The draft Anti social Behaviour Bill: pre legislative scrutiny€¦ · London: The Stationery Office Limited £12.00 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee The draft Anti social

HC 836-II Published on 19 February 2013

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£12.00

House of Commons

Home Affairs Committee

The draft Anti–social Behaviour Bill: pre–legislative scrutiny

Twelfth Report of Session 2012–13

Volume II

Oral and written evidence

Additional written evidence is contained in Volume III, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12 February 2013

Home Affairs Committee

The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies.

Current membership

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the parliament. Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Karl Turner MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Tom Healey (Clerk), Richard Benwell (Second Clerk), Ruth Davis (Committee Specialist), Eleanor Scarnell (Committee Specialist), Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant), Michelle Garratty (Committee Assistant), Iwona Hankin (Committee Support Officer) and Alex Paterson (Select Committee Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3276; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

Witnesses

Tuesday 15 January 2013 page

Rebecca Bryant, ASB Services Lead, Manchester Council, Ian Whiteway, ASB Manager, Richmond Housing Partnership, and Peter Castleton, Community Safety Manager, Brighton & Hove City Council.

Anita Lower, Local Government Association

Eamon Lynch, Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, Gavin Smart, Director of Police, Chartered Institute of Housing, Kevin Williamson, National Housing Federation, and Jane Plant, Law Society Housing Law Committee

Tuesday 22 January 2013

Janet Grauberg, Director of UK Strategy, Barnado’s, Penelope Gibbs, Chair, Standing Committee for Youth Justice, and Ellen Broome, Director of Police and Public Affairs, The Children’s Society

Liz Walker, Redoubt, Redoubt and Javed Khan, Chief Executive, Victim Support

Ev 1

Ev 7

Ev 10

Ev 16

Ev 20


Jeremy Browne MP, Minister of State, Home Office, and Rt Hon Don Foster MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Ev 26

List of printed written evidence

National Housing Federation

Victim Support

Local Government Association

Chartered Institute of Housing

Standing Committee for Youth Justice

Law Society of England and Wales

Barnado’s

Manchester City Council

page

Ev 34

Ev 38, Ev 41

Ev 42, Ev 45

Ev 46

Ev 48

Ev 52

Ev 53

Ev 56

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume III on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom)

UK Noise Association

Paddy Tipping (Police and Crime Commissioner for Nottinghamshire)

Kent Police

The Kennel Club

Preston City Council

London Borough of Camden

Dog Trust

Living Streets

John Dwyer (Police and Crime Commissioner for Cheshire)

Association of Convenience Stores

Martyn Underhill (Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset)

Blue Cross

Association of Chief Police Officers

Leicestershire Police and Sir Clive Loader (Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire)

Catch 22

Swindon Borough Council

Katy Bourne (Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex)

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Kirklees Council

Big Brother Watch

British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association

Transition to Adulthood Alliance

Criminal Justice Alliance

Stephen Braund

Norwich City Council

Ramblers and Open Spaces Society

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

The Hyde Group

Buckinghamshire County Council

Wyre Forest Community Housing Group’s anti Social Behaviour Unit

Social Landlords Crime and nuisance Group

Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime

Mark Dziecielewski

South Yorkshire Police

JUSTICE

Bridget Phillipson MP

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner

Page

Ev w1

Ev w1

Ev w3

Ev w5

Ev w8

Ev w8

Ev w10

Ev w11

Ev w13

Ev w15

Ev w17

Ev w18

Ev w15

Ev w23

Ev w27

Ev w27

Ev w34

Ev w35

Ev w37

Ev w37

Ev w39

Ev w40

Ev w44

Ev w47

Ev w50

Ev w51

Ev w54

Ev w59

Ev w62

Ev w66

Ev w68

Ev w74

Ev w77

Ev w95

Ev w95

Ev w101

Ev w106

Norfolk’s County Community Safety Partnership

Liberty

Ev w110

Ev w112

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.

Session 2012–13

First Report Effectiveness of the Committee in 2010–12 HC 144

Second Report Work of the Permanent Secretary (April–Dec 2011) HC 145

Third Report Pre-appointment Hearing for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary

HC 183

Fourth Report Private Investigators HC 100

Fifth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (Dec 2011–March 2012)

HC 71

Sixth Report The work of the Border Force HC 523

Seventh Report Olympics Security HC 531

Eighth Report

Ninth Report

Tenth Report

The work of the UK Border Agency (April–June 2012)

Drugs: Breaking the Cycle

Powers to investigate the Hillsborough disaster: interim Report on the Independent Police Complaints Commission

HC 603

HC 184

HC 793

Eleventh Report Independent Police Complaints Commission HC 494

Session 2010–12

First Report Immigration Cap HC 361

Second Report Policing: Police and Crime Commissioners HC 511

Third Report Firearms Control HC 447

Fourth Report The work of the UK Border Agency HC 587

Fifth Report Police use of Tasers HC 646

Sixth Report Police Finances HC 695

Seventh Report Student Visas HC 773

Eighth Report Forced marriage HC 880

Ninth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (November 2010-March 2011)

HC 929

Tenth Report Implications for the Justice and Home Affairs area of the accession of Turkey to the European Union

HC 789

Eleventh Report Student Visas – follow up HC 1445

Twelfth Report Home Office – Work of the Permanent Secretary HC 928

Thirteenth Report Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications

HC 907

Fourteenth Report New Landscape of Policing HC 939

Fifteenth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (April-July 2011) HC 1497

Sixteenth Report Policing large scale disorder HC 1456

Seventeenth Report UK Border Controls HC 1647

Eighteenth Report Rules governing enforced removals from the UK HC 563

Nineteenth Report Roots of violent radicalisation HC 1446

Twentieth Report Extradition HC 644

Twenty-first Report Work of the UK Border Agency (August-Dec 2011) HC 1722

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidenceTaken before the Home Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 15 January 2013

Members present:

Keith Vaz (Chair)

Mr James ClappisonMichael EllisLorraine FullbrookDr Julian Huppert

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Rebecca Bryant, ASB Services Lead, Manchester Council, Ian Whiteway, ASB Manager,Richmond Housing Partnership, and Peter Castleton, Community Safety Manager, Brighton & Hove CityCouncil, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: I refer all those present to the Register ofMembers’ Interests. Could I invite Rebecca Bryant,Ian Whiteway and Peter Castleton to come before theCommittee at the dais? This continues theCommittee’s inquiry into the anti-social behaviourlegislation. This is a pre-legislative scrutiny session.Just to go through, so we are clear from theCommittee who everybody is, Rebecca Bryant, youare the Anti-Social Behaviour Lead for ManchesterCity Council, and you have held that position sinceMarch 2007?Rebecca Bryant: Yes.

Q2 Chair: Mr Whiteway, you are the Anti-SocialBehaviour Manager for Richmond HousingPartnership. Is that correct?Ian Whiteway: That is correct.

Q3 Chair: Where is that based, Mr Whiteway?Ian Whiteway: It is based in Richmond in Surrey.

Q4 Chair: Mr Castleton, you are the CommunitySafety Manager of Brighton & Hove City Council?Peter Castleton: Yes.

Q5 Chair: Thank you for coming here. I want to startwith a general question to all three of you. None ofyou are elected officials. You are all officials of yourorganisations. We will be hearing from councillors ina later session. Why is the legislation not working?Why do you think new legislation has had to beintroduced? Ms Bryant?Rebecca Bryant: I think we in Manchester have beenlobbying for some time for wider powers in theprivate sector that would be akin to an anti-socialbehaviour injunction, which would allow us to takemore prompt action against perpetrators of anti-socialbehaviour. On the whole, in Manchester we have usedthe previous legislation very well and have asignificant number of orders that have worked with alow breach rate for our anti-social behaviour orders.So, on the whole, we were fairly pleased, but I thinkthere needs to be a streamlining of the anti-socialbehaviour legislation.

Steve McCabeBridget PhillipsonMr David Winnick

Q6 Chair: As an example, can you tell me how manyASBOs took place in Manchester last year, forexample?Rebecca Bryant: At the moment, we have 230 liveanti-social behaviour orders. The majority of those arefor over-18s, not young people.

Q7 Chair: If you had this new legislation, based onwhat you have seen, how many would that increaseby? This is obviously an estimate.Rebecca Bryant: I think that, in the private sector, wewould increase our ability to take action probably inabout 10% to 15% of cases.

Q8 Chair: In addition to what you have, so another20 or so cases?Rebecca Bryant: Yes.

Q9 Chair: Mr Whiteway, do you think the legislationis not suitable, that we need to amend it and improveit?Ian Whiteway: I think we are quite lucky in housingthat we have the anti-social behaviour injunction, andI think this new legislation encompasses that andmakes it wider for councils and police to use. Ourinjunction is really quite effective. For example, if weget a call in the morning that an incident has occurred,we can get that into court the same day and we canget a power of arrest and an exclusion order on somepeople the very same day. That alleviates the problemfor that person straight away.

Q10 Chair: I have lived in Richmond. I was actuallyparliamentary candidate in Richmond for my firstelection. I would not have thought that that was ahotbed of anti-social behaviour. If you compareRichmond in Surrey to central Manchester, it is prettydifferent, isn’t it? How many anti-social behaviourorders or injunctions have you had in the last yearin Richmond?Ian Whiteway: Richmond Housing have probably hadabout five or six injunctions in the past year, but—

Q11 Chair: Out of a population of about 250,000people?

Ev 2 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 January 2013 Rebecca Bryant, Ian Whiteway and Peter Castleton

Ian Whiteway: That is right, yes.

Q12 Chair: It is not a huge number, is it?Ian Whiteway: No, and we are one of the safestboroughs in London, but, when we do get anti-socialbehaviour, we have to act quickly to deal with it, andwe are quite effective at doing that.

Q13 Chair: Would it increase as a result of the newlegislation? Would you see it going up from five to ahigher figure?Ian Whiteway: It would not increase. What it woulddo is obviously there would be fewer ASBOinjunctions that the police and the council make, andthe new IPNA—as it is known or would be known—is a very effective, fast way of dealing with anti-socialbehaviour, whereas the ASBO could take weeks, evenmonths, to go through court and get the evidenceneeded.

Q14 Chair: It is a much quicker remedy?Ian Whiteway: A much quicker remedy.

Q15 Chair: Mr Castleton, what about in your area inBrighton? Again, that is as different to Richmond asRichmond is to Manchester.Peter Castleton: Indeed.Chair: How many orders did you have, for example,last year in Brighton?Peter Castleton: We have about between 40 and 45orders running generally, and we took out, I think,seven or eight fresh orders last year. It is a tortuousprocess. It takes too long. It doesn’t bring reliefquickly enough for victims.

Q16 Chair: Do you think as a result of thislegislation you will be able to get more orders?Peter Castleton: I think we will be able to bringswifter justice and remedies to communities. If thatmeans that we need to have an order, then we wouldhave that. I would echo what my colleagues are sayingabout ASBIs as well. They have been useful becausethey are much faster. I think the key to this is speedingup the process. It has become slower and slower overthe last 10 years.

Q17 Chair: What you are basically telling theCommittee is that it is the statutory framework at themoment that is slow. As constituency MPs, we all getpeople coming to our surgeries complaining that thecouncil has not taken sufficient action. The councilthen blame the police, the police then blame socialservices, and I wonder, as a local MP, whether it isthe framework that is wrong or whether it is theagencies that are wrong. What do you think of that,Ms Bryant?Rebecca Bryant: In Manchester, our partnershipworking is very strong. We work together on a locallevel. We have integrated neighbourhood managementteams, with the police and the council sitting together.So I find it very hard to believe that—

Q18 Chair: Do you hear that kind of criticism, thepublic saying, “Well, look, we have heard aboutASBOs”, and they will hear about these new orders,

“but the problem is, when we go to complain to oneagency, they pass me on to the next agency,” and it isan inter-agency problem rather than the legislation?Rebecca Bryant: No, I think that the victims that wedeal with say that the court process takes too long.Once you make an application, it can take a significantnumber of months before, for example, you can getthe possession of somebody’s property or you can geta final order.

Q19 Chair: Sure, but that is another agency, thecourt, isn’t it?Rebecca Bryant: Yes. I suppose you could say it wasthe judiciary rather than the actual statutoryframework.

Q20 Chair: Mr Whiteway, inter-agency co-operation?Ian Whiteway: I think partnership working is the wayforward. I do not think there has been anything thathas put into place all the partners working togethermore effectively than this new legislation.

Q21 Chair: Does it do that?Ian Whiteway: This would fit the bill because, as Isay, the all-encompassing new injunction is there foreach partner to use but, more importantly, to worktogether effectively to deal with the problem.

Q22 Chair: Mr Castleton?Peter Castleton: I think there will be agencies whowill take a contrary view, particularly social-careagencies and youth justice agencies who are oftenadvocating on behalf of an individual who is beingsubjected to an order, who has perhaps had a verytraumatic set of circumstances surrounding them, andI think part of the delay is inter-agency delay. We havepositive working in Brighton, but the best result is thatyou get a balanced outcome for an individual. Thereare agencies that potentially are taking contrary viewslocally for us.

Q23 Chair: Give me three quick changes that youthink would improve this legislation from each ofyour vantage points—Mr Castleton?—or even one ifyou cannot think of three.Peter Castleton: I really welcome the fact that we willhave a lower burden of proof. I think that is reallyimportant, and that should bring swifter responses.That is the most pleasing thing to see. I am keen thatwe can bring swift remedies for victims who aresuffering as a result of anti-social behaviour, youngpeople as well as adults.

Q24 Chair: Mr Whiteway?Ian Whiteway: I think quicker responses to dealingwith anti-social behaviour, a more joined-up approachin dealing with it, and, more importantly, dealing withvulnerable persons and getting their problems sortedout a lot quicker.

Q25 Chair: Ms Bryant?Rebecca Bryant: I think I have three.Chair: Well done.



Rebecca Bryant: We would like access to the criminalbehaviour order, along with the CPS, and how wewould work that I think would need furtherconsideration. We would like to have the power, alongwith our social housing colleagues, to excludeperpetrators who live in private rented or owner-occupier property, and also to hold them responsiblefor the behaviour of their visitors and the people whoreside in their property, akin to social-housinglegislation. Thirdly, we would like the police andcrime commissioner to be the appeal body for thecommunity.

Q26 Chair: Does Mr Lloyd know this?Rebecca Bryant: He may do.

Q27 Steve McCabe: I want to ask about this pointthat has been made about owner-occupiers who arethe source of the behaviour. You said that has been amajor problem in Manchester, and I think in otherparts of the country. Which power in the legislationthat has been drafted would enable you to tackle thatmore quickly and more efficiently than you can atpresent?Rebecca Bryant: Having access to the injunction thatis being proposed would allow us to take actionagainst both owner-occupiers and also those who aretenants in the private sector.

Q28 Steve McCabe: Do you mean this injunctioncould prevent nuisance and annoyance?Rebecca Bryant: Yes. But that is restricted incomparison to the type of injunction that you canobtain in the social sector.

Q29 Steve McCabe: Can I just understand this,because I have been trying to work out how this willwork in practice? I understand the demand to tackleowner-occupiers; I think that is a legitimate concern.But as I understand it, anti-social behaviour in thecontext of this injunction is defined as conductcapable of causing nuisance or annoyance to anyperson. Quite often, on that basis some of mycolleagues here, and some of the witnesses and evenmyself, must be guilty of anti-social behaviour onquite a regular basis. How easy do you think it isgoing to be to obtain these injunctions at court? Youtalked about a lower burden of proof, but, quitefrankly, if it is conduct capable of causing nuisance orannoyance to any person, I would think your chancesof succeeding in the court are pretty slim on that basis.People are going to argue that the victim is actuallyjust intolerant and is not subject to any reasonablebehaviour or tolerance of other people’s lifestyles. Areyou sure this is really going to work?Rebecca Bryant: As far as Manchester, I think the testaround nuisance and annoyance is a better test thanwith an ASBO, because it is wider and it capturesmore different types of behaviour that may beperpetrated. I would not say it is easier to obtain.Obviously, it is based on the evidence that yourwitnesses provide and about your caseworkmanagement, and how you can show the impact onthe community and those vulnerable victims. I wouldnot say easier but faster.

Q30 Steve McCabe: Your problem at the moment isyou are having trouble providing evidence thatsatisfies the court using the existing powers, and asthe period the powers have been in force hasdeveloped and case law has developed, you have beenless and less successful. We are now bringing in a newtest that says that anybody in any part of the countrycould be guilty of this just because somebody elseconsiders their behaviour annoying. Do you reallythink the courts in this country are going to be thatquick to respond to this?Ian Whiteway: I think we are living these injunctionsday by day at the moment and to get an injunction incourt, to get to that point, is a lot of time and effort,a lot of statements. There are some hearsay bits andpieces that go into that. More importantly, we have tolook at trying to find the best remedy we can toalleviate the problems of those people that aresuffering day in, day out, constantly, and theinjunction at the moment really does do that. Soopening it out wider to other agencies to bring theirbody of evidence as well is only going to strengthenthe case.

Q31 Bridget Phillipson: Many constituents whocome to me about anti-social behaviour report goodpartnership working between the statutory agencies,but I think the cases that take the longest to resolveand are the most difficult are often those aroundprivate landlords. Do you think anything in thislegislation will address that, and what further actionis needed in this area?Rebecca Bryant: I could give you an example inManchester. In the last 12 months, we have had over2,500 cases in the private sector of anti-socialbehaviour, so it obviously is a significant issue. We dowork very closely with landlords in the private sectorto try to support them in managing the behaviour oftheir tenants, but if that is wider and it is also aboutowner-occupiers, too, I think the injunction beingbroadened out into the private sector will give us theopportunity to support the management of thoseproperties by us taking action to support thosecommunities.Peter Castleton: That is not generally our experiencein Brighton. Our most vulnerable victims tend to bein social housing, and although we have had one ortwo issues with the private rented sector, we do nothave the same experience as Manchester, andtherefore my focus has not been so much on that partof the legislation. I do, of course, acknowledge that itwould be useful to be able to do that, and there arevulnerable victims. I think perhaps the issuesometimes is that private sector tenants are notidentified as vulnerable as quickly as they are insocial housing.

Q32 Bridget Phillipson: I do not know what the splitin terms of the numbers is, for example, in my area,but I know that it is more difficult often to deal withthose cases and can take longer, because sometimesthere is a reluctance on behalf of a private landlord toengage with the police or the council. Where you havea social landlord, that social landlord will usuallywork responsibly with others, but with private



landlords, where there is a complete reluctance to doso, there is often very little that neighbours can do toremedy that.Rebecca Bryant: Certainly from our perspective, thepeople in the community experiencing anti-socialbehaviour can come to the local authority and we willrespond on their behalf, as we have a statutory dutyto deal with anti-social behaviour and crime. Whilewe will try to work with the landlord, I think ourprimary concern is protecting the most vulnerablecommunities from anti-social behaviour.Fundamentally, we will have a closure order that canbe used in the private sector to close premises if theanti-social behaviour is serious enough.

Q33 Dr Huppert: Can I add on Mr McCabe’squestion, because I think I share his concern. None ofus want to see a bureaucratic process that takes a lotof effort, but the phraseology here is extraordinarilybroad. The language is “conduct capable of causingnuisance or annoyance to any person” and allows anyprohibition or requirement on this. It annoys me thatthere are people who do not vote Liberal Democrat inCambridge. I would not think it would be appropriateto have an injunction to require them to do so. Itclearly would not annoy Mr Ellis, but I dare say thereare other people that might upset him. Do you thinkthere should be something in here to talk about theactivities being necessary and proportionate, or theinjunction being necessary and proportionate, asopposed to just the purpose of preventing thebehaviour?Rebecca Bryant: I think the proportionality test issomething that happens anyway in the court processand a court will only order an injunction if it is justto do so. So we will go through the evidence andprovide evidence to show that it is proportionate thatan injunction should be in place, as opposed to us justgoing to get them for very low-level anti-socialbehaviour.

Q34 Dr Huppert: So if the legislation said that, thatwould not cause any practical problems?Rebecca Bryant: I think it would increase the numberof arguments around the word “proportionality” andprobably be a dream for the legal profession and thedefence industry to generate further appeals and morelengthy legal argument. I do not think it is necessary.Peter Castleton: I think it does push it down to amuch lower level, but I think the key to it is havingproportionate responses to that lower level of anti-social behaviour as well. Legislation is not the onlyway to deal with anti-social behaviour. There isnothing to stop housing officers, police officers andcolleagues knocking on doors and talking to peopleand trying to resolve things before you end up in alegislative process. What the courts often do not fullyunderstand, perhaps because it is not terribly wellexplained sometimes, is the amount of work that goeson to address the anti-social behaviour before you endup with a legal remedy.

Q35 Michael Ellis: I would like to move on nowand ask you about the community trigger, the point atwhich—as its name implies—the community decides

when action should be triggered by anti-socialbehaviour. The question is: how does one set the levelof trigger? Clearly, communities will have differentviewpoints on this matter. What would you say aboutit?Ian Whiteway: I think we have three different viewshere, which is probably going to be useful to you. Ithink there that should probably be two thresholds,one for maybe inner-city, urban areas, and one formaybe countryside areas, because obviously the levelof tolerance might be slightly different in differentareas. I think you have a totally different view there,haven’t you?Rebecca Bryant: We consulted with our stakeholders,so the police, social landlords and colleagues fromchildren and adult services about how we would setup our community trigger trial, and we also spoke tosome members of the community, although it was avery small number of people. Based on the type ofcases that we deal with in Manchester, and thecomplexity, we felt quite strongly that the thresholdshould be quite high, so I think of all the trial areaswe have the highest threshold, which is three incidentsof anti-social behaviour and the complainant perceivesthat there has been no action taken. I think the natureof anti-social behaviour cases is that in the majorityof cases there will be definitely more than one incidentof anti-social behaviour.Peter Castleton: Brighton is probably the lowest ofthe trigger trials. It only has to be reported oncebefore. We consulted with colleagues on that. I thinksome of our—

Q36 Michael Ellis: So you are expecting police toact on the first episode? One incident would triggerpolice response?Peter Castleton: What the trigger is about for me isservice recovery and making sure we are delivering aservice to people rather than another complaintsprocedure, so that was the approach that we took.Ian Whiteway: I think you have our trigger processfrom Richmond in front of you there. It is a quickprocess in dealing with really vulnerable people thatmay not have been able to give us the informationbefore. From our point of view, it is a good processthat we have put in place as a failsafe, really, torecover if we do get triggers that we might havemissed in some way or anti-social behaviour reportsthat we might have missed.

Q37 Michael Ellis: I take it from your variedanswers that you would not support a national settrigger. Would it affect your areas adversely?Ian Whiteway: It would be better to have one nationaltrigger, because what you might find is some areasmight set the trigger higher to maybe areas that mightbe less well equipped to deal with the volume thatmight come through. That could be an issue in thefuture, so one trigger for everyone would be themost sensible.Rebecca Bryant: My view is that it should be a localtrigger based on the types of cases that you get—thecomplexity. In normal case management processes,you are expected to deal with anti-social behaviourwhen it comes. You agree an action plan with your



complainant; you provide support; you review diaryevidence. This is about when we collectively have notresponded, so where the local authority has not spokento the police, or it seems like that to the complainant.In our experience, and the complexity and the volumeof cases that we have, we certainly would not want tohave a trigger that was perhaps suitable for Richmond,which is a very different dynamic and population incomparison to Manchester, and I think it is verymuch about—

Q38 Michael Ellis: So you strongly support the ideathat it be local discretion and would work best thatway?Rebecca Bryant: Yes.Peter Castleton: In Brighton and Sussex, our PCC,for example, might well want a trigger that is uniformacross the whole of the county. It would depend wherethat trigger was set as well and what response timesare expected. I think there is an argument for raisingthe game for areas that perhaps are not delivering theservice that they should do in the first place, to arguefor a national trigger.

Q39 Michael Ellis: I think the idea—is it not?—is togive local people in any part of the country theexercise of their own discretion as to where theseepisodes will apply.Ian Whiteway: It is. I think you are in danger there,though, of maybe one area that is right next door toanother area where their trigger is set quite low andthe next area is set quite high. That person’s triggercould actually be activated in the next sector but notin their own, and that might be an issue.

Q40 Michael Ellis: They are not all written in stone,though, are they?Ian Whiteway: No.Michael Ellis: They can be changed.

Q41 Mr Winnick: The country was shocked, as youwill know, over the suicide of Fiona Pilkington, whocommitted suicide and also killed her mentallydisabled daughter as a result of the abuse andharassment over a period of time where no effectiveaction had been taken by the police and the socialagencies. Do you feel that as a result of the changesthat are taking place such an event is not likely tooccur again? Mr Castleton?Peter Castleton: Speaking for my area, our casemanagement and risk assessment of the mostvulnerable victims is much better than it was, as aresult of revised standards and practices within thecity. Lessons have been learned from Pilkington andother unfortunate cases similar to that. So I amconfident that we are in a much better—

Q42 Mr Winnick: Sorry, you were saying there isanother case?Peter Castleton: There are a number of cases whereit has been evidenced that partners have not spoken toeach other, action has not been taken, or action hasbeen taken and it has not been communicated tovictims. I am confident in my area that we are muchbetter now at assessing vulnerability and having a

joined-up approach to casework. That will continue,regardless of how this legislation looks. To reiteratemy earlier point, there is a lot of work that goes on toreduce vulnerability for victims, which is our primaryconcern, and can often take place prior to anyenforcement action.

Q43 Mr Winnick: You do not believe, as far as yourarea is concerned, that such a tragedy could happen?Peter Castleton: I would not say that. I could not saythat. I do not think any area could ever say that.

Q44 Mr Winnick: No, but most unlikely?Peter Castleton: I am confident that we are muchbetter than we were.

Q45 Mr Winnick: The same, Mr Whiteway?Ian Whiteway: No one can ever foresee what is goingto happen in the future. What we can do is put verystrong procedures in place so that we support thevulnerable people as much as possible. I think thevulnerability matrix that you also see in front of youis a good way of finding out from anyone who reportsanti-social behaviour, on whatever level, that there arequestions that need to be asked to find out howvulnerable these people are. We also use that now forthe alleged perpetrators because they could bevulnerable as well.

Q46 Mr Winnick: When you say one can’t becertain, of course one can’t be certain. That is takenfor granted. But what I am asking is if the process indealing with anti-social abuse now involves a triggerand the rest of it, would you say the likelihood of sucha tragedy happening is that much less?Ian Whiteway: I think, born out of what happenedwith the Pilkington case, it has made everybody workcloser in partnership, share information more andeffectively find out the vulnerabilities of people at amuch earlier stage, and hopefully that will prevent thishappening again.

Q47 Mr Winnick: In your area?Ian Whiteway: Yes, definitely in our area.

Q48 Mr Winnick: It may be different—Ms Bryant?Rebecca Bryant: I do not think anybody canguarantee that there will not be another FionaPilkington in this country, but I think what we havedone, collectively and nationally, is work together toformulate a risk assessment matrix, which is used inevery case in Manchester that comes in, where weassess the vulnerability of that complainant in orderto try to provide support to the vulnerable victim. Butif we were not aware of the problem in the first place,it would be very difficult for us to guarantee.

Q49 Mr Winnick: When we had the social workersin in previous sessions about child abuse, theirresponse tended to be that the climate was different atthe time, some 10 years ago. Would you say that theclimate is now different as regards anti-socialbehaviour and the suffering that undoubtedly takesplace as a result of people causing a great deal of



harassment and the rest of it? Very briefly, MrCastleton?Peter Castleton: Yes, I think it is. I think professionalson the frontline have a much better understanding ofvulnerability. Particularly police colleagues, who havedealt previously with criminal matters, now have abetter understanding that an incident that might appearto be relatively minor might have a significant impacton an individual.

Q50 Mr Winnick: Mr Whiteway?Ian Whiteway: Yes, I would say that we work muchmore effectively with all our partners nowadays, andif anything has come out of the whole of this, it isreally a good working relationship with everyone toalleviate the problems that much quicker.

Q51 Mr Winnick: Same for you?Rebecca Bryant: Yes, I would agree.

Q52 Dr Huppert: Tell us how the trigger works.There are clearly levels at which one can set a trigger.If it is set too high, it can defeat the purpose; if it isset too low, there is the risk of spending too muchtime on frivolous or malicious complaints. We heardfrom one police force that trying to filter out vexatiouscases could be a real strain for them and distract thepolice from their focus. Do you think there is a riskof that, and at what level do you think a trigger wouldbe simply too low and would carry too manyproblems? I do not mind which of you wants toanswer.Peter Castleton: Shall I go first? We have a lowthreshold, and it was a concern of a number of mycolleagues that we would see a significant number ofvexatious complaints. That has not been borne out inour experience, so we have not seen that. We havehad one complainant who could be described asvexatious in that there were other actions going on inwhich they were a perpetrator. But the key thing thatthe trigger does is causes the agencies to re-examinethe activity and the actions that have been taken inrelation to that case. It is a quick-time case review, inthe case of Brighton and Hove, which then setsactions if there are any that need to be set. It mostoften sets communication actions to the victim andthose affected by the behaviour of that individual.Ian Whiteway: From our point of view, we have avery good vexatious complainant policy in place toback this up, and because of that we can review thesecases at a very early stage once they come in. If wedetermine that that is the case, then we wouldobviously have to write to these people and say thatis what it is. In the main, we do not get that problem.We get people that come to us obviously wanting toalleviate their problem, and we need to do that asquickly as possible, and this process is there for that.Rebecca Bryant: In Manchester, we have had one ofour triggers that you could say was vexatious. Theindividual had been to our complaints process at thecity council, been to the ombudsman, been to theIPCC and been told there was no case to answer, andthen used the community trigger. We decided they hadnot met the threshold. So I think proportionately weare not looking at a significant number here across the

city. We also have a vexatious complaints policy thathas now been tied into our community trigger trial. Ifnecessary we would use that, but I think in most caseswe would say, “This complaint does not meet ourthreshold,” and, therefore, we believe that the actionthat has already been taken is fine.

