 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet Public Bill Committee Debates Policing and Crime Bill |
Policing and Crime Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Andrew Kennon, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 12 February 2009(Afternoon)[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Policing and Crime BillClause 30Directions
to individuals who represent a risk of
disorder 1
pm Question
(this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part
of the
Bill. James
Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): We had just made a start
on clause 30, which includes a new provision relating to directions to
individuals who represent a risk of disorder. The clause will amend
section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Currently, an
individual aged 16 or over who is in a public place can be given a
direction to leave that locality and be prohibited from returning
within 48 hours. There are two trigger requirements: first, that the
presence of the individual in that locality is likely, in all the
circumstances, to cause or to contribute to the occurrence of
alcohol-related crime or disorder, and secondly, that the giving of a
direction is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the
likelihood of there being crime or disorder in that locality. Clause 30
will reduce the minimum age from 16 to 10.
I understand
the concept behind what the Government are trying to do. We heard from
the police during the Committee’s evidence sessions why they
felt that the power would be helpful. However, it was interesting that
they felt that it was at the top end of that age range—I think
they mentioned 14 and 15-year-olds—that the power was most
likely to be used. In all genuineness, because it will extend to
10-year-olds, the provision makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable
because of the clear relationship between criminal law and
child protection issues.
The clause as
it stands speaks only of the requirement to prohibit someone from being
within an area for 48 hours and the removal of that person from the
area, but we know that the police have other powers to take children to
a place of safety, their home or where their parent or guardian might
be. I want to understand properly how the provisions are intended to
fit together. For example, in clause 28, the Government give the police
an additional power to take a child home in circumstances where alcohol
has been confiscated. I accept that alcohol may not be confiscated in
the circumstances contemplated in clause 30, although there may be some
overlap, and that the police have other, general powers to take
children back home if they feel that they are at risk or in danger. I
am still trying to understand clearly why there is a power in the Bill
to move children on, particularly young children, rather
than a requirement to take them to a place of safety or ensure that
appropriate child protection arrangements are being followed
through. On
the question of 10-year-olds, if there is a risk to their
safety—section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006
specifically contemplates a risk of crime or disorder—do we
think that it is acceptable simply to move the child on and displace
them in those circumstances? It is important that we hear from the
Minister how the power is intended to relate to other police powers as
well as to social services and everything that goes with them. Certain
agencies have picked up on the issue. The YWCA said in its briefing
notes to the Committee that it
“has serious
concerns about reports from some young women that they have been
‘moved on’ by the police under existing legislation, but
not always to an established place of safety. This has meant in some
circumstances that young women have been put at risk by being moved to
unsafe places like unlit parks or by having to find their own way home.
This can put young women into extremely vulnerable positions.
We believe that an
approach of providing a package of support for young people is the best
way to ensure that they do not get locked into a cycle of offending.
Any ‘Direction to Leave’ to young people that does enter
legislation must include a requirement for young people to be taken to
an agreed place of
safety.” Obviously
the YWCA is highlighting its specific concerns, but there is something
worrying about the extension from 16 to 10. It is horrifying to think
that a 10-year-old would be out late at night at risk of offending and
getting into disorder. Sadly, that reflects some of the difficulties,
problems and challenges faced by many of our communities up down the
country, which is why I understand the Government’s belief that
a simple power of removal may not necessarily be appropriate in
isolation. The police may feel that they are constantly taking children
back to their home or elsewhere. In those circumstances, as we
discussed this morning, some parents simply let the child back out
again. There is no parental responsibility. The Government are trying
to say that we need an additional trigger or lever to get parents to
take their responsibilities seriously, albeit that it is now through
something that is almost a criminal process.
The real
question underlying all of this is what options have the Government
explored to avoid going down the criminalisation route? Clearly they
must have examined other options, some of which we touched on this
morning. The Government have formed the view that it is necessary to go
down a criminal justice route. It would be helpful to know what their
rationale was, what the evidence was and what their thoughts were in
trying to balance the issue of child protection and parenting with the
issue of criminal justice. Why do they think it appropriate to take
this approach rather than seeking to trigger support from social
services or child welfare, which I wholly accept are not mutually
exclusive? Clearly something has gone on for the Government to feel
that escalation to this level is
required. In
that context, and because I think there is a need for interlinkage,
will the Minister explain why, according to my reading of clause 3,
there is no requirement to notify the parent or guardian of a child
issued with a notice under section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction
Act? That may happen, but I should be grateful if the Minister
considered that. If a child is at risk of offending and is in a
situation where the police feel strongly that this power needs to be
invoked, there should be a requirement for notification to go to the
parents or the guardian.
It would be
interesting to understand what protocols and procedures are envisaged.
If a child is in receipt of that notice, would the police notify
children’s social services in the local authority concerned?
There are child welfare issues and risk and danger issues if a child as
young as 10 is issued with this sort of notice. As we know, some of the
problems that many young children face are linked to their home
environment, behavioural issues, mental health issues and drug
addiction. Their parents may have similar issues too. We need to ensure
a more co-ordinated and strategic approach once an at-risk child has
been identified through this mechanism and a notice has been issued. I
understand some of the rationale behind the direction that the
Government are taking, but in isolation, it is difficult to understand
and appreciate how the provision is intended to operate in practice.
