behaviour, but raising concerns with Peers on how these powers will work in practice in local communities.
Peers welcomedspecific measures contained within the bill -includingthosedealing with illegal firearms, forced marriages andan extension of the Dangerous Dogs Act to cover dog attacks that take place on private property. Proposals to strengthen the Independent Police Complaints Commission also received broad support.
The debate alsodrew attention to present omissions - including the issue of drugs and legal highs, measures to prevent attacks on those working in public-facing roles and the role of private sector companies in carrying out extradition orders.
Committee stage / Committee: 1st sitting: House of Lords 12 November, 2013
Members of the Lords discussed a series ofsuggested changes to the law covering forced marriage, including the criminalisation of a breach of a forced marriage order. Several members called for the government to publish guidance on themeasures, and for consistency across the country in the way guidance is given by airport security staff and immigration officials.
The question of whether criminalisation was the right course was also raised as members, whilst welcoming moves totackle theissue,warned against thepotential unforeseen circumstances ofa new forced marriage offence.
Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Lords 18 November, 2013
Members of the Lordsbegan by discussing proposals to abolish anti-social behaviour orders(ASBOs) and introduce injunctions for the prevention of nuisance and annoyance. Theplanned civil injunctions could be taken outon people from the age of ten - the question of whether this was appropriate and how it links to the current age of criminal responsibility was considered.
Protection forvictims of anti-social behaviour, powers of arrest under the new injunction procedure and the role of police and crime commissioners in determining a local strategy to deal with anti-social behaviour were also considered.
Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Lords 20 November, 2013
Members of the Lords considered proposals for a new injunction to replace anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), specifically new powers to exclude a person from their home in cases of violence or where others are at risk of being harmed. The need to involve local youth offendingteams beforean injunctionis sought against anyone under 18 was raised by several members.
Other suggestions included a new civil penalty covering littering from vehicles and the introduction ofa corporate anti-social behaviour order,granting authorities power to close premises that cause harassment, alarm or distress within communities.
Committee: 4th sitting: House of Lords 25 November, 2013
The Bill is continuing to make progress in its committee stages in the House of Lords. Peers discussed some of the issues raised in the LGA's recent briefing on the Bill on injunctions and how councils deal with anti-social tenants in private rented accommodation.
Line by line scrutiny of the Bill started with discussion on potential changes covering protection from sexual harm and violence, forced marriage (and in particular the role of schools in warning children of the dangers) and witness protection.
Amendments discussed covered a range of clauses including offence of failing to comply with notice, fixed penalty notices, issuing of notices, orders restricting public right of way over highway, categories of highway over which public right of way may not be restricted, power to issue closure notices.
Committee stage continues on 2 December when further amendments will be discussed.
LGA briefing for Committee stage of Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill (Lords) - 12 November 2013 (PDF, 5 pages, 252KB)
Committee: 5th sitting: House of Lords 2 December, 2013
Members of the Lords discussed several amendments covering the closure of premises associated with nuisance or disorder. The role of local government and planning authorities inensuring security standards in new developments was considered. Members also examined a proposalmaking it an offence foran owner or theperson in charge of a dog not to keep it under control in a public place - even if muzzled or on alead.
Committee: 6th sitting: House of Lords 4 December, 2013
Members of the Lordsdiscussedfirearms licensing issues, including the factors that need to be taken into account when assessing the potential risk to public safety. Theywent on to examinea proposal to make assaults on workers in public facing roles a specific offence. Measures to tighten regulations on the sale of psychoactive substances and a call fora review ofthe effect of legal highs on anti-social behaviour were also considered.
Committee: 7th sitting: House of Lords 11 December, 2013
Members of the Lords discussed suggested changes to the Terrorism Act 2000, particularly issues around police stop and search powers at ports and airports, and how these powers affect civil liberties and national security.
They also looked at amendments covering powers to seize invalid passports and court and tribunal fees.
Report stage / Report stage: House of Lords 8 January, 2014
Members of the Lords considered plans to replace anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs),with new injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance (IPNAs). The proposals sought toreplace the existing definition of anti-social behavior as conduct causing 'harassment, alarm or distress', witha new threshold test of 'nuisance andannoyance'. Many members warned the new definitionis too imprecise andcould threaten civil liberties. The potential forIPNAs to increase the burdenon the criminal justice systemwas also discussed. An amendment to reject the proposals and tighten the definition of the threshold test was taken to a vote, with 306 in favour and 178 against.