Q53 Mr Clappison: I take it from each of you that afair amount of discretion is needed in this, but can Iask Manchester in particular about this. One of theproblems that I have come up against in this field iswhen the person who is making the complaint isfrightened, sometimes very frightened, of the peoplewho are causing anti-social behaviour. Do you havea concern with your trigger being set so high—threecomplaints for individuals—that somebody might betoo frightened to come and make a complaint,particularly if they have made one complaint and seenthat nothing has happened, as they would see it? Ittakes quite a lot of courage to make a singlecomplaint, and to make three in a row would take alot of courage.Rebecca Bryant: I think it would be very rare forsomebody in Manchester who has complained to thelocal authority or the police or a social landlord aboutanti-social behaviour to not have action taken. Wework very well together in trying to resolve cases ofanti-social behaviour. We take the vulnerability of anindividual. It is paramount to how we respond andhow we develop our case. In some respects, I wouldwelcome the fact if someone came to us and said,“You’re not responding well,” because that gives us anopportunity to review our processes and procedures,which I think are relatively good as a partnership inthe first place.

Q54 Steve McCabe: I wasn’t clear that I understoodfrom the answers I heard what you do when someonemakes a complaint—and I think this is the case in alow threshold—and the person being complainedagainst lodges a counter-complaint. That seems to beremarkably common in my part of the world and inother areas as well. How do you make sure that thecounter-complaint is not vexatious and does not gumup the system?Rebecca Bryant: Certainly in Manchester—and Ithink I probably speak on behalf of most of mycolleagues who are practitioners in anti-socialbehaviour—a full investigation takes place into acomplaint of anti-social behaviour, so it is not justtaken carte blanche that one person’s word is the rightword. If there was a counter-allegation, which oftenthere are in our cases, we would investigate thatcounter-allegation. We attempt to collect witnessesaside from the initial complainant, and in most caseswhen we intervene—I think in about 75% of ourcases—the first intervention or that warningintervention is successful. We do not go on to do thefull process in the majority of our cases.

Q55 Bridget Phillipson: Following on from that,isn’t the problem sometimes with these counter-allegations that mediation results from that or therecommendation of mediation? While that can workin lots of cases, sometimes I think the original



complainant—if we say the original complainant isthe person who has the genuine grievance—can thenget a bit angry that they see there being a suggestionof parity or that in some way they are to be heldresponsible or they are at fault, once their neighbouror the other person looking into them counter-complains, following a complaint that they havemade.Peter Castleton: What you have to remember in this,before you get to the trigger—you are asking usquestions about how we manage anti-social behaviourmore generally. It is often the case that there are twolots of anti-social behaviour being committed, thereare two offenders and there are two victims in it. Whatpeople want—what they all want universally—is forthe anti-social behaviour to stop. That is our priority.If we need to use the law to do that, we will do that.But there are a number of cases that we manage allthe time, and currently, in Brighton and Hove wherewe have people who are clearly victims but are clearlyoffending as well. You are asking us questions aboutdetailed case working, which includes mediation.Ian Whiteway: From our point of view, we havechanged the name of “mediation” to “caseassessment” because we feel that people will take itup more with a different name, and because of that,we can also do mediation with just one person. Wedo not need two people to do mediation to start theprocess off.Rebecca Bryant: For us, mediation is appropriate insome cases. In some cases, one interview isappropriate; and in some cases, legal action isappropriate to handle the issues we are presented with.We have lots of different ways of dealing with anti-social behaviour, so there is not one right way, I think.

Q56 Bridget Phillipson: A final question, in termsof trigger activation so far, how many of those have

Examination of Witness

Witness: Councillor Anita Lower, Local Government Association, gave evidence.

Q59 Chair: Thank you very much for coming to giveevidence. I am sorry we are running a little late, butwe will try to be succinct in our questions to you. Youare not just here as the deputy leader of the LiberalDemocrat group at Newcastle, though that is yourposition. You are here on behalf of the whole of theLocal Government Association, and we are mostgrateful to you for coming here today. When we askyou questions, there may be one or two aboutNewcastle, but primarily it is going to be about theLGA’s view on the Bill.You have heard my colleague, David Winnick, talkabout the Leicestershire case of Fiona Pilkington, andobviously this is uppermost in our mind whenever weconsider changes to the legislation. I know to someextent it is guesswork, because you cannot know forcertain that this would never have happened if we hadhad this legislation, but if we had had things like thecommunity trigger, do you think that the situation andthe scenario might have been different?

concerned young people under the age of 18 in yourarea?Rebecca Bryant: For us, none.Ian Whiteway: We have had none.Peter Castleton: One for us.

Q57 Bridget Phillipson: Is there a different approachapplied to young people who are responsible for anti-social behaviour, as opposed to adults? Do you havedifferent ways of dealing with that?Ian Whiteway: I think we need to be sensitive to thepoint that we take seriously anyone who makes acomplaint of anti-social behaviour, but the young, old,vulnerable, anyone, should have the chance to activatethe trigger if they deem it necessary.Peter Castleton: Where you have a young offender,you need to involve other agencies in assessing thevulnerability of the perpetrator as well, so one has toconsider different things definitely.

Q58 Bridget Phillipson: In terms of Manchester?Rebecca Bryant: I agree with that. It is aboutinvolving other agencies, but it is also aboutproportionate action, and because someone is a youngperson does not mean that they will not necessarily bea serious perpetrator. I think that we need somethingwithin our arsenal to take action against anti-socialbehaviour to deal with young people who are actinganti-socially.Chair: Thank you so much for your evidence today.I know that colleagues of yours at Richmond Housingwere keen to also give evidence. Please feel free towrite to us on all these matters. We are very keen tolook carefully at this whole area. If you think we havemissed anything out, then please do contact us. Thankyou very much for coming.

Cllr Lower: The community trigger is one way to lookat it, but I do think that it is not the solution. I thinkthat there is much more about joined-up working andabout partnership. One of the better examples that Iwould call would probably be the anti-socialbehaviour co-handling pilot, which went ahead in2011, where we had I think it was eight police forcesthat joined in two council areas. They looked at whenthey got a call about anti-social behaviour; theyassessed the vulnerability of the person, and thentalked to the agencies and had joint meetings so theycould highlight that very quickly. I think the trigger ismore about failure than about actually progressing thecare of someone who is vulnerable in the system.

Q60 Chair: One of the things that happens to me—Iam sure it happens to you as a local councillor—ispeople come on a Friday to my surgery and they say,“Look, what am I going to do about this dreadfulgroup of people who are upsetting my mum? We callthe police and they say, ‘Get on to the housing


15 January 2013 Councillor Anita Lower

department.’ We call the housing department and theysay, ‘Get on to the social services department.’ Wecall the social services department. They take out anorder. It takes so long to get through the courts.” Infact, last Friday I went to see a man who was beatenup. He is a 47-year-old man in my constituency,beaten up in a lift as he was trying to get up to hisflat, and local people were complaining about gangsof young people who were involved. You mentionedpartnership, but we have all been around for a longtime round this table, and I am sure you have been acouncillor for a number of years. Why do we alwaysthink just using the word “partnership” is enough? Isthis about actually the partners doing something forlocal people? Do we need more legislation, or do weneed people to move quicker?Cllr Lower: I think it is a bit of both. The legislationis there and we have been using it very well, but itneeds to be modernised and it needs to move on. I dothink that we need to reassess how we work inpartnership with people, and we need to be able torespond to victims and to those who do complainmuch quicker and to be much clearer about what isgoing on for them. One of the problems we have iscommunication, and I think a lot of the—

Q61 Chair: Whose fault is that? Is it the council? Isit the police?Cllr Lower: I think things get tied up. Things get tiedup in the courts; people get tied up with beingwitnesses. It is supporting people who have beenvictims and getting them through into actually givingevidence about it.

Q62 Chair: Should there be one agency that isresponsible for telling people what is going on?Cllr Lower: There should be, but it doesn’t have tobe the same agency. What it should be is that, whenagencies get together and they have a case meeting,someone updates the person who that case meetingis about.

Q63 Chair: You do not need legislation to do it.Cllr Lower: No. I think that what this legislation doesis it makes that much more of an opportunity becauseit brings those partners together in a more formal way,because things have to be discussed, there have to bejoint efforts rather than people going it alone and noinformation passing between the agencies that areinvolved.

Q64 Chair: If you were the Housing Minister in thiscoalition Government, how would you improve this?What would be the one big thing you would do aboutthis legislation that would make it better?Cllr Lower: The one thing for housing would be aboutthe private tenants. One of the problems is that we aregetting increasingly more people who can’t afford tobuy houses and who are renting privately fromabsentee landlords, and we have very little power overnot just their behaviour but how they live their lives.That can have an effect on communities, whether it islate-night parties or it is not looking after gardens,whether it is coming in late, the noise—all sorts of

things have an impact, and there is nothing in thelegislation that gives us powers to deal with that.

Q65 Dr Huppert: Could I declare an interest as avice-president of the Local Government Association?We have experience of ASBOs and how they havebeen used for a number of years. Do you think theyare taken seriously by people at the moment? Do youthink they work as a remedy?Cllr Lower: They were a good starting point. I thinkthey have now become very, very diluted. Forexample, in Newcastle, I visited a family and thegrandmother had a photograph on the wall, which wasthe front page of the Evening Chronicle, because hergrandson was the first one in Newcastle to get anASBO and she thought this was wonderful. They havelost that impact. We do not have the follow-up onthem. We have to move away from the punishmentidea and look at how we prevent it, how we help andhow we support those who are victims. It is not justabout punishment and saying, “This person is wrong.”We need to look at why they are doing it, what wecan do to prevent it and to stop reoffending. That isthe big issue for us.

Q66 Dr Huppert: You will have seen that the crimeprevention injunctions apply to people under 18 aswell. Do you think the balance is right betweeninjuncting somebody—I think they have to be over10—and trying to put things in place to change theirbehaviour in other ways?Cllr Lower: We have to look at all of these measuresas the end product, and we have to start from wherewe start dealing with it at the beginning. Yes, ifsomeone has to get to the stage of actually being takento court and given an injunction—but there are othermeasures. We can talk about restorative justice. Wecan talk about the short, sharp shock. We had anexample in Newcastle where we had some younggraffiti artists who were decimating an area, werecaught by the police and their parents were brought inand given the option of criminal record or apaintbrush. They went out and they repainted garagedoors, backyard doors, everything, tidied up the backlanes, and it had an effect on them, but they did notend up with a criminal record. So it is about lookingat how you deal in proportionality to what the crimesare. I do not think any of us should be saying that thefirst thing you do with a 10-year-old is take them tocourt and give them a criminal record.

Q67 Dr Huppert: Lastly from me—if I may justbriefly—the draft legislation is incredibly broad interms of what might be covered and does not specifythat it should be proportional. Do you think it shouldbe clearer that proportional activity is what we aretalking about here, not a very, very low, easy trigger?Cllr Lower: Yes. I think that there should be a lotmore in here about how we prevent, how we deal withit at early stages, and how we nip it in the bud ratherthan allowing it to develop. I think there is a lot hereabout actual punishment fitting the crime, but it isabout why the crime happened in the first place thatwe need to look at in more detail.



Q68 Bridget Phillipson: Councillor Lower, youtalked a moment ago about the private rented sectorand the problems there, and I would agree with thecomments that you made. What legislation or actiondo you think is needed in this area, both in terms ofprivate-sector tenants who refuse to change theirbehaviour but I think perhaps more importantlylandlords. We seem to have very little control at timesover the actions of irresponsible landlords.Cllr Lower: I am not an expert on landlord law, butwhat I would say is there are issues around what isavailable to councils to deal with social landlords andprivate landlords. I think the problem is that privatelandlords can be individuals; they can be remote. Theydo not have to buy into the city, and that is whereproblems come. I think we could have stronger lawsabout how you actually become a social landlord andhow you are monitored and licensed, which wouldhelp to solve some of those problems and make thema little bit more answerable to local government andto people around them.

Q69 Bridget Phillipson: To give an example, in myarea—not a million miles away from Newcastle—when we had difficulties with one particular area andwith some private landlords the council had to makegreat efforts to track down where the landlordsactually lived. It transpired that one landlord lived inHong Kong, had bought very cheap properties, hadput in tenants who were not behaving themselves andwere causing real difficulties for the community. Evenfinding out who the landlords were and then bringingabout some action was a very protracted process forthe council.Cllr Lower: There are things that we can do, but ithas to get to extremes. In some cases we have actuallybought property and taken out orders to possessproperty that has not been looked after and has notbeen brought up to standard. But I do think that thelegislation needs to be clearer that this is becoming amore obvious problem. As fewer people can afford tobuy houses, more people are renting, and withoutthose restrictions and covenants that we have on asocial landlord, it is very difficult for us to deal with.

Q70 Steve McCabe: I want to ask you a couple ofquestions about cost, first of all. On crime preventioninjunctions, does the LGA have a view about whetheror not councils will have enough money for thepositive requirements that are going to be available?Cllr Lower: If you ask any local council, I think theywill tell you they do not have enough money foranything at the minute. Being honest about it, I thinkthe estimated cost of this is about £300,000 a year,and spread across the whole of the country that is nota huge amount. One of the things that we need toknow about is how much it is going to cost us to goto court and how many times are we going to do it.Nobody knows that yet, so this is a figure that hasbeen put in there.

Q71 Steve McCabe: £300,000 sounds a very modestfigure to me.Cllr Lower: Well, it does, but that is what the HomeOffice are estimating it will cost between us.

Q72 Steve McCabe: Yes, but I wondered what theLGA thought about that.Cllr Lower: Our view is that the resource implicationswill depend on the courts. If they continue with theASBO type as a civil order that would not be as much,but in 2002 of course the burden of proof was changedto make it much more of a criminal case, therefore wehave to build up more evidence, and we will have tohave more investment. Until it actually comes intoplace, we are not really sure. We are working fromthe Home Office estimate, but it will be across thecouncils and social landlords, and across the country,and of course it will depend on how successful weare at preventing some of this before it actually getsto court.

Q73 Steve McCabe: I think I am right in saying thatthere will be a fee charged, which I think is set bylocal authorities—is that right?—for the requirementsin a criminal behaviour order.Cllr Lower: Yes. Criminal behaviour orders need tobe monitored, and there is a cost involved to councils.

Q74 Steve McCabe: Has any work been done onwhat that will cost and how you—Cllr Lower: Not that I am aware of. I do not thinkthere is anyone who has piloted anything. I am notsure off the top of my head. I can find out from theLGA and let you know about that for certain. It willvary greatly because, of course, if you have someoneproviding a course in London, it will be a differentcost to what it will be in the north-east. It is also aboutthe quality of the courses, and about the effectivenessand looking at the outcomes and whether they haveactually worked to stop reoffending. So there will bea lot of work around that when it comes into place,and, until that happens, I do not think we can put afigure on it.

Q75 Steve McCabe: If you discover the LGA hasbeen doing any work on that, would you forward it?Cllr Lower: We will pass it on. Yes, certainly.

Q76 Steve McCabe: Thank you. Can I also ask youabout dispersal powers? Previously, when those havebeen exercised, they have been the result of aconsultation with the police and the local authority. Iunderstand the proposal is that the police will besolely responsible for this in the future and they won’thave to consult local authorities. Do you foresee anyproblems with that?Cllr Lower: To be honest, I think this is one part ofthe legislation that the LGA is really concerned about.It is the fact that those powers will be solely nowwith the police to use at their discretion. One of ourconsiderations would be that, at the very least, thePCC should be involved, but given that the police andcrime commissioner areas are so large, it really shouldbe local councillors or MPs as well. When it comesdown to it, anyone who has a problem with this willturn up at the councillor’s surgery or an MP’s surgery.They will not turn up at the police station to ask why,and we have to know the reasons why. Dispersalorders are fine, but there is no limit on the space ofwhere you actually disperse to, so we could be



dispersing from one community to another, and aslocal members, we have to be there to say the reasonswhy and to justify that. To not be involved in theoriginal decision making will be very difficult. We seethat as a backward step in this policy: that you aretaking away that local knowledge and local view ofwhat works and what doesn’t. Just to say that thepolice can come in and say, “You will move from Ato B,” is not a reason to go ahead. It should be adiscussion. It should be around the table, andeveryone should have a view on that before it isdecided and why.

Q77 Steve McCabe: Let me ask you one lastquestion about dispersal powers. There is a temptationto say if there is a group of young people hangingaround anywhere, as far as some folk are concernedthat is a problem. You must hear it all the time. I do.I have a 16-year-old son, and he tells me thatsometimes when he is hanging around with a groupof friends it is because they feel there is safety innumbers and they are not doing anything bad oranything wrong. Do you think there is a danger thatthe way this power is exercised, particularly if thereis not local authority involvement, it could not putenough emphasis on the safety of the young peopleand too much emphasis on folk who fear that a groupis automatically problematic?Cllr Lower: Yes. What we need to remember is thatmost young people are law-abiding. It is a very smallminority. If you look at the way that ASBOs are beinggranted, very few are under 18. Most young peoplewant to just be on their own but are seen as a threatjust because there is a crowd of them. I think this iswhere it becomes apparent that local members havethat local knowledge. If there is a group of 20 or 30


Witnesses: Eamon Lynch, Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, Gavin Smart, Chartered Institute ofHousing, Kevin Williamson, National Housing Federation, and Jane Plant, Law Society, Housing LawCommittee, gave evidence.

Q79 Chair: Can you start off by identifying who youare and what your organisations and roles are briefly,just for the record?Jane Plant: My name is Jane Plant. I represent theLaw Society for England and Wales, particularly thecommittee that represents housing lawyers across thecountry.Kevin Williamson: Good afternoon. My name isKevin Williamson, and I am head of communities andwellbeing at the National Housing Federation, whichrepresents housing associations.Eamon Lynch: My name is Eamon Lynch, from anorganisation called Social Landlords Crime andNuisance Group. We are a membership organisationthat represents or is made up of approximately 300social housing providers throughout the UK, butpredominantly England and Wales.Gavin Smart: My name is Gavin Smart from theChartered Institute of Housing, which is theprofessional body for people working in housing.

young people gathering at the shops and they are notdoing any harm, do we really have to say to them,“You are not allowed here, you must go somewhereelse.”? If they are somewhere not doing anything, weneed that local input. I really feel that there are a lotof dispersal orders that could be used just forconvenience rather than for an actual reason of crime.

Q78 Chair: Thank you. We must move on to ournext witnesses, but I want to thank you. There mustbe many members of your organisation that have real-life examples. The Committee can obviously takeevidence from people like yourself and others,Ministers and chief police officers, but what we reallywant is real-life examples of how the system works atthe moment. So if you know of anyone who isprepared to share their experience with the Committeeor if you know where there is good practice goingon—I know you are going to say Newcastle butanywhere else—please let us know, because we arekeen to go out and have a look at this in practice.Maybe not the whole Committee, but individualmembers I know will want to go and have a look. Weare most grateful to you.Cllr Lower: We will speak to the LGA staff and drawup a list of things that may be of interest.Chair: Please, and if you could communicate withour Clerk, then we would like to look at some reallygood examples of this in practice.Cllr Lower: Yes, there are plenty of them out there.Chair: Thank you very much. There will now be achange of witnesses but also a change of Chair. I callDr Julian Huppert to the chair.In the absence of the Chair, Dr Huppert was called tothe chair.

Q80 Chair: Thank you all much. We have had asubmission from the Law Society Housing Committeethat suggests that many of the draft proposals here areunnecessary, may increase the complexity of the lawin this area, lead to substantial delays and exacerbatethe need for costly litigation. I presume you wouldagree, so if I start at the other end of the table—MrSmart, would you agree with that?Gavin Smart: I am not sure we do agree with that. Ithink we support the changes. We like the idea thatthis legislation streamlines the tools that are availableand reduces them down. Some of the existing toolsare not regularly used. Our anti-social behaviourofficers who go out and have worked with landlordsover recent years have been very clear that landlordstend to use only two or three of the existing powers.This legislation focuses down on two or three routes.It makes it simpler, and also they add something tothe mix as well. The community protection notice isa lower-level tool that you can use to deal with lower-level anti-social behaviour. I know that making


15 January 2013 Eamon Lynch, Gavin Smart, Kevin Williamson and Jane Plant

change for change’s sake is not always a welcomething. I think this is welcome change, and it addssomething to the tools that are available and itsimplifies—Eamon Lynch: I think fairly similar to what Gavinsaid. I do not think it is the case that landlordsgenerally would have said we need a change in thelaw. I think they were—as you heard in the earliersessions—quite practised and well-versed in using theexisting powers. That said, there are some welcomeadvances and improvements, and I think there is ageneral acceptance that, after 15 years of evolution ofthese tools and powers, taking stock and a review andrationalisation is appropriate.Kevin Williamson: Slightly more nuanced, I guess;we have obviously consulted with our members. Thecurrent suite of tools that are available to housingassociations have very good support, so about twothirds of our members think that the current suite iseffective. Indeed, 90% of our members think that theASBI in particular is effective, so we are very happythat a lot of the provisions that relate to the ASBI arecarried into the new IPNA, so that is good. That said,I think about half of our members believe that thecurrent provisions are often rather costly and time-consuming, so they certainly were not beating ourdoor down. At the moment, the big issue obviously iswelfare reform and all of the pressures that bringswith it. But because these measures are not intendedto erode the powers of our members, they will bebroadly supportive and will try to bring forwardconstructive suggestions.Jane Plant: I think the Law Society’s position is notthat the whole raft of the legislation is unnecessary. Infact, we do actually support quite a bit of it. Our mainconcern really surrounds the mandatory ground forpossession for serious anti-social behaviour cases. Wedo welcome the extension of the injunction to thoseunder 18. ASBOs, as effective as I personally thinkthey have been, are costly and do take a long timenow. The fact that there is delay is more to do with thecourt process itself rather than due to the legislation. Ideal with anti-social behaviour on a day-to-day basisand I think that the current legislation is working well.The ASBI is effective; we get great turnaround times;the breach rates are relatively low. From the LawSociety’s point of view, our written submissions havebasically been limited to criticising and questioningwhether the mandatory ground for possession isnecessary. Our view is that the current tools andpowers for eviction are fine as they are, they areworking, and it is actually going to lead to more costand more delay in terms of the challenges if these newmandatory powers are brought into force.

Q81 Steve McCabe: What do you think will happenif there are situations where these positiverequirements that can be attached to orders clearlywould be appropriate—would make sense, but thelocal support agencies do not have the money tofund them?Gavin Smart: That is one of our concerns. In a timeof significant reductions in public expenditure there isa concern where you could imagine landlords wantingto include a positive requirement but thinking to

themselves, “But I know that the agencies that willprovide the services that support this in the place thatI am thinking about are not able to provide any moreof that level of service, so what is the point in puttingin a positive requirement that we can’t see beingresourced?” I suppose a follow-on concern from thatis that one might imagine that judges would say,“Well, actually this is a good step forward to be ableto put positive requirements into injunctions, and weshould see that happen on a regular basis.” Ifknowledge of the local environment means youchoose not to put one in, not because you do not thinkit is a good idea but because you just do not think itis likely to be resourced, there is a risk of failure toget the injunction, and that would be unfortunate.Eamon Lynch: To answer your question directly, incases with an anti-social behaviour situation wherepositive requirements may be considered appropriateand beneficial but frankly the provision is not therethen I think the action would be to proceed with theorder to stop the harm, while it is not giving up onsupport to rehabilitate, but I do not think it should getin the way of action.Kevin Williamson: The principle is obviously a verygood one—it is a more rounded proposal—butperhaps we need to see a bit more in terms of evidencein the regulatory impact about the resources availableand what that potentially buys. I know that is verydifficult.Jane Plant: We already have something similar withthe individual support orders for anti-social behaviourorders. They can only be put into order where it ispractical and achievable, and we can’t have a situationwhere people are breaching orders because theprovision is not there. I think that it is useful, it shouldbe there and we should have positive requirements,but we have to be very mindful not to impose themwithout knowing that that service is available in thelocal community first.

Q82 Steve McCabe: Can I check—I think you havejust referred to it, Ms Plant—if there is a requirementinserted in an order, that it follows that there shouldbe a breach process for someone who does not complywith it?Jane Plant: It will be an offence to breach any termof the injunction, a positive or negative aspect of it. Itwill not be able to impact the rest of the attachments,and someone will not be able to be sent to prison forfailing to engage in a particular activity; but none theless, it still will be a breach of the order for whichthere can be proceedings brought.

Q83 Steve McCabe: Forgive me, I may have got thiswrong, but that sounds to me like someone suffersanti-social behaviour, an order is applied, arequirement is attached to it, it seems like a sensibleidea, and the person does not comply with it. There isnot much of a sanction there, is how it sounds to me.Have I got that wrong, or is that how it will work?Jane Plant: I am guessing there could be a fineimposed if they did not comply. I think it would bequite draconian to send someone to prison for failingto engage in perhaps a drug rehabilitation programmeor something like that. I think the legislation is drafted



in that way to avoid that, which I think we would haveto support. But it is difficult when there are positiverequirements to actually enforce them and to ensurethat they are being complied with and then to takeappropriate action that is proportionate, which I knowwas talked about in previous sessions.Steve McCabe: Thank you. Does anyone dissentfrom that, or is that a common view?Chair: Thank you, and please do not think you allhave to answer every question if you just want toagree.

Q84 Mr Winnick: When I receive complaints—andI am sure the same applies to other politicians—aboutanti-social behaviour, I write to the police. I shouldsay, as you are not representing the police, it is reallyrare that I get a response before my office starts tochase up, but leave that aside. But where the sociallandlord organisation is involved, obviously not inanti-social behaviour but where the person concernedor alleged to be concerned is a tenant of a sociallandlord, obviously I write to that body as well as thelocal authority. At what stage do you believe the sociallandlord should be actively involved in dealing withanti-social behaviour? Mr Lynch, you represent sociallandlords. Do you accept there is a responsibilitywhere it is alleged the trouble, the harassment and thenuisance generally arises from a tenant of a sociallandlord?Eamon Lynch: In my experience, the action starts assoon as there is a complaint and alert that there is aclaim of anti-social behaviour happening. It is as soonas they become aware. There are legal requirements,to publish policies and procedures and so on, and allthe ones I have seen make the commitment that assoon as a report is received a response will be made.Most often that is graded according to urgent,immediate within 24 hours, or otherwise withinusually three to five days, something of that order.

Q85 Mr Winnick: Let me pursue this question ofsocial landlords. Obviously, a good deal of allegedharassment and nuisance comes from people who arein no way tenants of social landlords—that goeswithout saying—but where the alleged person orpersons are tenants of social landlords and it is proventhat such nuisance is occurring and all attempts madeto persuade the people involved to stop it, what actionshould be taken by a social landlord?Eamon Lynch: The ultimate sort of sanction, ofcourse, is eviction; removal from the property. That isgenerally accepted as being an action of last resort;but none the less, one that should not be shied awayfrom where it is necessary to do so. You have heardin the previous session about the case managementtrials, for example, from 2011 and not just because ofthose sorts of trials, but I think the big focus in thelast couple of years has been on what is called thespectrum of harm and protecting from harm and thatkind of thing. Associated with that really is promptinvestigation, problem-solving with partners asappropriate, and identifying what is needed to ideallyput a stop to the behaviour from here on in andmoving away from—how common it was I wouldargue with—the kind of scenario that people throw up

about how many final warnings. I think it is abouthaving a clear action plan, ideally developed inassociation with the complainant, the victim, and fromthe perpetrator’s point of view that we talk throughapproaches, we talk about mediation and so forth; butultimately, that moves forward to a conclusion, andthat conclusion is focused on limiting and hopefullyremoving the threat of harm.

Q86 Mr Winnick: You agree with those comments,I take it?Kevin Williamson: Just very briefly, I think previouswitnesses have stated that probably about 75% or 76%of anti-social behaviour incidents are resolved beforewe get anywhere near the sort of formal end of stuff,and then you are into a whole range or suite of tools.It is really at the extreme end when we are talkingabout injunctions and then possessions. These arerelatively tiny numbers.Jane Plant: I only wanted to add that, by law, eachhousing provider must have a published anti-socialbehaviour policy and procedure and that goes fromthe first complaint right through to eventual evictionor anti-social behaviour injunction proceedings. Theymust have a clearly documented policy, and they dotake it very seriously, in my experience, right fromthe outset.

Q87 Mr Winnick: No one can be certain about whatcan happen in the future—that goes without saying—but if you bear in mind the tragedy of the Pilkingtonfamily, which obviously the four of you are perfectlywell aware of, and what occurred when the personconcerned took her daughter’s life and then herself asa result of a failure to act against persistentharassment, which the mother and the daughter couldnot stand any longer, are you reasonably satisfied thatthere is sufficient liaison between the local authorityand other agencies in your areas in order to have co-ordinated action where such tragedies are likely tooccur? Just brief answers; Mr Smart?Gavin Smart: There is always the risk that things willgo wrong, but people also learn from where things didgo wrong. I think the Pilkington case brought intosharp focus the need to ensure proper communicationand the proper recognition of a pattern of potentiallyquite low level but very, very damaging behaviour. Ithink that has been understood as a result of that case.

Q88 Mr Winnick: Mr Lynch, red alerts for these sortof cases?Eamon Lynch: I think the biggest challenge for meis around housing associations and understanding thediversity of the sector in terms of housing associationsthat operate across multiple local-authority areas and,therefore, partnerships. I think there still are issues tobe addressed in terms of how to more efficiently and/or effectively engage both ways between them andthe partnerships. There is a big logistical issue aroundcommunication, information sharing and so on.

Q89 Mr Winnick: Anything to add, Mr Williamson?Kevin Williamson: I would echo that. Obviously, it isat the front of all our minds at the moment, but weshould not be complacent. This legislation gives us



again an opportunity to make sure that thosepartnerships are working effectively.Jane Plant: I think there is still some room forconcern. In some of the cases that I do see, I wouldgo back to the social housing provider and ask if theycan provide me with evidence about how the agencieshave interacted up until the point where I aminvolved, usually at a later stage, because it will havegot to legal proceedings by then. It has improved overthe last 10 years or so dramatically, but I still thinkthere is room for improvement in multi-agencyworking.

Q90 Bridget Phillipson: In terms of young peopleand how this affects young people, when minors areinvolved the injunction to prevent nuisance orannoyance requires a hearing in the youth court.Where incidents concern the wider family orindividuals who are not minors, who are adults, isthere a risk that young people will have to appear incourt twice or that different decisions could apply tothe same charges?Jane Plant: Yes, is the short answer. I can see whythe provisions set out that minors should be dealt within a youth court, because it is more geared to dealwith children and their needs. But quite often it is notjust a one person in the family situation. It is quiteoften mum and dad, a big brother who might be over18 and somebody under 18 who are causing theproblems. To deal with them in two very separateways might result in different findings that areconflicting, and I think we need to look at whetherthere can be a different provision for a group action.

