MPs call for strengthened community trigger, end to ASB "arms race"

MPs have called on the Government to strengthen the proposed ‘Community Trigger’ so that authorities that do not deal with anti-social behaviour “are identified and held to account and decisive action is taken to deal with the problem”.

In a report on the draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill, the Home Affairs Committee argued that the trigger would not be effective against persistent ASB unless there was a national limit on the number of complaints that could be made before action is taken.

It recommended a national maximum of five complaints as a backstop to the trigger, with an option to set a lower threshold at a local level.

The committee argued that where the trigger is activated and a response deemed necessary then agencies should be obliged to agree a timetable for dealing with the problem which they must share with the victims involved. “Without a clear timetable for dealing with persistent ASB, then the Community Trigger would be little more than a gimmick,” it warned.

The MPs added that the trigger “needs a bullet—it must be clear not only what the trigger is, but what response will happen when it is activated”.

There must be a way of holding agencies to account when they repeatedly fail to act, the committee said. “Otherwise, there is a risk that the trigger could delay action, as authorities wait for the trigger before taking action.”

The report calls for police and crime commissioners to be kept informed each time the national backstop of five complaints is reached and to audit the case review meetings. Local councils would also be required to publish the number of times the trigger is activated on a six-monthly basis.

The MPs meanwhile said: “Each time successive Governments have amended the ASB regime, the definition of anti-social behaviour has grown wider, the standard of proof has fallen lower and the punishment for breach has toughened. This arms race must end.”

The committee in addition recommended the establishment of a new National Anti-social Behaviour Forum. This would be headed by a chief constable, a housing association chief executive, and a local council leader and be tasked over a two-year period with identifying what works in ASB reduction.

The report’s key findings and recommendations included:

  • The proposed rationalisation of the number of ASB powers through the Bill was welcome;
  • Key elements necessary to tackle ASB were missing – in particular, good inter-agency working, intelligent information sharing and a network of services;
  • The move away from automatic criminalisation for breach of an injunction was positive. But it was concerning how much easier it was likely to be to obtain an Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA, the main tool in the new regime) than an ASBO. Widening access to the IPNA risked imposing severe restrictions on more people and additional safeguards must be applied;
  • For the IPNA, the threshold of ‘conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance’ was “far too broad and could be applied even if there were no actual nuisance or annoyance whatsoever;
  • A proportionately test and a requirement that either ‘intent or recklessness’ be demonstrated should be attached to the IPNA, as well as the requirement that ‘such an injunction is necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by the respondent’;
  • There should be a specific requirement for any individual prohibition or requirement to be necessary and proportionate for the purposes of addressing the behaviour that led to the application for an injunction;
  • A specific exemption from dispersal powers for peaceful picketing should be extended to cover all forms of peaceful protest;
  • A duty to consult local authorities must be included in the dispersal power where it is applied for a period of longer than six hours;
  • Public spaces protection orders must include a requirement for six monthly interim approval;
  • There should be a clear exemption to dispersal powers where there is a genuine need to travel through the area;
  • The Bill should include an annual review of all formal ASB interventions imposed on under-18s to ensure that restrictions are not continued unnecessarily if behaviour has changed;
  • IPNAs should be available for a maximum 12 months for under-18s. They should only be available after attempts to resolve the issue through informal support and acceptable behaviour agreements have failed;
  • Officers must have the discretion to chose alternative disposals so that the ‘Community Remedy’ does not “become the modern pillory or stocks;
  • Current court timescales did not reflect the misery caused by ASB. “The Government must not exacerbate delays by limiting ASB proceedings on IPNAs to county courts”. The Bill must provide for proceedings to take place in Magistrates Courts as well.
  • There must be a strict timescale of 28 days for courts to deal with any breach of conditions.

Keith Vaz MP, the committee chair, said: "The terrible cases of Fiona Pilkington in Leicestershire and Dr Suzanne Dow in Broxtowe were a wake-up call for authorities across the country: anti-social behaviour is not something trivial that can be ignored—it can crush lives and breed criminality in our communities.

"The Community Trigger is meant to be the last line of defence to protect the public from anti-social behaviour. No one should have to complain more than five times before they see action.”

He added: “The Home Affairs Select Committee welcomes the work the Government is doing to speed up action on ASB, but we need a powerful trigger in place to make a decisive change where persistent and harmful behaviour puts lives at risk."

A copy of the report can be viewed here.

The Home Affairs Committee’s report does not appear to address the Law Society’s warnings over the planned introduction of an absolute power of possession for anti-social behaviour.

In a submission from its housing law committee, Chancery Lane warned that the introduction of such a power would only serve to exacerbate delays in housing cases. It argued that the proposal was “excessive and unnecessary”.

Philip Hoult