To consider the following motion from Councillor Tindall:
Proposed Public Space Protection Order
a. have regard to the opinions and comments of council members expressed in the debate on 15th November, and
b. take note that :-
i. the proposed PSPO addresses some behaviours which are already covered by existing criminal legislation and as such fall under the proper remit of the police,
ii. the PSPO plans would need to be evaluated based upon actual implementation plans for enforcement, including who will do the enforcement and what training will be given and what powers would be used,
iii. In addition to enforcement of the PSPO, the practicality of using fines or court summonses to individuals with no means and no fixed abode, and the times of day when enforcement will take place
iv. a PSPO should not be used when there are alternative steps that could be taken to address the behaviours disapproved of, some of which are clearly the result of seven years of austerity
Decision:
The following motion from Councillor Tindall was lost:
Proposed Public Space Protection Order
1. This Council notes that the Cabinet is concerned about the level of anti-social behaviour and it is clear from the number of responses to public consultation (which ended 13th October) that residents of Dacorum have been engaged both with the subject and the proposed remedy.
2. The members of Dacorum Council, having debated the issue of anti-social behaviour and the proposed remedy, request that before the Cabinet makes its decision on the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in Dacorum they :-
a. have regard to the opinions and comments of council members expressed in the debate on 15th November, and
b. take note that :-
i. the proposed PSPO addresses some behaviours which are already covered by existing criminal legislation and as such fall under the proper remit of the police,
ii. the PSPO plans would need to be evaluated based upon actual implementation plans for enforcement, including who will do the enforcement and what training will be given and what powers would be used,
iii. In addition to enforcement of the PSPO, the practicality of using fines or court summonses to individuals with no means and no fixed abode, and the times of day when enforcement will take place
iv. a PSPO should not be used when there are alternative steps that could be taken to address the behaviours disapproved of, some of which are clearly the result of seven years of austerity
3. The PSPO, when drafted, would need to identify the issues that it was aiming to restrict. There is a general principle that where an Act criminalises an activity the scope of the activity must be clearly defined. The proposals cannot therefore actually be judged on their proportionality and practicality until the draft PSPO is available.
4. Therefore, this council requests that a further consultation process is carried out once the draft PSPO is publicly available and that the outcomes of that consultation and the proposal to adopt the draft PSPO is brought to full Council for approval or otherwise.
Minutes:
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor England:
Proposed Public Space Protection Order
1. This Council notes that the Cabinet is concerned about the level of anti-social behaviour and it is clear from the number of responses to public consultation (which ended 13th October) that residents of Dacorum have been engaged both with the subject and the proposed remedy.
2. The members of Dacorum Council, having debated the issue of anti-social behaviour and the proposed remedy, request that before the Cabinet makes its decision on the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in Dacorum they :-
a. have regard to the opinions and comments of council members expressed in the debate on 15th November, and
b. take note that :-
i. the proposed PSPO addresses some behaviours which are already covered by existing criminal legislation and as such fall under the proper remit of the police,
ii. the PSPO plans would need to be evaluated based upon actual implementation plans for enforcement, including who will do the enforcement and what training will be given and what powers would be used,
iii. In addition to enforcement of the PSPO, the practicality of using fines or court summonses to individuals with no means and no fixed abode, and the times of day when enforcement will take place
iv. a PSPO should not be used when there are alternative steps that could be taken to address the behaviours disapproved of, some of which are clearly the result of seven years of austerity
3. The PSPO, when drafted, would need to identify the issues that it was aiming to restrict. There is a general principle that where an Act criminalises an activity the scope of the activity must be clearly defined. The proposals cannot therefore actually be judged on their proportionality and practicality until the draft PSPO is available.
4. Therefore, this council requests that a further consultation process is carried out once the draft PSPO is publicly available and that the outcomes of that consultation and the proposal to adopt the draft PSPO is brought to full Council for approval or otherwise.