Q91 Bridget Phillipson: Do you think there is aprovision that could be put in place that would dealwith that? What would you recommend?Jane Plant: I think perhaps if it was several membersof a family, for example, there could be a provisionfor a group application, so there are multipledefendants within one application. If somebody wasunder the age of 18, they are going in there with theirparents in any event, and I do not see the harm inthem going into the county court for thoseproceedings.

Q92 Bridget Phillipson: Would anyone else like tocontribute on that point?Eamon Lynch: Just to say I agree with it.

Q93 Lorraine Fullbrook: I do apologise for beingaway, but I have read your papers. I would like to askabout the powers of possession, and I hope nobodyelse has asked this question. Does the Bill doeverything that you would like to see it do to speedup the process for problem tenants?Eamon Lynch: No, in short. I think the timescale forpossession proceedings is a significant problem. Youhave probably read elsewhere it can take up to 12months, or seven months on average. We wouldalways say there is something that needs to be doneto speed up the legal process in relation to that. PartlyI think the measures brought forward in the Bill werea response to that, and our understanding is that theywill make an improvement in a limited number of

cases. So they address the issue in respect of somecases, but they do not address comprehensively theissue of delays in the judicial process.

Q94 Lorraine Fullbrook: What further action wouldyou like to see, rather than have limited cases that thiswould solve, to have the majority of cases solved?Eamon Lynch: Jane has far more experience in termsof the legal process, and it may be there are bits thatcan be speeded up there. But the big issue, it seemsto me, from when I was taking cases on behalf of alandlord was the timescales set by the court may wellbe to do with capacity and things like that.

Q95 Lorraine Fullbrook: It is a judiciary issuerather than a process issue?Eamon Lynch: Yes. Others may complement thatwith process improvements as well, but that is beyondmy specific detailed knowledge.

Q96 Lorraine Fullbrook: Would anybody else liketo make a comment about the speeding-up of theprocess?Jane Plant: On behalf of the Law Society, theresponse that we have put in is basically about theproposed mandatory powers for possession in termsof it has been introduced to try to speed things up andto reduce costs. Our viewpoint is that it will not doeither and that the current eviction process is actuallyworking. There are process issues. The number ofjudiciary has been vastly reduced. Getting before ajudge and getting a hearing date is taking longer andlonger. The court staff are struggling to keep up withthe admin of the court side of things, and so thingsare taking longer. Things that we would normally seein a trial in, say, six months are probably now takingnine, 10 or 12 months. That is not just a process thing;that is the way that the law has been developed,introducing complications such as discussing whetherthe eviction is proportionate where there is amandatory ground for possession. That is somethingthat the Law Society feels quite strongly about interms of these proposals and does not really supportthe fact that there should be any more mandatoryground for possession, even to deal with severe anti-social behaviour cases.

Q97 Lorraine Fullbrook: Just on that, do tenantsevicted for causing anti-social behaviour simply takeup the same habits with new neighbours whereverthey are moved to, or could some sort of offendermanagement programme be put in place to preventrepeat problems?Kevin Williamson: This is probably a joined-upagency-type question again. There is, quite rightly,this concern about you are moving the problem fromone place to another. If you have a joined-up agencyapproach and you have perhaps some intensive familyintervention, it is quite possible that the fresh start canbe helpful, and there are case studies that suggest that.But it does rely on that joined-up effort.

Q98 Lorraine Fullbrook: In your experience if thereis no multi-agency approach and somebody is evictedand moved elsewhere, do the majority of your cases



cause aggravation to other areas that they are movedto?Kevin Williamson: Presumably, the ultimatedestination of some of these people would be theprivate rented sector, and so what would be themechanism, if there was not that joined-up approach,to capture whether behaviour had changed orotherwise? Unless others have evidence, it is difficultto answer that question.Gavin Smart: I think it would be quite hard in theprivate rented sector, which is highly mobile. I am notsure you can track the behaviour. I suppose what Iwould say is that it demonstrates how important thatmulti-agency approach is, because you do want tocatch people and make an intervention but you do notwant to leave them in place where they are causingsignificant misery to the people who are the victimsof their behaviour. It is a tricky judgment, but I thinkwhere other routes have been exhausted and you endup with eviction that is the right route. The questionis then what do you do with the householder that hasbeen evicted.Eamon Lynch: Purely on an anecdotal basis, I canthink of individual cases where people who haveperpetrated anti-social behaviour have been housed bya social landlord in a different area and have notperpetrated anti-social behaviour or not to the samesort of extreme sort of levels as previously. Perhapsthat just points to the specifics of individual cases, themetaphor of big fish, small pond, and that kind ofthing, removing them from certain sort of effects thatmay trigger or exacerbate that behaviour. As has beenmentioned as well, we have things like startertenancies, introductory tenancies and family supportintervention programmes. Risk assessment may not beprecisely the right term, but if we are accommodatingpeople with that sort of history of anti-socialbehaviour, then there are cases and indications thatwith that sort of prior knowledge proper not onlyplacement but support and management of thosetenancies does improve the situation.

Q99 Lorraine Fullbrook: Under the draft Bill,would this not come full circle? If people were movedelsewhere and were causing aggravation to thecommunity in their new area, would this not comeback to a community trigger?Gavin Smart: It might do if people are moved andare causing problems again, but I suppose it is worthreflecting on the fact that part of the purpose of thisapproach is for people to understand there are realconsequences to their actions. In some cases, I thinkbeing exposed to those consequences allows peoplethe opportunity to actually sit and think and to changetheir behaviour, so it is not the case that it has noeffect on the behaviour of the individual or thehousehold in question. I think sometimes peoplerealise if they have been moved to another area, theyhave been given another chance, and they realise thatlandlords do take it seriously and will take action.

Q100 Chair: Are there comments from the rest ofyou on this?Kevin Williamson: Just to say that the policy intenthere, as I understand it, is not to increase the number

of people in possession but just to speed up theprocess, as I understand it.Jane Plant: Just a quick point on that: if somebody isevicted for anti-social behaviour then they will mostlikely be deemed to be intentionally homeless, whichwill cause them great difficulty in being re-housed insocial housing. So that may account for why we donot always see them reoffending within socialhousing. They often tend to go into the private rentedsector, and that comes back to previous issues thatwe talked about before about whether there is enoughregulation of the private rented sector. But I must saythat where people have gone back into socialhousing—I have evicted the same family twice fromtwo different landlords, so I think there is an issue thatthey can simply be moving the problem as well.

Q101 Chair: One final question from me: one of thegreat things about this process of draft legislation isthat there is still time for the Government to changeanything, and our role is to make suggestions onchanges rather than just for or against. Given that, canyou each suggest one thing that you would like to seechanged, if there is anything? What would be yourpriority if you could persuade the Government tochange one thing? I am happy for anybody to start.Kevin Williamson: Can I go for a couple, then, andbe cheeky while people are thinking? Two areas wherewe are trying to work our way through stuff a bit arearound noise and the community protection notice. IfI give you the clause, your people will research it later.Clause 38(5), I think, seems to exclude action inrelation to statutory noise, but part of the purpose ofa CPN, where 30% of complaints arise, is aroundnoise. How does that all interact is a question that wewould have. Just being cheeky, as I was saying, onresponse to complaints, clause 92(4)(a), andpersistence—the question in our mind there, and Ithink you had a discussion earlier about the trigger—is does persistence just imply a focus on quantity ofcomplaints rather than the vulnerability issue, which Iknow you are all seized by.Jane Plant: I will go. Obviously, I have already madeit clear that we would remove the provisions formandatory possession. But one amendment thatdefinitely in our view should be made is that the testfor a without-notice injunction is not set out. Therewas a case a few years back that looked at an evictionin the family at 9 pm. The TV cameras had turned up,and it really highlighted that they can be misused. Inlight of having the benefit of that case in front of us,we should really put a test in just to mirror the testthat we use now.Eamon Lynch: I would draw attention to theinjunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance that, asyou have heard, is closely modelled on the existinganti-social behaviour injunction. I would add as wellthat the proposed sort of test—i.e. nuisance andannoyance—is exactly the same as with the existinginjunction that works extremely well, and theevidence is there. But the two things associated withthat, which you have already heard, are this issue ofwhere there is more than one respondent/defendant,particularly if they cross the age ranges, and theability to hear that in the same court, and also to



extend, again where appropriate and proportionate, theability to exclude beyond the social-housing sectorand make that sanction tenure blind. The second,which is not so much improvement or change to theAct really, is to look also at the systemic-type issuessuch as information sharing and clarifying that it isokay to share information.Gavin Smart: Not much else to say; I support whatEamon has said. I suppose the observation I wouldmake, although I am not absolutely clear this is a

change to the legislation as such, is where there is andelegation of community protection notices, we thinkthat it would be much better if that was not on a case-by-case basis. If it were able to be done in advancefor an agreed time period for an agreed purpose, thatwould seem to us to be a much more effective andless burdensome way of doing it.Chair: Thank you all very much. The Committee willmeet again next week.



Members present:

Keith Vaz (Chair)

Dr Julian HuppertBridget Phillipson

________________


Witnesses: Janet Grauberg, Director of UK Strategy, Barnardo’s, Penelope Gibbs, Chair, Standing Committeefor Youth Justice, and Ellen Broome, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, The Children’s Society, gaveevidence.

Q102 Chair: Could I call the Committee to order andrefer all present to the Register of Members’ Interests,where the interests of members of this Committee arenoted. Could I welcome our three witnesses for thissession: the Director of UK Strategy for Barnardo’s,Ms Grauberg; Penelope Gibbs, from the Committeefor Youth Justice; and Ellen Broome, the Director ofPolicy for the Children’s Society. Thank you verymuch for coming. As you know, the Committee isscrutinising legislation that has been put before theHouse on anti-social behaviour, and Members havesome questions for you in respect of the organisationsthat you represent. Because there are three of you,please feel free to come in, by indicating to me, togive answers to any of the questions that membersmay have. I want to start, if I may, with a number ofanti-social behaviour orders that were issued to theunder-18s. I think 40% of ASBOs are issued to under-18s, who comprise only 13% of the population. If Icould start with you, Janet Grauberg, why is that?Janet Grauberg: I would say we need to see all thisin context and that the scrutiny of the Bill measuresis only just one part of the wide range of things thatshould be done to tackle anti-social behaviour. TheWhite Paper talks in a very high level about some ofthe other initiatives, but the evidence is work withyoung people if you want to get long-term change.There are other measures as well as the sanctions thatshould be thought about. Troublesome children aremore likely to be troubled children, too, and there issome work to be done on thinking about that incontext.Penelope Gibbs: I would say it reflects that youngpeople probably commit more of the behaviour thatwe call anti-social behaviour and what we would say,as Janet has pointed out, is that behaviour causes hugesuffering to victims, we recognise that, and tocommunities, but we would say that this way ofdealing with anti-social behaviour is, for the mostpart, not the best way of dealing with it for childrenunder the age of 18.We would put forward that there are other governmentinitiatives, for instance the troubled families’initiative, the whole youth justice system and all theinformal approaches that accompany that, but there isalso the very promising ground of restorative justice.We feel that in many circumstances very welldelivered restorative justice approaches using trainedprofessionals and a proper conference can helpprevent future anti-social behaviour from these youngpeople but also that it is a much better approach most

Mr David Winnick

of the time for victims. The victim satisfaction ofthose who have been through the RJ process is muchhigher than those who have been through formaljustice processes.Ellen Broome: I would echo what my colleagues havesaid here. I would also say that the perception ofnuisance and annoyance varies greatly among thepublic, but we know that it is heightened when itcomes to young people. I think in many cases wherethere have been complaints about anti-socialbehaviour this has turned out to be a generalintolerance of what can only be termed normalbehaviour by young people, such as playing footballin a park or climbing trees or congregating with theirfriends. I would say that this attitude also contributesto the high proportion of children receiving ASBOs.

Q103 Chair: Is it the lack of diversions for youngpeople? I had a case in my constituency, a man of 47who had gone out shopping, came back to his houseand there were two young people outside the lift, twowere inside, and they just beat him up very badly andI was told by the police this was because there wasnothing else for them to do. There were no otheractivities. How much is that an excuse?Penelope Gibbs: I think that is definitely part of theanswer, and the Standing Committee pointed out in itswritten evidence that there have been cuts to youthservices and also, in fact, to youth offending teams.What I would say is what you describe is a crime. Itis also anti-social behaviour, but if we are going toaddress this behaviour, I think such an act would bemuch better dealt with by the criminal justice system.The criminal justice system has expertise in dealingwith under-18-year-olds, a whole suite of differentsentences and approaches, and it would be better dealtwith as a crime rather than as anti-social behaviour.

Q104 Bridget Phillipson: Many of your objections,as I understand it, to what has been proposed arearound the principle of a civil order being breachedbeing a criminal matter. That occurred under the oldsystem and that will continue under the new system.Are there any features of the new regime that youthink would increase the chances of young peoplefacing criminal charges?Janet Grauberg: I just want to focus on the dispersalpowers, and we do not think the Bill addresses the


22 January 2013 Janet Grauberg, Penelope Gibbs and Ellen Broome

concerns that we raised in our consultation on this. Atan individual level, a young person on the street after9 pm is likely to be in trouble of some kind. We talkedin our consultation about young people who might be,in the worst case, being exploited for sex. Theproposals at the moment allow a police constable or aPCSO to issue them with a dispersal order there andthen, not necessarily in writing, and to take themhome if they are out after 9 pm. There is probablysomething going wrong there. There might be troubleat home or something else and just saying, “Please gohome”, is not going to work, and a breach of thatorder is going to be a criminal offence; so, a bitconcerned about that.I think at a neighbourhood level, going back to thequestion that Keith Vaz just asked, groups of peoplehanging out causing trouble usually means there issomething else going on. Maybe the youth club thatthey went to is no longer there or has been taken overby a new clique. Again, the fact that breaching adispersal order is going to be a criminal offence, Ithink, gives cause for concern.Penelope Gibbs: We are particularly worried aboutthe level of sanctions available for breaching theseorders for under-18s. Under the CBO a 10-year-oldcan be imprisoned for five years1. Somebody mightsay that is theoretical, but to us that is important. Thatlength of sentence, five years, is far longer than anyequivalent under the youth justice system. In theYouth Court, even for a medium seriousness ofoffence you could get up to two years. We are veryworried about the sanctions, particularly given that forsome of the orders there is a lower standard of proofrequired and it says in the impact assessment that thislower standard of proof should make it quicker, lessexpensive and reduce evidence-gathering. When weare talking about vulnerable children who could getcustody for breach, we are not happy that a lowerstandard of proof should be used or that that shouldbe the rationale behind the process.Ellen Broome: I would probably point to the lengthof both injunctions and orders. I think there is alreadya problem with young people finding it difficult toenvisage the end point of orders and, therefore, notbeing incentivised to keep to them but ratherbreaching them. I think the extension to indefinite interms of both the IPNA and CBOs’ minimum durationof one year and a maximum duration of three yearscould lead to more breaches as young people struggleto keep to that. One of the solutions that I would liketo see is to have no minimum duration of any of theorders or injunctions and, indeed, have a maximumterm. From our experience and our practice withchildren and young people, six months seems to be anappropriate level where young people can adjust andsee the end point and, therefore, be incentivised tochange their behaviour in a positive way.I would also like to add to the point I made earlieraround the negative attitudes to young people and notinvolving them in the process. Another change Iwould like to see is, when we have positiverequirements should be set with the involvement of1 Witness note: provisions in the Bill to hear cases for under

18 year old in the Youth Court might make this maximum 6months and not 5 years. Witness to check this.

the child or young person and they should bevoluntary and, therefore, not have a sanction forbreach. That is something that we choose to have inour practice. Positive requirements should not havesanctions for breaches, because they are supposed toencourage the young person to take part in them andto keep to them.

Q105 Dr Huppert: Just a couple of very quickquestions to anyone, following up from that aboutcourses. I note that in the clause 25 of the draft Bill itsays that criminal behaviour orders can allowprovision for orders to be reduced if people do anapproved course, but only if the offender is over 16.Does that seem like an anomaly to you?Ellen Broome: Yes, I think orders and injunctionsshould be subject to regular review with the option ofearly termination for all children under 18.Dr Huppert: Would both of you agree with that?Penelope Gibbs: Absolutely. They are supposed to bepreventative orders, so it makes sense to review themand to lift them if the behaviour of the child appearsto be good.

Q106 Dr Huppert: Another issue is aboutrestrictions on reports and proceedings where childrenand young people are concerned. Clause 17 andvarious others say that section 49 of the Children’sand Young Persons Act 1933 does not apply, sopeople can be named and shamed. Do you haveopinions on the balance between the desire amongsome public to see that happen and the concerns forthe children themselves?Penelope Gibbs: I have yet to see a very good pieceof research saying the public think that childrenshould be identified. I would like that kind of onus,but, equally, all the research on rehabilitation—thereare cases in the criminal justice world where childrenhave been named and it has certainly blighted theirlives, if not ruined them. That is for quite seriouscrimes. Here we are are talking about anti-socialbehaviour, and the UN Convention on the Rights ofthe Child says that the child’s privacy should bemaintained and that there is not a strong public benefitin naming the child, particularly given the problemsof rehabilitation once that child has been named andpublicised.I think this has changed so much with social mediaand the web. In the old days you might get a local-paper story once, which nobody could then chaseagain unless they went to their local library; whereasnowadays those stories are on the web for ever morewith photographs. These children have families. Theyare going to places of education and so on. It isincredibly important that we help them regainopportunities in their lives.Ellen Broome: I would agree with that. I think it hasbeen ineffective as a deterrent, and has only helped tofurther criminalise and stigmatise young people andperpetuated the problems rather than resolving them,which I think was the intention.

Q107 Dr Huppert: If you are all agreed on that, Iwill move on. Many of the young people who commitanti-social behaviour—and there are undoubtedly



some who cause significant problems—how many ofthem would you see as also being victims, and is therea strong overlap between those two categories?Janet Grauberg: I think the answer is yes. Also, morewidely, to go back to the point made at the beginning,none of us are condoning anti-social behaviour orcrime. All are very clear about the distress that itcauses. But our experience from the services that werun and from analysis such as the NAO report did isthat children causing trouble, whether it is anti-socialbehaviour or crime, are also likely to be troubledthemselves.Just thinking back to the riots a couple of summersago, the evidence showed that two-thirds of the youngpeople found guilty there had a diagnosis of specialeducational needs. The Department of Health figuresshow that a quarter of children in the youth justicesystem had a learning disability. There is somethingabout understanding the complex nature of their lives,firstly in the ability to understand what is happeningto them, so the risk of breach that Ms Phillipson talkedabout, but also about how you are going to solve theproblem rather than just move it on or punish it.

Q108 Dr Huppert: Under what circumstances doyou think the various measures in this Bill are goingto be an effective tool for tackling youth anti-socialbehaviour?Penelope Gibbs: We would prefer that ASB orderswere not used for under-18s as an ideal. If we aregoing to have them, they should be an absolute lastresort. We would like assurance that other approacheshad been tried first, whether it is looking at the welfareneeds of the child and trying to meet them, restorativejustice or looking at cautions within the youth justicesystem; that kind of approach. If they are going to beused, we would like an assessment done of each childto ensure that the court understands the welfarebackground of that child, the health background andso on, just in the same way that they would get anassessment in the Youth Court for a criminal-justiceapproach.

Q109 Dr Huppert: Do you have evidence that thesealternative measures would be effective in reducinganti-social behaviour? I understand the theory, but doyou have evidence that it would work to reduce theharms that are being caused to people?Janet Grauberg: The work that Louise Casey is doingon the troubled families initiative—they had a reportpublished in December that suggested that the familyintervention approach that they are promoting isresulting in a 58% reduction in anti-social behaviour.I suppose that is the wider context mentioned in theWhite Paper. There are interventions that are knownto work, and they have been rolled out through thatprogramme. They are just not the subject of this Bill.Penelope Gibbs: Can we come back to you? We haveexpert colleagues in the Restorative Justice Council,and I would like to talk to them about their bestevidence for these kinds of questions.Dr Huppert: That would be very helpful.

Ellen Broome: If I could just add to that, this is thepoint that I regret about this Bill. This Bill deals withthe last resorts in dealing with anti-social behaviour,but it does not set out that clear and coherent strategyfor preventing anti-social behaviour occurring in thefirst place, and we know that a lot of negativebehaviour by children is often caused by unmet need.Those vital services in the local area, whether that isvictim/offender mediation or family support, are keyto preventing and intervening early before we get tothe point where any of the things in this Bill wouldnecessarily apply to children.Penelope Gibbs: I think the breach rate for childrenindicates that the present regime does not workparticularly well, because around two-thirds of allASBOs that children have have been breached. Somepeople could say that is a success. I am afraid wewould say that is a failure.

Q110 Mr Winnick: Ms Gibbs, your organisation inparticular has expressed concern understandably—andI am sure your two colleagues are also concerned onbehalf of their organisations—regarding the effect offunding being reduced for children’s services. Haveyou found much experience of this so far?Penelope Gibbs: Can I just say that both mycolleagues are members of the Standing Committeethemselves, so we are united together on this one.Mr Winnick: Glad to hear it.Penelope Gibbs: I think there is good documentationon cuts to youth services and to youth offendingteams. I might go to my colleagues to see if they haveany more detail on that, but, again, we can come backto you with some hard evidence.Janet Grauberg: We are certainly seeing—Mr Winnick: Sorry, you will be coming back? Youwill be writing to us?Penelope Gibbs: Yes, I will. But my colleagues rightnow might have some more information.Janet Grauberg: We are beginning to see that. It isvariable, but some of the projects we work with arein flux at the moment. Take the dispersal order for astart. The new arrangements do not require anyconsultations with the local authority or with anybodyat all, with the housing providers or whatever, whichthe previous arrangements did. I think that could bea real missed opportunity, because if there was thatconversation that happened before the powers wereused, then there could be a conversation that said,“What do we know about the local services here?What do we know about what is on offer? Hasanything changed?” and you could have that joined-up conversation. I know you had evidence from theLGA last week on this. I think we will see the impactof both the cuts and that lack of consultation couldwork together in a harmful way if these plans goahead.

Q111 Mr Winnick: We are going to hear later aboutwhat happened to a particular person and theagonies—I think that would be the right word for it—that she and the family had to go through. Doescommon sense not dictate that, if services are to becut along the lines indicated, it is going to increaserather than decrease anti-social behaviour in the sense



that the culprits will not be apprehended by theauthorities as quickly as one would like?Penelope Gibbs: I think the cuts to youth servicesclearly affect whether young people have productiveand interesting things to do. One would hope that, interms of the police and others who notice and dealwith anti-social behaviour, the cuts do not impingethere too much. What one wants is for there to beresources not just to deal with the notice of the anti-social behaviour but to prevent it and to deal with theunderlying causes.

Q112 Mr Winnick: The draft Bill, as I understand it,makes positive requirements that are dependent on theavailability of services in the local area. It will not beuniversal, however much the Government mayobviously wish that it could be, if it is going to dependon availability. It must, am I not right, tend to varyfrom area to area depending on the strength of thepolice, on the children’s services and other agencies?Would you agree?Ellen Broome: I would agree with that, and withoutthe clear and coherent strategy I was talking aboutearlier, around prevention and early intervention, weare risking a postcode lottery in terms of the supportthe children get, and that could inevitably lead to morechildren being fast-tracked into the courts or endingup at the hard end rather than preventing thebehaviour in the first place.Janet Grauberg: I know we are still at the very earlystages of this, but there is very little detail on howthose positive arrangements might work and whatsupport might be given to a young person and theirfamily or the people around them to help themsucceed in them. There are risks—if that comes out inthe wrong way, that sets up a young person to failagain. The organisations we represent and work withhave a lot of experience of working with these youngpeople. We would hope that, as things go forward, wemight be able to have a conversation about how wecan support young people to succeed, because theobject of the exercise is to transform the lives of thoseyoung people so they do not create anti-socialbehaviour in the future. That is one way through it.

Q113 Mr Winnick: I wonder if I can come to a corepoint, unless it has already been covered, because Iwas a few minutes late coming into the room. Theseyouths in the main have parents. There may beexceptions, unfortunately, but how far, where suchbehaviour exists, would it be appropriate to takeaction against the parents at an early stage? If Johnnyis causing difficulties and persists in causingdifficulties, then the obvious question is, what on earthare his parents doing, if he has both parents, otherwisewhoever is bringing him up? Is that too simple?Penelope Gibbs: I think part of the answer lies withwhat Janet Grauberg was saying about the troubledfamilies agenda, and that is not about sanctionsagainst the parents. It is about trying to support andhelp a troubled family so that the parent parents better,so that the children behave better and so on. We wouldsay that approach of assessing the difficulties thatfamily is under should be always tried first beforeimposing punishment on the parents.

Q114 Mr Winnick: But if it does not work, you doaccept sanctions are necessary for the effect on theneighbourhood? If any of you, like us, were livingnext door or very near where such incidents areoccurring repeatedly, we would want action from theauthorities, would we not?Penelope Gibbs: What we want is effectiveapproaches to preventing and stopping anti-socialbehaviour by children.Mr Winnick: Indeed.Penelope Gibbs: What we are keen on is all thosethat involve co-operation to be tried definitely first andforemost, and we are convinced that if thoseapproaches are quality approaches with an evidencebase, then the hard-and-fast punishment would notbe needed.

Q115 Bridget Phillipson: On the issue of children,with the constituency cases I have dealt with aroundchildren they have always been connected to thebehaviour of their parents. The difficulty is that oftenneighbours are struggling to have sympathy whentheir lives have been made hell, no matter howunderstanding they have tried to be about thebehaviour of children and the reasons for theirbehaviour. Do you think there is a way we could betterinvolve victims in this so that they have anunderstanding about the work that is being done withthe family without breaching confidence? Neighbourssometimes will say, “Well, I’ve reported it. I’m toldthat there is a social worker seeing the family, I amtold that there is work being done, but it is not leadingto any results, and I do not know what is happening”. Ithink that lack of information can sometimes be quitedifficult for victims to deal with.Ellen Broome: One of the hopes I had for this Billwas that it was going look more at the root causes ofanti-social behaviour and look at community conflictwhen that was present. We know from our projectsand the work that we do with families and withchildren that the community conferencing or familymediation approaches work well and are veryeffective in producing more long-term sustainablesolutions for reducing anti-social behaviour. That issomething that I would welcome: more clarity fromthe Government in terms of how they would like thatto happen.Penelope Gibbs: In addition, I would go back torestorative justice and say when that is doneproperly—clearly, details of the family’s issue are notput in the public domain, but it does give theopportunity for the victim to have a little bit of insightbecause the family, as well as the perpetrator, wouldhave an opportunity to talk about why the behaviouris happening. That is a possible route.Ellen Broome: I would just add to that—if youinvolve children and young people with the victimsand with families, they can learn to understand howtheir behaviour is impacting on other people andtherefore be encouraged to change that.Chair: Thank you very much for coming to giveevidence. You obviously have a vast amount ofexperience that can be very helpful to the Committee.If there were any other areas you think that we shouldlook at in respect of this Bill, please feel free to write



to us, and we will then pursue the matter with you.Thank you very much.There has just been a change in the order of our nexttwo witnesses. We are putting them together, although


Witnesses: Liz Walker, Redoubt, and Javed Khan, Chief Executive, Victim Support, gave evidence.

Q116 Chair: Ms Walker and Mr Khan, thank youvery much for giving evidence today. Ms Walker, wehave read about the terrible circumstances that youfaced over the period October 2007 until May 2008.Liz Walker: It went on longer than that. That was justthe ones that I highlighted for you.Chair: Right. Obviously others have been in theposition as you have, but very few people are preparedto come to a Select Committee of the House and tellus what happened. We have read some of thosecircumstances. What I want to ask you first of all is:who could have prevented this? Which agencies orindividuals could have stepped in and stopped thishorrendous treatment of yourself and your husband?Is it the police? Is it the council? Who are the agencieswho could have made your life better?Liz Walker: I think the first agency who could haveprevented it could have been the judiciary. When theygave the family, in particular the one main family, asuspended order of possession they did so withcompromises; those compromises being that the twooldest sons were not to live at the house. Nobodymonitored whether those compromises were beingmet. Nobody monitored the family. If the judge hadsaid when that edict was made, “We are giving you asuspended order of possession on condition that thetwo older sons do not live at the house, and you, theHousing Department, and you, the police authority,will go around on a regular basis and maintain checks,you will do unannounced visits, and you will makesure that for the next 12 months that this suspendedorder of possession is in place and it is abided by”, ifthat had happened, a family that was driven out beforeus, quite violently from what I can gather, would nothave been driven out. Hundreds of thousands ofpounds of taxpayer’s money would have been savedand, if you listened to my husband, you would havesaved him and me £30,000.

Q117 Chair: The system is clearly broken. It hashappened to you. From what you have seen since theterrible circumstances that you found yourself in, haveyou seen an improvement in this broken system?Liz Walker: It is a seesaw. I am not going to pick anyparticular region, but there are issues across thecountry where you have members of staff who areentrenched in old behaviours and old habits. There arelocal councillors who, when you phone them up tosay that Mr and Mrs Bloggs at 49 Acacia Avenue arehaving anti-social behaviour, will say, “Oh no, that isin my street. They don’t have anti-social behaviourthere”. Then you see some incredibly good pieces ofwork going on. I gave training to a housingassociation in Plymouth and spoke to a housing officerthere who, on discovering that one of their witnesses

it is advertised as one after the other. If I could call tothe dais Liz Walker as well as Javed Khan, the ChiefExecutive of Victim Support.

who lived in Cornwall could not get to court on theday that the case was being heard, despite it being herday off, drove down to Cornwall, picked the witnessup, took them to court, stayed with them at court andthen took them home again. It is that whole thing ofthe balance.Sadly, recently, I am sure some of you will have readabout the inquest that has just reached a verdict ofsuicide on Dr Dow. What concerns me is the fact thatright at the beginning people are sometimes listed as,“Oh, they are vulnerable”, or, “Oh, they are notvulnerable”. Nobody could have been less notvulnerable than Dr Dow, who was—Chair: Just for the purpose of the record, you aretalking about Dr Suzanne Dow, a lecturer in French atNottingham University, who killed herself aftersuffering anti-social behaviour from the crack-housenext door. What you are telling this Committee iswhat you have been through is still going on?Liz Walker: It is still going on.

