Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 111A and 112. Clause 31 proposes an amendment to Section 27(1) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, to reduce the age at which an individual may be directed to leave a public place from 16 to 10, even when no offence has been committed. When the power that applied to those aged 16 or over was proposed, we on these Benches expressed our concern about the adequacy of the safeguards accompanying it. The JCHR said that, ""we consider that the safeguards to which the Government refers may not be adequate to provide the necessary assurance that the new summary power to give directions to leave a locality would only be used where it is necessary and proportionate to do so for the prevention of disorder and crime"." The JCHR also asked the Minister why the power was necessary, in view of the existing powers to move people on for anti-social behaviour and to return children to their homes, and whether the Government had considered the additional safeguards proposed. The Minister, unfortunately, said that the Government were, ""not persuaded that any of these safeguards are essential"." In the view of both the organisations Liberty and Justice, extending the power to disperse even younger children might endanger them by forcing them to move from places of relative safety—well lit places with plenty of people around, such as town centres—into unsafe areas where they would be at far greater risk. If children as young as 10 are posing a risk of alcohol-related disorder, this is a matter of concern for their legal guardians and for health and welfare services; simply banishing them from public sight is entirely inappropriate. The proposed amendment to existing law in Clause 31 does not require officers to return children to their homes or to a place of safety but simply authorises an officer to direct children to leave the area—hence all the amendments that we have just heard about. There is nothing in Clause 31 or Section 27(1) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which it amends, to ensure that a police officer takes into account the effect of such a direction on the welfare of the child to whom the direction is given. That should be included in the Bill to ensure that officers do so. Will the Minister accept that that must happen and give the Committee assurances that it will? I have often quoted the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s observations on the UK’s culture in relation to children. It said recently that there are a, ""general climate of intolerance and negative public attitudes towards children"," in the UK. Clause 31 appears to target children as potential offenders rather than as children with welfare needs. My amendments pose two different responses. Amendment 111A would force the police officer to take the child’s welfare into account before using the power and Amendment 112 would delete the clause and replace it with one that included a test for circumstances in which the power could be used and limited the area from which a person could be excluded to the "immediate area". Section 27, which is amended by the clause that we are discussing, has already been used by police in a disproportionate and indiscriminate manner to remove people without any real assessment of the risk of alcohol-related disorder that they may pose. On 15 November 2008, relying on Section 27, the Greater Manchester Police rounded up 80 Stoke City FC fans who had stopped at a pub on the way to a match at Old Trafford. Although the fans were well behaved and the pub landlord had no complaints, supporters were detained for about four hours and transported by the police back to Stoke-on-Trent on coaches, forcing them to miss the game. That is very serious. In recent months, there have been more reports of police using Section 27 to prevent fans from attending football matches, with the Football Supporters’ Federation receiving many first-hand accounts from supporters of clubs across England. That organisation has now started a campaign to defend the rights of football fans wrongly served with Section 27 orders. Amendment 112 would restrict the power to circumstances where individuals were causing alcohol-related crime or disorder and where it was necessary to use the power. As currently drafted, Section 27 is too broad. It allows the police to make an assessment of possible future problems—the thought police that I mentioned a little earlier—and to direct people to leave a locality whether or not they have anything to do with the problems envisaged. That is unfair and divisive within society and could well be counterproductive. The amendment would also amend references to "locality" to "immediate locality". Locality is not defined in statute. The Home Office guidance advises that a locality can be, ""the area in or around particular licensed premises, a geographical area including one or more licensed premises, or any other area defined by the constable"." It, ""could constitute the centre of a town or city … In deciding on the size of the area … consider practical issues such ease of enforcement"." However, Liberty has found that "locality" under Section 27 has been interpreted by the police to include a much wider area than the Government envisaged. In the Stoke City case, the locality from which the fans were excluded for 24 hours was the entire city of Greater Manchester—an area of 493 square miles. The obvious difficulty of enforcing a direction such as that relating to Greater Manchester indicates that the locality was drawn far too widely. In any case, the idea of excluding a 10 year-old child from the whole of Greater Manchester is quite ridiculous. This is sloppy drafting and it needs to be changed. I hope that the Minister will take due consideration of the two amendments that we have in this group.