This is a sensitive clause, because of the age of the children
concerned.
I have a
question for the Minister arising from the youth alcohol action plan,
which includes in its summary of actions the issuing
of “guidance
to the police, health and children’s services to strengthen
their approach to dealing with young people drinking in public
places.” That
relates to our previous debate, and the action plan says that the
timing of the provision is subject to the parliamentary timetable. The
Bill deals with a number of the aspects of the action plan. If we are
to gain a better understanding what sort of response is intended to
deal with children in such situations, what has happened to the
guidance contemplated in annexe A of the action plan? If parliamentary
approval is required, or if it is still envisaged that it will be
required, why is such a measure not included in part 3, which seems to
encompass the main aspects of the guidance? Perhaps it has been
published already or dealt with in another way. However, it would be
helpful to understand clause 30 better, because of the significant and
sensitive nature of the additional powers that the Government seek to
give to the police.
Paul
Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): I have three brief points to
make. First, I am sure that the police would say that the existing
powers are too limited. However, it can be argued that there is a
battery of existing powers that could be used in the situations
envisaged in clause 30. Under section 46 of the Children Act 1989, the
police can, under certain circumstances, remove children for their own
safety. Under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, under certain
circumstances, children under 16 can be removed to their place of
residence. Under sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, action
can be taken if anyone—children, in this case—is
using
“threatening,
abusive or insulting words or
behaviour”. A
group of 10, 13 or 15-year-olds under the influence of alcohol might
well fall under the provisions in the Public Order Act in respect of
their language, behaviour and so on. Why are all those existing powers
in legislation deemed so inappropriate that we need a blanket provision
or catch-all so that all children between the ages of 10 and 18 can be
dealt with as stated in the
Bill? My
second point concerns a matter that we have already touched on. Is it
suitable simply to say that we can move people on? Let us imagine a
group of 10, 11 or 13-year-olds in a public place, perhaps on a dark
winter’s evening: the police believe that there is a problem
and that they need moving on. Is it really appropriate simply to move a
group of 10-year-olds from one spot to another, rather than taking them
back home, for example, or taking some other action? There is a
question about the suitability of moving very young children around and
whether we are simply displacing their behaviour.
The police
will say that in some cases the issue is not clear-cut. A group of
children might well be causing what the neighbours perceive as a public
order problem, but are not actually breaking the law. At 9.30 pm one
evening, I was with a police community support officer in Duckmanton, a
pit village on the edge of my constituency. Three 13 and 14-year-old
lads were riding around on their bikes, hitting each other over the
head with a huge lump of polystyrene. No offence was being committed,
although some litter might have resulted and they were shouting very
loudly. However, the neighbours would certainly have been unhappy about
it. If the police had a word with them and they would move to another
area and repeat the performance. In what way is existing legislation
inadequate and why is it suitable simply to move the problem around,
especially when dealing with particularly young children—the
Bill proposes to amend legislation to cover children as young as age
10? My
third point concerns the attitude in this country towards age and
criminality and the way in which we treat children. Rod Morgan, former
chairman of the Youth Justice Board, said about eight days ago that we
have one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe,
although it is even lower in Scotland at eight years old. However, we
lock up twice as many young people as we did in the early 1990s, and we
are criminalising many more. When we lock them up, it costs
£200,000 a head to keep them in secure accommodation: money
which might be better spent on adopting—the Government are fond
of this—the Finnish example of strict
liability. 1.15
pm In
Finland, the age of criminal responsibility is 15, and the emphasis is
on trying to rehabilitate young children aged 10 to 15, working with
them through psychological approaches or rehabilitation
programmes—whatever is appropriate for them and their families.
That would cost much less than £200,000 to lock them up, as we
tend to do. In Finland, only three children in the 10 to 18 age range
are in confinement, as opposed to the 3,000 here. Statute that allows
us to experiment with the Scandinavian route already exists, but with
clause 30, we seem to be looking more at a punitive approach rather
than tackling the problem at its
source. Mr.
Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): I shall make a brief
contribution to raise a specific point. I agree wholeheartedly with my
hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, that it is incredible that
children as young as 10 should roam the streets of our towns and
villages, particularly at night, unsupervised by their parents. Sadly,
as he alluded in his contribution, in certain circumstances that is a
sad reflection of society but it is a fact of life at
present. The
issue that puzzles me, which is connected to the clause, is the reverse
of that situation. Notwithstanding what the Government are seeking to
do, which basically is to grant powers to be used on the streets
against groups of young people who need to be moved on, why
are they not also looking at the other side of the coin? It came as a
considerable surprise to learn, as a parent of teenage children, that
in most cases in law, if a young person in that age group wishes to
leave their home at night, and their parents say no, the parents have
no legal right to stop their children from disobeying, except in
certain narrow circumstances. If parents seek to bar the exit of the
home for that young person because they do not think that it is
appropriate for their children to go out on their own at night, and if
they take action forcibly—in the peaceful meaning of that
word—to stop their children, they are liable for prosecution. As
a parent, that case came as a surprise to me—it is staggering.
Why have the Government not looked at the problem from that angle to
deal with what they are seeking to achieve in the
clause?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 16 February 2009 |