Q118 Chair: We have had obviously FionaPilkington in Leicestershire, now Suzanne Dow, andyourselves. Can I just explore with you the positionof the police and where you think the failings were asfar as the police were concerned?Liz Walker: The police made failings at the beginningwith the response team that first came out to the initialincident. I have to say in praise of the Chief Constableat that time, Brian Moore and I believe Inspector PaulHowlett, as soon as they were made aware of thedifficulties that we faced, not only did they put themright, they visited us in our own home to see us andreassure us. They threw it back to us and asked us totake part in training for their officers and their callhandlers and everyone else that dealt with membersof the public.

Q119 Chair: The people right at the top were verysupportive, but you felt the people you complained todid not respond?Liz Walker: Initially, but Brian Moore did bring in—and I saw changes in a matter of weeks with theWiltshire Police where they changed that. To quotemy MP at the time, Michael Wills, “Wiltshire Policehave it. They have it, and they can understand it”.Although there are still sometimes not necessarily thebest of responses or the best or most rapid of actions,sometimes that is down to deployment of officers.Sometimes that is down to needs elsewhere.Sometimes it is down to officers just not fullyunderstanding or being made aware of the situation.

Q120 Chair: If this Bill was in existence as law, doyou think that this would have happened to you, or


22 January 2013 Liz Walker and Javed Khan

are you satisfied that the provisions of this Bill wouldhave protected you?Liz Walker: I am not 100% satisfied. I am concernedthat the Bill does not cover enough private tenants andprivate owner/occupiers, and there is a lot of anti-social behaviour that goes on unreported from peoplewho are private tenants themselves or private owners,in particular private owners who are concerned aboutthe equity of their house, if they report anti-socialbehaviour. They will approach other agencies andreport it unofficially to someone who can help themand support them, but they will not want it listedbecause of their fear for the equity in their house.They can also be unsupported by their neighbourswho are afraid for the equity in their houses. I amconcerned that the—sorry, could I look this up?Chair: Yes, of course.Liz Walker: One of the concerns I had was raisedvery capably by Francis Maples, a Swindon Boroughsolicitor, and I know he has put it in writing, so heprobably says it better than I do, but I attended court16 times and my husband attended court 16 times.The police attended court 15 times. Housing officersand social behaviour investigating officers attendedcourt 15 times. If what you are saying about splittingit and children under the age of 18 go to Youth Courtand are dealt with there and that this is dealt withmostly in a county court, that then puts an extremepressure on victims. Getting a victim in to giveevidence is very difficult. It is traumatic doing that. Itis very traumatic.Chair: That is why we are very grateful to you forcoming here. Before I move on to Mr Khan, I have aquestion from both David Winnick and then BridgetPhillipson.

Q121 Mr Winnick: We are all very deeplyconcerned and sympathetic, to say the least, for whatyou had to go through—none of us would want to doso. In a previous question to witnesses I used the word“agony”, and I think that would be an apt descriptionof what we have read of the experience you suffered.I just want at this stage to ask a question arising fromwhat you said, if I heard you correctly. You said thatyou had contacted elected councillors. Am I right?Liz Walker: Yes.

Q122 Mr Winnick: They said, in so many words,that there was not a problem where you were. Is thatright?Liz Walker: Yes.

Q123 Mr Winnick: I ask that question because inthe data that has been given to us it has that on 19October you were given a lift home from the MP’ssurgery by a councillor and on arrival disturbed agroup of youths. That councillor, as well as theMember of Parliament, saw for themselves, did theynot, what was happening?Liz Walker: That was in our case. The case that Ispoke about with you was in another case where wewere supporting other victims. When I phoned thevictim’s local councillor to ask for their assistance inthe case that was the reaction I got. In fact their exactwords were, “We were canvassing there last week. We

know that is a nice road”. I was not very happy whenI put the phone down.

Q124 Mr Winnick: But when that incident occurred,as mentioned here, there was the MP and thecouncillor?Liz Walker: The councillor witnessed it and thecouncillor offered—I think it was Councillor Bourneat the time—to give evidence. Again, I cannot faultMichael Wills and his secretary in particular, AnneBennett, who offered us so much support.Mr Winnick: Thank you.

Q125 Bridget Phillipson: This may not have appliedin your case, but what I am sometimes told is thatwhere a victim complains often the perpetrator comesto understand that the victim is going to complain andcan sometimes make counter-allegations, and then youend up in the position of that being mischaracterisedas a dispute between neighbours and mediation is thenrecommended. Constituents have told me sometimesthat they are very reluctant to engage in mediationbecause they feel it is not a dispute. They are on thereceiving end of behaviour, and they have often triedto resolve it informally for some time. What do youthink about that?Liz Walker: No, I think that is a fair statement, andwhat I would like to see is more investigators andhousing officers looking at the balance ofprobabilities. If someone presents them with a list ofincidents on 1 October and then, on being approached,the perpetrator comes back and says, “Oh, they havedone this, this and this”, you need to look at why, ifone person has come with a list of incidents—you donot give evidence and you do not complain about anti-social behaviour lightly. It is a last straw. You do theinformal thing. You do everything you can possible totry to resolve it and minimise the situation, becauseeveryone knows how bad it can get. I know of onecase where a couple went away on holiday and, whilethey were away on holiday, their neighbour then madea complaint that they had done something while theywere away on holiday. Fortunately, they were not evenin the same county at the same time, but it just goesto emphasise the balance of probabilities. When thatcomplaint was raised by the victims and they said,“Look, this is what is happening, we were onholiday”, they said, “Oh you can’t prove that”. It isthat whole thing of sometimes there needs to be goodold-fashioned common sense. It needs to be almostlike dealing with children; “Well, they would say—wouldn’t they”.

Q126 Chair: Thank you. Mr Khan, this must be yourdaily fare. As Chief Executive of the Victim Supportorganisation you must have this kind of problem everysingle day of your working life. Is that right? Youhave victims coming in talking about anti-socialbehaviour?Javed Khan: Unfortunately, it seems a fact, from allof our experience over decades having done this workand supported millions of victims, that the breadth andrange of support for anti-social behaviour victims justis not good enough. Of course, there is a distinctionbetween anti-social behaviour that is a criminal act



and that which is a non-criminal act. Unfortunately, tothe victim that is an arbitrary dividing line. If you arethe victim of anti-social behaviour, whether it is inyour home or it is in your street or personalised ornot, it matters little to you whether it is a crimeofficially or not. It can destroy your life. It can damageyour well-being, your mental health, your ability tohave a social life, your working life and every aspectof that. Unfortunately, we see that day in and day out.

Q127 Chair: Yes. Obviously we are all constituencyMPs, so we have people who come to us with exactlythe problems that you have so eloquently outlined. Isthis something that is on the increase or the decrease?This is a general feel. You may not have statistics,but what do you feel? Do you think it is going up orgoing down?Javed Khan: It is a very difficult question to answerwithout statistics.Chair: If you have them, then we are happy to havethem.Javed Khan: We can send you whatever we have. Youmight find it helpful.Chair: What do they tell you?Javed Khan: I think the issue is that we are moreaware now than we have ever been before. Anti-socialbehaviour is more of an issue than it has ever beenbefore, and that might explain why we are more awareand why there is a gut feeling that incidents areincreasing. They may not necessarily be increasing, soI would not necessarily present that to you as a fact.

Q128 Dr Huppert: Thank you to both of you. Partof the vision of this is to place the victim far more atthe centre. Do you think it does enough to do that, orwhat changes would you like to see to this Bill?Liz Walker: I would like to see a section put into thatBill that makes every borough and every authority thatinvestigates anti-social behaviour have a legalobligation to support a victim. Not just a guideline; Iwould like to see it benchmarked, I would like to seeit auditable, and I would like to see someoneresponsible for making sure victims are okay. I wantsomeone legally responsible for the victims’protection.

Q129 Dr Huppert: At the council level?Liz Walker: At every level; I would like to see it inlaw, and I would be happy to help work on that. Thereis now corporate manslaughter. There is health andsafety law. There are all sorts of laws that have beenbrought in. I think the first law to protect children wasbrought in under the Animal Act. We have a teamaround family, a team around the child, a team aroundthe perpetrator, but we have nothing in lawencompassed as a team around a victim, and I wouldlike to see a mandatory responsibility for everycouncil in the land to protect victims and offer victimsa valid and genuine service.

Q130 Dr Huppert: Mr Khan, your organisationprovides a lot of this support already. Would you agreewith Ms Walker?Javed Khan: In principle, yes. Let me give you ageneral comment, and then I will come back and

comment specifically on the Bill. Anti-socialbehaviour victims need the anti-social behaviourprevented. They need to be convinced that it is goingto be tackled and appropriate punishment, whateverthat may be, but they also need some action that isnothing to do with the perpetrator, and it is importantthat there is a distinction.There are some common needs of victims that we arevery aware of. Firstly, they need clear and timelycommunication about the case. Liz’s example earlieron was that she was not getting that, and we hear thatall the time. That is nothing to do with the offender.They need a harm-based response that identifiesvulnerable and repeat victimisation and the risks ofthat; so, a detailed risk assessment for all victims.Then they need independent support, independent ofthe statutory agencies, the sort of support that we andmany other agencies up and down the countryprovide. Having said that, in terms of the Bill, if Imay go on to that, we broadly welcome—

Q131 Dr Huppert: Just before you do, can I justfinish off on this particular point? How do you thinkone could deliver this? Is it about providing furtherfunding to you, guarantees of national support,making councils generate their own localorganisations—how would you deliver the aspirationthat you seem to share?Javed Khan: I think there is a mixture of ways. TheBill in itself must not been seen as the panacea. Itcan’t solve all of the anti-social behaviour problems.We have some specific suggestions of redrafting thatwe think needs to happen to help these services to bedelivered, but a critical point too is that from next yearvictim services funding will be in the hands of policeand crime commissioners. They will have a greatopportunity to identify the gaps in the way that we aresharing with you today, to prioritise those in their localplans and then deliver the funding to make that workhappen. Whether it is the council or whether it is someother local agency, the police and crimecommissioners will have the resources to make thissupport happen.

Q132 Dr Huppert: Okay, and then if you want tomove on to the Bill—Javed Khan: On to the Bill; we broadly welcome it.The fact that the Bill has an intention to present theaddressing of anti-social behaviour and to make itmuch more responsive to victims is very welcome. Itis the first time we have seen this written in this way.But the proposals need to be seen in the wider context,as I was just describing, around tackling anti-socialbehaviour and particularly the support andcommunication needs of victims that are notnecessarily directly covered by the Bill.In principle we support the introduction of acommunity trigger and a community remedy, althoughwe have some serious concerns about the way inwhich those two need to operate and hope that theycan be addressed as the Bill is scrutinised. Thereneeds to be far more clarity around the thresholds for



the community trigger. We need safeguards againstthe victims2.Chair: If I could just stop you there, it is a veryimportant list for us that I am sure Dr Huppert willwant to explore, on the community trigger.

Q133 Dr Huppert: Indeed, because you suggested aqualitative test, as I understand.Javed Khan: Yes.Dr Huppert: Can you say a bit more about this? Weare quite interested in the community trigger. Weheard last week from three authorities who had verydifferent versions of it. How do you think this wholesystem should work so it is not too sensitive a triggerbut helps victims?Javed Khan: Yes. The issue is, as I am sure you willunderstand, that as the Bill stands at the moment therewill be local control over whatever the thresholds maybe. We think that that introduces unnecessaryinconsistency, potentially, and that is a risk. Victimswill not know what they can challenge when differentrules are made in different places.The proposed test is really confusing. If I may justquote, it talks about setting the threshold in a way thattakes into account “either the persistence of the anti-social behaviour about which the original complaintwas made or the adequacy of the response to thatbehaviour”. I can’t understand how it means one orthe other. Surely it should be both, and mostimportantly there is a—

Q134 Chair: Stopping you there, one of the bigthings you want is clarity of this issue?Javed Khan: Yes, absolute clarity.Chair: It is a very important issue.Javed Khan: Yes, it should not be one or the other. Itshould be both; and there should be a third element,and the third element has to be about the impact onthe victim. That does not seem to exist at all in thedraft proposals. Our approach to a qualitative test willbe a test of a clear risk of harm to the individual. Thatshould be the starting point, and that currently is notwhat is proposed.

Q135 Chair: Just putting that straight to one of thevictims who has been through it before, is that enoughfor you? Would that have been enough for you?Liz Walker: Certainly, looking at the reaction ofagencies in particular, to have the ability to go toanyone and say, “I have complained about this; this iswhat has happened. I am not happy about this; whatcan be done?” and know that instead of havingsomeone saying, “Oh well, it doesn’t really meet—”knowing that you have a qualitative test where, “Yes,you know you have been failed. This isn’t right”.People do not want to go through the whole route ofgoing all the way up to an ombudsman to getsomething done. They don’t even want to complain toget something done. They just want to be able tophone up and say, “You said you were going to dothis. Have you done this? Why hasn’t it been done?”

2 Witness note: This was an interrupted sentence, should haveread “we need safeguards against victims being pressurised”.

Q136 Chair: Mr Khan, I am coming in on DrHuppert’s questions, and please feel free to comeback, Dr Huppert. The community remedy and the listof punishments: do you think the victims, generallyspeaking, should be involved in choosing thepunishment?Liz Walker: Yes.Chair: You do; certainly.Liz Walker: My husband was very offended that outof the two cautions, of which one is a normal cautionand the other is a caution where the victim makessome recompense, whether that is writes a letter tosay sorry or has to do something, the person that brokethe window of his car that started all this was justgiven a normal caution.

Q137 Chair: You are happy with the communityremedy that is in the Bill?Liz Walker: Where it is appropriate and appropriateto the victim; where it is appropriate, yes.Chair: Mr Khan?Javed Khan: Yes, but we need to understand what isbeing proposed here in that this is a pre-set list ofpotential remedies that are for low-level anti-socialbehaviour only. This is not relevant for those casesthat are more serious or those that are going direct tocourt to be tried; so, in that context, yes.

Q138 Dr Huppert: But it does not allow what MsWalker was talking about, which is for the victim tochoose a remedy that is not on that list. It has to bepre-approved.Javed Khan: That is not what is proposed at themoment. We have two particular suggestions aroundthe remedy, if I may. Firstly, we would like to see theoptional nature of the victims’ participation set out farmore explicitly. It is not compulsory at the momentfor the victim to be involved.Dr Huppert: You think it should be?Javed Khan: It should3 be.

Q139 Dr Huppert: It should be compulsory for thevictim to be involved in whatever is suggested?Javed Khan: Given that, at the moment, the proposalis that the victim can put in a request of which fromthat menu is most appropriate, and it does not have tobe agreed by a police officer if it is inappropriate, forexample, within the confines of that, the victim’srequest should be taken into consideration, and thereare some very good reasons for that. It makes no senseto us at all that anything should be imposed on avictim at any stage. If it is not suitable to them, it isnot suitable.We would suggest that the Bill should include aspecific clause outlining the fact that victims musthave a free choice not to participate if they do notfeel it is appropriate to them. Any option that involvescontact between the victim and the offender—theresponsible officer must conduct a detailed risk3 Witness note: JK was not indicating that it should be

compulsory for victims to be asked for their views, not forthem to participate against their will afterwards (becomesclear in transcript). At the moment this is not compulsory onthe face of the Bill, which only says that reasonable effortsmust be made.



assessment, and if it is not part of what the victim hasrequested, then it should not be the way forward.

Q140 Bridget Phillipson: Just in terms of both thetrigger and the remedy, you have talked about someof the areas it needs to be further clarified. If thetrigger was set at a certain level, do you think thatmight perversely mean that agencies might then waituntil they have reached that level rather than actingimmediately? Obviously at the moment there is not atrigger as such, although there are different ways ofmeasuring it. Surely victims want action taken if it isthe first time or the 20th time.Javed Khan: Absolutely, and the first time is veryserious for some people and for some it is not. Thatis why what we are arguing for is a personalisedresponse where the individual victim is treated as anindividual and there is not a pre-set trigger as such,except that a harm-based risk assessment, which isagreed by the HMIC as the right way forward—ACPO think it is the right thing to do. There are pilotsrunning around the country at the moment based onthat where a set of indicators determine what theaction should be and, within that, can be the numberof times it has taken place, but it should not be theonly factor. Vulnerability should be the critical factor,for example.

Q141 Bridget Phillipson: Just on one other area, thecases I have that take the longest time to resolve andthe most protracted are those concerning private-sector landlords. Agencies such as social-housingproviders are far better now, I think, at responding toanti-social behaviour and working with the police andcouncils, but where it is most difficult is with private-sector landlords, who just will not engage in theprocess. The Bill does not cover this area too well inmy opinion. What more do you think we can do tomake sure that private-sector landlords are heldresponsible or there is some kind of arrangement inplace to make sure that actions of their tenants leadsomewhere and you do not simply have that beingignored because they are not a social tenant?Javed Khan: The harm-based risk assessment that Iam talking about should apply in all circumstances.There should be no get out clauses for that, and thatwould cover rented housing as well as any other.Liz Walker: I think just putting in something thatmakes it plain that, just as housing authorities orhousing associations are legally liable for the actionsof their tenants, private landlords need to be so. Butgoing back to the trigger, I think one of the things thatneeds to be remembered is that it is very rare that avictim phones the first time an incident happens. It isnormally the 30th or 40th time. They have tried everyother avenue first to resolve the situation before theymake a complaint. I think something that needs to belooked at with the trigger is the quantity of incidentsthat have happened to make them call.Javed Khan: I think that is a critical point, if I may.Victims do not turn to the authorities straight away. Ithappens in all sorts of issues of crime, not just anti-social behaviour. But what is going to make them turnand report it is confidence in what response they aregoing to get at the very first point. How good is the

response going to be? How caring will it be? Then,the follow-on support from that: communication andreferrals to independent support, which is non-statutory based.

Q142 Mr Winnick: You both say that the victimsshould have some say in what should be done aboutthe culprit, but in a society fortunately based on therule of law, what is wrong if the person concernedallegedly—it has to be allegedly until proven guilty incourt—is brought before a court and the court sodecides? That is the first question. I will put thesecond question at the same time. If it is left to variousoptions, which is indeed in the draft legislation, howdo we know that it will be enforced on a communitybasis?Javed Khan: Firstly, I do not think the communityremedy delivers4 impartial justice, if I canparaphrase what you are saying. The victim’s range ofoptions is pre-set in consultation. They are limited tothe six, and those are agreed by the local police force,hopefully in consultation with victims. That is notsomething that is requested at the moment. We wouldstrongly suggest that should happen.5

Q143 Mr Winnick: And enforcement?Javed Khan: The enforcement responsibility restswith the police and the police and crimecommissioners have to be accountable for that.Liz Walker: Can I just say, enforcement is essentialbecause, as a victim, what victims want is justice andwhat they get is the law. They are two very differentthings. If a victim agrees that the person who has justdamaged their garage, broken the windows andscrawled graffiti all over it, is going to replace theglass and repaint the garage and then six months downthe line nothing has happened, what happens then?There has to be enforcement of agreements.

Q144 Chair: Indeed. Ms Walker, you have set upyour own organisation called Redoubt, and I knowthat your local Member of Parliament, RobertBuckland, has been telling me about all the good workthat you have done there. Indeed, he wished to be atthis session today and he recommended you as one ofour witnesses. We wish you well in that organisation,and we say to you if there is further information orevidence that you can give to this Committee, wewould be very pleased to receive it.Mr Khan, from your point of view, can I ask you twovery quick questions. One is about the Louise Caseytroubled families unit. Ms Casey has given evidenceto us before, and we will be seeing her again. Do youhave anything to do with them? Have they ever askedyou for your views or opinions?Javed Khan: Not to date.Chair: So you do not know what they are doing?Javed Khan: I know what they are doing.Chair: But they haven’t talked to you?Javed Khan: They haven’t talked to us. Not yet.4 Witness note: meant to say “the CR does not threaten

impartial justice, rather than that it does not deliver it”.5 Witness note: if possible we would seek to change

‘requested’ to ‘required’ in order to make the meaning ofthis clearer.



Q145 Chair: Secondly, when you last appearedbefore us I think you talked about the changes that theGovernment was making to Victim Support, takingaway the hub of it and making it much more regionaland local. Is that still happening?Javed Khan: It is still due to happen by April 2014.In the context of what we have been talking about, itis a critical move. The services that have previouslybeen nationally commissioned and have developed aconsistency of response to victims across all parts ofEngland and Wales will now be in the control of 42local police and crime commissioners, if you includeLondon.

Q146 Chair: Exactly, and it is the issue of data andgood practice. What everyone else is doing iscentralising. What the CPS has done, for example, inchild grooming—another inquiry we are involved

in—is they are centralising; whereas it seems to bedecentralised in the case of Victim Support. Has theJustice Committee asked for your view on this?Javed Khan: The Justice Committee has looked at it.There has not been a detailed hearing on it. We lookforward to an opportunity to explain the implicationsof what is coming.Chair: Of course. I will write to the Chairman, SirAlan Beith, and suggest that he looks into this as wellon behalf of the Committee, because it is somethingthat is concerning us, especially in view of the factthat something can happen in Leicestershire and thepeople in London do not know about it. There needsto be this national approach.Thank you both very much for coming. If you haveany further information that is relevant to theCommittee, please let us know. Thank you very much.Javed Khan: Thank you.



Members present:

Keith Vaz (Chair)

Mr James ClappisonMichael EllisLorraine FullbrookDr Julian Huppert

________________


Witnesses: Mr Jeremy Browne MP, Minister of State, Home Office, and Rt Hon Mr Don Foster MP,Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, gave evidence.

Q147 Chair: May I welcome the Ministers, DonFoster and Jeremy Browne, to the Committee? This isour final session before the end of our inquiry intoanti-social behaviour, specifically scrutinising the Bill,and you are our last witnesses. We have received agreat deal of evidence in writing and orally. May Iwelcome Mr Browne back as a former member of theHome Affairs Select Committee, who has gone frompoacher to gamekeeper?Mr Browne: Who would have believed that I wouldever get to sit on this side of the table, Mr Vaz? MrWinnick was sitting exactly where he is now when Iserved on the Committee.Mr Winnick: With any luck you will be sitting—Chair: We have high hopes.Mr Foster: I am enjoying the reminiscences ofCommittee Members.

Q148 Chair: Indeed. Now, down to business; I wantto start with you, Mr Foster. You probably are verywell aware of the cases of Fiona Pilkington andSuzanne Dow and the criticisms of the law thatexisted at that time that led to the deaths of the peopleI have mentioned. Do you think that the newlegislation that your Government have introducedwould have meant that they might indeed still bealive?Mr Foster: The two key areas of the proposedlegislation that my department has responsibility forrelate to relationships between landlords and tenantsand the ability of landlords to evict tenants undercertain circumstances. As you know, in the first casewe are looking at giving an absolute right for thelandlord to be able to take a case for eviction to thecourts. But in the other, the one that is more relevantto the question you ask, we are looking at adding tothe current rights of a landlord the ability to take tocourt for potential eviction somebody who has beeninvolved in a riot at a distance from the premises thatthey are currently renting. We have obviouslyconsulted on that, as you know, and you have seen acopy of the consultation. I will be honest with you:there are mixed views as to whether the legislationwill help in some circumstances, so it is impossible tosay in the particular case you give, which I do notreally want to comment on, whether that would help,but we do think it is an additional tool in the tool-kitto help tackle the really worrying issues of riots andanti-social behaviour.

Bridget PhillipsonMark RecklessMr David Winnick

Q149 Chair: Yes, indeed. Mr Winnick will probeyou on the housing issues.Mr Browne, the Pilkington case was obviously veryconcerning to the public, a Leicestershire case, andone that has resulted in a big change in the tactics ofthe police. Do you think that this Bill will deal withthe situations that Fiona Pilkington and Suzanne Dowfound themselves in, with constant telephone calls bypeople to the police and other agencies asking them tointervene, nobody intervening and ending with peoplelosing their lives?Mr Browne: I believe Fiona Pilkington was in yourconstituency, Mr Ellis. Let me make a couple ofpoints. One is that is a very extreme manifestationof the harm that anti-social behaviour causes daily tothousands of our fellow citizens on a daily basis, andit is tragic. I do not think a Government Minister cansay with absolute certainty that any legislation will be100% guaranteed to prevent people findingthemselves in those terrible circumstances in thefuture, but this legislation is very much designed inpart with that purpose. The community trigger, whichwe may wish to get on to later, is precisely intendedto try to require the agencies of the state to have amore joined-up and responsive approach to repeatedcomplaints raised by members of the public, ratherthan those being compartmentalised in the way that Iunderstand they were in the Fiona Pilkington case.

Q150 Chair: Let us move on to the communitytrigger; thank you for raising it. This is an issue thatwe wanted to pursue. Some of us are confused aboutthe fact that the Government has not set a particularnumber for the community trigger; so, in differentroads in a constituency or different streets in a city,different people react in different ways. Is this not acause for confusion? Should we not have a thresholdthat can be followed and met rather than leaving it upto different communities to decide on differentapproaches? Isn’t this a recipe for chaos if it is left inthis way?Mr Browne: It is always possible to say, unless youhave complete centralisation in government, thatvariations between one local authority and another orone police force and another or, for that matter, oneschool and another are a “recipe for chaos”. What wewant to do is enable local councils to have the bestand most tailor-made, tailor-designed approach toanti-social behaviour in their area. In the extrememanifestations of sustained anti-social behaviour like


29 January 2013 Mr Jeremy Browne MP and Rt Hon Mr Don Foster MP

those two cases that you raised it is impossible toenvisage any trigger that would be set at a higher levelthan that. But it is possible to envisage that thecircumstances in a predominantly rural area may bedifferent to those within an inner city and that thepriorities of the local council may be different. I thinkit is fair to say I am reasonably open-minded.If the Committee feels very strongly thatstandardisation is the best approach, obviously theCommittee should recommend that. But we haveasked widely and we have had a variety of differentresponses. Some councils have said, “We would liketo have a more tailor-made approach. We feel weknow our community better than central Governmentknows our community. We feel we can respond moredeftly if we have that flexibility”. Others have saidthat they would prefer a greater standardisation.Others have said they are not quite sure. Clearly, ifyou go to the trouble of electing councils, there issomething to be said for trusting them to understandthe requirements of the communities that they servewhile giving them an overall mechanism to try toenable it to be done successfully.

Q151 Chair: Let us go to your own community andyour rural constituency. How many calls do you thinkpeople need to make in the street that you live in ifthere is some anti-social behaviour before you thinkthe police ought to come?Mr Browne: I hope that the local council in myconstituency are pretty responsive. Of course, themeasurement of the community trigger; it is not howoften—Chair: That is not an answer, Mr Browne.Mr Browne: No. Well, the honest answer is that I donot know the answer. I have not asked anybody in mystreet. There only are 12 houses in my street. I havenot asked the other 11 how many calls they have had.I have not reported myself to Taunton Deane BoroughCouncil anti-social behaviour, so I don’t know howquickly they act on it.Chair: I understand that.Mr Browne: I have on other people’s behalf, but noton my own.

Q152 Chair: Right. So, because you are aconstituency MP, as we are, how many calls do youthink people ought to make before there is a response?Mr Browne: I hope the response will be instant andone call will be adequate.Chair: One call?Mr Browne: But the test of the success of thecommunity trigger is that it is never used. That isessentially getting to your point. I do not think it is abadge of honour that the trigger had to be there. Butthere are people, and we are all familiar with this inour constituencies, who say that there have beenpersistent complaints, quite often at a very low level.Each individual complaint does not in itselfnecessarily warrant intervention, or at least theauthorities may feel that it does not, but thecumulative impact is severe on the victim. What weare trying to do is capture the cumulative nature ofanti-social behaviour, whereas in the past the focushas tended to be on each instance in isolation. Clearly,

if one act of anti-social behaviour by a particularperpetrator is more in the field of the police, then thenext one is more in the field of the council and thenext one is more in another field, the trigger gives anability to try to knit together the different agencies ofthe state in a way that is more responsive to victims’needs.

Q153 Chair: Sure; yes, we understand what thetrigger is. We have taken a lot of evidence on this.One final question from me before I ask Dr Huppertto come in: if, for example, the trigger is set at five,and councils have been shown to fail and localagencies have shown themselves to have failed torespond to individuals ringing up, what is the sanctionthat is going to be used by the Government for thosethat do not perform when the trigger is switched on?Mr Browne: I think the premise of the question isdifficult because, in theory, of course, if you givecouncils flexibility, they could decide to set the triggerat such a high level that in practice no one would everreach the point where the trigger could be used. Therewould be no sanction if you give the councils theflexibility to do that, although I think we start with theassumption that councils wish to serve the people intheir area to the best of their ability. The sameargument could be made for saying, “If you givefreedom to a school head teacher, what will you do ifhe refuses to teach anybody?” I think it is reasonablefor the Government to assume that headteachers wantto teach pupils and it is reasonable to assume thatcouncils want to serve the people in their area.

Q154 Chair: What is the sanction if they fail?Mr Browne: As a Democrat, if I had a council thatfailed to take an interest in anti-social behaviour, Iwould vote out the sitting councillors and vote insome councillors who were interested in dealing withanti-social behaviour. There is always this trade-off ingovernment that if you stipulate every single thingthat a council should do, obviously there is no pointhaving council elections because they are all requiredto do exactly the same as each other. But as soon asyou give them some flexibility, some people maychoose to make wiser decisions than others. We wouldhope that they would all make good decisions onbehalf of the people they serve, but the trigger maybe set at a different level in one area from the other,although there seems to be a settling around threeoffences over six months as being a figure thatseems useful.

Q155 Dr Huppert: I have a couple of questions foreach Minister. One of the great things about thisprocess of looking at a draft Bill is one can look atlegislation and try to improve it rather than the notvery satisfactory Public Bill Committee process. If Ican start with Don Foster and some of the issues there,my first question is around the evictions, becausepresumably part of the vision of this is, if it is easierto evict people, there would be more people actuallyevicted. What is the estimate of how many extraevictions there would be and what consequencesmight there be in terms of homelessness support orlegislation?



