1. society
2. crime

AGENDA ITEM 8
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
Full Council
11 November 2014
Report of:
Strategic Director - Neighbourhoods
Title:
Implementation of Provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour,
Crime and Policing Act 2014 and Other Fixed Penalty Notices.
Ward:
Citywide
Report author:
Crime Reduction Manager
Contact Telephone Number: 0117 3525249
RECOMMENDATION
Full Council resolves
1. That the council's executive arrangements be amended as follows:
(a) That any power or duty under The Anti-Social Behaviour Policing
and Crime Act 2014 (The Act) that falls within the second schedule
of SI 2000/2853 (as reproduced in part 3 (responsibility for
functions) par 3 (Local choice Functions) of the council's
constitution) shall not be the responsibility of the Council's
executive; and
(b) that any such functions may be discharged on the council's behalf
by The Public Safety and Protection Committee and/or any of the
Strategic Directors of Place, People and Neighbourhoods or
subordinate officers as designated by them
2. That in connection with the exercise of any other functions falling within
their respective areas of responsibility, The elected Mayor determines
and the full council resolves:
(i) To effect arrangements under which functions conferred by the AntiSocial Behaviour, Crime & Policing Act 2014 may be discharged by the
Strategic Director of Neighbourhoods and/or officers designated by them
in line with the constitution; and/or (in respect of non-executive
functions) by The Public Safety and Protection Committee including as
described in Appendix 2, subject to:
(a) the same conditions and limitations that apply to the exercise of
other functions that are subject to arrangements in Part 3 of the
council's constitution; and
(b) the ability to refer any related matter (within the meaning of section 7
of The Licensing act 2003) to the council's licensing committee or a
suitably authorised sub- committee;
(ii) That any fixed penalty notice that is served where the authorised person
believes an offence has been committed under sections 48, or 63 or 67
of The Act shall specify £100 as the fixed penalty, or £60 if that lower
amount is paid within the period of ten days beginning with the day on
which the Notice is issued.
(iii) That the amount of fixed penalty payable and the time within which any
lower amount must be paid in respect of certain other environmental
offences be specified in accordance with the table in paragraph 15 of the
report, any lower amount specified there being payable within the period
of ten days beginning with the day on which the Notice in question is
issued.
Summary
1.
To inform the Mayor and full council of new powers falling within their
respective areas of responsibility as a result of the Anti-Social
Behaviour, Crime & Policing Act 2014 coming into force from 20
October 2014;
2.
To request arrangements be made for their effective discharge;
3.
To ask full council to set the level of fixed penalty notices to be paid by
persons agreeing to discharge their liability to prosecution by payment
of the penalty under the provisions of the Act and other associated
legislation.
The significant issues in the report are:
Legislation has conferred new tools and powers on the local authority to
tackle anti-social behaviour and agreement is sought from the Mayor and
Council to make arrangements for their effective discharge.
The level of new fixed penalty notices needs to be agreed and there is an
opportunity to introduce parity and consistency in the level of related fixed
penalty notices. This is also an opportunity to introduce an early payment
discount rate.
Policy
1.
These recommendations relate to the Council’s Enforcement Policy for
Regulatory Services
Consultation
2.
Internal
Implementation workshops and Regulatory and Enforcement group
briefings.
3.
External
Implementation workshops held with Police, representatives of Bristol
Housing Partnership and Housing Delivery Service User Group. The
Police have been further consulted on the fixed penalty notice
amendments.
4.
Context
1.
‘Anti-social behaviour’ is a broad term used to describe incidents of
behaviour that falls short of incidents that would be prosecuted as
general crime, nuisance and disorder that make many people’s lives a
misery – from litter and vandalism, to public drunkenness or aggressive
dogs, to noisy or abusive neighbours. Such a wide range of behaviours
means that responsibility for dealing with anti-social behaviour is shared
between a number of agencies, particularly the council, police and social
landlords.
2.
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 received Royal
Assent in March 2014. It contains provisions around anti-social
behaviour and a range of other issues. The Act, which applies in England
and Wales, takes forward measures to:
 focus the response to anti-social behaviour on the needs of victims
 empower communities to get involved in tackling anti-social behaviour
through the Communtiy Trigger and Community Remedy
 ensure professionals can protect the public quickly through faster,
more effective powers and proposals to speed up the eviction of the
most anti-social tenants
 reduce the bureaucracy associated with the exercise of existing
powers
3.
The Act replaces 19 existing powers dealing with anti-social behaviour
with 6 broader powers, streamlining procedures to allow a quicker
response to ASB. The government envisages that these powers will
make it easier for agencies and regulators to take action against antisocial behaviour and reduce repeat victimisation to protect victims and
communities. A summary of these powers is contained at Appendix 1.
4.
Many of the new tools and powers are conferred on both the local
authority and police, while others may be available to only the police or
the council.
5.
The nature of arrangements that may be made to discharge functions
depends on whether the power or duty concerned is ultimately the
responsibility of the elected Mayor (executive functions) or the Full
Council (non-executive functions). The default position is that the matter
will be an executive function unless the Act conferring the function, or
regulations made under The Local Government Act 2000, provide
otherwise. Sometimes the regulations provide that the Full Council can
decide if, under its executive arrangements, the matter will be one for the
executive or not; these are commonly referred to as “local choice
functions”
6.
