|
Division
No.
14] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Question
accordingly agreed to.
New clause
34 added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
35Retention
and destruction of samples etc: Northern
Ireland ‘(1) The Police and
Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/3141 (N.I.
12)) is amended as follows. (2)
After Article 64A
insert— “64B
Retention and destruction of samples
etc (1) The Secretary of State
may by regulations make provision as to the retention, use and
destruction of material to which this Article
applies. (2) This Article
applies to the following
material— (a)
photographs falling within a description specified in the
regulations, (b) fingerprints
taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an
offence, (c) impressions of
footwear so taken from a
person, (d) DNA and other
samples so taken from a
person, (e) information derived
from DNA samples so taken from a
person. (3) The regulations
may— (a) make different
provision for different cases,
and (b) make provision subject
to such exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks
fit. (4) The regulations may
frame any provision or exception by reference to an approval or consent
given in accordance with the
regulations. (5) The
regulations may confer functions on persons specified or described in
the regulations. (6) The
functions which may be conferred by virtue of paragraph (5) include
those of— (a) providing
information about the operation of regulations made under this
Article, (b) keeping their
operation under review, (c)
making reports to the Secretary of State about their operation,
and (d) making recommendations
to the Secretary of State about the retention, use and destruction of
material to which this Article
applies. (7) The regulations
may make provision for and in connection with establishing a body to
discharge the functions mentioned in paragraph (6)(b) to
(d). (8) The regulations may
make provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any
provision made by or under an Act or Northern Ireland legislation
(including this Order). (9) The
provision which may be made by virtue of paragraph (8) includes
amending or otherwise modifying any provision so as to impose a duty or
confer a power to make an order, regulations, a code of practice or any
other instrument. (10) The
regulations may
make— (a) supplementary,
incidental or consequential provision,
or (b) transitional, transitory
or saving provision. (11) For
the purposes of this
Article— (a)
“photograph” includes a moving image,
and (b) the reference to a DNA
sample is a reference to any material that has come from a human body
and consists of or includes human cells.”
(3) In Article 89 (procedure for orders and
regulations) for “Article 29(4) or 46A” substitute
“Articles 29(4), 46A and
64B”. (4)
The amendments made by subsections (2) and (3) apply in relation to
material obtained before or after the commencement of this
section.’.—(Mr.
Campbell.) This
amendment would amend the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern
Ireland) Order 1989 to allow equivalent provision to be
made to that under the power in amendment NC33, in relation to Northern
Ireland. Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time. The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
4.
Division
No.
15] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Question
accordingly agreed to.
Question
put, That the clause be added to the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
4.
Division
No.
16] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Question
accordingly agreed to.
New clause
35 added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
1Community
punishments for graffiti and
fly-posting ‘After section 43
of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (c.38)
insert— “43A
Community punishments for graffiti and
fly-posting (1) Where an
authorised officer of a local authority has reason to believe that a
person has committed a relevant offence in the area of that authority,
he may give that person a notice offering him the opportunity of
discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by the
completion of a community service punishment in accordance with the
notice. (2) But an authorised
officer may not give a notice under subsection (1) if he considers that
the commission of the
offence— (a) in the case
of a relevant offence falling within section 44(1)(c), also
involves the commission of an offence under section 30 of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (racially or religiously aggravated criminal
damage), or (b) in the case of
any other relevant offence, was motivated (wholly or partly) by
hostility—
(i) towards a person based upon his membership (or
presumed membership) of a racial or religious group,
or (ii) towards the members of
a racial or religious group based on their membership of that
group. (3) In
the case of a relevant offence falling within section
44(1)(f), an authorised officer may not give a notice to a person under
subsection (1) in relation to the display of an advertisement unless he
has reason to believe that that person personally affixed or placed the
advertisement to, against or upon the land or object on which the
advertisement is or was
displayed. (4) Where a person
is given a notice under subsection (1) in respect of an
offence— (a) no
proceedings may be instituted for that offence (or any other relevant
offence arising out of the same circumstances) before the expiration of
the period of 14 days following the date of the notice,
and (b) he
may not be convicted of that offence (or any other relevant offence
arising out of the same circumstances) if before the expiration of that
period he agrees in writing to undertake the community punishment in
accordance with the notice. (5)
A notice under subsection (1) must give such particulars of the
circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for
giving reasonable information of the
offence. (6) A notice under
subsection (1) must also
state— (a) the period
during which, by virtue of subsection (4), proceedings will not be
instituted for the offence, (b)
the number of hours which the person is required to work, which shall
not exceed 24, (c) the period
during which the hours must be worked, provided that it shall not
commence more than two months from the date on which the notice is
agreed to under subsection (4)(b),
and (d) the officer of a
provider of probation services or, in the case of a person aged under
18, the member of a youth offending team to whom the person must
report, and the time by which he must so
report. (7) The authorised
officer issuing the notice under subsection (1) must give a
copy of the notice to the officer specified in accordance with
subsection (6)(d) to whom the person must report and any other
information relating to the case which he considers likely to be of
assistance. (8) A notice under
subsection (1) must be in such form as the appropriate person may by
order prescribe. (9) The
provisions of section 47 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing)
Act 2000 (c. 6) (obligations of person subject to community punishment
order) shall apply in respect of a community punishment
notice. (10) For the purposes
of this section a police officer or police community support officer
shall have the same powers to issue
notices.”’.—(Paul
Holmes.) Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Paul
Holmes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. The
essence of the new clause is in the first paragraph: that an authorised
officer of a local authority who has reason to believe that a person
has committed the relevant offence—that is, graffiti or
fly-posting—can give that person the opportunity of discharging
any liability to prosecution and conviction if they undertake
community-service punishment to rectify the damage they have caused, to
remove the graffiti or the fly-posting to make it good.