Mr Foster: The very simple answer is we do notassume or expect that there will be any increase in theoverall number of evictions. If you look at the socialrented sector, there are about 4 million people livingin that sector and there are, on average, about 2,000evictions per year under the current legislation. Theproposals predominantly speed the court processrather than make anything much easier. It is aboutspeeding up the process. The reason we are keen todo that is because we have very many examples nowof court processes taking several months, costingregistered social landlords large sums of money, whenthe outcome is pretty inevitable anyway. This is aboutspeeding up the process, not, as it were, encouraginglandlords to suddenly jump into the eviction route asa first step.One factor is worth bearing in mind: about 80% of allanti-social behaviour problems have been addressedbefore there has been any recourse to the courtswhatsoever. So it is a small number in the first case.This is not about increasing the numbers. It is aboutspeeding up the court process and reducing costs.

Q156 Dr Huppert: We are short of time; otherwise,I would love to explore that. The other quick questionI wanted to ask you was about the riot proposals,because this would mean that there is a family livingsomewhere, one of their children gets caught up in ariot, something which they clearly should not do, andthis would provide grounds for evicting the entirefamily. I realise this is a political comment, I thinkmade by the Prime Minister, but do you think there ismuch chance that a judge would apply this in sucha circumstance?Mr Foster: I referred earlier very briefly to theevidence in our investigations on this. There are verymixed views, and quite clearly this is not using theabsolute power; this is a discretionary power. That iswhere the court will decide whether it is reasonablethat eviction should take place. That reasonablenesswill take into account all sorts of factors like theimpact on the family and lots of other factors. It ispossible in some circumstances that the court will findthat it is appropriate, it is reasonable to do it, and theeviction will go ahead. The number is likely to berelatively small, but of course the crucial reason whywe want to do this is to send out a very clear signalthat behaviour such as rioting, where you are preparedto trash somebody else’s property, should make youconsider whether you are going to be allowed to stayin your own property that you are getting very oftenat discounted rent. It is about sending out a veryclear signal.

Q157 Dr Huppert: Jeremy Browne, there are anumber of interesting aspects of this, and again it isgood that it is a draft. I find clause 17 somewhatconcerning, because it specifically disapplies the rulesthat say you cannot report proceedings involvingchildren and young persons, which would presumablymean that children from the age of 10 could be namedand shamed publicly, which would be a permanenteffect, given what the internet and social media arelike. Is that a deliberate policy? Is this something that

could be reflected on if we were to make suggestionson it?Mr Browne: The Committee should feel entirely freeto make suggestions on all aspects of the Bill and wewelcome your insights. There are two schools ofthought, so it is perfectly legitimate to take the oneopposite to that which informed the drafting of theBill. The basis of that clause is that if somebody isrestricted from going to a particular area, for example,it is rather hard to enforce that restriction if nobodyknows that that individual is subject to that restriction.Quite a lot of anti-social behaviour is perpetrated bypeople under the age of 18, and so it would leave quitea big exemption if people under the age of 18 werenot known to be faced with those restrictions.Having said that, there is a perfectly legitimatecounterpoint view, which is the one that you, DrHuppert, have just made, and I am open to whetherthe Committee feels that the balance is right. I thinkit is important to afford protections to under-18s thatdo not exist for people who are 18 years old and over,but the Committee, if it were to recommend that,would have to be mindful of the practicalconsequences in some cases of people being subjectedto restrictions, for example, in places they are notmeant to attend, but the authorities who are trying toenforce those restrictions not having the informationnecessary to enforce them.

Q158 Dr Huppert: My final question is tounderstand the breadth of the injunction power,because it is, “The court has to be satisfied, on thebalance of probabilities, the respondent has engagedin conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyanceto any person”. Now, I am sure there would never bea circumstance where I would do anything that mightannoy you or you find a nuisance, but do you findthat rather broadly determined? Should there be somesense of proportionality throughout the Bill?Mr Browne: I had anticipated the question butwithout in any way thinking that was annoying orpredictable. Let me disaggregate two things, as themedia have confused them, even if members of theCommittee are not confused. The Criminal BehaviourOrder has a threshold of harassment, alarm anddistress, i.e. a higher threshold. What we are talkingabout is the injunction—so, not criminal—which hasa nuisance and annoyance threshold. It is just worthbringing to the attention of the Committee that this isnot breaking new ground, because the injunction takesfrom the current processes that apply in the housingsector, and in the housing sector the test that is appliedis nuisance and annoyance. This has not beenmagicked out of thin air as a threshold or as anexpression by the drafters of the Bill. This is anattempt to use the powers of injunction that apply inthe housing sector more widely but using the samethreshold. Of course, we envisage that it will be usedproportionately, and that would be for a court todetermine. I am not sure whether requiring it to beproportionate in itself makes the court’s decisionsabout what constitutes proportionality any betterinformed than just allowing them to determineproportionality themselves. It is a lower threshold, butit is in line with the predecessor powers, and it is also



a lower threshold than would apply for the CriminalBehaviour Order. So, we feel that we have the balanceright, but again that is something that it is perfectlylegitimate to have a difference of opinion on.

Q159 Bridget Phillipson: Returning to thecommunity trigger, how can we make sure that weconsider the qualitative and not just the quantitativeexperience that victims can have? For example,someone might only ring the police once because theyare so fearful, but it might be incredibly serious.Equally, someone could ring the police on multipleoccasions for something you might consider to be lessserious. Do we have a tool that measures theseriousness and not just the quantity of calls?Mr Browne: I will answer your question directly, butcan I just say, not for the Committee, but for theavoidance of wider doubt, the point I was making amoment ago is that the community trigger is a fall-back. It is not the first port of call. It is the final portof call. I hope that in any of our constituencies oranywhere in the country if somebody raises a veryserious problem to do with anti-social behaviour—Isuppose at that point it might become criminal ratherthan anti-social behaviour—that the authorities wouldact straight away. They are not required to wait forthree reports within six months or whatever thethreshold is. I hope they would act straight away if itwas serious, or even if it was not that serious, but isdesigned to try to have some way of stoppingcumulative reports not being monitored, because eachindividual report is in and of itself not that importantin the grand scheme of things or may appear not to be.

Q160 Bridget Phillipson: Is there not the risk that ifyou set that at, say, three or five or whatever it mightbe, then that might be misunderstood or interpreted byauthorities as being the point at which intervention isnecessary? I accept the point you are making that onecall is one call too many.Mr Browne: Indeed, and you make the case, if I maysay so, slightly for not having the national level thatsome members of the Committee appeared in theirquestions to be showing enthusiasm for earlier,because as soon as you set a national level, that doesappear to be what national Government deems anappropriate trigger for every area and some couldinterpret that as the target rather than the worst-casescenario.The legislation says that consideration may be givento the persistence of anti-social behaviour and theadequacy of the response. Although it does not specifyharm in each individual case, it doesn’t not specify iteither, though that sounds rather like dancing on thehead of a pin. It is perfectly within the power of alocal council to set a higher threshold for thecommunity trigger than the legislation contains. Thelegislation is, if you like, putting in place what wouldlook like an identikit minimum threshold. If a councilsaid that the trigger would be invoked by two reportsof anti-social behaviour within a one-month timescaleor one report that was of a seriousness of ABCrequirements, they would not be required to do that,but they would not be prevented from doing thateither.

Q161 Michael Ellis: I want to have a look at theinjunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance, theIPNA. The draft Bill rightly focuses on the effects ofanti-social behaviour on victims. However, indeciding how to deal with anti-social behaviour, thedraft Bill currently gives no weight to intent orrecklessness on the part of those responsible for theanti-social behaviour. Many, if not most, provisions ofthe sort that we are looking at would require someelement of intent or recklessness; not all, I accept.Why doesn’t the Bill include a requirement foragencies and courts to have regard to intent orrecklessness in deciding how to deal with anti-socialbehaviour?Mr Browne: It is a reasonable point for consideration,but let me make two points. First, it is quite hard tomeasure intent. We are trying to make these measuresas practical, flexible and easy to implement for localauthorities as we can. There might be a wider abilityfor the Committee or anybody else to criticise the Billon the basis that it has not bulked up the legislativecontent in all kinds of different areas. Of course, themore we do that, the more we remove discretion fromlocal authorities, and we are trying to use thesepowers to empower local authorities and victimsrather than be excessively prescriptive.Secondly, anti-social behaviour can be perpetratedunintentionally as well. If I was playing extremelyloud music at 4 am every morning, I may not havedone that with the intention of committing an anti-social act that discomforts my neighbour. I may noteven know whether my neighbour is at home thatnight or whether my neighbour is elsewhere.Michael Ellis: In such cases you might be beingreckless as to the intention.Mr Browne: I suppose the point is that one mightinadvertently create a requirement on intent thatdiluted the proposals, because we would want them tocapture extreme and unreasonable behaviour. Wherethe person could make a defence that their behaviourwas unintentionally causing anti-social behaviour andif no intent could be proved they would not be subjectto the provisions.

Q162 Michael Ellis: I take your point precisely andI agree with it in as much as it would be more difficultfor the authorities to prove intent than otherwise, lessdifficult to prove recklessness, but still slightly moredifficult than not having to prove either intent orrecklessness. As far as your answer is concerned aboutmaking it easier for the authorities to prove anti-socialbehaviour, I think that is certainly true. Kent policesuggested that adding the word “harm” to thedefinition to reflect the focus on the victim and thepotential seriousness of anti-social behaviour wouldbe a good thing, in their submission, so as to in effectshow that some harm is caused; the potential to causeharm is a factor. Do you think that should be addedto the definition of anti-social behaviour?Mr Browne: I would be cautious about doing that,because it would mean that the perpetrator could arguethat his or her anti-social behaviour should bedisregarded because it was not possible to prove thatthe victim had experienced harm and also becauseharm is a rather subjective test. In my experience as a



constituency MP, different people can responddifferently to different levels of harassment, andtherefore I suppose you could argue that one personexperienced harm in one circumstance and one didnot. But as I said in response to Ms Phillipson, if wemake sure that we keep these powers reasonablyflexible, there is nothing to stop a local authorityhaving some sort of harm threshold rather than just anumerical measurement within the way they applythese laws. It does not require them to, but there isnothing that requires them not to.

Q163 Michael Ellis: Mr Foster, did you haveanything you wanted to add to that?Mr Foster: It may be just for clarification to theCommittee to understand that my Department’sresponsibilities really are in relation to clauses 83 to88 in schedule 4. While I have views on some of theissues you are debating, clearly Mr Browne is theMinister with responsibility. But if I could just use itas an opportunity to say that the one thing that I hopethe Committee will take into account is some of theother bits on the sides of the legislation. For instance,with the powers of local authorities, I hope you maywish to have regard to the ability of local authoritiesto introduce a licensing scheme for private landlordswhere there is anti-social behaviour. You may wish tolook at whether or not that is an area that we could beconsidering making changes to.Michael Ellis: The points that Mr Browne makes arevery relevant to the issue in as much as clearly theimport of the Bill is to make it more difficult for thosepeople who commit anti-social behaviour to get awaywith it. I think that some of the issues that we havebeen talking about in the last couple of minutes wouldactually put a bar to that, so I appreciate the pointsthat you have made.Chair: Thank you, Mr Ellis. Let us move on tohousing.

Q164 Mr Winnick: Ministers, the injunction toprevent nuisance and annoyance—IPNA I suppose itcould be pronounced, not to be confused with IPSA—as we know can be used or will be used presumablyin the near future against tenants of social landlords.The obvious question is why not extend it to privatelyrented accommodation as well as owner occupiers?Mr Browne: It is. That is precisely what we are doing.I found this as a constituency MP: if somebody comesto my surgery complaining about sustained anti-socialbehaviour, as they do quite often, and the perpetratoror the alleged perpetrator lives in social housing, thereis an immediate sanction to hand if I can persuade thelocal council to go down that path, whereas if thealleged perpetrator owns their own home, then it ismuch harder. We have applied the injunction or it isenvisaged through the legislation the injunction willapply to people who live in their own property, eitherrented or where they own the house in which theylive.

Q165 Mr Winnick: It does not seem to be clear, notonly to myself but to Manchester City Council.Manchester City Council called for IPNA to beextended to the private-rented and owner-occupied

sector and argued the case that in the last 12 monthsin Manchester they have had over 2,000 cases in theprivate sector of anti-social behaviour.Mr Browne: I am forcefully agreeing with youbecause I own—well, I still have a big mortgage onit—my house in Taunton and it is pot luck whochooses to move in if the neighbours sell their house.A lot of people would have concerns about anti-socialbehaviour legislation not covering people in theprivate sector. That is why the injunction is, in thejargon—this is new to me, Mr Winnick—tenure-neutral, by which the people writing this helpful notemean that it applies to people in the private sector aswell as in the social housing sector, with oneexception, as I understand it, which is that theinjunction does not extend to banning people fromgoing to their own property that they own. That wasseen as an excessively big power for the state to takeon: that if you, Mr Winnick, had committed anti-socialbehaviour, you would not be allowed to go to yourown house. But the other injunctions, in terms ofplaying music in the middle of the night or whatever,would apply just as much for you in your own housethat you own as they would do if you were rentingfrom the council.Mr Foster: If I could just for clarity, if subsequentlythere is an offence proven in court of anti-socialbehaviour, then the ability to use the absolute powerthat is covered in clause 83 would apply to people inprivately rented accommodation as much as to peoplein social-rented accommodation.

Q166 Mr Winnick: On the basis that we have aremarkable language—long may it continue; alanguage that everybody should be able tounderstand—is it absolutely clear, be it to myself, toother colleagues here or to Manchester City Council,that tenants in privately rented accommodation andthose in owner-occupied premises, with the provisothat the Minister, Mr Browne, has just made, that itwill apply?Mr Foster: Yes.

Q167 Mr Winnick: Now, isn’t there something adriftwhen having said what you have said, an authoritylike Manchester was not of that view? Otherwiseobviously they would not have made the submissionthat they have made. Can that be clarified?Mr Foster: I am sure we would be very happy to talkto colleagues in Manchester about that and clarify theposition. If I could just make one thing very clear, inthe case of the use of the absolute power in relationto clause 83, as I have said, it applies both equally tothe privately rented sector and socially rentedaccommodation. Of course, the likelihood of it beingused in the privately rented sector is much lowerbecause it is much easier for a private landlord to havesomebody leave their property anyway becausenormally they have a six-month tenancy agreementwith a no fault either side ending of it. So it isavailable for use in the privately rented sector; it isless likely to be used in those circumstances.Mr Winnick: Excellent. Since this is hardly a dayfor me to in any way antagonise Liberal DemocratMinisters, I will leave it at that.



Mr Foster: We can discuss your views on these issuesin the division lobby later today, Mr Winnick.

Q168 Bridget Phillipson: In terms of CriminalBehaviour Orders, as the legislation stands, we havebeen told again by Manchester that they would like tobe able to issue these orders. What risks do you seewithin that recommendation, if any?Mr Browne: This touches on ground that I wasdiscussing a quarter of an hour ago. When they arediscussing this proposed legislation, people blur theCriminal Behaviour Orders and the injunctions. Wesee the injunctions as being the type of power thatwould be used by a council, but the CriminalBehaviour Orders are of a higher magnitude. Theyhave a higher threshold. The Bill envisages thosebeing used by the police, not by councils. Becausethey are attached to a criminal act, you are in adifferent space with those, so it is not our proposal inthe Bill to allow councils to proceed with CriminalBehaviour Orders. That is a power for the prosecutionto exercise.

Q169 Bridget Phillipson: What role do you see forpolice and crime commissioners in terms of thislegislation and the wider anti-social behaviouragenda?Mr Browne: I would be surprised if every singlepolice and crime commissioner in the country did notat some point in their campaign apply themselves tothe wider issue of anti-social behaviour, becausecertainly in my experience as a constituency MP itcomes up the whole time and people are upset andinconvenienced and sometimes worse than that, by thebehaviour of other people in their neighbourhood. Weenvisage—although of course it is up to PCCs, asdirectly elected people, to decide their own prioritiesfor their police forces—that working alongsidecouncils and others and using these powers, if the Billproceeds along the lines that the Governmentenvisages, it would help PCCs and police forces andcouncils and others to better serve the residents oftheir area, with the obvious caveat that they make thedecisions about strategic priorities of police forces.Mr Foster: It is largely through evidence from thepolice forces that we know that a very largeproportion of crime is caused by a very smallpercentage of families. From that evidence, we haveestablished the Troubled Families Unit, which istargeting 120,000 families across the country, workingwith local authorities, bringing agencies like thepolice together. The police will play a key role in that,and I am sure that the police and crime commissionerswill become heavily involved in that sort of work.

Q170 Lorraine Fullbrook: Ministers, the draft Billproposes a new power called Community Remedy,which would allow victims of anti-social behaviour tochoose from a list of punishment options. Last week,Liz Walker, a victim of anti-social behaviour, told theCommittee that victims are more interested in gettinganti-social behaviour stopped, rather than in reprisals.We have heard from many victims of anti-socialbehaviour where restrictions have been placed on aperpetrator, but they have been ignored. What is the

Government doing to improve enforcement of anti-social behaviour interventions?Mr Browne: None of these measures should be seenentirely in isolation. We do not want the victims to beignored. We want local councils, police and others totake their complaints seriously, and we hope that themeasures in the Bill will enable them to do that moreeffectively. What the remedy tries to do is to build ona lot of informal good practice around how people atvery early stages of anti-social behaviour and lower-level criminality—typically but not exclusivelyyounger people—can be constructively diverted awayfrom evolving into more serious and persistentperpetrators of anti-social behaviour and crime. Ameasure that is seen to have had some good results inthis area, and has quite good evidence to show this,is the remedy or variations on the remedy—differentpeople call it different things in different areas—whereby victims can feel in some circumstances adegree of empowerment that the perpetrator of the actis being made to face up to the consequences of theircrime and that the victim has some say over that. Theperpetrator can confront the consequences of whatthey have done and sometimes it gives them food forthought and they do not do it again in the future. I amnot saying that this is an alternative to injunctions or,in more extreme circumstances, Criminal BehaviourOrders where those are appropriate. I am saying it isanother card in the deck, another arrow in the quiveror whatever the expression is. There is a range ofmeasures available, and this is one of them.Mr Foster: Some of the problems we know asconstituency MPs are where landlords themselves aretaking no action when they should be against tenantswho are causing problems for other people. That iswhy we have the licensing powers I referred to earlierwhere a local authority can license landlords on thegrounds of anti-social behaviour problems. We havenotified all councils of the powers that they have intackling rogue landlords with a document that we arehappy to share with the Committee that we publishedin August last year that talks about some of theinspection powers, the ability to close down premisesand so on. Equally, I agree that very often tenants andothers want to tackle the problem, which is why thingslike the work we are doing to help tenants get moreactively involved in the areas where they live, in therunning of those estates or whatever, is cruciallyimportant, so we are promoting tenants’ associations.There are a number of measures to help, but of coursethe Troubled Families Unit is absolutely the mostimportant, with £400 million-odd being invested,ultimately saving money by bringing agenciestogether and tackling some of the very worst anti-social behaviour that is taking place at the presenttime.

Q171 Lorraine Fullbrook: The interventions thatyou talk about are a multi-agency approach. Howwould you monitor the positive fulfilment of thosemulti-agency approaches?Mr Foster: I would be very happy to share with theCommittee in more detail the criteria being used, forinstance, with the troubled families project, which Ithink is one of the most important, where we have set



out the criteria to identify a troubled family, whichincludes very significantly the issue of anti-socialbehaviour. We have also established the criteria forthe success of the multi-agency approach, which isbringing those agencies together, sharing the resourceto make sure you do not have repeated visits of halfan hour each time ticking boxes and going away,rather than taking action. That includes reductions inthe level of anti-social behaviour. The anti-socialbehaviour is very clearly one of the key focuses ofattention in the work of the Troubled Families Unit,which is now well under way and having some quitesignificant success already.

Q172 Lorraine Fullbrook: But across the board onall agencies there will be a monitoring system put inplace by the Government?Mr Foster: Well, the Troubled Families Unit is tryingto bring this together.Lorraine Fullbrook: Is that a no?Mr Foster: If you have a troubled family with a largenumber of agencies, whether it is the police, truancyfrom school, the Probation Service, the Police Service,social services and so on, they all go in, and they allhave their reporting mechanisms. All the time is spenton simply filling in the tick-box form to say you havebeen—and this is where you are. There would be asingle reporting mechanism that covers the key issues,including anti-social behaviour, that will be reportedon and will be monitored by a single agency.

Q173 Lorraine Fullbrook: Will that bestandardised? Will the monitoring procedures you aretalking about be standardised?Mr Foster: I hope we will learn a lot of lessons fromthe work of the Troubled Families Unit that will beshared more widely, but we are only in the first fewmonths of operation, so I think in fairness we will getreports over time and report back.Mr Browne: Two points on your point. My experiencein my constituency with a variant of the CommunityRemedy is that it should not be seen as the knock-out-punch final sanction that busts the problem. It isdeliberately going in at the earlier stage and trying tonip problems in the bud. It may well be that theproblems are not nipped in the bud and measures haveto be taken beyond the initial remedy, but it is a wayof giving communities greater say. It certainly can putsome people back on the straight and narrow in a waythat is in their interests and their wider community’sinterest that should take place earlier rather than laterin the process.The second more substantive point is that failure tocomply with a remedy could be escalated up to thecourt case1. Of course, the problem with some ofthese remedies, is that it might be at a very low level.If an adolescent, a child or teenager, has stolen—it isa rather old-fashioned example—a pint of milk on ahousebound elderly lady’s front doorstep and theremedy in some way helps to impress upon theperpetrator of that act that that was an anti-social thing1 Witness note: we would like to clarify that if an offender

fails to comply with the greed sanction or action under theCommunity Remedy, they could face prosecution for theoriginal offence.

to do and the infirm elderly lady is not able to go outand buy another pint of milk because she cannot getout of the house, it may be that that actually worksrather effectively. Now, whatever sanction is put inplace—a rather modest sanction in thosecircumstances, one would expect, because the theft isafter all only a pint of milk—the point I am makingis that it may not even be possible in practice toescalate that very high up the system, because thenature of the offence is such a minor offence in thefirst place. It may well be, although we do not wantto advertise it greatly, that the remedy is about as faras we are likely to go, and we hope the person acceptsit. But in more extreme circumstances, in theory itcould perfectly well be escalated into a more seriousposition if a person fails to comply over a period oftime.

Q174 Lorraine Fullbrook: I understand that, but Iam concerned that there does not seem to be astandardised monitoring system in place for the multi-agency solution that you are talking about.Mr Foster: The problem we have at the moment isthere are a very large number of agencies seeking toaddress the issues surrounding troubled families.Those troubled families have multiple problems, ofwhich anti-social behaviour is one: truancy andalcohol, drugs, all of those things will be others thatwe are seeking to tackle. The first stage in this processis simply bringing the different agencies together towork out what is the best-targeted assistance that canbe given to the members of those families to addressall of those particular issues, to do it in a way that isless bureaucratic, less time-consuming in terms ofform-filling and so on. We have a very clear set ofcriteria as to what demonstrates success. It is limited.It is filled in just by one person representing all of thevarious support that is given. We are moving veryclose to what it is you seek, but we are still in theearly stages.

Q175 Chair: That is very helpful. Can I just veryquickly in conclusion, because we are coming to theend of the session, ask you to give me a brief answerto this? How many times have you met Louise Casey?Mr Foster: Three times.

Q176 Chair: The £400 million that has been givento the Troubled Families Unit: what are yourbenchmarks? How do you know this money is wellspent?Mr Foster: We have targeted 120,000 as our targetnumber of families to be addressed over the period oftime. We have already identified 45,000 for thecurrent year.

Q177 Chair: What have you done with them?Identifying problems seems very—Mr Foster: Every single local authority now has atroubled families co-ordinator. Every one of thosetroubled family co-ordinators identified the familiesthey are going to work with in this first period of time.They have already—



Q178 Chair: What have they done for the families?It sounds like a lot of bureaucrats. What has happenedto the families?Mr Foster: No, it is getting rid of the bureaucracy andalready we have a number of stories of real success,of turning families around.Chair: Right, so what would be extremely helpful—Mr Foster: I can give specific examples, which I ammore than happy to share with the Committee, wherewe have specific examples of success that has alreadytaken place, including getting people back to work,including people going back to school and stoppinganti-social behaviour.Chair: Mr Foster, that is very helpful, and we arevery interested in this, because sometimes SelectCommittees pick up and examine and then do notcome back. We are very keen to know what ishappening in this unit.Mr Foster: We have very recently produced a reporton the current state of play, which I am very happy tomake available to the Committee.

Chair: That would be very helpful. We will do thatand we will also have some additional questions thatwe will send you, and that will be extremely helpful.Mr Foster: We will look forward to receiving them.We are in a learning phase, Mr Vaz, and we would bedelighted to learn from Members of this Committee.Chair: Well, we are not here to teach you. We arehere to ask questions, Mr Foster, but you are veryflattering; obviously it is from all your years on theEducation Select Committee.Mr Foster: Your assembled wisdom that Mr Browneappears to be so sad to have left the opportunity to beparticipating in is much welcomed.Chair: Thank you very much. We will not go on withthis mutual admiration society. I think we must drawto a close, but thank you very much. We are mostgrateful. Thank you, Mr Foster. Thank you, MrBrowne.


Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by the National Housing Federation [ASB 08]

The National Housing Federation is the voice of affordable housing in England. We believe that everyoneshould have the home they need at a price they can afford. That’s why we represent the work of housingassociations and campaign for better housing. Our members provide two and a half million homes for morethan five million people. And each year they invest in a diverse range of neighbourhood projects that helpcreate strong, vibrant communities.

The Federation welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry into the draftAnti-Social Behaviour Bill.

Main Recommendations

1.1 The Government should explain what criteria local authorities will be expected to use to determinewhether housing associations are authorised to use the Community Protection Notice. Councils should be ableto extend such authority to other bodies, for example non-registered housing providers. And the operation ofthe interface between statutory noise nuisance and noise nuisance covered by CPN’s should be considered toensure effective use of the new tool.

1.2 Ministers should commit to hold a review of the effectiveness of the new Injunction to Prevent Nuisanceand Annoyance (IPNA), particularly by housing providers, who will no longer be able to rely on the popularAnti-Social Behaviour Injunction (ASBI). The Government recognises the value of the current ASBI, and inextending coverage and making the new Injunction available to more agencies, monitoring of regimeperformance and court outcomes will be important.

1.3 The Government should provide reassurances about the impact of the Response to Complaints whereresidual concerns remain about potential perverse effects if badly designed local schemes skew activity towardsthose who complain the loudest, perhaps sometimes at the cost of prioritising the most vulnerable. Guidanceshould be provided drawing on experience from the pilot sites and recent learning from housing associations,the Home Office and local partners in using vulnerability matrices. The co-option of housing associations intoCommunity Safety Partnership arrangements should be proportionate.

1.4 Government should also explore removing the limitation of “locality” from the two discretionaryGrounds for possession beyond rioting, for housing-related offences. Examples where such an extension mightbe useful are a tenant who stalks or harasses a landlord’s employee at their home, away from the offender’sproperty, or a tenant who tracks down the partner he has been abusing after she has been rehoused manymiles away.

Introduction

2.1 The Federation welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the principle that landlords and others needsignificant powers to effectively tackle nuisance behaviour and disorder that may fall short of criminal activity.

2.2 Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) has, to quote the Home Secretary, “a huge impact on the quality of life ofmillions of people in this country”.1 Housing associations have long recognised their responsibilities in thisarea and the Federation welcomed the consultation’s acknowledgement that “social landlords and others areputting more effort into tackling anti-social behaviour”.2

2.3 It is important to note at the outset that, although housing associations need access to robust enforcementtools, much of their work in this area is devoted to positive action, prevention and early intervention. In2010–11 housing associations invested £100 million to tackle crime and ASB, create safer, strongercommunities, promote cohesion and provide a wide range of services, benefiting about three million people.3

Whether providing diversionary measures for teenagers, Supporting People services for the vulnerable,community wardens, home security, safety programmes, mediation and meetings with tenants, housingassociations will prefer to pre-empt or root out nuisance behaviour early on.

2.4 As the explanatory notes to the draft Bill make clear: “Eviction for anti-social behaviour is exceptional.Available evidence suggests that early interventions by social landlords successfully resolve around 80% ofcomplaints about anti-social behaviour.”1 More Effective Responses to Anti-social Behaviour, Home Office, February 2011 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/

consultations/cons-2010-antisocial-behaviour/asb-consultation-document?view=Binary2 Ibid.3 Spending covered financial year 201011. Building Futures: Neighbourhood Audit, 2012: www.housing.org.uk/get_involved/

neighbourhood_audit.aspx


2.5 Housing associations will welcome many of the measures contained in this draft Bill, although furtherscrutiny of some of the clauses will be important in drawing out the detail and any implementation issues. Wehave set out our views below, focusing on the most significant changes for social landlords, under the headingsprovided by the Committee:

— Whether the draft Bill would introduce more effective measures to tackle antisocial behaviour.

— How the proposals will benefit victims of antisocial behaviour.

— If the Bill provides individuals, communities and businesses affected by antisocial behaviourwith a more effective long-term solution.

— How the new measures would affect young people in particular.

Whether the draft Bill would introduce more effective measures to tackle anti-social behaviour

3.1 The current powers available to tackle anti-social behaviour are considered by most housing associationsto be effective, reliable and relatively inexpensive to use. Nevertheless, the Federation recognises that there isa good argument for attempting to simplify the toolkit; and for proposing certain enhancements, for examplemaking the successful injunction provisions already used by social landlords available to other agencies.

3.2 The Federation has raised concerns about the potential risk of replacing tried and tested tools with newpowers, the effectiveness of which remains to be determined by the interpretation of new legislation by thecourts. In addition, given the increased breadth of the IPNA and its use by more agencies, the capacity of thesystem to cope with increased volumes needs to be properly tested.

3.3 In particular, housing associations have been keen to show their support for the housing-specific Anti-social Behaviour Injunction (ASBI), which along with the Anti-Social Behaviour Order is to be scrapped infavour of a new Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA).

3.4 Unlike the ASBI, the IPNA can be used against any individual, irrespective of their tenure, and coversunder-18s, whose cases will be heard in Youth Courts. This may create teething issues as the Courts becomeaccustomed to dealing with the injunctions.

3.5 However, as far as the details of the IPNA are concerned, the Home Office has listened to the concernsof housing associations and have tried to replicate the ASBI by ensuring that:

— The IPNA retains the lower impact test (nuisance and annoyance), and the lower proof test (onbalance of probabilities) that already exist for the ASBI.