In the case of The 2014 Act it is understood that local authorities will
soon be consulted about all of its functions being specified in regulations
as local choice functions. Until the position is finally clarified in
regulations the responsibility for each of the new powers will need to be
determined by interpreting statute and the council’s constitution. If full
Council accepts the first resolution in this report then all of the new
functions that fall within a description in the current schedule of local
choice functions will fall to be decided under arrangements made by the
full council and not by the elected Mayor. Functions that fall outside of
those descriptions will continue to be discharged by the Executive,
unless they replace functions that were themselves specified as ones
that were not to be the responsibility of the elected Mayor, in which case
if the recommendations in this report are accepted they will be
discharged by the Public Safety and Protection committee (if a significant
decision or if so referred) or by a delegated officer. 6. The elected mayor
is being asked to allow the relevant Director or their nominated officers to
make non key executive decisions only; key decisions in the executive’s
area of responsibility would require a report to cabinet, although it is not
anticipated that any key decisions will need to be made under this
legislation.
7.
If it should transpire that regulations specify the whole of this new Act as
local choice functions then the effect of recommendation number 1 will
be that all of the functions will be exercisable under arrangements made
by full Council. Your officers consider that this is in line with official
guidance that regulatory matters should usually not be the responsibility
of an authority’s executive, whereas policy matters usually should be.
8.
Delegation of non-executive functions are set out in Part 3 of the
Council’s constitution. It is the council's intention that any function that is
capable of being delegated to a committee and/or officer is delegated
through the published scheme. Any non- executive function may be
exercised by the City Director notwithstanding its delegation to another
Strategic Director where the function is capable of being discharged by
an officer. Under current arrangements, the new provisions within the
ASB, Crime & Policing Act fall within the remit of numerous committees
namely Public Safety & Protection, Public Rights of Way & Greens and
Licensing.
9.
Full Council has delegated to the Public Safety and Protection
Committee all functions relating to public safety and protection as
specified in Regulation 2 and Schedule 1 to the Local Authorities
(Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 (as
amended) and under specific provisions in the scheme and any related
secondary Legislation. All functions set out in the Public Safety &
Protection Committee terms of reference that are capable in law of being
decided by an officer are delegated to the Strategic Director
Neighbourhoods.
10. Full Council has delegated to the Public Rights of Way and Greens
Committee all functions relating to public rights of way and greens
including non- executive functions delegated to the Neighbourhoods and
Place Directorates. These include provisions around gating and the
stopping up of public rights of way. All the functions set out in the
relevant list (List B) of the Public Rights of Way & Greens Committee are
delegated to the Strategic Director of Neighbourhoods.
11. Full council has arranged for the Licensing Committee to discharge
provisions concerning designated public places (street drinking controls)
and closure of premises under sections 19-28 of The Criminal Justice
and Police Act 2001. These actions have been included in the
streamlined new procedures in the 2014 Act
12. The threshold for any fixed penalty notice issued under the Act should be
set at a level not exceeding the maximum permissible, which is £100. A
fixed penalty notice may specify two amounts and if the lower amount is
paid within a specified period (less than 14 days) that is the amount of
the fixed penalty. It is recommended the penalty notice threshold be set
at £100 to broadly reflect the current levels levied for those notices being
repealed (i.e. litter abatement notice, litter clearing notice, street litter
control notice and defacement removal notice) and it is further
recommended a second amount is set at £60 with the lower being the
fixed penalty notice if paid within 10 days. [Defra guidance on the use of
fixed penalty notices states “Evidence to date is that where discounts are
being offered, they are working to encourage improved payment rates
and are therefore strongly recommended”].
13. When a local authority decides to set its own fixed penalty amounts,
these must fall within the ranges set out in the Environmental Offences
(Fixed Penalties) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2007
(regulation 2). The ranges are from £50 to £80 for those offences with a
default amount of £75 and from £75 to £110 for offences with a default
amount of £100. In addition, the Environmental Offences (Fixed
Penalties) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2007 (regulation 3)
specify amounts below which the discounted penalties may not fall. The
amounts are:
 For offences with a default rate of £75, £50;
 For offences with a default rate of £100, £60;
 For offences with a default rate of £300, £180
Proposal
13. It is recommended that all non-executive functions arising from
implementation of the Act be delegated to one committee. It is
recommended this is the Public Safety and Protection Committee given
the majority of existing functions fall within it’s terms of reference.
14. Further consideration should be given to the council’s strategic approach
to tackle anti-social behaviour in public places in light of the new
provisions arising from the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act
2014. For example the Community Protection Notice and Public Space
Protection Order provide flexible and effective tools for designated
officers to swiftly tackle many forms of environmental nuisance. An
exploration of all mechanisms available to the council and it’s partners
will be the subject of a Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Inquiry Day on 17
November, with the intention of making recommendations on a preferred
approach for addressing ASB in parks and green spaces.
15. The following table shows the proposed changes to other Fixed Penalty
Notices (FPNs) with the introduction of an early repayment fee. The
early repayment period will be set at 10 days from the date of the notice
with the full amount payable within 14 days of the date of the notice. To
bring parity and equity to the FPN regime, a standard formula has been
applied to set both the higher and lower penalty charge within the
amounts permitted by the relevant legislation. The lower amount being
two thirds of the higher sum and rounded down where appropriate.
