LIB DEMS SOFT ON CRIME?

11.09.24am BST (GMT +0100) Sun 14th May 2006

Lib Dems Approach Crime More Wholeistically

Lib Dems. Against Labour's tough anti-social behaviour measures.

Lib Dems voted against the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, Hansard, 24 June 2003

Much of this Act was unnecessary and potentially even counter-productive. We proposed much more effective alternatives.

Lib Dems. Against Labour's measures to break-up teen gangs.

Lib Dems votes against dispersal orders, Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, 24 June 2003

We support the use of dispersal orders where groups of people are harassing or intimidating others, but it is wrong that they can be used on the basis of a group's presence alone - even if they are doing nothing wrong!

Lib Dems. Against Labour's measures to restrict the sale of graffiti spray paints to teenagers.

Opposed measures to limit the sale of spray paint to teenagers, 24 June 2003

Liberal Democrats have been at the forefront of campaigning against graffiti nationally and locally, but on this occasion we thought the age at which people should be able to buy spray paints should be 16, while the Government wanted 18.

Lib Dems. Against sending teen criminals to court.

Policy Motion F46 'Punishment and Rehabilitation of Offenders' was passed by Lib Dem Conference in Bournemouth, 23 September 2004

13 and 14 year olds should be brought before a court where their actions mark them out as being dangerous and a threat to society, but those whose crimes are not serious should be dealt with through the children's system which has a better record at rehabilitation.

Lib Dems. Against jail sentences for drug possession.

Lib Dems 'Law and Order Mini Manifesto', page 8, 29 March 2005

Drug users who burgle or mug to feed a drug habit should go to prison, and drug dealers should continue to expect long prison sentences, but individuals caught with a small amount of a drug for their own personal use are better dealt with by compulsory treatment rather than prison.

Response with more information

Lib Dems. Against Labour's tough anti-social behaviour measures.

Lib Dems voted against the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, Hansard, 24 June 2003

Lib Dems. Against Labour's measures to break-up teen gangs.

Lib Dems votes against dispersal orders, Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, 24 June 2003

Response

(NB. These two are basically the same thing.)

Labour think just because a piece of legislation claims it will deal with anti-social behaviour anyone voting against it thinks anti-social behaviour is a good thing. That's as ridiculous as saying anyone voting against an education bill doesn't believe in education! Liberal Democrats have supported a wide range of government measures to tackle anti-social behaviour, such as the 1998 legislation bringing in ASBOs, and in many areas have been ahead of the government in developing new ways to combat anti-social behaviour. (The Acceptable Behaviour Contract pioneered by Lib Dems in Islington has been praised by the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, as being "better than an ASBO". (Question Time, BBC1, 03/03/05)) But on this occasion we voted against the Bill (after trying to amend it) as we thought it wasn't the best way forward.

We supported some of the policies in the 2003 Act (e.g. powers to close down crack houses and restrict use of air guns and imitation weapons), but we voted against the Act as a whole, principally over the issue of dispersal orders (sometimes characterised as "powers to break up teen gangs"). We believe that they were -

(a) Unnecessary - the existing public order laws adequately covered the various circumstances in which the police might need to act to disperse groups.

(b) Illiberal - the new powers enable police intervention and arrest purely on the basis of someone's presence - even if they are doing nothing wrong. This breaches the right to freedom of movement and assembly, and in theory the power could be abused by the police, for example to harass ethnic minorities.

(c) Potentially counterproductive - the Association of Chief Police Officers said, when the Bill was going through Parliament, that the powers would "not be enthusiastically used" because they would be likely to create divisions between the officers and the communities they police.

(d) Not getting to the root of the problem - the powers enable police to move groups on, but they do nothing to prevent the group from causing trouble elsewhere or behaving badly in general. We believe other proposals (such as our plans for more - and more visible - police and community support officers) would make a greater impact on anti-social behaviour.

However, despite these concerns, we would not scrap the dispersal order powers. We have always recognised that the powers can be used in a helpful way and Lib Dems in local government have worked with the police to find positive ways to use them. We support their use where people are harassing, intimidating, alarming or distressing others, but not where it is on the basis of their presence alone. We would amend the law to take this into account and add safeguards against their misuse.

Lib Dems. Against Labour's measures to restrict the sale of graffiti spray paints to teenagers.

Opposed measures to limit the sale of spray paint to teenagers, 24 June 2003

Response

This is misleading. Liberal Democrat MPs and councils have been at the forefront of many successful campaigns against graffiti in their areas. We believe graffiti is a serious problem that should be deterred through a combination of street patrols and quick action by local authorities to remove graffiti as it appears. We were at the forefront of efforts to stop the sale of spray paint to children (e.g. Lib Dem Sutton LBC's voluntary code of practice for retailers to stop sales of spray paint to 10-16 years olds) and welcomed proposals in this area in the Government's Anti-Social Behaviour Bill 2003. The disagreement was simply that we thought the age at which people should be able to buy spray paints should be 16, while the Government wanted 18 (we weer successful in amending the Bill in this respect). This did not prevent us supporting most of the other measures on graffiti in the Bill, including fixed penalty notices.

Lib Dems. Against sending teen criminals to court.

Policy Motion F46 'Punishment and Rehabilitation of Offenders' was passed by Lib Dem Conference in Bournemouth, 23 September 2004

Response

Our policy is that 13 and 14 year old teenagers should be brought before a court at the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service where their actions mark them out as being dangerous and a threat to society. Those whose crimes are not serious should be dealt with through the children's system which has a better record at rehabilitation. The children's system has a better record because it is staffed with experts who understand how to intervene to help children with behavioural problems and prevent them from slipping into a life of crime. Under our policy teenagers aged 15 and older would continue to be dealt with through the courts in the normal way.

Lib Dems. Against jail sentences for drug possession.

Lib Dems 'Law and Order Mini Manifesto', page 8, 29 March 2005

Response

Of course drug users who commit crimes like burglary or robbery to feed a drug habit should go to prison. And drug dealers should continue to expect long prison sentences. But where individuals are prosecuted simply for having a small amount of a drug in their possession for their own personal use, and no additional crime has been committed, then compulsory treatment should be used instead of prison. Courts could still make use of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs), fines, and other criminal penalties.