R Tindall made the following statement to support the Motion:
We have brought this motion before Council in order to allow Councillors to fully debate what is a new approach to Community cohesion that I am not particularly in favour of. Although we have not seen the ‘Order’ in all its glory, we have heard enough to understand that the Administration is proposing to turn our council officials into enforcement officers and send them on to the streets to do what police officers should do. Indeed, is this proposal coming before us simply because the police cannot cope – that they have too much to do – or is is about plugging the gaps left after the Police Commissioner’s cuts.
It is my understanding that there has been over 800 contributions to the Consultation and I am very interested to find out where the concerns of our community lie. Indeed, I expect that there will be some, like Liberal Democrats, who see no reason for this heavy hand when there are other measures that can be taken to curb the low-level of anti-social behaviour that exists. But, perhaps there will be others who will welcome this approach to Community Contact, and will be pressing for that heavy hand to be used. Perhaps, the administration intends to start with a few half-trained council officials handing out warning notices, but to work towards the Enfield Model of a fully blown private police force, or even the Mayor of Newham’s notorious team.
But there is a serious side to this suggestion – is our staff ready and capable of facing down young thugs misbehaving or are we putting them in harm’s way. We have an example from the recent past when our officers tried to deal with youths misbehaving on bicycles in the centre of town, got into difficulties, and had to phone the police. With the constant cuts to our police service – will the police be available again to rescue our staff.
I believe that the Council has better things to do with its time, and if the administration believes that council officials will have time on their hands to patrol the streets, then may I respectfully point them to the anti-social behaviour which concerns and upsets our residents on a daily basis – PARKING. If you want a target to aim at - get to grips with the parking problems in this Borough.
This motion sets out a number of points which the council should consider before going down this road, and I ask they be considered, and then any thoughts of a PSPO discarded.
I move the motion.
Councillor England seconded the Motion and made the following statement:
First I would like to make it clear that at Housing OSC last week we were told that the result of the Consultation would be going straight to Cabinet in January. I asked for the Consultation analysis to be reported to Scrutiny before a Cabinet decision.
There are SIX quite different behaviours identified – pretty loosely in the Consultation - to be addressed by the PSPO. This PSPO is mixing its metaphors.
Only two (and a half) are actually ASB, and in these instances they clearly merit Public Order policing by The Police, under section 4 or 5 of the Public Order Act – which covers behaviour which is experienced as harassment, alarm or causing distress.
Policing has been cut especially so in Hemel Hempstead and is now not well configured to deal with Public Order unless it escalates to 999.
In two more of the six (Rough sleeping and Begging), society (we ourselves included) must take some responsibility for the growth of such symptoms and growing problems, the consequences of cuts to public services which affect vulnerable people the most.
The last two are either impractical (cycling) or absurd (ducks);
Of the two and a half that ARE ASB the prospects of being able to enforce with practical evidence and opportunity are slight – so slight that the complaints the Council says it has received from the public are not addressed.
Prevention of problems is better than cure – and yet prevention of poverty seems to be about Universal Credit and little else for the current Austerity Government, which is cutting police and underfunding Mental Health and Social Care – and causing these problems.
Are DBC saying that driving annoying people and behaviour elsewhere is more cost-effective than insisting on proper policing patrols and social work support?
This PSPO plan simply shrugs at alternative measures like providing public toilets, cycle-routes, arguing for Public Order policing and perhaps even some signs and a “feed-the-ducks zone” for those who wish to do so.
LGA Advice not followed
LGA Guidance clearly requires that PSPOs are tightly drafted and focus on the precise harmful behaviour identified. Proposals should clearly define which specific behaviours are not permitted or are required, and any exemptions that might apply.
Careful wording will help people to understand whether or not they are in breach once the Order has been implemented and give them an opportunity to modify their behaviour. It will also help to avoid unintended consequences.”
(from LGA “Public Space Protection Orders – Guidance for Councils”, pages 6-7)
There is clearly a need for the PSPO to be reviewed and brought back for decision by Full Council.
Drinking is only a problem if it gets out of hand, in which case it will have become a public order policing issue.
Spitting, urinating etc – what is the likelihood of this being witnessed? If it were witnessed it would come under Section 4 Public Order policing.