Section and
Legislation
S87 and 88
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
S46
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
S47
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
S43 AntiSocial
Behaviour Act
2003
S34A(2)
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
Repealed
by ASB,
Crime &
Policing
Act 2014
Offence
Who can
issue
FPN
Council
(inc
PSCO),
police,
other
accredited
persons
Council,
police,
other
accredited
persons
N
Littering
N
Breach of
Waste
receptacles
notices
N
Breach of
waste
receptacles
notices
Council,
police,
other
accredite
d persons
N
Defacement/
graffiti
Council,
Police
(inc
PCSO),
other
accredite
d persons
N
Failure to
produce
waste
transfer
Council
and
Environm
-ent
Agency
Amount
Permitted
Current
Amount
Propose
d full
Amount
Proposed
early
payment
amount
£50-80
full rate,
not less
than £50
early
payment
rate
£75
£75
£50
£75
£75
£50
£100
£100
£60
£75
£75
£50
£300
£300
£200
£60-80,
not less
than £40
early
payment
fee
£75-110
for full
rate
Not less
than £60
early
payment
rate
£50-80
full rate,
not less
than £50
early
payment
rate
£300 full
rate, not
less than
£180
early
payment
rate
Other Options Considered
1.
2.
To adopt all the tools and powers conferred upon the local authority
under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and not
amend other fixed penalty notices.
Do nothing.
Risk Assessment
The proposal is to implement tools and powers that include measures to take
enforcement action to tackle individuals, groups or organisations that
persistently cause anti-social behaviour in the city. The purpose of these
measures is to allow swift and effective intervention and provide protection to
individuals and communities. Failure to exercise these functions will have a
detrimental impact on the local amenity and citizen’s quality of life.
The proposal to introduce an early payment discount option for both existing
and new fixed penalty notices brings parity and consistency to the regime.
Public Sector Equality Duties
8a)
Before making a decision, section 149 Equality Act 2010 requires that
each decision-maker considers the need to promote equality for
persons with the following “protected characteristics”: age, disability,
gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex, sexual orientation. Each decision-maker must, therefore, have due
regard to the need to:
i) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other
conduct prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.
ii) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a
relevant protected characteristic and those who do not share it. This
involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to -- remove or minimise disadvantage suffered by persons who share
a relevant protected characteristic;
- take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic that are different from the needs of people
who do not share it (in relation to disabled people, this includes, in
particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities);
- encourage persons who share a protected characteristic to
participate in public life or in any other activity in which
participation by such persons is disproportionately low.
iii) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic and those who do not share it. This involves
having due regard, in particular, to the need to –
- tackle prejudice; and
- promote understanding.
8b)
A full equalities impact assessment has been conducted and informs
this report and recommendations. In particular the needs of persons
with the protected characteristics of age, disability, ethnicity and faith
have been taken into account.
When communicating changes to legislation and upcoming
enforcement operations, we will need to ensure that information is
available in accessible formats. When using enforcement powers, it is
important that age and any disability (particularly mental health issues)
are properly considered and that staff are aware of any special
arrangements, or discretion on the basis of disability.
The proposal for introducing an early payment discount for fixed penalty
notices will affect anyone committing an environmental offence – this
will include people from all equalities groups. The introduction of this
early payment discount is part of an initiative to revamp the way that we
use fixed penalty notices and to use our resources to target
environmental nuisance in areas where this is a clear community
priority. The council holds detailed equalities data by ward, and from
this data we know that areas in which environmental nuisance is a
priority are also some of the most ethnically diverse in the city.
Therefore, targeting these areas will have effect on BME communities
and also may affect some faith premises.
Legal and Resource Implications
Legal
1. The nature of the new powers
As correctly reflected in the report the new powers are far less
bureaucratic than those they replace. In particular the formalities
attendant upon their exercise and the level and scope of consultation
required before a decision is reached is now capable of being tailored to
the particular circumstances of the case. An appropriate response need
not necessarily involve the convening of a multi-agency case conference,
or the conduct of a wide ranging statutory consultation process, or other
formalities that apply to the equivalent functions that are being replaced.
Proper consultation remains a feature of the work but the nature and
scope of that consultation is much more within the discretion of the
council in each case.
Lawful consultation always requires:
•
that those being consulted know what is under contemplation
•
that they know how to respond and have sufficient time to do so
•
that they have sufficient information to understand the proposals
•
that their views are conscientiously taken into account before the
council (which may be acting under delegated powers) makes its own
independent decision.
2. Decision making responsibility
The default position in law is that all matters are the responsibility of the
Executive unless an Act or Regulations specify otherwise. Government
policy for councils operating executive arrangements is that regulatory
matters should not be the responsibility of the Executive and so should
continue to be dealt with by the full council or more probably by
committees, subcommittees or officers authorised by them. However
government policy has not always been applied as might have been
anticipated, with the result that some things that are, on the face of it,
regulatory matters are nonetheless within the Executive's area of
responsibility. Anti-social behaviour orders and some (but not all)
injunction powers are examples of regulatory activity that fall to the
Executive due to the default position not being displaced by legislative
provision Other things, such as all of the existing control orders and
notices that will be replaced when the new provisions are fully in force (in
relation to dogs, litter and graffiti, for example) are matters which cannot
lawfully be the Executive's responsibility.
The exercise of the power to issue a 48 hour closure notice may only be
discharged by a Council's Head of Paid Service (i.e. The City Director) or
her designate, so this is not a function in respect of which either the full
council or the elected mayor would be called upon to make
arrangements.
Those functions that are the responsibility of the Executive can only be
discharged by persons or bodies other than the Mayor himself under
arrangements made by him; he may delegate to the cabinet, to a
committee of the cabinet, to an individual executive member or to an
officer.
Those functions that are the responsibility of the full council can only be
discharged by persons and bodies other than the full council under
arrangements made by it. Full Council may delegate the functions for
which it is responsible to committees, sub committees or officers.
For this reason delegation of new functions require the specific decision
of the person (Mayor) or body (full council) with responsibility for them.