— It includes provisions for interim, without notice, applications.

— The IPNA can be applied for, and breaches dealt with, in the County Courts, which currentlyhandle applications for ASBIs.

— The power of arrest can be attached to prohibitions where there is a risk of significant harmto victims.

— It includes a “tenancy injunction”, which essentially reproduces the effect of Section 153D ofthe Housing Act 1996 (injunction against breach of tenancy agreement).

3.6 As stated above, the Federation has raised concerns about the uncertainty surrounding how the courtsmay choose to interpret the new legislation, and the risk that this could lessen the effectiveness of the IPNA.Those concerns remain however we understand that the Home Office view is that case law, or legal precedents,relating to the ASBI may be carried across and applied to the new IPNA. This would provide a degreeof reassurance.

3.7 In addition, the Bill specifies that the ASBI will still be “current” for five years after the passage of thelegislation, which means HAs have a degree of certainty until the point at which the new injunction comesinto force. Any “live” ASBIs will continue to be recognised in law for five years.

3.8 The Bill would introduce a new Community Protection Notice (CPN), which may be used by a housingassociation officer to order a person to do something (or stop doing something) to cease “environmental” ASB,or behaviour having a detrimental effect on quality of life. It replaces litter clearing notices, defacement removalnotices and street litter control notices and is potentially a significant new power for housing association staff.Examples of behaviour it may be used to tackle include noise and hoarding. CPNs can be used against 16 and17-year-olds.

3.9 Housing associations may wish to seek to use CPNs (referred to as the Level 1 Community ProtectionOrder in the original consultation) where they could be effective new tool in certain cases.

3.10 While the Government has said it intends that only registered providers could be authorised by localauthorities to use the CPN, we would recommend that other bodies—for example non-registered housingassociation MHS Homes—could also be granted authorisation where appropriate.

3.11 The exclusion of noise nuisance deemed to be “statutory” from the jurisdiction of CPNs is potentiallyconfusing and unhelpful to their effectiveness. We suggest this exemption be removed so landlords that wantto can use CPNs more freely against noise complaints.


3.12 The Response to Complaints, formerly referred to as the Community Trigger, requires “relevant bodies”in a particular local government area (council, police, NHS and co-opted housing associations) to draw up theirown “threshold” to determine what complaints (for example, how many complaints by how many people in aspecified time) will trigger an ASB “case review”. Where a complainant meets the “threshold” the case reviewmust be carried out by the same relevant bodies.

3.13 The definition of “relevant bodies” includes “any local providers of social housing who are among therelevant bodies by virtue of the co-option arrangements made in relation to that local government area”. Inother words, HAs are expected be co-opted into Community Safety Partnership arrangements or similar.

3.14 However, the Federation understands that guidance will state that not all HAs will necessarily have tobe co-opted, as long as there is a housing provider presence. So, for example, both very small HAs and alsothose who operate across a large number of areas—and who therefore for practical reasons might not be ableto attend all meetings—may be exempted from some.

3.15 The Federation will be seeking assurances that guidance will indeed make clear that not every housingassociation will have to be “co-opted” onto ASB case review groups in cases where this is not practical orproportionate, for example because a HA covers dozens of local authority areas, or has a small number ofproperties in that area.

3.16 The Government has made concessions by agreeing that local areas will set their own thresholds forthe trigger, and agreeing that third parties can trigger the duty, which may help vulnerable people who mightnot complain themselves. Nevertheless, we remain concerned that some local schemes may distort prioritiesby focusing on “action-by-numbers”.

3.17 The schemes will need to be devised carefully so as not to disadvantage less vocal groups. As onerespondent to a Federation survey on ASB said: “There is a danger of giving an audience to those that shoutthe loudest whilst losing focus on those most vulnerable.”4 Thought will need to be given to how the triggercan complement the work that landlords and local authorities have done to develop vulnerability matrices toensure that the personal circumstances of the complainant weigh heavily on the priority his or her complaintis given.5

3.18 It should be noted that tenants who feel their complaints are not being addressed already haveopportunities to challenge their landlord and, where this fails to satisfy them, to go to the independent housingombudsman. These arrangements would remain in place under the Community Trigger.

3.19 The proposed new Absolute Ground for possession for ASB may be used to speed up the process ofeviction of social tenants in cases where serious housing-related ASB has already been proved.

3.20 The Federation argued during consultation stages that it was not clear how effective this power wouldbe, given the issues of proportionality arising from the Pinnock case. However, we supported the new groundin principle, as an additional option for landlords, and will be watching its development closely.

3.21 In particular, we welcome the decision to include, in the list of actions that can trigger the AbsoluteGround, serious offences committed outside of the locality of the perpetrator’s home where the victim is aneighbour or a person connected with a landlord’s housing management functions.

3.22 In guaranteeing tenants the right of “review”, landlords should be able to set up a speedy, ad hoc appealprocess by an appropriately senior member of staff, to prevent delays.

3.23 The Government’s proposal to introduce a “riot ground” for possession, allowing any criminal offencecommitted at the scene of a riot to be taken into account in possession proceedings, is drafted more tightlythan in the consultation, which suggested “serious ASB and criminality” linked to violent disorder would beable to be taken into account.

3.24 It should be kept in mind that any move to seek possession based on this extended discretionary groundwould be subject to legal tests of reasonability.

3.25 Government should also explore removing the limitation of “locality” from the two discretionaryGrounds beyond rioting, for housing-related offences. Examples where such an extension might be useful area tenant who stalks or harasses a landlord’s employee at their home, away from the offender’s property, or atenant who tracks down the partner he has been abusing after she has been rehoused hundreds of miles away.This is covered by the Absolute Ground but would be a useful addition to the discretionary grounds too.4 National Housing Federation online survey on anti-social behaviour, March 20115 Housing associations such as Richmond Housing Partnership (RHP), working jointly with the Home Office and Metropolitan

Police, have been leading the way in ensuring that the vulnerability of victims is taken into account when prioritising cases:Focus on the Victim: Summary Report on the ASB Handling Trials, April 2012: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/asb-focus-on-the-victim?


How the proposals will benefit victims of antisocial behaviour

4.1 The Government has been keen to stress how its proposals for ASB will “give victims back theirvoice”.6

4.2 The new Community Remedy and the Response to Complaints provisions are the most obvious examplesof policies aimed at giving people more power in the battle against ASB. The former, which would allowvictims to have their say on the out-of-court punishment of an offender, does not impact on housingassociations directly.

4.3 The Response to Complaints provisions could benefit vocal and organised complainants, who would beassured a full response from authorities with responsibility for addressing ASB in their area. However, asoutlined above, the system could create the risk that less vocal groups are disadvantaged, with the authorities’efforts targeted at complainants meeting the scheme threshold necessary to trigger a case review, potentiallyon occasion at the expense of more vulnerable victims.

4.4 The likelihood of the IPNA and Absolute Ground for possession benefiting victims of ASB depends onhow they work out in practice, which in large part will depend on outcomes delivered by the courts. Anyreduction in the effectiveness of the IPNA, in particular, would represent a significant blow for housingassociations, who consider the existing ASBI an effective tool. However if the reassurances provided by theHome Office on this point are proved right then the extension of injunction provisions is likely to be beneficial.

If the Bill provides individuals, communities and businesses affected by anti-social behaviour with a moreeffective long-term solution

5.1 Long-term solutions to ASB require significant investment over a sustained period. As stated above,housing associations have spent £100 million in a single year to help build safer stronger communities withless ASB and greater cohesion. It is difficult to judge whether the proposals outlined by Government willprovide communities “a more effective long-term solution” until we have seen how they are working onthe ground.

How the new measures would affect young people in particular

6.1 The new measures will bring young people into the remit of ASB powers to a significant extent. Thereis reason to suspect that the proposals could lead to greater numbers of young people being subject to legalremedies, such as the more flexible police Direction power, and the Injunction to Prevent Nuisance andAnnoyance (IPNA), which may be issued against children aged 10 upwards. This is a departure from the ASBI,which can only be used against adults aged 18 and over.

6.2 The decision to widen the application of injunctions to under-18s means that Youth Courts will behearing injunctions for the first time. This may create teething issues as the Courts become accustomed todealing with them.

6.3 Precedent for deploying legal remedies to tackle ASB perpetrated by young people can be found in theuse of the ASBO, which is being scrapped under the reforms. However, because breach of the IPNA will be acivil matter, young people would no longer face a criminal record for a breach, as they did under the ASBO.Nevertheless, breach of an IPNA by someone aged under 18 could result in a curfew or, as a last resort forpeople aged 14–17, detention for up to three months. The Government has said it will continue to seek theviews of individuals and organisations as to whether a custodial sentence should be available for breach of anInjunction by a young person, and will return to the issue as part of pre-legislative scrutiny.7

6.4 The Community Protection Notice, which housing association staff can be authorised to use by localauthorities, may be used to tackle a range of environmental ASB, including noise, committed by young peopleaged 16 and 17, as well as adults. Since breach of a CPN will be contempt of court, punishable by a fine or aprison sentence, the impact on young offenders could be significant.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Housing associations will welcome many of the measures contained in this draft Bill. They take theirrole in protecting communities and individuals from the harm of ASB seriously. Further scrutiny of the clauseswill be important in drawing out the full detail of proposals and implementation issues. Our mainrecommendations are set out in Section 1 and we hope these matters can be addressed as the Bill progresses.

7.2 Members of the Home Affairs Select Committee will be aware that these proposals on ASB are not onlyset in the new community safety and partnership landscape, but within a wider context of major policy changeson welfare, health, care, localism and housing, and of course the Government’s deficit reduction programme.Housing associations are grappling with all of these reforms.6 Victims to be given back their voice, Home Office, 13 December 2012: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/antisocial-

behaviour-victims7 Impact Assessment: Reform of the anti-social behaviour toolkit, Home Office, p.10: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-

us/consultations/community-remedy-consultation/ia-asb-toolkit?view=Binary


7.3 So while the Impact Assessment suggests that costs associated with the new ASB regime will be modest,at a time of considerable pressure these should not be underestimated. Nor, in particular, should the sheer scaleof change faced by the sector at this time. This all means that effective scrutiny now to flush out unintendedconsequences and to gain assurance about effective implementation will be important.

7.4 A point of correction. The Explanatory Notes (Annex C paragraph 25 on page 146) suggest that allapplicants for an Injunction will be public bodies—this is incorrect. Housing Associations are not public bodies.In the letting and management of social housing, our members are performing a service of a public nature.

7.5 Despite these concerns, however, it is clear that the draft Bill does not seek to weaken housingassociations’ powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, and landlords are therefore largely supportive of itsobjectives.

National Housing Federation

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by Victim Support [ASB 09]

Executive Summary

Victim Support welcomes the draft Bill’s intention to make the anti-social behaviour regime more responsiveto victims’ needs, although we are anxious that the proposals should be seen within the wider context oftackling anti-social behaviour, particularly the support and communication needs of victims.

On the proposals themselves, we are particularly interested in those aspects which directly alter the positionof victims. We are in support of both the Community Trigger and the Community Remedy in principle,although we have some concerns that we hope to see addressed as the draft Bill is scrutinised. In particular,we would like to see more clarity around the threshold for the Community Trigger and safeguards againstvictims being either pressured to use the Community Remedy or placed at risk from the perpetrator if they do.

We also believe that an explicit duty to consult victims and their representatives should be applied in thedrawing up of the Community Remedy document, in line with similar duties that already exist in regard toboth local policing in general and police and crime plans. Finally, we would like to see some provision forvictims in housing-related anti-social behaviour cases where neither the victim nor the perpetrator lives inrented accommodation, and some explicit guidance for police in dealing with young victims of anti-socialbehaviour, where distrust may be a barrier to using the proposed new powers.

1. Will the draft Bill introduce more effective measures to tackle anti-social behaviour?

1.1 Victim Support welcomes the draft Bill’s intention to make the anti-social behaviour regime moreresponsive to victims’ needs. As the HMIC “Stop the Rot” report in September 2010 put it, “anti-socialbehaviour is a blight on the lives of millions who are directly affected; on the perceptions of millions more forwhom it signals neglect in their neighbourhoods and the decline of whole towns and city areas; and thereputation of the police who are often thought to be unconcerned or ineffectual”.8

1.2 According to the data available, anti-social behaviour consistently ranks as one of the highest areas ofpublic concern relevant to crime and policing; what’s more, we know that victims of crime are more likely tofeel this anxiety than the general public: to take London as an example, the 2010–11 British Crime Surveyindicates that 32% of victims of crime, compared to 21% of all London respondents, perceived there to behigh levels of antisocial behaviour. Only 54% of victims of crime in London thought that the police and localcouncil are effective in reducing anti-social behaviour compared to 66% of non-victims.

1.3 Additionally, there has been a historic failure to address persistent anti-social behaviour, often targetedat especially vulnerable victims. Our staff and volunteers across the country have seen at first hand theconsequences of persistent anti-social behaviour. Perhaps the most important aspect of this, which policy-makers and the media have only recently begun to grasp, is that no matter how trivial each separate incidentmay seem, it is the cumulative impact that is so destructive. It makes people feel unsafe in their own homesand on their own streets, cuts people off from their friends and neighbours, exacerbates the effect of mentalhealth problems and can even lead people to give up their jobs and their social lives completely. In the tragiccase of Fiona Pilkington in Leicestershire, it even led her to decide that her life and that of her disableddaughter were not worth living any more.

1.4 For this reason, we are anxious that the current proposals should be seen within the wider context oftackling anti-social behaviour, which goes beyond having the right remedies available to deal with perpetrators,important as these are. The support and communication needs of anti-social behaviour victims have beenneglected over the years, partly because of the regime’s relative youth and partly because it crosses theboundary between the civil and criminal law, which can lead to confusion over responsibilities. Moreover,where anti-social behaviour does not fall into the criminal category, the provisions of the Code of Practice forVictims and Witnesses of Crime, which are the only statutorily guaranteed rights victims have, do not apply;8 HMIC (2010), Anti-social behaviour: Stop the rot: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/publication/stop-the-rot/


there victims are also excluded from police User Satisfaction Surveys for the same reason. This means victims’entitlements to information and fair treatment, and their ability to give feedback afterwards, are significantlymore limited and difficult to enforce than for other crime types.

1.5 Similarly, most victims of anti-social behaviour that is not dealt with through the criminal law will nothave access to independent support of the type provided by Victim Support’s Witness Service in every criminalcourt in England and Wales. A parallel service in the civil courts only exists in a handful of areas where it hasbeen specifically funded, meaning that some of the most vulnerable victims of anti-social behaviour are leftwith a choice between attending court without any support or protection against being intimidated or abusedby the perpetrator, or not attending court at all, which may have ramifications for the quality of evidence inthe case.

1.6 In this context, developments such as the 2011 HMIC inspection into anti-social behaviour responsesand the 2011 piloting of a new, more victim-focused approach to call handling and case management,9 shouldbe strongly welcomed. In particular, we would like to see the lessons of the pilots, designed to prioritise theidentification of vulnerable and repeat victims and to improve communication in all cases, applied across allpolice force areas in the near future. We would welcome the help of the Committee in emphasising theimportance of this.

1.7 On the current Bill, while we also see the potential benefits of a more simplified range of anti-socialbehaviour measures overall, Victim Support is particularly interested in those aspects of the new proposalswhich directly alter the position of victims. Our measure of whether the proposals are “effective” is a holisticone in which the treatment of victims as individuals with differing needs is as important as whether action canbe taken against the perpetrator.

2. How will the proposals benefit victims of antisocial behaviour?

2.1 Victim Support is extremely pleased to see the emphasis on victims in the new proposals. Perhaps mostwidely publicised, before the addition of the proposed Community Remedy, is the Community Trigger, allowingcitizens to force a review of a past complaint about anti-social behaviour. We believe that this is a very goodidea in principle, given the widespread agreement that anti-social behaviour is often not taken seriously,particularly where repeat or vulnerable victims are not correctly identified.

2.2 It is essential, however, that the Community Trigger is workable. Victim Support had concerns about theinitial pilots, in which the threshold for investigation was a complaint by five separate members of thecommunity, or three put forward by the same individual. We felt this was arbitrary; in our view, a qualitativetest, centred on harm to the victim or victims, would be preferable.

2.3 The draft Bill improves on this position to an extent by requiring local areas to produce their own reviewprocedures; no threshold is set based on arbitrary numbers of complaints, which we welcome. However, weare concerned that the guidance given on how to set the threshold is so vague that arbitrariness may still result;the draft Bill indicates only that the review procedures “may” make provision for this purpose by reference“either” to “the persistence of the anti-social behaviour about which the original complaint was made”, or “theadequacy of the response to that behaviour” (s.92(4)).

It is not clear why the wording suggests a binary choice between these factors when both are surely relevant,and it is disappointing that harm to the victim has not been included as a third possible factor. We would liketo see greater clarity over the factors that are relevant to the threshold, along with a clear requirement thatthese should be published, in the same way that the Community Remedy document must be published unders.89(5), to ensure maximum transparency.

2.4 An additional concern we have is over the apparently intensifying perception of anti-social behaviour asprimarily an issue for people living in social housing. Schedule 5 makes providers of social housing a “relevantbody” for the purpose of the Community Trigger; the rationale for this is presumably that set out in the 2012anti-social behaviour white paper:

“We know that there are some people that are more likely to be victims: people living in less affluenturban areas particularly those living in social housing; and people who report a disability and long-termhealth condition.”10

Even within this single sentence, however, it is acknowledged that there is more than one at-risk category:there is no reason to assume that victims with disabilities or long-term health conditions generally live in socialhousing. The draft Bill also introduces a new ground for landlords, both social and private, to seek possessionfrom tenants on the grounds of serious housing-related anti-social behaviour, including criminal. Again, itcannot be assumed that all perpetrators of anti-social behaviour live in rented accommodation; they may eitherown their own home or be living in the home of their parents or other relatives. While we do not, of course,object to either of these parts of the draft Bill, we would also ask the Government to consider whether it hasalso made adequate provision for cases of housing-related anti-social behaviour in which neither the victim9 Home Office/ACPO (2012), Focus on the victim- the anti-social behaviour call handing report: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

publications/crime/asb-call-handling-trials-report/asb-focus-on-the-victim10 Home Office (2012), Putting victims first—more effective responses to anti-social behaviour: http://www.official-

documents.gov.uk/document/cm83/8367/8367.pdf


nor the perpetrator lives in rented housing. Particularly important will be providing information to victims andrepresenting their interests when the Community Trigger threshold is decided; these duties seem likely to betaken on by social landlords in respect of their tenants but do not intuitively fall to any of the other bodieswhere residents in private homes are concerned.

2.5 We come now to consider the proposed Community Remedy, which we believe will give victims agreater sense of involvement in the resolution of their case, lead to better communication between victims,police and other agencies, and also help to dismantle the stereotype of the victim who cares only aboutretribution rather than personal closure and the interests of the wider community. In particular, we are delightedto see that media messaging around the proposals has specifically envisioned a restorative option beingavailable. We know that, as long as proper safeguards are in place to ensure that the perpetrator cannotrevictimise them, and they have a real choice about participation, then the chance to say what the impact ofcrime has been, ask questions and seek an apology can be of enormous value to victims, as well as reducingreoffending.

2.6 Even so, there are some caveats we would add in regard to the Community Remedy to ensure that itfulfils its potential. First and foremost, it should always be up to the victim whether or not they choose to useit: a justice system that compelled victims to choose the outcome of these cases, instead of offering them ameaningful choice, would not be a truly victim-centred one, would risk revictimisation and would in effect beabsolving itself of responsibility. We would favour a more explicit underlining of the optional nature of theCommunity Remedy in the Bill. Police officers should not be fearful that if the victim declines to take partthat this is a poor result and reflects badly on them, as this is likely to lead to pressure being placed onthe victim.

2.7 In addition, if the aim of the Community Remedy is to allow victims to choose an activity they feel isappropriate to the offence and its impact on both them and the wider community, then it is vital that they andtheir representatives are involved in the process of drawing up the Community Remedy menu in the first place.At present, the draft Bill requires only that the local policing body (in practice the Police and CrimeCommissioner or Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime)”consult with whatever community representatives[it] thinks it appropriate to consult” and “undertake whatever other public consultation [it] thinks appropriate”,and take account of the views expressed.11 This contrasts with the legislation which created PCCs in the firstplace, which lays down an explicit duty to obtain the views of victims on both local policing in general, andthe police and crime plans.12 We believe it is a surprising omission that this explicit duty has not beenextended to the creation of a tool intended solely for the eventual use of victims, and would suggest that theBill be amended to this effect.

2.8 Finally, as mentioned at 2.5 above, it will be important to ensure that if a restorative option appears onthe menu, proper safeguards including a full risk assessment are in place. The draft Bill currently requires onlythat the perpetrator admits culpability (s.90(1)(b)), that the victim expresses a view that this or any other optionwould be appropriate (s.90(3)) and that the decision-making officer does not feel it would be inappropriate(s.90(4)). This is an inadequate level of protection for a restorative option to be selected: for example, this islikely to be unsuitable in a case where the perpetrator admits culpability for the isolated incident but blamesthe victim for provoking them, or where there is a relationship between the two involving complex powerdynamics, for example a continuing or past sexual relationship.

It should not be forgotten that homicides have resulted from such interventions between ex-partners,including at least one known murder in the UK (of Vandana Patel, stabbed to death by her husbandat Stoke Newington Police Station in 1991). Worryingly, since the final decision still rests with thedecision-making officer in any event, the current wording also fails to rule out the possibility that arestorative option could be selected without the victim’s prior consent, which, again, is likely to leadto victims being pressured or revictimised. For these reasons, we would want to see the draft Billamended to reference the specific safeguards needed before any restorative option can be selected.

3. Does the Bill provide individuals, communities and businesses affected by anti-social behaviour with amore effective long-term solution?

3.1 Our views on this question are as set out under 1 and 2 above, and 4 below. As mentioned at 1.7 above,our measure of whether the proposals are “effective” is a holistic one in which the treatment of victims asindividuals with differing needs is as important as whether action can be taken against the perpetrator.

4. Is the Community Remedy a proportionate response to antisocial behaviour?

4.1 Victim Support believes that the Community Remedy is a proportionate response to anti-social behaviourand, as long as the aforementioned caveats are addressed, supports this move to give victims a greater voicein the resolution of low-level crime.

4.2 We are aware that there is the potential for this measure to be seen as a threat to impartial justice, onthe basis that sentences have always been laid down by magistrates and judges on behalf of the community asa whole, and not just the victim, to ensure consistency, objectiveness and proportionality. Victim Support are11 Draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill, s.89(3)12 Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, s.14(2) and 14 (3)(1A)


committed to the principle of impartial justice; for example, we are vocal champions of Victim PersonalStatements, which allow victims to express the impact of crime to the courts for sentencing purposes,highlighting their support needs in the process, but have never pushed for it to include a view on theappropriate sentence.

4.3 However, we do not believe that the Community Remedy puts this principle in jeopardy. The victims’range of options is pre-set in consultation with the wider community; only activities likely to be appropriate tolow-level anti-social behaviour will be available. Furthermore, the decision that the matter can be dealt without of court will already have been taken before the victim is asked to express a view, so does not risk beingprejudiced by the victim’s feelings. Finally, the draft Bill is very clear that the decision-making officer is notin any case bound by the view of the victim if he or she deems this inappropriate. As a result, we feel that aslong as both the initial consultation and decision-making processes are carried out with thoroughness andproper scrutiny, there is little danger of the Community Remedy leading to unfair outcomes for the perpetrator.

5. How would the new measures affect young people in particular?

5.1 Victim Support notes from the appendices to the white paper that there is a concern about the new powersbeing used to stop young people “hanging around”, rather than to prevent anti-social behaviour. Although wefeel others are better-placed to make recommendations countering that risk, we will watch with interest, as wedo not believe it is in the interests of victims to persecute those who are not guilty of any wrongdoing.

5.2 It should be remembered that young people are often victims of crime and anti-social behaviour ratherthan perpetrators; indeed, as our “Hoodie or Goodie” report outlined in 2007, there is a high level of crossoverbetween young people becoming a victim and going onto offend.13 Research from many sources includingour fellow charities NSPCC and Catch 22 has found that distrust between young people and police is a majorbarrier to reporting crime.1415 Any power which requires police officers to enter into dialogue with youngvictims of crime, as the Community Trigger and Community Remedy would, is therefore potentially positive;it gives both the opportunity to develop a relationship that may displace unhelpful myths and stereotypes aboutthe other.

5.3 Nevertheless, it will also require sensitive handling in which such barriers are understood, including therisk of reprisals, particularly in a gang context.

Without this, there is a danger that young victims are less likely to use either the Community Trigger orCommunity Remedy. The new regime also increases the need for police to distinguish between victims andperpetrators where anti-social behaviour only involves young people, instead of either lumping them togetheror dismissing such incidents altogether as trivial. The Committee may wish to make recommendations aroundtraining and protocols specific to dealing with young victims; in any case we would strongly urge that this areaof the eventual report does not focus unduly on young people as potential perpetrators only.

Victim Support

January 2013

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Victim Support [ASB 09a]

Thank you again for asking me to give evidence on behalf of Victim Support at Tuesday’s hearing on theDraft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill and to add a further couple of points as you invited.

As we indicated in our written evidence, we are supportive of the proposed Community Remedy, which wesee as a welcome recognition of victims’ interests in the constructive sentencing of offenders. We feel the Billshould expressly set out that victim participation is optional, as this will provide an important safeguard againstthe victim coming under pressure to choose a sanction in cases where this would distress them, or put them infear of reprisals.

An additional point I want to reiterate was that victims should be included in the list of consultees whendrawing up the Remedy “menu” in the first place. Given that PCCs now have an explicit duty to consultvictims over local policing and the police and crime plan, in addition to their general duty to consult thecommunity, we feel this is an omission that should be raised by the Committee.

You were kind enough to indicate at the end that you had an ongoing interest in the future of funding forvictims’ services, which is due to be devolved to PCCs in 2014, and that you intended to write to Sir AlanBeith, Chair of the Justice Select Committee, on the matter. We think this would provide a much-needed layerof scrutiny over the plans, given the uncertain level of commissioning experience among PCCs. I wouldeven suggest that a joint investigation by both Committees could prove fruitful, given the degree of overlapbetween Departments.13 Victim Support (2007), Hoodie or Goodie: http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/About-us/Publications/~/media/Files/Publications/

ResearchReports/hoodie-or-goodie-report14 Barter, C, McCarry, M, Berridge, D and Evans, K (2009), Partner exploitation and violence in teenage intimate

relationships London: NSPCC15 Catch 22 (2001) What works: Developing a welfare approach to supporting young victims


A related point is that the Ministry of Justice is seeking to expand access to Restorative Justice, to allinterested victims of crime and ASB. Naturally we welcome this and have been closely involved in developingthe new framework, but its eventual success will of course depend on whether Restorative Justice services arecommissioned in the first place—a responsibility that is likely to fall primarily to PCCs. Do let me know ifthis is also an area in which you might take an interest, given the importance of these options for ASS victims.

I look forward to seeing the report on the inquiry and to any further assistance we might provide to yourwork in future.

Javed KhanChief ExecutiveVictim Support

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Local Government Association [ASB 17]

1. Introduction

1.1 The Local Government Association (LGA) is the national voice of local government. We work withcouncils to support, promote and improve local government.

1.2 We are a politically-led, cross party organisation which works on behalf of councils to ensure localgovernment has a strong, credible voice with national government. We aim to influence and set the politicalagenda on the issues that matter to councils so they are able to deliver local solutions to national problems.

1.3 This paper provides the LGA’s response to the draft Anti Social Behaviour Bill which was issued by theHome Office on 13 December for the Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry. Although this draft legislationapplies to England and Wales, the Welsh Local Government Association is submitting its own response aboutthe implications of the proposals in the Welsh context. The LGA’s response therefore looks solely at how thedraft measures will work in England.

1.4 Anti social behaviour (ASB) has been a major concern for the public; and therefore for councils andcouncillors over the last decade. The local nature of ASB has meant that councils have been at the forefrontof tackling ASB and have made extensive use of the powers they have been given to address the broad rangeof problems communities face. On behalf of our member authorities, we are keen to engage with the HomeOffice, and the scrutiny committee, in the further development of this legislation to ensure that the streamlinedrange of tools are grounded in practical experience and respond effectively to problems in communities. Wewill aim to do this through positive engagement, negotiation and consensus where possible.

2. Executive Summary

Overarching messages on Anti Social Behaviour (ASB):

— ASB has a significant impact on the lives of people, particularly in deprived areas. When itgoes unchecked, it can also have a corrosive impact on communities, fostering a sense ofdecline in an area and often escalating into more serious crime. At its worst, persistent ASBcan cause physical and emotional problems, limiting people’s lives and making them fearful togo about their daily business.

— Much has been achieved over the past decade since the introduction of the first Anti SocialBehaviour Act and councils have been at the forefront of that work. Councils have a great dealof expertise and experience in preventing and tackling ASB. Residents most often turn tocouncils to report issues such as graffiti, abandoned cars, nuisance neighbours, flytipping anddrug and alcohol related ASB. Many councils have dedicated ASB teams who know theircommunities well and are familiar with the whole range of tools and powers which can bedeployed to resolve problems.

— Multi-agency working lies at the heart of a successful approach. Much has improved incommunities across the country, particularly around taking firm action to stop unacceptablebehaviour through joint working with the police, housing providers, youth offending teams, thecourts and other partners. But there is also now a better appreciation of the need to sustain thisby addressing the underlying causes of ASB. We want to ensure we build on the success of thepast when examining the new tools and powers proposed.

— Our councillors hear at first hand the problems of ASB. Many newly elected Police and CrimeCommissioners also committed publicly to making tackling ASB a priority and we welcomethat.


Draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill

— Local government welcomes the added flexibility to tackle anti-social behaviour that thispackage of measures provides; and the streamlining of the numerous tools and powers ispositive. Councils work in partnership with schools, health, probation, fire and many otherpartners on prevention work and nipping problems in the bud has proven to be successful,particularly through the use of tools such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.

— Although we accept that legislation is required to ensure there are adequate sanctions to “put aline in the sand” around unacceptable behaviour, we would advocate a tiered approach of usingboth formal and informal tools and powers at an early stage, rather than letting problemsescalate and needing a more robust response. We are pleased that there is flexibility for localauthorities to decide how to use tools such as the community protection measures and the publicspace protection order, which allows local circumstances to be taken into account.