Rough sleeping is not a harming behaviour! It may be uncomfortable for people to witness the effects of austerity, a severe housing shortage and in some cases untreated mental health issues but it is not appropriate to target the victim of these factors and paint them as the problem.
We should be helping individuals who have to sleep rough. If a Court Order is needed to get a person to co-operate then why delay or worse abort the help by creating the option of an FPN, which could scare someone away instead of achieving help?
Begging - No person shall (passively) sit on the ground (apparently aggressively) begging - really? Should the person be standing or moving about the PSPO would be unenforceable under the terms, so this does not even address the circumstances in which begging can become threatening to vulnerable people – ie standing, approaching. At which point it becomes a Police Public Order issue.
This get to a central "discretionary" problem of this PSPO – eg who defines what is busking (which can enhance a visit to the Marlowes) and what is “begging” issuable with an FPN? Under section 59 of the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 this does not meet the criteria for a PSPO. The legislation requires that the anti-social activities be properly defined.
My wife has recently become a Special Constable; having followed her training this year I am clear that enforcement of a PSPO does actually require the Police training.
This six-purpose PSPO is far too loose with too much discretion for someone with too little training and who does not have the Police's tactical communications expertise.
Finally: In Ealing the Labour Council is using a PSPO. The Conservative Opposition is arguing that it is harassment and intimidation and should be a Police matter.
Let’s take PROPER pride in our town by building a better sense of place and calling for Public Order behaviour to be handled by Police – not “framed by The Forum”.
Discussion
Councillor Williams replied to each of points raised by Councillor Tindall:
There were 870 responses. The responses are currently being analysed and a consultation report is being prepared by external consultants. This report will be annexed to the Scrutiny and Cabinet Report and I am happy to share it earlier as soon as I have it. It is expected the week after next.
Point noted – the report and proposed draft PSPO will also be reported to Housing and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee before it goes to Cabinet for a decision.
It is correct that some of proposed prohibited behaviours are also criminal offences but the PSPO will give authorised officers (who could be council officers or other persons authorised by the Council) the opportunity to assist with enforcement where this is appropriate.
An enforcement protocol is currently being finalised and will be agreed with the Police before commencement of the PSPO. Further details of this will be set out in the Scrutiny and Cabinet report for consideration.
Difficulties with enforcement against individuals with no fixed abode and no means to pay fines will make any prohibitions around rough sleeping and begging potentially difficult to enforce and this was raised as an issue in the Cabinet Report. However, we do manage to enforce injunctions and other prohibitions against persons with no fixed abode particularly where they are repeat offenders. This issue will be analysed considered further at Scrutiny and Cabinet.
Out of Hours enforcement is also an issue which will be considered in the Scrutiny and Cabinet report but there are clearly resource implications arising from this which will be considered.
A proportionate approach will be taken to enforcement and this will be considered in the enforcement protocol.
The proposed wording of the draft PSPO will be available for Scrutiny and Cabinet.
Once Cabinet approve the final PSPO there will be further statutory consultation.
The persons that we are statutorily required to consult are:
The chief officer of police and the Policing and Crime Commissioner for the applicable area;
Any community representatives that it is thought appropriate to consult;
And the owners/occupiers of land included within the restricted area;
Approval of the PSPO is an executive function and should therefore be determined by Cabinet. Housing scrutiny will however consider the proposals and their comments will be considered by Cabinet.
Cabinet will need to decide if they wish to see the consultation responses following the statutory consultation or delegate the final decision to a Portfolio Holder.
Councillor Anderson said he couldn’t support the Motion on the same grounds raised by Councillor Williams. He explained that members of the Strategic Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee originally shared similar concerns but through debate these concerns had been met.
Councillor Marshall agreed with Councillor Anderson. She said she had read Councillor Tindall’s comments with interest and members did need to discuss the matter in depth but felt it wasn’t appropriate for tonight’s meeting. She highlighted that there was lots of opportunities to consider and discuss before the report goes to Cabinet for a decision.
The motion was put to a vote:
For: 6
Against: 34
The motion was lost.