3. At the time this report is written, no regulations have been made or
amended so as to specify which arm of the council is to have
responsibility for the new functions. The Interpretation Acts operate so
that, in respect of matters that are repealed and replaced by new
provisions (as is the case here), where existing regulations specify that
those matters were not to be the responsibility of the Executive they
should be read as if they now referred to the new provisions that replace
the ones that have been amended and/or repealed. For example, as
reflected in the report, the ability to make dog control orders will be
replaced by the power to make a public spaces protection order in
relation to that (and other) issues. As the legislature has not repealed
the provision that says that a dog control order is a matter that cannot be
the responsibility of the Executive, that provision should now be read as
a reference to the power to make a public spaces protection order and
so it too is a matter not to be the responsibility of the Executive. The
current separation of responsibility for various functions remains as
under the current regimes, although this could change in the light of any
amendment to the relevant regulations. The recommendation, if
accepted by the full Council and the elected Mayor, is drafted such that
no further decision will be required in respect of the amended powers
even if the regulations that specify responsibility for functions are
changed in due course.
4. When an Authorised officer considers an offence has been committed
(for example, in contravention of a public spaces protection order) he or
she should consider, having regard to relevant Council policy and
national guidance, what the appropriate and proportionate enforcement
response should be in the particular circumstances of the case.
Sometimes a contravention is such that prosecution is the only
reasonable response, but it has never been the law in this country that all
offences will be prosecuted and a range of alternative means of
enforcement are available. These include informal warnings, cautions,
new community remedies and the giving of a fixed penalty notice.
A fixed penalty notice gives the suspected offender the opportunity to
remove the risk of being prosecuted by payment of a penalty that has
been fixed by or under statutory provisions. Legal advice is available to
ensure the format of the council's fixed penalty notices will comply with
the statutory provisions. It should be understood that a fixed penalty is
not a fine and that the payment of a fixed penalty is not evidence that the
suspect accepts that he or she is guilty of the offence in question. A
blanket policy of always issuing fixed penalty notices would be unlawful;
where discretion exists it must be exercised lawfully and having due
regard to relevant policies in the light of the particular circumstances of
the case. The new powers are likely to be more suited to being operated
across Council services when compared to those that they replace, for
example more than one issue may be covered in a PSPO where
previously each issue would be required to be addressed in a separate
order. This makes it all the more important that consistency of approach
in the application of the Council’s policy is achieved and effective training
of officers will need to be carried out to ensure that the new powers are
exercised fairly, proportionately and without maladministration. The
council has a council wide enforcement group in place that brings all of
its regulators together and this group should also help in ensuring
consistency.
Where a fixed penalty notice is not satisfied the Council should generally
recommend that consideration be given to prosecution for the primary
offence. Under the Council's constitution prosecution decisions are
made by the Service Director-Legal Services, or one of his two Service
Managers, acting on the recommendation of the authorised officer or
his/her manager. On conviction the Council asks the court to order
reimbursement of its legal and investigative costs by reference to an
hourly rate for the work undertaken.
5. The new powers will have the result that far more orders are likely to
be made than currently; the training referred to above must cover the
constitutional and other rules applying to the making of Orders by Bristol
City Council. Orders that have not been properly made are not
enforceable.
(Legal advice provided by Pauline Powell, Team Leader (Regulatory
Law) for Service Director – Legal Services )
Financial
(a) Revenue
The revenue budget implications of this report have been reviewed and it
is confirmed that there is no material impact on the Council’s financial
position.
(b) Capital
There is no financial (capital) impact.
(Financial advice provided by Janet Ditte, Service Manager Finance
Business Support )
Land
Not Applicable
Personnel
There are no additional resources required to deliver the recommended
option. There are no known potential reductions or redundancies as a
result. There are further training requirements for existing front line and
customer service operative’s in the use of new tools and powers within
the Council.
(Personnel advice provided by Sandra Farquharson / People
Business Partner, Neighbourhoods)
Appendices:
1. Summary of both repealed and new tools and powers
2. List of delegations
3. Equalities Impact Assessment
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985
Background Papers:
None
Appendix 1
Summary of new tools and powers and those being replaced by the Anti-Social
Behaviour, Crime & Policing Act 2014.
Repealed Tools and Powers
Anti-Social Behaviour Order
(ASBO)
New Tools and Powers
1.
2.
Civil Injunction
Criminal Behaviour Order
Litter Clearing Notice
3.
Street Litter Clearing Notice
4.
Graffiti/Defacement Removal
Notice
5.
Community Protection Notice
(CPN)
Public Space Protection Order
(PSPO)
Closure Notice and Order
6.
Dispersal Power
7.
Absolute and Discretionary
Grounds for Possession of
Dwelling Houses
ASBO on Conviction
Drink Banning Order (DBO)
Anti-social Behaviour Injunction
(ASBI)
Individual Support Order (ISO)
Intervention Order
Designated Public Place Order
Gating Order
Dog Control Order
ASB Premises Closure Order
Crack House Closure Order
Noisy Premises Closure Order
S161 Closure Order
S30 Dispersal Order
S27 Direction to Leave
Appendix 2
Intervention
Civil Injunction
Civil power to stop a person’s ASB escalating
and set a clear standard of behaviour. Can
include prohibitions and positive
requirements. For perpetrators aged 10 plus
Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO)
Court order to tackle ASB which is applied
following a conviction for any criminal
offence. Can include prohibitions and
positive requirements.
Community Protection Notice (CPN)
Notice to stop persistently anti-social
individuals, businesses or organisations. Can
include requirements to stop or do things or
take steps to avoid further ASB.