— We also welcome the importance attached to supporting perpetrators to change behaviour asoften the granting of a court order is only the start of the process, with much intensive workrequired over a long period.

Concerns about specific powers

— Criminal Behaviour Orders when granted by courts, could include a requirement for an offenderto complete a positive intervention eg anger management courses. The draft bill specifies thatupper-tier local authorities in England and councils in Wales will have the responsibility foraccrediting organisations for delivery of these courses. Since district councils do not havestatutory responsibilities for delivering education and training, our initial assessment is that thisis a reasonable approach. However, this is a new burden for local government and furtherclarity on this clause is needed. The impact assessment asserts that savings from cheaper, moreflexible tools can be recycled to fund courses. However, more detail is needed on this to preventthis being an unfunded pressure on councils.

— The community trigger is unproven. Although the LGA recognises the importance of the issuethis new mechanism is trying to solve, we would urge the Government to consider theevaluation of the pilots before finalising their proposals. The pilots have been operating for afew months and by the time of the LGA’s Annual Community Safety Conference in November,the trigger had only been used four times so this is insufficient evidence to use as a basis fornew legislation.

— The new power to disperse replaces the current S30 Orders. The new proposals rest solely inthe hands of the police who can determine areas using their professional judgement. Use ofthese powers is controversial and we would prefer a wider consultation. The use of these powersshould have clear democratic oversight: this can be provided by PCCs, but given the size ofpolice force areas Police and Crime Panels and local authority scrutiny of community safetypartnership activity may provide alternative mechanisms. Ward councillors should be seen askey consultees when the power to disperse is being considered.

3. Whether the draft Bill would introduce more effective measures to tackle antisocial behaviour

3.1 The Government is moving in the right direction: streamlining the tools and powers and givingpractitioners more flexibility is positive. We are pleased that the government has responded to some of ourconcerns, such as resolving problems caused by anti-social tenants, as this will improve the practical applicationof the tools.

3.2 There continues to be debate around the subjective nature of the definition of ASB, but continuing theestablished use of “an action which causes harassment, alarm or distress” for crime prevention injunctions ispragmatic and means that practitioners are familiar with the thresholds and types of behaviours and will beable to adopt them quickly. Ensuring that the powers can be used for young people (after consultation withYouth Offending Teams) from the age of 10 is consistent with the existing approach and will ensure thatauthorities can tackle the minority of young people causing problems in communities.

3.3 Tackling ASB often requires a mix of preventative measures, sanctions and supportive interventions.The granting of a court order is important, but sustaining longer term changes depends on a wider range offactors, and many orders require active management. As well as ASB court orders, we might for exampleexpect to see Parenting Orders in place, or a dedicated worker as in the Troubled Families work and schoolsmanaging outcomes for exclusions: all these are complementary, and work in combination alongside theseformal powers. So even if there is a swift uptake of these powers, disaggregating their effectiveness is notstraightforward.

3.4 The Government has been keen to improve breach rates of previous types of orders, such as ASBOs.Breach of an order is not necessarily a failure in the incidence of ASB has reduced and we would cautionagainst this measure when assessing these new powers.


4. How the proposals will benefit the victims of antisocial behaviour?

4.1 The LGA supports the creation of a system that allows councils and other partners to act swiftly toprotect victims and communities.

4.2 The suite of tools and powers to tackle ASB will be of less interest to victims than the outcomes andthe change in behaviour that they might achieve. Victims have complained about the length of time to resolveissues and being passed from agency to agency and steps have been taken to improve this, particularly throughthe police new caseworking system which can identify repeat and vulnerable victims. This new Bill attemptsto address this through the introduction of two new measures:

(a) The Community Trigger to give victims and communities the right to require agencies to dealwith persistent anti-social behaviour that has previously been ignored. The trigger could beactivated by a member of the public, a community or a business if repeated complaints aboutanti-social behaviour have been ignored.

(b) The Community Remedy to give victims of low-level crime and anti-social behaviour a say inthe punishment of offenders out of court. This means victims will get justice quickly, and theoffender has to face immediate and meaningful consequences for their actions.

4.3 We are not convinced by the Community Trigger. Although the LGA recognises the importance of theissue this new mechanism is trying to solve, we would urge the Government to consider the evaluation of thepilots before finalising their proposals. The pilots have been operating for a few months and the trigger hasonly been used four times so this is insufficient evidence to use as a basis for new legislation. As VictimSupport has said, victims should receive a swift response when reporting incidents, without the need forrepeated calls or a trigger mechanism. Councillors have a key role in ensuring systems operate effectively andthat they are an access point for complaints about any inaction. However, vulnerable victims or their thirdparty carers tend not to be engaged with public agencies and are therefore less likely to use the triggerthan more well organised and vocal individuals and groups. This trigger may not therefore meet its statedpolicy intention.

4.4 The new Community Remedy duty for Police and Crime Commissioners to take a leading role in out ofcourt disposals does provide the opportunity for victims to see swift and visible justice. This restorative justiceapproach will be helpful in ensuring young people understand the consequences of their actions and make swiftredress which can be powerful in stopping re-offending. Taking young people through the court system forminor offences can have an unnecessary and lasting effect on their future prospects and so a strengthened outof court disposal system is to be welcomed. We are pleased that this should be an option, rather than arequirement, as many victims will not want to revisit their harrowing and upsetting experience through furtherdiscussion and engagement. However, we understand that the final list of possible options will be agreed bythe Chief Constable and the PCC: we would advocate this framework being formally consulted with localPolice and Crime Panels to ensure greater accountability and support for the proposals.

4.5 This Bill does not address the complaints and difficulties victims and witnesses can experience as theygo through the criminal justice system. Although much has been improved, with specialist CPS and courts,this experience will have a profound impact on victims’ view of the system and will be as equally importantas their experience of the usefulness of this new set of powers.

4.6 We are pleased that the Bill has responded to our concerns about penalties for breach of a crimeprevention order/injunction. The provisions now allow for a power of arrest to be attached to the order if thecourt thinks that the ASB the respondent has engaged or threatened to engage in will result in violence orsignificant risk of harm to others. Even where there is no power of arrest attached, the organisation that hasapplied for the injunction can apply for an arrest warrant where the injunction has been breached. We welcomedthis revision in as victims will be able to see serious consequences for breach of orders.

5. If the Bill provides individuals, communities and businesses affected by antisocial behaviour with a moreeffective long-term solutions

5.1 On the whole, the Bill provides a simpler and streamlined toolkit of powers for local agencies todeploy. However, the preventative work, supportive intervention and other Government programmes such asthe troubled families work are the key to more effective long term solutions.

5.2 Although there is an intention to formalise the support intervention which goes alongside a range ofcourt orders through adding a statutory duty to local councils to provide this, there is insufficient data providedin the Impact Statement to ensure there is sufficient funding. Given the financial difficulties local authoritiesare experiencing, we would urge more work to be done on these costings.

6. Whether the Community Remedy is a proportionate response to antisocial behaviour

6.1 It is a good idea to keep low level disorder offences out of the court system both to reduce pressures inthe system and to ensure there is swift and effective justice. Ensuring that a directly elected representative hasoversight of the structure delivers a level of accountability.


6.2 Restorative justice approaches have been shown to be effective in both providing victims with satisfactionabout the justice system and in stopping re-offending.

7. How the new measures would affect young people in particular

7.1 It is important to remember that the vast majority of young people are law-abiding and contribute greatlyto our society. Young people are often victims of ASB and crime and we therefore need to ensure that they areable to benefit from this package of tools.

7.2 However, for the minority intent on causing trouble, tools and powers need to be in place to tackle theirbehaviour. Residents remain rightly concerned about the persistent and disruptive and upsetting behaviour bythis minority of young people—caused by young people hanging around and alcohol or drug fuelled behaviourin public places. We would maintain that agencies intervening early to nip problems in the bud, and using arange of tools in a tiered approach alongside supportive interventions will be most effective in deliveringsustainable solutions.

7.3 On the specific powers of the Crime Prevention Injunctions and Criminal Behaviour Orders, consultingYouth Offending Teams before seeking an order, and providing places for support work, formalizes existinggood practice. In the same way that the current ASBOs are civil orders, the new injunctions are a civil measurewill mean that young people are not unnecessarily criminalized if they are granted an order, and only enter thecriminal justice system if there is a power of arrest attached to the order and the injunction is then breached.

Local Government Association

January 2013

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Local Government Association [ASB 17a]

PRE-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY OF THE ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR BILL

During my recent appearance at the Home Affairs Select Committee on 15 January 2013, I agreed to providerelevant examples of initiatives to tackle anti-social behaviour. Committee members may be interested invisiting these sites as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.

Although there are many examples of good practice across the country, I am suggesting council schemes forvisits which will be of direct interest to you, given the specific themes you are examining.

In connection with dispersal orders, Hertsmere District Council has recently used one covering ten roadsand this, together with other initiatives, has resulted in a significant reduction in anti-social behaviour incidentsin the area. In Hertsmere’s case the adoption of the dispersal orders became a vehicle for more long-termsolutions to address anti-social behaviour.

In terms of agencies working closely together to tackle anti-social behaviour, Walsall Council, in partnershipwith West Midlands Police, health services, Registered Social Landlords, West Midlands Fire & Rescue Serviceand other partner agencies including the local voluntary and community sector, established six AreaPartnerships, which identify hotspots and develop joint tasking plans.

East Riding council has developed an early intervention process known as “Fairway to ASBO”, which startswith Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, and if behaviour does not improve, escalates to Anti-Social BehaviourOrders. Due to the emphasis on early intervention, currently less than 1.7% of cases result in the issuing ofAnti-Social Behaviour Orders.

Leeds City Council, West Yorkshire Police, housing providers and partner agencies have come together tocreate a new single anti-social behaviour team, comprising three co-located multi-agency teams, joining upresources and providing an early and efficient response to anti-social behaviour and the widest array of toolsand powers.

In terms of vulnerable victims, Sheffield’s Partner Resource Allocation Meeting draws together informationfrom a wide range of agencies in order to identify vulnerable individuals who are experiencing anti-socialbehaviour. This ensures that agencies concentrate their resources in the right place and at the right time toensure the best outcomes, which are delivered by all partners, including health and social care colleagues too.

Hinckley and Bosworth District Council have developed a daily tasking session bringing together informationfrom all relevant agencies every morning in a multi-agency team and cross reference for emerging patterns ofvulnerability. This allows for any cases requiring urgent assistance to be identified and addressed rapidly.

Cornwall County Council has a team of five anti-social behaviour investigators co-located in police stationsacross the county. The team uses a broad range of enforcement powers (including the revival of the InebriatesAct 1898) to tackle anti-social behaviour, alongside a strong diversion strand including a major contributionby Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service.

Newcastle City Council have developed Safer Neighbourhoods Action and Problem Solving groups at award level, bringing together police, communities and councillors to identify and tackle issues of anti-social


behaviour through a defined, methodical problem-solving approach. They were granted Exemplar Status forthis work by the National Policing Improvement Agency in 2010.

Although you took evidence from Manchester City Council, it is worth highlighting their work to developan integrated neighbourhood management model which provides a better understanding of local issues,facilitates local action planning and problem solving, particularly around prolific offenders.

We are happy to provide any further information and contact details for any of the examples listed above,or help to facilitate site visits in partnership with the relevant local authorities.

I’d like to finish by taking this opportunity to thank you and your Committee for giving me the opportunityto discuss the draft legislation.

Cllr Anita LowerAnti-social behaviour championLGA Safer and Stronger Communities BoardLocal Government Association

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by Chartered Institute of Housing [ASB 22]

“SHAPING HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AGENDAS”

1. Introduction

1.1 The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) is the professional body for everyone involved in housing andcommunities. Our goal is simple—to provide housing professionals with the advice, support and knowledgethey need to be brilliant. Our work is driven by a passionate belief that our contribution as housing professionalsis vital to making communities great places to live and work—and that everyone is entitled to a decent,affordable home in a thriving, safe community. Between 2010 and 2012 the CIH hosted the team of fourspecialist anti-social behaviour advisors funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government,to work with social landlords in England to improve the management of anti-social behaviour in communities.

1.2 CIH is a registered charity and not-for-profit organisation. This means that the money we make is putback into the organisation and funds the activities we carry out to support the housing industry. We are amembership organisation with a diverse and growing membership of over 22,000 people who work in both thepublic and private sectors, in 20 countries on five continents across the world.

1.3 CIH welcomes the opportunity to submit written and oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee onthe Draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. Our submission focuses specifically on the sections within the proposedlegislation that are relevant to the social landlord’s role. In particular, we have focused our submission on; theinjunction to prevent nuisance or annoyance, the community protection notice (CPN), and the absolute groundfor possession. CIH has structured its response to address the questions as set out by the inquiries termsof reference.

2. Does the draft Bill offer landlords more effective measures to tackle anti-social behaviour?

2.1 Largely we are very positive about the proposed legislation. It effectively streamlines existing tools andpowers and, as such, reduces the complexity and confusion for landlords and the judiciary around which is themost appropriate tool to use in a given situation.

2.2 We are pleased that the bill acknowledges and reflects the effectiveness of the current housing relatedinjunction, and has retained the functionality of these powers within the injunction for the prevention ofnuisance and annoyance. We are also pleased that the injunction has been extended to a wider number ofstakeholders, including the police and local authorities and also that the scope has been widened to includeminors.

2.3 Part 1, (1). We would agree that the injunction to prevent nuisance or annoyance supports landlordsmore effectively tackle the root causes of individual nuisance or annoyance. Specifically, we believe that theintroduction of “positive requirements” to address the underlying causes of, and change, behaviours shouldcontribute to the likelihood of achieving a sustained positive outcome for victims and communities.

2.4 Part 1, (1), (4a). While we would agree the introduction of positive requirements is helpful as statedabove, variations in the capacity of local agencies to deliver appropriate support to meet specified positiverequirements may present some challenges for landlords, particularly in areas where funding reductions forsupport agencies and charities is diminishing their capacity to deliver support locally. This could result in caseswhere a positive requirement may be the appropriate remedy but is simply not possible, due to a lack ofresources of local support agencies. CIH is concerned this may affect a judge’s decision to grant an order, andlead to increased divergence of outcomes at court.

2.5 We also have some concerns that, in situations where an applicant chooses to enter an application for aninjunction without attaching positive requirements, this could negatively impact on a judge’s decision to grant


the injunction. This may, by default, have the unintended consequence of making a positive requirement amandatory requirement on application.

2.6 Part 1, (2), (4a), (ii). We would welcome further clarification or guidance in relation to enforcement ofbreaches of an injunction to prevent nuisance or annoyance, specifically in relation to how governmentanticipates a breach of a positive requirement will be enforced, and/or the consequences of such a breach.

2.7 Part 4, (38), (1). The introduction of the community protection notice (CPN) will provide a usefuladditional tool for local authorities as well as delegated landlords. This will enable authorised persons to rapidlyaddress anti-social behaviour in its early stages. The CPN is a tool that provides a proportionate and visibleconsequence that fits more appropriately to the nature and level of seriousness of the misconduct. Specifically,the option of a fixed penalty fine on breach of a CPN offers a more cost effective and proportionate responseto low level anti-social behaviour in cases where possession would be unreasonable or disproportionate.

2.8 Part 4, (48), (1c). Delegated authority: we would like to see greater clarity or direction on how localauthorities should delegate powers to registered social landlords. The current proposal allows for delegation tobe granted and administered on an individual case basis. We would recommend that where a local authoritydecides that delegated power may be granted to a specific registered social landlord, that this is granted inadvance of any landlord activity, and for a specified period of time. This will reduce the burden and resourcesfor each partner and will ensure that the CPN can be mobilised rapidly and reduce administrative delays.

2.9 Part 5, (83). We support absolute ground for possession as it offers landlords an alternative and quickerroute to possession by accepting evidence/a conviction from the criminal court as ground for possession. Thiswill significantly reduce the burden on victims to give evidence in more than one court cases (criminal andcivil hearings) and avoid victims waiting months, sometimes years, until the perpetrator is evicted. Byeliminating the need for separate hearings this prioritises the needs of the victim and provides a more costeffective and efficient route for landlords to take possession of a tenancy. This route is also complimentedwithin the bill, Part 5, (83), (1), (1), (4) which also refers to breach of the as one of the triggers for the absolute/mandatory ground for possession.

2.10 Part 5, (83), (1), (1), (4). We are concerned that all parties are clear that a breach of the injunction toprevent nuisance or annoyance carries a very severe consequence which could allow the landlord to takemandatory/absolute possession of a tenancy. As judges will be aware of this consequence, it is important thatall agencies are informed about their appropriate use.

2.11 Whilst landlords are already familiar with the use of civil injunctions, some of the partner agencieswho are now able to use this tool will not be familiar with civil actions. It is recommended that detailedguidance is provided to assist applicants in applying for injunction to prevent nuisance or annoyance in anappropriate and proportionate manner. There is already a wealth of experience of using civil orders within thesocial housing industry which could be shared.

2.12 Part 5, (83) The CIH is seeking consistency and clarity around terminology. The bill refers to “absoluteground for possession” whereas Department for Communities and Local Government consultation 2011 refersto the proposed “mandatory power of possession”.

3. Do the proposals provide benefit to victims of anti-social behaviour?

3.1 Overall, the CIH would agree that the bill takes a victim centred approach to managing anti-socialbehaviour, It reduces the current burden on victims having to attend multiple court hearings (refer to para 2.11), and has included/added the CPN which enables landlords to tackle low level ASB more effectively (refer topara 2.9).

3.2 Part 1, (1), (8), (a). However, we are concerned that in some instances where proceedings include amixture of minor and adult perpetrators the requirement that an injunction to prevent nuisance or annoyancefor minors must be held separately in the youth court reintroduces the burden on victims to provide evidencein multiple hearings. It also introduces the risk that the same incident could potentially result in differentdecisions and outcomes from each court. This is likely to occur where incidents of anti-social behaviouroriginate from members of the same family of different ages or from a group of individuals or gang relatedanti-social behaviour.

3.3 CIH would recommend that Part 1, (1), (8), (a). be revisited, to consider how the incidents involvingminors and adults can be heard in conjunction, or a conviction from one hearing be accepted as evidence inany subsequent/associated hearings in another court.

4. Does the Bill provide individuals, communities and businesses affected by anti-social behaviour with amore effective long-term solution?

4.1 Anti-social behaviour is a complex problem and one which cannot be eliminated without addressing itsunderlying causes. The inclusion of positive requirements within an injunction to prevent nuisance orannoyance will help tackle the root causes of anti-social behaviour, such as alcohol or drug misuse therebyenhancing the likelihood of achieving more effective long term and sustainable results.


5. Does the Community Remedy offer a proportionate response to anti-social behaviour?

5.1 Currently, a responsible landlord would consider many alternatives to legal action prior to commencinglegal proceedings. This evidences a proportionate and reasonable approach to resolving anti-social behaviourthrough early intervention, and considered case management that takes account of all circumstances andavailable remedies. The proposed Community Remedy reflects this approach, but extends some of the influenceto victims and involves them more closely in decision making processes (reference clause). This could helpvictims and witnesses feel more satisfied with the outcomes, and feel that justice has been achieved.

5.2 The Community Remedy appears to be very similar to existing restorative justice measures which areproving to be a successful course of action to achieve long term solutions.

6. Suggestions for Guidance

6.1 Landlords are already familiar with the use of civil injunctions, and some of the partner agencies towhom the new injunction has now been extended will not be and it is recommended that detailed guidance isprovided to assist applicants apply for an injunction in an appropriate and proportionate manner. The CIH hasboth the knowledge and capacity to assist the government produce this guidance should you wish.

6.2 It will also be important that judges are fully conversant with the new tools and powers, specifically inrelation to the injunction for the prevention of nuisance and annoyance.

Chartered Institute of Housing

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice [ASB 23]

About the Standing Committee for Youth Justice

The Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ) is a coalition of 31 organisations working with youngpeople engaged in antisocial behaviour and in the youth justice system. The SCYJ advocates child-focussedprovision that promotes the integration of such children into society to serve their best interests and those oftheir communities.

Summary— The SCYJ is concerned that the new powers will have a disproportionate and counterproductive

impact on children (under-18s). Our view is based on the fact that, historically, this age grouphave been excessively targeted by formal antisocial behaviour (ASB) interventions. Suchmeasures have tended to act as a fast-track into the youth justice system and into custody ratherthan as an effective means of addressing ASB. We believe that the new orders should not applyto children. Children’s ASB would be most effectively addressed using the methods ofrestorative justice, welfare measures and out-of-court disposals.

— SCYJ is seriously concerned that imprisonment is available for under-18s as a sanction forbreach of injunctions, Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBO) and the new dispersal powers. We donot believe that custody can be justified as a sanction for breach of civil orders that are imposedfor non-criminal behaviour. If the new orders are taken forward, imprisonment (also referred towithin the Bill as a Detention Order) should not be available as a sanction for breach byunder-18s.

— If the new orders are taken forward for children, attaching positive requirements to orders couldincrease their effectiveness by addressing the complex problems that underlie ASB. However,greater efforts need to be made to ensure that there is both the provision available to supportsuch requirements and awareness of their existence amongst sentencers. Without this, suchrequirements will be of limited availability and, in any case, little used.

— We are concerned that the draft Bill provides for the “naming and shaming” of children subjectto proceedings. This is contrary to the presumption of anonymity for children in criminalproceedings and is likely to hinder their successful rehabilitation.

Introduction

1. SCYJ is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Home Affairs Committee’s call for evidenceon the Government’s draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. Given the tight timetable of the inquiry and, accordingly,the short space of time in which this submission has been completed, this is a provisional response.

2. Scrutiny of the Bill is hampered by the fact that “little systematic evidence is available regarding theimpact of antisocial behaviour-related interventions on different groups in the population”.16

16 Pople L (2010), “Responding to antisocial behaviour” in D Smith (ed) A New Response to Youth Crime, Devon: WillanPublishing, p154


3. We recognise that antisocial behaviour causes serious harm to individuals and communities. Robust andeffective responses are required if such behaviour is to be properly addressed. However we do not believe thatthe measures proposed in the Bill are useful tools for responding to children’s antisocial behaviour (ASB).

4. The SCYJ is concerned that the new powers—principally the injunction and Criminal Behaviour Order(CBO)—will have a disproportionate and counterproductive impact on children (under-18s). Similar such toolshave been used excessively on children, for example 40% of ASBOs are issued to 10–17 year olds, despitethem comprising only about 13% of the population.17 What is more, these formal powers are ineffective asindicated by the very high breach rate (68% compared to 50% of adults18) by children subject to ASBOs.And the consequent use of custodial sentences as a sanction for juvenile ASBO breach in 40% of cases—amethod widely shown to be counterproductive and particularly harmful for young offenders19—points to suchorders facilitating entry into the youth justice system rather than addressing problem behaviour. More generally,there is significant geographical variation in the use of ASBOs across England and Wales, comprisinginequitable quasi-criminalisation; in other words, “justice by geography”.

How the new measures would affect young people in particular

5. Children are distinct from adults in a variety of important ways, including their immaturity, vulnerability,competency and potential for change. In recognition of this, youth justice arrangements and legislation areseparate from those for adults. We firmly believe that the same should apply here. The new orders should notapply to under-18s. Children’s ASB would be most effectively addressed using the methods of restorativejustice, welfare measures and out-of-court disposals. An out-of-court approach comprising informal remediesand provision of early help, as well as formal measures, such as warning letters and non-binding AntisocialBehaviour Contracts (ABCs) accompanied by support to address the underlying causes of the behaviour wouldrender civil orders unnecessary. More serious (ie criminal) behaviour could and should be dealt with by meansof youth justice court disposals. We highlight here the National Audit Office finding that ASB warning lettersand ABCs cost less than a tenth of the £3,100 required for each ASBO application20

6. We are particularly anxious about the new powers being implemented in the context of reductions inyouth service provision. Such services play a key role in preventing children’s behaviour from reaching thestage where civil orders are necessary and in providing a place for children to engage in positive activities.The introduction of the new measures accompanied by the cutbacks to these services increases the risk of morechildren falling into the formal ASB framework.

7. If the new orders are taken forward for children, attaching positive requirements to orders could—ifimplemented in the right way—increase their effectiveness by addressing the complex problems that underlieASB. However, we would highlight the fact that similar provision exists for children in the form of theIndividual Support Order (ISO)—a civil order designed to address the underlying causes of behaviour andavailable for 10–17 year olds subject to ASBOs—but has been severely underused. Many sentencers areapparently unaware of their existence;21 in 2006, only 18% of young people with relevant (stand-alone)ASBOs received an ISO.22 We also have considerable concerns that cuts in local authority budgets, and inparticular to youth service and youth offending service (YOS) funding, will limit the availability of positiverequirements for children subject to these orders. A related issue is that the existence of discrepancies in“positive provision” across England and Wales may result in inequitable opportunities for those subject to civilorders to address their behaviour. What’s more, under the proposals, the court will not be able to issue positiverequirements if there is not the provision to support these in the local area; experience in the youth justicesystem with the Youth Rehabilitation Order shows that the menu of options available is therefore likely to beseverely limited. In our view, if the Government is to realise its commitment to tackling the causes of ASB,more needs to be done to increase both the availability of provision to support positive requirements andawareness of them amongst sentencers.

8. The Government asserts that the introduction of positive requirements will lead to reductions in the breachrates of ASB orders. However we believe that there is a real risk that the opposite will be true for children;the more requirements that are attached, the more likely the order is to be breached. There also remains littleinformation about how agencies will identify which requirements are appropriate. Positive requirements mustbe carefully matched to need and every effort should be made to support the child in complying.

9. If the new orders do apply to children, SCYJ recommends that there are separate guidelines on theinclusion of prohibitions for under-18s. Given the high breach rates of ASB orders by this age group and theconsequent implication that prohibition-focussed elements are ineffective at addressing their behaviour, suchoptions should only be included as a last resort and for the most serious antisocial behaviour.17 Ministry of Justice (2011). Statistical Notice: Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) Statistics England and Wales 2010, p218 Ibid, p219 See for example, Smith D (2010). A New Response to Youth Crime, Devon: Willan Publishing, pp12–13; and Nagin D et al,

(2009), “Imprisonment and Reoffending” in M Tonry (ed) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol 29, p14520 National Audit Office (2006), cited in The Independent Commission for Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour, Time for a

fresh start, London: The Police Foundation, p6721 Solanki et al (2006), Anti-social behaviour orders summary, London: Youth Justice board, p1422 Pople L (2010), “Responding to antisocial behaviour” in D Smith (ed) A New Response to Youth Crime, Devon: Willan

Publishing, p162


10. We do not believe custody can be justified as a sanction for breaching orders that are imposed for non-criminal behaviour. Yet all three of the key orders—the injunction, the CBO and the dispersal power—carry a(maximum) penalty of imprisonment for non-compliance (three months, five years and three months,respectively). This applies to both children and adults. As we highlight above, this aspect of the proposals islikely to have a particularly negative impact on children. They are likely to be disproportionately targeted bysuch measures and custody has been shown to be especially harmful for children, who are at a key stage inthe formation of their identities. We are particularly troubled by the proposal that breach of a CBO shouldcarry a (maximum) penalty of imprisonment for five years. Only the most serious and dangerous youngoffenders receive custodial sentences of over two years in the youth court. The sanction proposed here istherefore totally disproportionate.

11. The SCYJ is alarmed at the implications for children of the proposal that injunctions be indefinite induration. Neither do we support—in relation to the CBO—the minimum duration of one year and maximumlength of three years for under-18s. No minimum duration should be specified and an order should last nomore than one year. Long-lasting ASBO’s have been criticised for making breach “almost inevitable”23 asyoung people cannot see the end in sight and, thus, have little incentive to comply.24 Given that children arestill developing, their behaviour is likely to change significantly as they mature; the proposed orders do nottake account of this and are, therefore, likely to be counterproductive.

12. We are concerned that the draft Bill provides for the “naming and shaming” of children subject toproceedings. In so doing, an opportunity has been missed to address this harmful and counterproductive trend.In the case of both the injunction and the CBO, the restrictions on reporting proceedings in which children areinvolved25 do not apply.26 With regards to breach proceedings for a CBO, the court is afforded the power torestrict reporting of proceedings involving under-18s. However, worryingly, if the court chooses to do this (ierestricts reporting) it is required to explain its reasons for doing so.27 This presumption in favour of “namingand shaming” contravenes the anonymity that is usually granted to children in criminal proceedings. This isunacceptable. It is also disregards the right to privacy in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child(UNCRC), to which the UK is a signatory. What’s more, “naming and shaming” is unnecessary and can clearlyhinder successful rehabilitation. We have heard of many examples where young people have struggled to gainemployment and housing as a consequence of being “named and shamed”. We strongly recommend that thatthere is a total bar on the reporting of court proceedings involving persons under 18. This should apply tomainstream and social media.

13. Should the inclusion of under-18s in the new orders go ahead, we are pleased to see that the Bill requiresthe prosecutor to find out the views of the local Youth Offending Team (YOT) prior to applying for the order.SCYJ also supports the decision that ASB proceedings involving children will be heard in the youth court.

14. SCYJ believes there is a real risk that the new orders may be used as a more easily obtainable alternativeto criminal justice orders. This is because, as detailed below, the new orders do not have the same protections(ie they are issued on the basis of a lower standard of proof) as are available in criminal law, yet they compriseequally, if not more, demanding requirements. This is particularly worrying given the severe custodial penaltiesfor non-compliance attached to the new orders. This could be mitigated against by ensuring that the processesfor granting the new civil orders are subject to the same procedural safeguards bestowed on criminal law.

