Download Respect and Responsibility- Taking A Stand Against Anti Social

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