Public Space Protection Order (PSPO)
Order designed to protect public spaces from
persistently anti-social individuals or groups.
Can include reasonable restrictions and
requirements.
Closure Powers
Power to close premises for up to 48 hours
out of court (closure notice) or up to 6
months via a court order (closure order).
Absolute ground for possession
Ground which offers protection and faster
relief to victims by quickly evicting the most
anti-social tenants.
Dispersal powers
Power to remove a person from a specific
location for up to 48 hours if authorised by a
police inspector or above.
Anti-Social Behaviour summary of new tools and powers
Exec/Non-Exec
Function &
Who Can make/give/apply
Delegation
Executive
Designated Council officers,
(Director
police, social housing
Neighbourhoods) provider, environment
agency, NHS Protect
[Ancillary to
sentencing, does
not need specific
delegation]
The Prosecutor in criminal
matters inc. the Council and
CPS
Non-Executive
(PSP Committee
and Director
Neighbourhoods)
Designated Council officers,
police (inc. PCSOs), other
persons designated by order
of Secretary of state and
authorised by the Council
The local authority (in
consultation with relevant
parties)
Usually NonExecutive
(PSP Committee
and Director
Neighbourhoods)
Non-Executive
for 24 hrs notice,
Head of Paid
Service or their
designate for 48
hrs notice
Executive
(Director
Neighbourhoods)
NA
Designated Council officers
(24hr maximum), Head of
Paid Service or their
designate (48 hrs) and police
Designated Council officers
with delegated power to
manage housing, social
housing providers and
private landlords
Police (including PCSOs
where designated by the
Chief Constable)
Grounds
Non-housing related ASB – likely to
cause harassment, alarm or distress
Housing related ASB – capable of
causing nuisance or annoyance
Help prevent harassment, alarm or
distress if perpetrator committed a
criminal offence and caused
harassment, alarm or distress
Typical Uses
Drug/alcohol related ASB,
harassment, noise (tenure
neutral), vandalism, aggressive
begging etc.
Harassment, hate crime, drunk
and rowdy behaviour etc.
Persistent or continuing conduct
which negatively affects a locality or
community’s quality of life
Graffiti, dog fouling, persistent
begging, noise disturbances etc.
Unreasonable behaviour which is
(or likely to be) persistent or
continuing and has (or likely to
have) a detrimental effect on the
local community’s quality of life
Premises used (or likely to be used)
to cause nuisance or disorder
Dog fouling, nuisance vehicles,
alcohol/drug related ASB in open
spaces
The tenant, a household member,
or a person visiting has been
convicted for a serious offence or
breached certain ASB interventions
(the above orders or a nuisance
abatement notice)
Committing (or likely to commit)
harassment, alarm or distress, or
crime and disorder in a public place
Drug dealing, persistent
harassment of neighbours,
conviction for a serious sexual or
violent offence.
Premises where ASB is causing
nuisance or disorder such as noisy
premises, environmental
pollution, drug/alcohol related etc.
Alcohol/drug related ASB, lighting
fires, illegal raves etc.
Bristol City Council Equality Impact Assessment Form
APPENDIX 3
Name of proposal
Directorate and Service Area
Name of Lead Officer
Neighbourhoods, Neighbourhoods
and Communities and Environmental
Services
People, Housing Solutions and Crime
Reduction
Stuart Pattison
Step 1: What is the proposal?
Please explain your proposal in Plain English, avoiding acronyms and jargon.
This section should explain how the proposal will impact service users, staff
and/or the wider community.
1.1 What is the proposal?
The main part of the proposal is to implement the tools and powers introduced
by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. These include
measures to take enforcement action to tackle individuals, groups or
organisations that persistently cause anti-social behaviour in the city. The
purpose of the measures are to allow swift and effective intervention and
provide protection to individuals and communities. Some of the tools are
designed to address the behaviour of individuals whilst others are to minimize
the impact of wider issues of anti-social behaviour such as environmental
nuisance.
There is also a proposal to introduce an early payment discount option for
existing fixed penalty notices, and new fixed penalty notices introduced by the
Act.
Step 2: What information do we have?
Decisions must be evidence-based, and involve people with protected
characteristics that could be affected. Please use this section to demonstrate
understanding of who could be affected by the proposal.
2.1 What data or evidence is there which tells us who is, or could be affected?
Tackling anti-social behaviour (ASB) is both a government and local priority.
Around 3 million incidents of anti-social behaviour were reported nationally in
the year ending March 2013, with over 36,000 incidents reported to Safer
Bristol partners. ASB has a devastating effect not only on individuals and
communities but also on the economy. Recent research conducted by One Poll
on behalf of RSA insurance suggested that anti-social behaviour cost UK
businesses £9.8 billion in 2011.
Much of what is often described as ASB, such as vandalism, graffiti or
harassment, is actually crime. However, even incidents that appear minor in
isolation can have a devastating cumulative impact when part of a persistent
pattern of behaviour, and such abuse is often targeted at the most vulnerable
members of our society.
Civil powers to tackle ASB were intended to prevent the kind of sustained
harassment visible in some high-profile cases and give the police an alternative
to criminal prosecution where it was difficult to prove that an offence had
been committed or where victims were afraid to give evidence. However,
victims and practitioners alike have said that many of the formal powers
currently available are unsatisfactory. There are too many behaviour-specific
powers, which is confusing, and establishing the criminal standard of proof
makes the process expensive and slow.
