Clause 29 - Dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
9:30 am
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I strongly contend that the amendment is not a return to the sus laws in that we would still have subsection (1)(a), which states
''that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places''.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, that is a pretty stringent test. That would remain, and the police officer would still account for his belief that distress was being caused before he used the powers. The problem with the sus laws was that there were no grounds other than the police officer's belief that there might be a reason for intervening to stop groups or individuals whom he suspected of doing something.
As the hon. Member for Ludlow rightly said, his amendment would have completely the opposite effect from mine. As I said about his speech on another group of amendments, his comments deserve a much wider audience. The clause flies in the face of what ordinary people want, which is to see these problems resolved. I, for one, believe that that is what the Government, and certainly the Minister, want to achieve. We may disagree about how far they are going but that is the objective behind the clause. To constrain the clause even more would have the opposite effect not only to what the Government
want but to what the public expect of their police. I cannot support that.
We learned the arithmetic of the Committee, if we did not know it before, and there is no point in pursuing Divisions for the sake of it. I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments. I believe that seeking much greater flexibility in the use of the powers is justified but we shall move on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.