Clause 30 - Authorisations: supplemental
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
11:00 am
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
This group of amendments would achieve a number of things in respect of the publicity relating to authorisation. Amendment No. 170 would remove ''either or'' and ensure that both methods are used.
I am sure that the Minister will say that there might be circumstances in which only one method is suitable. However, as the clause is drafted, only one or the other may be used. Perhaps ''either, or, or both'' would make more sense. The orders should be made as widely known as possible. It would be in the interests of the public and of the police if people were made aware that the orders were in place. The ability to choose one method or the other—publication in a newspaper alone, or merely posting in a conspicuous place—might be taken to mean that merely sticking up on notice somewhere would be deemed sufficient. However, notices get torn down—the children who caused the original problem could remove the notice within a matter of hours, so that nobody was aware that the authorisation was in place. By leaving out ''either or'', we hope that both methods will be used. No doubt, the Minister will say that some places lack either local newspapers or conspicuous places, but I am sure that both can be found.
Amendment No. 171 would replace ''some conspicuous place'' with ''conspicuous places''. The object is to ensure that the notice is more widely available. That would be consistent with the Government's aims. The most effective use of authorisation issued by a senior officer is if the problem goes away without the police having to deal with it on the ground. The more widely known the authorisation, the more likely that is to happen, so I should have thought that the Government would be interested in its being as widely known as possible.
Amendment No. 172 would remove clause 31(2)(b). It is a probing amendment to test why the Government have imprisonment as one of the penalties and in what circumstances they might want the sanction of imprisonment to be used. What is the situation when somebody has been given a dispersal order for 24 hours and returns to the area within that time? There has to be some sort of penalty, such as a fine, but I want to hear the Government's justification for imprisonment being necessary—or do they see it as a final recourse, perhaps after a series of fines has been imposed and has not worked? The Minister's thoughts on what would be an appropriate use would be welcome clarification.
Amendment No. 120, tabled by the Opposition, is similar to our amendment No. 212. They both seek to deal with the fact that the Bill seems not to allow for a written record to be made of an order being given to disperse. Our concern is that without our suggestion of a sort of dispersal ticket, rather like a parking ticket, of which there would be a carbon copy, or what is suggested in the Conservative amendment, under which the policeman would record it there and then, it would not be possible to prove that a penalty had been issued.
If the police did not have a record of the names and addresses of those involved, it would not be possible to prove that a person had returned to an area within 24 hours. It would be down to the constable to say, ''I told this person to move away the previous night, and the following morning he was there again.'' That person could argue that the police did not say that they were issuing a direction under the Bill. They would say, ''Yes, we saw the police officer, but he did not say anything like that to me.'' It would be between him and the police officer as to what was said at the time.
That brings us to amendment No. 211. That amendment would delete clause 31(1)(a), which states ''may be given orally''. That does not mean that the police office cannot do so; but we are concerned that the direction could be given only orally. If a police officer spoke privately to the members of a group, issuing them individually with dispersal notices, it would be on his say so at a subsequent trial. If the person was caught the next day, it would be on the say so of the officer, yet under the Bill it seems that there need be no witnesses and no record that that took place.