More than ten pieces of related legislation since 1998 have resulted a plethora
of powers to deal with a range of ASB problems. This is confusing for both
professionals and victims. Having a new power for every problem encourages
practitioners to focus on the behaviour itself, not the harm that it is causing to
the victim, which can mean that the cumulative impact of targeted ASB on
vulnerable individuals is overlooked. Nor are the current powers necessarily
effective at changing the behaviour in question, as the ASBO breach rate of
57% demonstrates.
Using ASBOs as an example, we know that a total of 24,427 ASBOs have been
issued over the period 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2013. The highest number
of ASBOs issued in any calendar year was 4,122 in 2005. Post 2005, there were
year-on-year falls in the number of ASBOs issued until the slight increase in
2013. The greatest numbers of ASBOs issued over the total period have been
in Greater London (3,175), Greater Manchester (2,207) and West Midlands
(1,901). In Bristol 658 ASBOs have been issued since 1998. In total, 60% of
ASBOs (14,776) have been issued following conviction for a criminal offence.
The overwhelming majority (93%) of applications for the remaining 40% of
ASBOs were made by the Police or Local Government Authority. Over the
period, 36% of ASBOs have been issued to juveniles and 64% to individuals
aged 18 and over. 60% of ASBOs issued over the total period were made for a
duration of between two and three years. 13% were made for five years or
more and 6% until further order.
In 2013
•
1,349 ASBOs were issued, a 2% increase from 2012.
•
85% were issued to males.
•
21% were issued to juveniles.
•
65% were issued following conviction for a criminal offence.
•
21% were issued for a duration of 5 years or more.
•
25% of 116 ASBOs issued on application to juveniles were accompanied
with an Individual Support Order. This is an increase from 18% in 2012 and is
just below the 2009 peak of 26%.
Of 24,323 ASBOs issued between 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2013,
58% (14,157) had been breached at least once. Of those breached, 75%
(10,651) were breached more than once.
In 2013, there were 862 ASBOs breached for the first time, which was a 3%
decrease compared to 2012 and the lowest number of breaches since 2003.
There have been a total of 70,770 separate breaches of ASBOs. If an ASBO
is breached, on average it is breached five times. Just over two-thirds of
juveniles had breached their ASBOs at least once by the end of 2013,
compared to just over half of adults. Since June 2000, 29% of ASBOs have
been breached within the same year in which they were issued. On annual
basis, this ‘in-year breach rate’ has remained relatively stable since 2009 at
around 30%. Of the 14,157 ASBOs breached at least once: •
53% (7,503) resulted in courts imposing a sentence of immediate
custody;
•
23% (3,200) resulted in a community sentence being imposed.
•
24% (the remainder) were dealt with by way of discharges, fines, one
day in police cells, disqualification from driving and other miscellaneous
disposals not shown separately. Over the entire period 59% of adults have
been given a custodial sentence for breach of an ASBO compared to 37% of
juveniles. In 2013, 58% of adults were given a custodial sentence for breach of
an ASBO, compared to 23% of juveniles. In 2013 the severest sentence given
for breach of an ASBO was 4.0 months.
The ASBO will be repealed through the new Act and replaced with a new Civil
Injunction. Given its civil status, breach of the Injunction will not result in a
criminal conviction removing the potential to criminalise young people who
breach an enforcement order.
We know that a balanced response, incorporating elements of both
enforcement and prevention is essential, especially for perpetrators with
complex needs. Informal tools can be very effective at dealing with anti-social
behaviour by the vast majority of perpetrators. However, there is recognition
among frontline professionals that much of the most serious anti-social
behaviour is committed by a persistent minority of people with deep-rooted
problems. This group is far smaller, but their actions are higher impact in terms
of both the safety of the community and the cost to the tax-payer. Formal
court-based tools are designed to deal with this small and problematic group.
The take-up by applicant authorities (e.g. the local authority or the police) of
the support designed to help people address those problems has been very
low. For example, only 8% of ASBOs issued to young people since 2004 had a
supportive order attached. As a result, the reforms give frontline professionals
more freedom. Informal, out-of-court disposals are an important part of
professionals’ toolkit for dealing with anti-social behaviour, offering a
proportionate response to first-time offenders or low-level incidents and a
chance to intervene early and prevent behaviour from escalating.
Long-running problems can destroy a victim’s quality of life and shatter a
community’s trust in police and other agencies. It is often targeted at the most
vulnerable people in our communities. A recent report published by HM
Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)10 showed that repeat and vulnerable
victims are disproportionately exposed to and harmed by ASB, and that
vulnerable people who suffer repeat incidents are most likely to fall through
the net. This could be as a result of low level ASB being dealt with on a case by
case basis without the full impact on the victim being considered, or reports to
a number of agencies resulting in isolated responses that do not fully deal with
the issue.
There are considerable savings to be made for the police and local authorities
from the removal of the need to designate a dispersal zone. There are likely to
be longer-term benefits associated with the use of positive requirements to
change the behaviour of offenders, and potentially reduce future anti-social
behaviour and offending.
The new environmental powers cover a wider range of behaviour (all
behaviour that is detrimental to the amenity of the locality and/or having a
negative impact on the local community’s quality of life) rather than
specifically stating the behaviour covered (e.g. litter or graffiti). This was
highlighted in consultation responses as one of the main advantages of the
proposals as it allows the most appropriate agency to deal with the situation
and can apply to businesses and individuals. Environmental anti-social
behaviour and nuisance are perceived to be a problem by members of the
public across the country.7 According to the most recent figures in the Office
for National Statistics’ Crime Survey for England and Wales (period ending
March 2013), 29% of people think that litter is a big problem in their area with
a further 21% citing drunk or rowdy individuals and 19% highlighting graffiti or
vandalism.
