Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, I support the other amendments in this group as well as the opposition to clause stand part. I add to the welcome that has been extended to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and wish to say how much I too enjoyed working with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who was so well informed, so clear and always absolutely to the point. Clause 31 extends the police’s powers to issue directions to leave under Section 27(1) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which means that these directions can be issued to children aged 10 to 15. Section 27 grants the power for a police constable to issue an individual with a direction to leave a locality for up to 48 hours. A direction may be issued if an individual in the locality is likely, in all the circumstances, to cause or contribute to the occurrence, repetition or continuance of alcohol-related crime or disorder in that place, or may be issued if necessary to remove or reduce that likelihood. This is a very wide power but it is hard to see how it will deal with underage drinking other than by moving it elsewhere, and it may criminalise a lot of young people. When the Minister replies, I hope he will throw a little more light on the encounter that will take place between a police officer and, say, a 10 year-old under these provisions. Presumably, the officer will say, "You mustn’t come back here for the next 48 hours". What is "here"? How big is it? How many streets are covered by it? When does 48 hours end? Suppose that the young person does not have a watch. I would be interested to have a little more information on the practicalities of extending this measure down the age range to children aged 10. My amendment is supported by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, whose membership includes Action for Children, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, the Council for Disabled Children, Justice, the National Children’s Bureau, the NSPCC, the Prince’s Trust and the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. I am giving this list not because the Minister is unaware of the membership of the standing committee, but to stress that his ideas for the best way of dealing with children who are out and about in places where there might be or is likely to be some alcohol-related crime and disorder are not shared by a range of expert organisations that have between them scores of years of work with children and experience of making children’s lives better. All those organisations are very opposed to this and the other measures that we have discussed in earlier sittings. Why are they so opposed? Their arguments are that measures to deal with children should be welfare-oriented, not punitive, in order to deal with the problem, and that children will get the wrong message from these measures—the message that the forces of law and order are arbitrary, inexplicable and oppressive rather than helpful. A number of problems arise from the use of such a measure on children. The Standing Committee on Youth Justice points out that: ""There are no requirements in the provisions to ensure that a child who was required to leave a location is adequately safeguarded. There is … no requirement for the child to have access to an independent adult to explain the implications"," of the matters that I raised earlier—how big is the locality, how long have you got to stay away, what happens to you if you should come back? The standing committee would like to see this clause deleted from the Bill, as well as an amendment to Section 27(1) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 to raise the age there to eliminate 16 and 17 year-olds from the power to remove or to ask people to leave the locality. I beg to move.