The injunction

15. SCYJ believes that the adoption of the lower threshold of “causing nuisance and annoyance” as the testfor the injunction to be granted will have a particularly detrimental effect on children. The existing test—“harassment, alarm and distress”—is already low and has the scope to encompass a wide range of behaviour.Lowering the threshold risks widening the net of individuals subject to ASB orders. There is evidence tosuggest that this might disproportionately affect children. For example, the British Crime Survey has shownthat “teenagers hanging around” has been the issue that generates the most continuous concern amongst thepublic.28Similarly, the Children’s Society reported that there are “many cases in which complaints about ASBhave turned out to be general intolerance for young people…playing football in the park and spending timewith friends”.29

16. We remain seriously concerned that granting an injunction will only require the civil standard of proof—balance of probabilities—to be met, rather than the more rigorous, currently-used criminal standard test,“beyond reasonable doubt”. We view this as all the more problematic given that imprisonment is available as23 Pople L (2010), “Responding to antisocial behaviour” in D Smith (ed) A New Response to Youth Crime, Devon: Willan

Publishing, p15924 Brogan D (2005). Antisocial Behaviour Orders: An assessment of current management information systems and the scale of

Antisocial Behaviour Order breaches resulting in custody, London: Youth Justice Board, p2425 Provided for Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 193326 Draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill (2012), s17 and s22 (8a), p8–1227 Ibid, s28 (5 & 6); power to restrict reporting of proceedings is provided for under s45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence

Act 199928 Moon et al (2009) cited in Pople L (2010), “Responding to antisocial behaviour” in D Smith (ed) A New Response to Youth

Crime, Devon: Willan Publishing pp150–15129 Children’s Society (2011), The Children’s Society’s response to the Home Office consultation “More Effective Responses to Anti-

Social Behaviour, p5


a sanction for breach by children.30 The reform also contravenes the principle of the 2002 House of Lordsjudgement (see R on behalf of McCann v Crown Court at Manchester) that the criminal standard of proofshould be used in ASBO cases, even though they are civil proceedings.31

17. We oppose the provision under s18 (2) to allow the transfer of cases from the youth court to the highcourt if the young person turns 18 after the commencement of proceedings. Children are tried under youthcourt law if they have committed the offence as a youth; the arrangements for ASB proceedings should beno different.

The Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO)

18. We question the use of CBOs at all; the criminal order of the court to which they are added and theassociated powers of the court should be sufficient to address the problematic behaviour. Furthermore, imposingtwo orders simultaneously arguably comprises disproportionate sanctioning and risks setting children up to fail.SCYJ also doubts whether the proposals will simplify the current arrangements. A child who has both a CBOand a youth court order or a conditional caution could feasibly be required “to do the same thing, potentiallywith different supervisors or, even worse, with conflicting conditions”.32 If such orders are taken forward inrelation to under-18s, they should only be used where absolutely necessary.

19. We are concerned that the process for granting a CBO does not include sufficient safeguards. Forexample, the explanatory notes of the Bill specify that applications for the CBO can include evidence that isnot admissible in criminal proceedings, such as hearsay or bad character evidence. In our view, such evidenceshould not be allowable in the civil court regarding CBO proceedings.

The community remedy

20. The SCYJ believes that responding to the ASB of under-18s outside the formal court system is the mosteffective means of addressing their behaviour. In this light, the informal approach offered by the communityremedy has the potential to benefit young people. PCC consultation with the local community on the contentof the “the community remedy menu” of options may also help to increase local communities’ confidence inand awareness of the action being taken to address ASB. However, given that the content of the menu willdepend on the views of victims and the public, there is a risk here that the options chosen may be overlypunitive and, thus, counterproductive. Although the Bill requires that the constable must be satisfied that anyaction chosen by the victim is reasonable and proportionate to the behaviour committed, we do not considerthis to be a sufficient safeguard.

The new police dispersal power

21. The current dispersal powers have been most commonly used in relation to young people. Althoughsuch tools can provide respite from problematic behaviour, the research evidence indicates that the powersoften only serve to displace the activity to nearby areas.33 We are therefore concerned that the new singledirections power, despite being designed to be quicker and easier to use, remains an ineffective response. Thenew power is all the more worrying in that non-compliance, unlike the current dispersal order, carries amaximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment. As young people are most frequently the target of suchpowers, this is likely to impact disproportionately on this group. If this power is made available for under-18s,there should be rigorous monitoring of their use, their rate of breach by under-18s and the resulting use ofcustody for this age group. This information should be made publically available.

22. We are supportive of affording officers the power to return children under the age of 16 home or to aplace of safety. However, we share the concerns of SCYJ member Barnardo’s (highlighted in their response tothe initial ASB consultation) that such powers could result in children being sent back to abusive or unsafeenvironments, thus placing them in greater danger. We do not consider this risk to have been sufficientlyaddressed either by this Bill or the preceding white paper.

Standing Committee for Youth Justice

January 2013

30 Although the court must be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” that the order has been breached. Breach of an injunction doesnot comprise a criminal offence, whereas breach of a CBO does.

31 McCann (2002) cited in Pople. L (2010), “Responding to antisocial behaviour” in D Smith (ed) A New Response to Youth Crime,Devon: Willan Publishing, p158

32 Children’s Society (2011), The Children’s Society’s response to the Home Office consultation “More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour p3

33 Crawford and Lister (2007), cited in Pople L (2010), “Responding to antisocial behaviour” in D Smith (ed) A New Response toYouth Crime, Devon: Willan Publishing pp167–169


Written evidence submitted by the Law Society of England and Wales [ASB 29]

Introduction

1. The Law Society is the representative body for more than 160,000 solicitors in England and Wales. TheSociety negotiates on behalf of the profession, and lobbies regulators, government and others.

2. This submission has been prepared by members of the Law Society’s Housing Law Committee, which ismade up of specialist legal practitioners who advise a wide range of clients including local authorities andhousing associations.

Summary

3. Anti-social behaviour damages the quality of life of its victims and is a serious abuse of a tenancy. Currentcourt timescales for securing possession orders do not reflect the gravity of offences or the distress caused tovictims, and it is essential that timescales are reduced.

4. Paradoxically, the introduction of an absolute power of possession for anti-social behaviour will onlyserve to exacerbate delay, for reasons we explain below. Moreover, as a matter of principle, judicial discretionis essential to ensuring that possession orders are made justly and effectively.

5. Possession orders are an important tool for dealing with serious anti-social behaviour. Under the currentlaw the court must be satisfied that anti-social behaviour has occurred and that it is reasonable to grantpossession. The law as it stands is sufficient for enabling landlords to evict tenants who commit anti-socialbehaviour offences where it would be reasonable to do so: the problems with delay need to be addressedthrough other, practical steps.

6. The Law Society believes that an absolute ground for possession would be excessive and unnecessary.The removal of judicial discretion and the protection of due process in any circumstances has to be justified,and we believe that the justification has not been made out.

Pinnock Proportionality

7. The draft Bill states that landlords will have an unqualified right to possession subject only to the courtsconsidering the proportionality of the decision “where they are required to do so”, in keeping with the Pinnockprinciple. According to the Supreme Court in the Pinnock case, any person who risks losing their home inpossession proceedings has a right to raise Article 8 and have the matter determined by an independenttribunal.34 This will in effect render the absolute power of possession route redundant, as proportionalityarguments will be raised in nearly all cases. These challenges will be costly and will exacerbate existing delays.

Without notice Applications

8. The draft Bill states that injunctions will be available on a without notice basis but does not state whatthe legal test for seeking a without notice injunction is. This will be problematic. The case of Moat Housing vHarris & Hartless demonstrates the issues associated with seeking an injunction on a without notice basis. Aclear test should be included in legislation. A good basis for this test would be the current test used for nonhousing related anti-social behaviour injunctions. This test states that a without notice injunction “may beapplied where:

8.1.1 It is both necessary and proportionate to the harm that is sought to be avoided; and

8.1.2 that the complainants would be deterred from giving evidence if notice is given due to thesignificant risk of threats of violence or harm.”

Ambiguity

9. The wording of the proposed power is likely to cause confusion which will have an adverse impact ontimescales. Phrases such as “housing related” and “locality” are ambiguous and require clearer definition toprevent lengthy debates before the courts.

10. The draft Bill states that the absolute ground for possession will apply to offences committed by tenants,members of their household or regular visitors which take place in the locality of the property or betweenneighbours away from it. This presents multiple problems. For example, the eviction of a family is not aproportionate response to an offence committed by the friend of a teenage child who is visiting the property.

Riot Related Offences

11. The draft Bill proposes to extend the scope of the discretionary ground for possession so that landlordswould have powers to evict a tenant where they, or a member of their household, is engaged in riot relatedoffences anywhere in the UK.34 Manchester City Council v Pinnock & Ors [2010] UKSC 45


12. The Law Society supports the use of possession orders to deal with riot related offences only wherethere is such a link between the offence and a tenancy that would justify eviction as an appropriate sanction.Anti-social behaviour offences can be linked to possession of property through the requirement that the offencehas occurred “in the locality”. If this provision is removed, it may be difficult for the courts to see the linkbetween a riot related offence and the tenancy which would punishment of eviction.

Reducing Delay

13. Delay is a major source of concern. Currently eviction cases take around seven months from applicationto completion. The reasons for protracted court times include defendants failing to appear or beingunrepresented, because further evidence is required, or there are difficulties in finding court time for a trial.Absolute possession orders cannot be an appropriate response to the appearance of unrepresented defendantsat court, or the fact that more evidence is required; nor should they be used to compensate for the lack of timeavailable within a hard-pressed court system.

14. The introduction of an absolute power of possession for anti-social behaviour will only serve toexacerbate delay. The debate should focus on the practical steps that can be taken to reduce timescales. Amodern court system properly staffed and with appropriate technological support would help to achieve this.

15. Early interventions by social landlords successfully resolve over 80% of complaints about anti-socialbehaviour. Without losing sight of the impact of serious anti-social behaviour on victims, there is no escapingthe fact that perpetrators often present a complex combination of problems to which eviction is not necessarilythe answer. Although possession proceedings are in some cases unavoidable, taking possession of a home hasserious implications not only for the individuals concerned and their families but also for local authorities.While possession of a residential property must be preserved as a last resort, it is essential that in these casesjudicial discretion is retained.

Law Society of England and Wales

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by Barnado’s [ASB 42]

I am emailing on behalf of Ellen Broome, Penelope Gibbs and Janet Grauberg, further to the oral evidencethey gave to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 22 January 2013, to submit supplementary evidence thatwas requested by the Committee.

The Committee requested further evidence to illustrate that alternative measures would be effective inreducing anti—social behaviour. In response to this I attach:

— A paper prepared by the Restorative Justice Council for the Home Affair’s Select Committeeat Penelope Gibbs’ request.

— A case study from a Children’s Society frontline service, submitted by Ellen Broome.

— A copy of Louise Casey’s report, Working with Troubled Families: A guide to the evidence andgood practice, that Janet Grauberg referred to in her oral evidence. Pages 11–14 of the reportoutline the evidence that shows family intervention projects effectively reduce anti-socialbehaviour.

The Committee also requested further evidence about the impact of cuts to Children’s Services. We knowfrom a 2011 survey of 41 members of the Confederation of Heads of Young People’s Services that somecouncils are cutting 70%, 80% or even 100% of youth services. Almost 3,000 full-time staff have been lost,and universal services such as youth clubs have been hit hardest: 96% of members who responded to thesurvey said club activities would be either reduced or stopped altogether by April 2012.

In terms of Youth Offending Teams, official statistics show that between 2009–10 and 2010–11, there were835 fewer posts in youth offending teams (YOTs) in England and Wales. The figure amounts to a 4% reductionin staff during the year. Gareth Jones, Chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, said hebelieved the figure under-represents true staffing levels as it does not take into account instances where postshave been “frozen” rather than deleted.

Ellen Broome has also submitted the following figures:

— Figures from Unite in 2011, collated from Freedom of Information requests to 430 English andWelsh councils, showed that spending on services for young people had dropped by an averageof 12.3% in the past year, down from an average of £116 to £102.49 per year. This equates to28 pence per young person per day. These figures also showed that 20% of youth centres willclose in the next year.


— Unison figures show 200 million worth of cuts were made to youth services by April 2012.

— The Institute for Fiscal Studies says spending will fall by 13% in real terms between 2010–11and 2014–15 on education.

— The Early Intervention Grant has been cut by at least 25% over the course of this Parliament—includes funding for young people’s services such as teenage pregnancy.

Ms Broome, Ms Gibbs, and Ms Grauberg have asked me to reiterate the following key points to theCommittee:

— There should not be sanction of imprisonment for breaches by children under the age 14.

— Before any order is imposed, an holistic assessment of the child should be carried out andthe YOT should be consulted on whether an order should be used (not just on the day ofthe hearing).

— Formal orders should be used as a last resort. The emphasis in the first instance should be onalternative measures such as restorative justice and family intervention programmes (evidenceof impact of alternative measures outlined above).

— Children need support to comply and the parts of the Bill on positive requirements are vaguewith very little detail on how those positive arrangements might work and what support mightbe given to a young person and their family or the people around them to help them succeedin them.

February 2013

Annex 1

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE COUNCIL BRIEFING FOR THE HOME AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE:RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, JANUARY 2013

1. There has never been a large-scale study which looks specifically at the use of restorative justice withantisocial behaviour. However all the studies of restorative justice with a wide range of offences have shownstrong benefits both in terms of reducing re-offending and delivering very high levels of victim satisfaction.

2. The growing use of Restorative Justice across the CJS was highlighted in the recent Inspectorates report(November 2012) which highlighted the growth in restorative policing, and the effective use of restorativejustice with ASB by Youth Offending Teams, Police Forces and Neighbourhood Justice Panels.

We would recommend these two short films which demonstrate the benefits of restorative justice with Anti-Social Behaviour, in the West Midlands, and in Manchester, respectively:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZp9BNN-3Ro&feature=share

http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/rj-in-action/restorative_policing__justice_for_victims_and_communities/

The Recent Joint Inspectorates report on Restorative Justice (September 2012, HMIC) highlighted manyexamples of good practice:

“Great Yarmouth YOT ran an allotment as a reparation project within a community where muchoffending and anti-social behaviour occurred. They ensured that the produce visibly went back intothe local community, for example food was used in a lunch club, and plants for planters at aretirement home. Other allotment holders valued seeing the young people working and payingsomething back to their community. The local police were also actively involved in the project, andwith the young people working on it. This further contributed to the confidence of local residents.”(p.46)

“In Wigan and Walsall, restorative practices used by staff in schools and colleges led to reducedlevels of exclusions, a reduction in calls for police involvement in incidents on educational premises,and in one case an impact on crime and antisocial behaviour in the immediate vicinity of theschool.” (p.46)

“One victim lived in an area where agencies worked together to address alcohol related anti-socialbehaviour, and improve public confidence in the police and local authority’s ability to tackleproblems. He was the victim of continuing anti-social behaviour in a lane at the end of his garden.This had an impact on his health and ‘made his life a misery’. A large tree at the bottom of thegarden provided natural shelter for the offenders. The victim had wanted it cut down for many yearsbut the cost was prohibitive. A joint operation between police, YOT and local authorityneighbourhood teams identified a number of young people who were involved in the behaviour. Eachwas visited by a YOT worker who explained the impact that the behaviour was having. They agreedto cut the tree down as voluntary reparation. In order to ensure safety the felling was undertaken bya trained worker and the young people cleared it up. The victim came out and met the young peopleand let them know how their behaviour had affected him. He gained peace of mind from seeingthem as ‘decent enough youngsters’, and his confidence was improved. The young people said theyhadn’t realised that their behaviour had such an impact.” (p.46–47)


ACC Garry Shewan, ACPO lead on Restorative Justice, published a “Business Case for RestorativePolicing” (2010, RJC website) highlighting the cost/benefits of a restorative approach with ASB:

“Two neighbours in a street had been in dispute for some time over the noise and general anti-socialbehaviour caused by one of the parties. Over a period of seven months, the police were called todeal with the dispute on an average of four times per week (total 121 calls) but were unable toresolve the issue. It was decided to convene a restorative conference directly involving the partiesinvolved. During the conference an agreement as to the future conduct of the party causing harmwas agreed and since that time there have been no further calls to the police. It was estimated thateach call to the police involved attendance and administrative time of 1.5 officers, totallingapproximately 1 hour of police time per call. This has been costed at £3,717.28. The total time insetting up and delivering the conference was 2 hours 50 mins. This has been costed at £87.15.Assuming that the situation would have continued at the same rate for another 12 months the totaltime of the police in dealing with the incidents would have been 171 hours and at a cost of£5,266.13.” (p.9)

“The Youth Restorative Disposal (YRD) was piloted in eight police forces between April 2008 andSeptember 2009. It aimed to offer police officers and PCSOs more discretion and a quick andeffective means of dealing with low level, anti-social and nuisance offending. Over four thousandYRDs were issued during the pilot with shoplifting, assault and criminal damage being the mainoffences dealt with. The YRD was evaluated and this found that police satisfaction with the schemewas high. This was due to giving police officers greater discretion over choosing the most appropriateway of dealing with low level incidents; by raising public confidence in policing through givingvictims a say in how offenders should be dealt with; and, in most cases YRD were less timeconsuming than alternative CJS disposals. The evaluation found that victim satisfaction was high,that YRDs did not increase the work rate for YOTs and there was a high level of agreement thatYRDs represented a more appropriate and proportional response that did not result in young peoplebeing caught in the CJS net. The evaluation found that when compared with a Reprimand the costof administering a YRD was a saving of £426 or £393 if a RJ conference was used.” (p.11)

In Conclusion

3. Restorative justice is a pro-social process. It works with antisocial behaviour because it can repair harmdone to victims, while helping to rebuild the relationships which have been damaged by the behaviour, andbuilding understanding which is so often lacking in these situations.

4. Restorative justice allows wider members of the community to get involved in deciding how harm can berepaired, recognising the broader impact that serious ASB can have on a whole community—the ManchesterPolice video mentioned above is a perfect example of this. It helps juveniles and young adults to mature byteaching them about the impact of their actions on other people, thus building empathy, responsibility, andreducing recidivism.

5. Restorative justice allows victims to express their feelings to offenders, leading to consistently higherrates of victim satisfaction than with the court process.

6. The Government acknowledged the advantages of RJ in “Breaking the Cycle”, and the new MoJRestorative Justice Action Plan (November 2012) outlines their desire to greatly expand the availability of RJto deal with offences at all ends of the Criminal Justice spectrum.

For further information please see our website www.restorativejustice.org.uk

Annex 2

CHILDREN’S SOCIETY CASE STUDY—RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND TRIAGE TO PREVENTCYCLES OF RE-OFFENDING

The Children’s Society Restorative Youth Support Service in the Tees Valley helps children and youngpeople learn from their mistakes and choose positive pathways in life. It supports young people to understandthe full impact of their behaviour and make amends for it. This prevents cycles of re-offending and reducesthe financial and human cost of children ending up in the criminal justice system.

The Triage programme helps children and young people that have committed a low level offence stay outof the criminal justice system by agreeing to make amends with the victim through a restorative process. 80%of young people who have been through this programme do not enter the criminal justice system.

As a result of taking part in a restorative process, victims of crime also feel safer and have increasedconfidence in the criminal justice system and their community.

“I received a new phone and a genuine apology from the young person and I am very happy. I feelwe both can put this behind us and move on.” (victim of an offence)

“I know how they feel; it was wrong and they will have been upset.” (young person who hadcommitted anti-social behaviour)


Annex 3

Louise Casey’s report: Working with Troubled Families: A guide to the evidence and good practice.35

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Manchester City Council [ASB 43]

1. Introduction

1.1 Further to our review of the white paper and published draft legislation Manchester City Councilwelcome the proposed reform to powers to tackle anti social behaviour. In particular we welcome the extensionof powers in the private sector and the victim centred approach. We feel that the Home Office has listened topractitioners and we welcome the opportunity to help shape the framework for tackling anti social behaviourin the future. We believe that the proposed legislation will continue to provide remedies for anti socialbehaviour perpetrated in the social housing sector and we welcome the extension of these powers, particularlyin relation to mandatory possession.

1.2 The Anti Social Behaviour Action Team (ASBAT), part of Manchester City Council is a nationallyrecognised best practice Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) team. Established in 1998, the ASBAT have successfullysecured over 7,000 legal orders against trouble makers and 650 Anti Social Behaviour Orders againstindividuals. The ASBAT receive on average 2,500 complaints of crime and disorder per annum.

1.3 We have worked in partnership with Government departments over the last 14 years and have beeninvolved with the development of much of the major legislative powers and statutory guidance during thattime. Most recently, we have worked closed with the Home Office through being one of the five areas nationallytrialling the Community Trigger, heron in referred to as the ASB Case Review.

2. Importance and Relevance of Housing Providers and Local Authorities to Deal Effectivelywith ASB

2.1 Manchester had a population of 503,000 in 2011 which amounts to a 19% increase in the last 10 years.Manchester has also seen an increase from 21% to 30% in the population of residents living in the privaterented sector. This increase will inevitably lead to an increase in reports of anti social behaviour.

2.2 Social Landlords have contractual obligations under the tenancy agreement to look after their interestsand those of their tenants. Contractual obligations require tenants to take responsibility for any person residingat or visiting their address. Whereas in comparison, when dealing with anti social behaviour in the privaterented or owner occupier sector, the Local Authority do not.

2.3 The Local Authority pursuant to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is required to do all it reasonably canto prevent crime and disorder in its area, it does not have the power to hold private tenants or owner occupiersresponsible for the behaviour of those who live with them or visit the property.

2.4 The tools and powers available in the private and owner occupied sector are less than what is availablethrough enforcing contractual obligations under the terms of a tenancy agreement. This can result in a tenurepostcode and victims of crime and disorder in the private sector suffering for a longer period of time thanthose in the social rented sector.

2.5 The ASBAT effectively utilise both informal and formal interventions in our efforts to do all wereasonably can to prevent crime and disorder. Legal action pursued by the ASBAT equates to less than 10%of all interventions.

3. Comments on Specific Measures/Proposals within the Draft Bill

3.1 In this section we provide comment and, where appropriate, recommendations on specific proposals setout in the draft Bill.

35 Not printed here. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/66113/121214_Working_with_troubled_families_FINAL_v2.pdf


Reference within draftBill Comments/recommendations

Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA)1(8)(a) The proposed legislation states that adults will be dealt with in the County Court andJurisdiction young people in the Youth Court. This will mean that there will be separate

proceedings required in cases involving family anti social behaviour. In these casesthe facts and the witnesses will be the same. This will impose added burdens onvulnerable witnesses and incur additional costs and resources for the applicant andthe judicial system.We would suggest that provision is made for “cross-generational” proceedingsrelating to the same case (from a victim’s perspective) to be heard together in thesame court.It would assist Social Landlords, if the jurisdiction were to remain split, that theywere granted rights of audience in the Youth Court, which would enable employeesto appear before the Youth Court thereby reducing costs.

8(3) We suggest the incorporation of a clause which would allow young people to beYouth Court -Arrests bailed pending the Youth Court’s availability. Presently as drafted, if a young person

is arrested at a time when the Court is not sitting (the weekend, Christmas Day,Good Friday and any other bank holidays) this would result in a young person beingheld in custody for an overly long period of time.

12(1) We propose that the present draft legislation is extended to allow the exclusion ofPower to exclude—in owner occupiers or privately rented tenants. This would mirror the current powerthe private sector contained in the draft legislation in relation to social tenants.

Exclusion powers are used only in exceptional circumstances where there has been abreach of a previous order or there has been use or threat of violence or there issignificant risk of harm.Case evidence in Manchester has shown that a short period of exclusion used only inthe most serious cases has brought respite to the community from anti socialbehaviour and provided protection to vulnerable victims.This suggestion is less intrusive than use of the proposed premises closure order,which is available regardless of tenure, for a period up to 6 months which couldexclude an owner occupier or private rented tenant a significant length of time.Without the power to exclude breaches of injunctions by owner occupiers or privaterented tenants could potentially give rise to an increase in custodial sentences as theonly remedy for breach.The extension of the power to exclude would provide a short term flexible remedywhich would allow perpetrators to change their behaviour.

13 (1)(c) We would advocate that a power is granted to allow tenants in private rentedPower to hold owner accommodation or owner occupiers to be held responsible for the behaviours ofoccupiers and others at their premises via the injunction. (eg the private tenant or the ownerprivate rented occupier is allowing, inciting or encouraging any other person to engage or threatentenants responsible to engage in anti social behaviour)

This would mirror current proposed powers in relation to social housing tenants.We include at Appendix 1 a real case example to illustrate this point andrecommendation.Criminal Behaviour Order

21(7) We consider that extending the power to apply for a CBO to Local Authoritieswould be useful.We include at Appendix 2 further information to support our consideration.ASB Case Review

Schedule 5 We believe that there should be an independent appeal mechanism to the electedPart 1 Police and Crime Commissioner for the individual or community who is dissatisfied3(a)(b) with the outcome of an Anti Social Behaviour Case Review.

The appeal to the PCC would allow the PCC to review recommendations of the ASBCase Review (a panel). The PCC could then either find that the recommendationswere sufficient, amend those recommendations or have the power to addrecommendations where they see fit.We would suggest that the PCC have the power to publish the outcome of theappeals.


Reference within draftBill Comments/recommendations

Absolute grounds for possession83 We welcome the additional ground in relation to riot.

We are concerned that there is a danger that possession proceedings would sufferlong delays, particularly where an appeal against conviction or other finding is madeas the Court does not have the power to make the order until final determination ofthe criminal proceedings or the injunction is made.The proposed review proceedings are similar to those required under the introductorytenancy regime, it is anticipated that complex legal arguments may arise followingthe decisions reached by the panel again we believe this would cause inevitabledelay to Authorities seeking to use these new grounds.Community protection notices

42 We welcome the broad parameters of the CPN, however would welcome statutoryguidance in relation to its use.The draft remedial action powers are lengthy. They impose on Authorities additionalsteps to the current legislation, this will inevitably lead to additional expense anddelay. We suggest that the remedial powers mirror those currently in place in relationto street litter control notices.

4. Summary of Main Points

4.1 The bill should make provision for applications for Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance(IPNA) that involve multiple defendants, some of whom are Young People, in the same court to avoid the needfor two sets of proceedings and witnesses having to give evidence twice.

4.2 The power to exclude persons from their home address in appropriate circumstances should be applicableto all persons regardless of tenure in the interests of preserving the ability of agencies to provide protectionfor all victims consistently.

4.3 The power to make parents or occupiers in the private or owner occupied sector responsible for thebehaviour of visitors to and/or persons residing at the address.

4.4 A bail provision for Young People arrested for breach of an IPNA, at times when the Youth Court is notsitting should be considered.

4.5 Access for the Local Authority to the Criminal Behaviour Order would be useful.

4.6 Allow an appeal from an ASB case review to Police Crime Commissioners.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Protecting people from harm is central to the purpose of housing providers and ASB Practitioners whoare supportive of the objectives of the draft Bill and of many of the measures it contains.

5.2 It is important to recognise that formal legal interventions account for a minority of the successful actionstaken by Housing Providers and ASB Practitioners.

5.3 Issue fees, legal aid entitlement and too many adjourned proceedings all need careful consideration inlight of the proposed changes.

5.4 The victims journey should remain central and at the heart of any proposed changes. On this basis,careful consideration should be given to avoiding two sets of proceedings both in the Youth Court and theCounty Court.

5.5 Finally, there should be equality of potential action available regardless of the tenure, eg exclusion andthe ability to hold owner occupiers and private rented tenants responsible for the behaviour of others includingchildren. This is consistent with the Troubled Families Agenda.

February 2013

APPENDIX 1

TO ILLUSTRATE THE NEED FOR AN INJUNCTION IN THE PRIVATE/OWNER OCCUPIED SECTORTHAT MAKES THE TENANT OR OWNER OCCUPIER RESPONSIBLE FOR VISITORS OR OTHER

OCCUPIERS BEHAVIOUR

Case Example 1

The perpetrator and his wife have 13 children, aged between one and 22 years who reside at their address.The family moved into their property in Longsight in July 2012. The property is private rented. The Local


Authority and Police are aware of two previous addresses where the family have resided where anti socialbehaviour had occurred.

The nature of the current complaints include: damage to property, noise from banging and shouting, littering,rowdy or inconsiderate behaviour by the children, large gatherings of intimidating adult visitors, noise fromscrap metal being broken up, the children defecating and urinating in public places, racist language and rubbishincluding soiled nappies, glass and razor blades being thrown into neighbour’s rear gardens. The father whenchallenged by neighbours has previously used foul and abusive language.

The ASB issues have been difficult to address due to the number of children and visitors responsible. Therubbish in the yard is also never there long enough to allow the service of a notice under the PDPA (Preventionof Damage by Pests Act) for allowing pests to live in the rubbish. Informal interventions through warninginterviews, multi-agency holistic partnership planning and support being offered have been tried but nodiscernable improvement had been noted. It has proven problematic evidencing individual acts of anti socialbehaviour and which individual is responsible to support Anti Social Behaviour Order proceedings.Identification of the children responsible for each of the acts is difficult given that most of the children areonly 1 year age difference apart, and neighbours are unable to identify individual adults. We are mindful thatthere would clearly be safeguarding issues if a premises closure order were sort and would only consider anapplication as an order of last resort.

If the Local Authority were able to issue an Injunction application against the mother and father makingthem responsible for their behaviour, their visitors and their children’s behaviour this would successful stopthe continued suffering neighbours are enduring. Any Injunction order sought against the mother and fathercould also compel a positive requirement in regards to attendance on a parenting course and the InjunctionOrders would move with them to prevent any future anti social behaviour and suffering if they relocate.

APPENDIX 2

TO ILLUSTRATE WHY EXTENDING THE POWER TO APPLY FOR A CBO TO LOCALAUTHORITIES WOULD BE USEFUL

The ASBAT have been making efforts to assist the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to secure CriminalAnti Social Behaviour Orders (CRASBOs) since 2009. Working together with the CPS the ASBAT haveproduced good practice guidance for all staff involved in tackling anti social behaviour. The ASBAT requestCRASBOs for two reasons. The first reason is that it supports our victim centred approach by reducing thenecessity for victims to give evidence twice. It also prevents the need for a separate set of proceedings whichcould result in delays for the protection of the community and vulnerable victims.

Possible options are as follows:

1. With consultation with the CPS the Local Authority may apply for a CBO; alternatively.

2. The CPS may delegate the Local Authority power to apply for a CBO.

Often the Local Authority will have evidence of the anti social behaviour and the effect it has on the widercommunity and are therefore better placed to bring the application. As the CBO may contain positiverequirements the Local Authority may be better placed to coordinate inter agency involvement to work togetherto challenge and change the behaviour of the individual.

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited02/2013 026557 19585

Documents

The draft Anti social Behaviour Bill: pre legislative scrutiny€¦ · London: The Stationery Office Limited £12.00 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee The draft Anti social