Tackling anti-social behaviour more effectively could reduce costs to
organisations and individuals. The most recent HouseMark benchmarking data
has suggested that the cost to social landlords of anti-social behaviour has
increased to £325m – up from £270m only 12 months previously with reports
relating to environmental anti-social behaviour (noise, litter, graffiti, etc.)
making up around 60% of the total.
Given the level of public concern and the amount of money agencies spend
dealing with local anti-social behaviour, there is a clear rationale for
developing a set of simple, faster, more effective formal powers to sit
alongside the informal powers in place for dealing with anti-social behaviour.
These formal powers are vital in tackling the behaviour of the small minority of
perpetrators who do not respond to informal approaches to dealing with their
anti-social behaviour.
The proposal for introducing an early payment discount for fixed penalty
notices will affect anyone committing an environmental offence – this will
include people from all equalities groups. The introduction of this early
payment discount is part of an initiative to revamp the way that we use fixed
penalty notices and to use our resources to target environmental nuisance in
areas where this is a clear community priority. The council holds detailed
equalities data by ward, and from this data we know that areas in which
environmental nuisance is a priority are also some of the most ethnically
diverse in the city. Therefore, targeting these areas will have effect BME
communities and also may affect some faith premises.
2.2 Who is missing? Are there any gaps in the data?
We do not hold full equalities data on those subject to the current suite of
enforcement orders and notices – including ASBOs and Injunctions. Gaps in
the national data do not allow for meaningful analysis for example on the
ethnic origin of those subject to an order. The only accurate protected
characteristic data we hold locally for ASB relates to age range, gender and
tenure of those subject to enforcement orders. We do not hold any equalities
data about the recipients of fixed penalty notices. We have more detailed
information on the protected characteristics of victims of ASB.
2.3 How have we involved, or will we involve, communities and groups that
could be affected?
Communities have been involved and consulted throughout implementation of
the tools and powers. We have briefed and sought feedback from tenant
service user groups, equalities forums and support service providers.
In terms of impact on the use of enforcement tools on young people we have
consulted and drawn up joint working protocols with the Youth Offending
Team. This will ensure appropriate consultation and support planning on a
case by case basis and the needs and interests of individual young people will
be considered throughout the decision making process. Equally, a joint
working protocol has been drawn up with drug and alcohol support service
providers, commissioned through the Recovery Orientated Alcohol and Drug
Service. Other vulnerable groups that could be adversely affected by antisocial behaviour including those who have experienced hate crime will
continue to be supported through Bristol Hate Crime Support services and joint
working arrangements exist here also.
In terms of tackling environmental nuisance through the new tools and
powers, local interest groups including amenity groups and neighbourhood
partnerships would be consulted through statutory arrangements where Public
Space Protection Orders were sought. A further EqIA would accompany any
individual application and would form part of the package considered by
Committee prior to any order being made, ensuring local considerations and
protected characteristics are taken into account on a case by case basis.
The use of the new mandatory ground for possession will be monitored by
Bristol Housing Partnership, the City Council’s Housing Management Board and
also through the Landlord Liaison Group in regard to use of the new power in
the private sector.
For environmental nuisance and the use of fixed penalty notices, areas to
target will be determined by Neighbourhood Partnership plans, which are
currently being consulted on and are based on a combination of
neighbourhood data (including quality of life survey, JSNA stats, police data)
and community requests and feedback. These plans are being widely
consulted on using ward profile data to ensure that all equalities groups have
the chance to input into the plans. The method of dealing with environmental
nuisance (education, including targeted education for disadvantaged groups,
followed by enforcement) will also be widely communicated through the
Neighbourhood Charters and before each education and enforcement , local
councillors and the wider community will know that their area is being worked
on.
Step 3: Who might the proposal impact?
Analysis of impacts on people with protected characteristics must be
rigourous. Please demonstrate your analysis of any impacts in this section,
referring to all of the equalities groups as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
3.1 Does the proposal have any potentially adverse impacts on people with
protected characteristics?
Age
All those of the criminal age of responsibility (10+ years of age) may be subject
to a criminal behaviour order and civil injunction. Therefore all may be
affected by implementation of these tools. Use of the tools will be considered
on a case by case basis and following consideration of the merits in any
particular case, including the likely impact on any given individual having
considered their personal circumstances at a multi-agency case conference.
Decisions for the authority to pursue any such orders could only be made by an
officer with the appropriate delegated authority.
Community Protection Notices may be issued to anybody of the age of 16 or
over who is acting in a persistent and unreasonable manner that is having a
detrimental effect on the quality of life of others. Inappropriate use of the tool
may have an adverse, disproportionate impact on some groups. A further EqIA
will therefore be produced to determine the potential impact of any
procedures and protocols introduced to use the CPN.
It is highly unlikely that a fixed penalty notice would be issued to a person
under 16 years of age – other methods of compliance with environmental
legislation are usually used.
Disability
When communicating changes to legislation and upcoming enforcement
operations, we will need to ensure that information is available in accessible
formats. When using enforcement powers, it is important that any disability
(particularly mental health issues) are properly considered and that staff are
aware of any discretion on the basis of disability (for example people with
guide dogs are exempt from dog fouling legislation and therefore should not
be subject to enforcement action).
Gender reassignment
No potential detrimental impact identified.
Marriage/civil partnership
No potential detrimental impact identified. In terms of the tenancy
enforcement tools, in particular the new mandatory and discretionary grounds
for possession, landlords will have access to new powers to bring tenancies to
an end where certain criteria are met. This would constitute enforcement of
the contract between the tenant and landlord and although no particular
group could or should be adversely affected or targeted through
implementation of these powers, implications for joint tenants and their
households should be considered by the authority in drawing up its procedures
for using the new possession powers.
