Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Church of England Public Affairs Unit Response to the March 2003 White Paper Respect and Responsibility- Taking A Stand Against Anti Social Behaviour Introduction 1. The terms of reference of the Church of England’s Public Affairs Unit require it to assist the Church in making a constructive and informed response to issues facing contemporary society. The Unit reports to the Archbishops’ Council and, through it, to the General Synod. 2. A Government White Paper does not require a response from interested parties but on this occasion a number of Church related organisations have commented on the White Paper. There is also a visit to the Home Office on May 19 to discuss the matter. The Public Affairs Unit is therefore making a brief response in view of the subject matter. 3. We wish to argue that the Government's emphasis on responsibility is very welcome. All human beings are created to have responsibilities to the community and it is important that this dimension is kept alongside a stress on human rights. This is an integral part of the Christian doctrine of human nature. However where a person behaves in an irresponsible manner the immediate point at issue is whether such irresponsibility deserves the punishment which is proposed in the White Paper and the Bill. At times it seems as if the desire to reintegrate the offender back into the community and ensure that responsibilities are exercised properly leads to a degree of control over the individual which is excessive in its supervision. 4. Recent reports about the enforcement of Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) on prostitutes in large cities indicate a degree of coercion which Christian charities (e.g. The Josephine Butler Society) working with men and women deplore as unhelpful. Clearly there is a need for social control, good order and behaviour. Prostitution can be a social nuisance and many Christian charities work with such women to help them find other lives. The issue is at what point this enforcement of ASBOs becomes excessive. ASBOs have a part to play in maintaining social order but they must be used with discretion. The attempt by local police forces to apply for group ASBOs has rightly not been allowed by the courts, and we support this judicial decision. 5. Again the emphasis on support for young people who show signs of anti social behaviour is greatly to be welcomed and the provision of Children's Trusts is a good step forward. There are many Christian agencies which give such support to those in need, especially those who are mentally ill, have been abused as young people, or have suffered discrimination. It is important that such support is not linked too closely to an enforcement agenda as the White Paper seems at times to suggest, because past experience shows that this will be not assist the rehabilitation of those who are being offered help and support 6. Our concern on this issue is that the use of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) will in effect change the role of some officials into being those who can issue ASBOs. Again it is very important that law and order is maintained, especially in schools and in areas outside schools, such as youth centres and clubs. Clause 22 of the Anti Social Behaviour Bill allows teachers to issue such orders. Our concern is where the balance between maintaining social order and tolerating existing patterns of behaviour is struck. We question whether it is right for teachers, social workers and other officials to be given this power when there are already powers available to the police which can be implemented. We ask that this point be reconsidered, and that the multi agency nature of Youth Offending Teams (which integrate education and social services into responses to offending behaviour) be seen as an alternative which already exists. The issue is whether unmanageable conflicts of interests are being created for certain employees, such as teachers and social workers, and whether their core role is being distorted. 7. We also question whether it is appropriate that FPNs should be issued to those under 18, and whether (in Clause 38) the Secretary of State should be able to lower this age limit still further by executive order. We would prefer it if this could be done by an Act of Parliament or, failing that, by an Affirmative Order. 8. We remain concerned that the need for and effectiveness of ASBOs has yet to be conclusively established. It is not clear how effective ASBOs are, when there are already many police powers and laws in place to deal with low level crime. Further evidence is needed of the success of such powers in alleviating social disorder, especially in inner urban areas at weekends and evenings. We look forward to the publication of such research. In our view an order which can be issued on a civil burden of proof but incur a criminal penalty if breached can only be justified if it is genuinely meeting a compelling need which cannot otherwise be met. 9. Above all, with a rising prison population, it is essential that the maximum penalties are only used where they are strictly necessary. Recent initiatives by Government have led to an increasing use of tougher sentences, and this seems to reflect more a concern to meet public expectations of being seen to be tough on crime rather than to be justified by an evaluation of their effects. 10. In Chapter Four of the White Paper the topic of community safety is addressed. In paragraphs 3:38-9 the issue of street drinking is discussed and in paragraphs 3:40-44 begging is also mentioned. The paragraphs also refer to rough sleeping and relate this to begging. The White Paper is amplified by a DEFRA consultation paper and by the Anti Social Behaviour Bill which has now been introduced into the House of Commons. We share the concerns raised by a number of agencies dealing with homelessness, notably Thames Reach Bondway which has strong associations with central London churches, especially St. Martin's in the Fields and St. Anne's Soho. 11. We believe that Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 (amended 1935) which criminalizes rough sleeping is both over prescriptive and impractical. So long as rough sleeping does not involve any other offence we believe that the correct solution is to continue with the good initiatives which the Government has already set up, such as the Rough Sleepers Initiative. We believe that the 1824 Act should be repealed. We also agree with the request from a number of homeless charities that punishing such behaviour should not be seen as a way of moving on those sleeping on the streets. It is already the case that Section 4 of the 1834 Act requires that free accommodation be offered to a rough sleeper before an arrest is made. In reality there is a shortage of such accommodation in central London. 12. . The Government proposes making the offence of begging part of an individual's criminal record and enabling police forces to fingerprint offenders. We would like to see any further powers for the police and local authorities combined with a greater use of a community service response to begging. This would have to be combined with access to other support services and to increased availability of drug programmes. However we recognise the investment which this Government has made in this area through the Rough Sleepers Initiative which has been a successful programme. Our concern is that without greater support for those in need the Government's proposal appears to criminalise begging further without addressing the need for further support. We suggest that this part of the White Paper be reconsidered. Section 3 of the 1824 Act already fines those who beg. It is ironic that many beggars often beg to pay their fines, as Thames Reach Bondway has pointed out, and a vicious circle is created. 13. Finally we wish to encourage the greater use of Restorative Justice. We are very pleased that this new approach is commended in paragraphs 5:31-35 of the White Paper.There are many examples now of involving the community, the family and (if desired by them) the victim into the judicial process, and such measures have been encouraged by the Youth Justice Board. Nevertheless we wish to ask if the spirit of Restorative Justice is fully compatible with some of the approaches outlined earlier in the White Paper on young people, parental responsibilities and truancy. +Thomas Southwark Chair Community and Public Affairs Unit Church of England 9 June 2003