There are two
purposes in suggesting this. The first is that it is a reflection of
the well known and well debated broken-window theory, which became
fashionable in
New York, for example, in the early 1990s when the new mayor suggested
seizing back public places and getting the police to tackle what had
been regarded as trivial in the past when they had had to concentrate
on more serious things. The theory was that if the abandoned cars,
litter, fly-posting and graffiti were dealt with, it would help to
reduce more serious crime. Arguably, in New York it had that effect,
although analysts point out that the number of police also doubled,
which was already higher per head of population than in European
countries. Another factor was that the population was getting older
and, of course, a lot of this type of crime is committed predominantly
by young people who grow out of that pattern of low-level criminality.
There are all sorts of reasons why it might have worked but it is
certainly argued that the New York example could signpost the
way. Anyone who has
served on a local council or worked with one will know that the same
principle applies. If the council tackles outbreaks of graffiti
promptly it is much less likely to continue or recur in that area.
Whereas, if it is allowed to perpetuate it creates a vicious cycle. As
a teacher would know, exactly the same applies with regard to graffiti
on displays of work—the sharper the school cracks down on it,
the less it happens.
The
broken-window theory is well known although it had never really been
scientifically and rationally researched. However, an article in
Science magazine published on 12 December 2008 describes a
number of controlled field experiments in a European country that
tested the theory. For example, an alley was made pristine but it did
not have a litter bin. To get rid of litter one would have to take it
away or throw it on the floor. When the alley was clean people would
almost universally take the litter away with them. When the alley was
already littered they almost universally dropped the litter on the
floor. A series of experiments was carried out. In another, a letter
clearly containing €5 was left on the floor near a postbox. When
the surrounding area was clean the number of people who stole the
envelope rather than push it into the postbox was tiny. When the
postbox and the small amount of money hanging out of the letter were in
an area that had been deliberately graffitied, the number of people
taking the envelope and the money rose considerably. The researchers
did about five different experiments that led to the same
result. The
research concluded that there is a clear message for policy makers and
police officers: early disorder diagnosis and intervention are vital in
fighting the spread of disorder. Signs of inappropriate behaviour such
as graffiti and broken windows lead to other inappropriate behaviour
such as littering and stealing. The result is a decline in social norms
and accepted standards, which leads to an escalation in littering,
crime and so on. That suggests that there is hard evidence that the
broken-window theory works, which backs up the famous New York example
and the anecdotal evidence that we can all give from personal
experience. That explains one purpose of the
proposal. The
second purpose is to take a stance that criminalises fewer people.
England and Wales send a higher proportion of the population to jail
than any other European country. Is that effective? Most people who do
graffiti and fly-posting are under the age of 18, although not all.
England and Wales jail more children than any
other western European country and 76 per cent. of those children
reoffend within one year of being released. Clearly that policy is not
working. I
have visited the prison systems in Norway and Canada, which are held up
as models of the opposite approach. An approach that does not
criminalise children early on for relatively minor offences has a more
beneficial effect alongside other measures such as intervention,
counselling and help. I am told that 40 per cent. of under-25s have a
criminal record of some kind, although most are quite trivial. The
evidence is that the more people are criminalised through court
proceedings, the more criminal they tend to become. It is a
self-feeding
cycle. As
well as helping to tackle the broken-window theory, the second purpose
of the proposal is to take a less criminalising approach with people
undertaking restorative justice, which all three main parties have
talked much about over recent years. Some good experiments around the
country have shown how that can
work. People
can be told that we have the evidence for an antisocial behaviour order
or court proceedings, but that we are giving them a chance to clear up
the mess they have made. They could thereby discharge any liability or
prosecution. A magistrate friend of mine said that that would bypass
the magistrates court. That is the whole point. At the early, low-level
stage we should try not to put people in the criminal system and get
them to clean up the mess they have
made. Does
the proposal give too much power to local authority officials? Again,
the point is that if the offender says that they do not want to clean
up the mess, the evidence can be used under the normal legal
procedures. If the individual says that it was them and that they will
rectify the vandalism, graffiti or fly-posting, there is restorative
justice for the community, the broken-window theory is tackled and the
person is kept off the first rung on the ladder of
criminality. I
am sure that the Minister will be able to pick holes in the proposals.
I do not have the banks of Government draftsmen who could produce a far
superior version. I would be delighted if the Minister said that the
proposal will not work, but that he will take the idea and come back
with something better. I do not intend to press the clause to a vote,
but I am interested in the Minister’s
response. 3.30
pm
| 