Pregnancy/maternity
No potential detrimental impact identified.
Sex
No potential detrimental impact identified. We know that the majority of
enforcement orders sought under the existing suite of tools and powers are
obtained against adult males. Therefore it is safe to assume under the new
regime there will be a continued focus on this group in the use of enforcement
orders. As set out above, where enforcement orders are actually sought will
be determined on the need to protect victims and witnesses and mitigate any
harm caused by ASB rather than the profile of any individual perpetrator.
Sexual orientation
No potential detrimental impact identified.
Race
There is a potential impact on BME communities when new legislation is
introduced, particularly for first generation immigrants who have come from
countries with very different rules and legislation around environmental and
asb matters, cultures which have a history of fraught relationships with
statutory bodies, and for any people from BME and other communities who do
not speak English as a first language and/or come from a culture where written
communications are not the norm. Legislation and legislative practice often
involves complex legal language by necessity, and some enforcement practice
assumes a knowledge of the law of the land. This inherently disadvantages
anyone who does not have a basic knowledge of what is acceptable behaviour
and what the basic ASB and environmental laws are.
Religious belief
There is a potential impact on the grounds of religious belief as some places of
worship could be subject to this legislation, especially if the use of the
premises causes a detrimental local impact, and it will be important for officers
to ensure that action is proportionate and that the right engagement takes
place between the place of worship and the local community to prevent
community cohesion issues.
Where tools such as the injunction and criminal behaviour order will be sought
and a positive requirement can be applied to the order, arrangements will be
made to ensure adequate provision is in place for those displaying any
protected characteristic – in particular concerning their age, gender, disability,
and sex – for example access to female only drug rehabilitation
accommodation on the back of a civil injunction to restrain the misuse of illegal
drugs and its associated impact on others.
3.2 Can these impacts be mitigated or justified? If so, how?
Any potential impact would be mitigated through good quality information
available in multiple formats, a good engagement and education process
before enforcement takes place, detailed analysis of neighbourhoods before
targeted enforcement takes place to ensure that the correct education takes
place first, and the adoption robust procedures and protocols governing the
use of the new tools and powers by officers. Arrangements should also be
made to ensure those officers receive the appropriate level of training and are
competent to ensure no group with any protective characteristic is adversely
affected through the use of the tools and powers.
3.3 Does the proposal create any benefits for people with protected
characteristics?
The tools are designed to enable the authority to take swift, effective and
robust action to tackle anti-social behaviour thereby providing more protection
to individuals and communities that are affected by it. Therefore the tools and
powers will benefit all citizens, including those with protected characteristics,
but they have been designed to particularly address the harm caused by antisocial behaviour and we know that vulnerable individuals, many of whom
displace protected characteristics are disproportionately represented in this
group.
Introducing an early payment discount for fixed penalty notices will benefit all
people as it offers the opportunity of paying a lesser penalty. The introduction
of an easy English information leaflet with easy to follow instructions of how to
pay the penalty will be of benefit to all people, including those with protected
characteristics, as this information is not currently readily available.
3.4 Can they be maximised? If so, how?
We are in the process of implementing wider systems changes in how we
identify and respond to the needs of ‘enhanced’ or vulnerable victims of crime
and anti-social behaviour. The implementation of the Integrated Victim Care
service and increased use of predictive analysis in this area have seem agencies
better prepared to target resources where most needed and meet the needs
of communities, including those with protected characteristics.
Implementation of the full suite of new tools and powers complements this
and will ensure that the right action is taken in the right circumstances at the
right time. The tools can also be used by a wide range of partners and the
authority will ensure appropriate competency frameworks are established and
training delivered to partners to ensure the tools will be used wherever
possible.
Ensuring that enforcement action for environmental offences is targeted in the
areas where people are most concerned about their local environment and
ensuring that the information used to choose the target areas includes
information from equalities communities will ensure that equalities
communities benefit from more robust action, as well as ensuring through
good engagement and education that equalities communities are not
disproportionately impacted by any enforcement action.
Step 4: So what?
The Equality Impact Assessment must be able to influence the proposal and
decision. This section asks how your understanding of impacts on people with
protected characteristics has influenced your proposal, and how the findings of
your Equality Impact Assessment can be measured going forward.
4.1 How has the equality impact assessment informed or changed the
proposal?
We have ensured the needs of all groups, including those with protected
characteristics have been considered in implementation planning and specific
tools, guidance and protocols have been developed for a number of the new
tools and powers to ensure they are implemented effectively and used
appropriately. For example templates to ensure appropriate consultation with
the Youth Offending Team or support service providers have been worked up.
Consultation procedures for Public Space Protection Orders will consider the
needs of groups with protected characteristics.
4.2 What actions have been identified going forward?
Actions, including those referenced above, are incorporated the
implementation action plan.
4.3 How will the impact of your proposal and actions be measured moving
forward?
Impact will be measured through review of the implementation plan by the
implementation steering group that will continue to meet following
commencement of the new tools and powers. The steering group reports to
Safer Bristol board and is representative of a wide range of partners and
stakeholders. Impact will be captured in the score card presented to Safer
Bristol ASB delivery group thereby ensuring appropriate governance and
scrutiny. In addition, use of the Community Trigger will be reported to and by
the Police and Crime Commissioner on an annual basis, also ensuring public
accountability.
Service Director Sign-Off:
Equalities Officer Sign Off:
Date:
Date: