Report of the Head of Compliance, Enforcement and Community Safety

This report provides an update on the outcome of the consultation for the city centre proposed Public Spaces Protection Order.

The Committee received a report of the Head of Compliance, Enforcement and Community Safety which provided an update on the outcome of the consultation for the city centre proposed Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).

Officers referred to the main points and themes within the report, which included:

• Background information;
• Supporting people with vulnerabilities;
• Evidence of issues of concern in Manchester city centre;
• The consultation and consultation responses;
• Consideration of the articles for a PSPO;
• The proposed PSPO;
• Enforcement;
• Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) and Human Rights; and
• Next steps.

Kathy Cosgrove from Greater Manchester Law Centre expressed concern about the lawfulness and fairness of the consultation.  She advised that it did not include enough information, for example, on existing powers, to enable respondents to make an informed decision.  She also stated that it was not balanced and that the way it was carried out as an online consultation meant that it did not target and was not accessible to some of the people who would be most impacted by the proposal, particularly homeless people.  She also advised that the consultation responses were not presented fairly, not showing the full range of responses to the open text questions.  She reported that the evidence presented did not demonstrate justification for the proposed PSPO, stating that it did not demonstrate that it would achieve its aims and that the benefits would outweigh the risk of harm.  She expressed concern that the PSPO would indirectly discriminate against homeless people who could not avoid breaching it and were often members of other minority groups.  She outlined the significant challenges facing homeless people and stated that the report did not address the additional risk of harm to this group which, she advised, the proposed PSPO would present.  She stated that many professionals in this area of work and related fields were opposed to the proposed PSPO.  She also reported that some other local authorities had introduced similar measures which had not been successful.  A Member supported her comments. 

Dr Morag Rose from the University of Liverpool outlined her concerns about the consultation, stating that it included leading and ambiguous questions, that it had received very few responses from homeless people, that some shop workers in the area had been coerced by their managers to complete it and that the analysis was flawed.  She advised that there was academic evidence against the use of PSPOs to address the behaviours outlined.  She also expressed concern that the proposed PSPO could criminalise protest and that it sent a negative message about attitudes towards homeless people.

The Ward Councillors for the city centre wards of Deansgate and Piccadilly were invited to comment on the proposals.  They provided a number of examples of the negative effect of the current situation on local residents, including repeated instances of people urinating and defecating outside their homes, alcohol consumption and associated litter and fighting, drug dealing and drug paraphernalia, receiving abuse and blocked entrances to residential buildings, which made residents feel intimidated going into and out of their home.  A Ward Councillor for Deansgate noted that it was important not to penalise vulnerable people for unavoidable behaviour, that this had been given consideration in the proposals, and that this was the reason they had requested and obtained 24-hour access to the public toilets on Lloyd Street.  He advised that it was important to provide support to people experiencing this issue from both sides and to find a solution that worked for everyone.  Another Ward Councillor for Deansgate reported that begging in the city centre had increased and this was often not by people who were rough sleeping.  She reported that local residents were sympathetic to the situation of vulnerable people but that the issue needed to be addressed.  She reported that the police and Council officers did not just take enforcement action against vulnerable people but assessed their vulnerabilities and offered support to them.  She outlined the dangers of people sleeping in tents and in doorways, which were often fire escapes.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition reported that, while he accepted the points in the report about commercial waste and anti-social behaviour related to drinking and drug-taking, he was concerned about how the proposed PSPO would impact on vulnerable people living on the streets.  He advised that the proposed PSPO would be a blunt tool to deal with complex issues and, in his opinion, it was the wrong approach.  He commented that more 24-hour toilets were needed across the city.  He highlighted that article 8 of the proposed PSPO required the individual to provide their address to the Authorised Person, which a homeless person could not do.  He questioned how the Committee could consider the proposals without knowing the enforcement protocol.  He emphasised the need to consider the disproportionate impact on those living on the streets and the necessity and proportionality of the proposals.

Some of the key points that arose from the Committee’s discussions were:

• Recognition of the issues being experienced by city centre residents;
• The need to provide support to vulnerable people with complex needs;
• The importance of providing facilities such as 24-hour toilets and sharps bins for disposing of needles so that vulnerable people could avoid breaching the articles in the proposed PSPO;
• To ask what difference the PSPO would make and why this was preferable to using existing powers to tackle these issues;
• To question the appropriateness of fining vulnerable people with no means to pay a fine and the impact this would have on the relationship that Council officers were trying to build with these individuals to encourage them to engage with support services;
• Whether there was evidence that this would be effective;
• Whether a PSPO would just displace people outside the city centre rather than address the problem;
• That a significant number of the respondents to the consultation said the issues identified did not impact on their quality of life;
• How much money had been spent so far on the process for this PSPO, how much would it cost to implement and whether this money could be better spent on the valuable work the Council was already doing in this area; and
• That the Vagrancy Act 1824 should be reviewed.

The Deputy Leader commented that the main focus of Council officers engaging with these vulnerable groups was to encourage them to access support.  He reported that the Council was engaging with pharmacies and other organisations over the provision of sharps bins.  He advised that a review of the Vagrancy Act 1824 was underway.

The Head of Compliance, Enforcement and Community Safety reported that the PSPO was not intended to replace existing powers but to be an additional power and that the most appropriate power would be used in each case.  She gave examples of how a PSPO would enable the Council to address issues in relation to waste which it was not able to do at present.  She advised that it was hoped that the PSPO would have a deterrent effect and encourage vulnerable people to engage with services and that it would also reassure residents that these issues were being addressed. 

The Community Safety Lead reported that, of the councils which had introduced similar PSPOs, some had revised them at the end of the initial period, some had extended them and some had terminated them; however, there were no published evaluations nationally about this use of PSPOs.  She commented that, for Manchester City Council, the proposed PSPO was an opportunity to seek compliance and engage with individuals.

The Community Safety Lead reported that the analysis of the consultation responses had taken into account the responses to all the questions, including the open text responses, to determine how big a problem a particular behaviour was and what should be included in the PSPO.  She outlined the current multi-agency approach, involving different Council teams, GMP and the voluntary sector, to encourage and enable vulnerable individuals to access support and that, where appropriate, they chose from a range of existing powers to address behaviours.  She reported that the same approach would be used if the proposed PSPO was introduced.  She advised the Committee that she could identify the costs of the consultation and the costs of implementation if the PSPO went ahead and share this information with Members. 

Decisions

1.            To thank everyone for sharing their views.

2.            To ask the decision maker and Deputy Leader to take into account all the views raised when making their decision.

3.            That if the decision maker wishes to respond to the Committee on any of the points raised, they are welcome to do so.

4.            To note that the Community Safety Lead will share information on the costs of the consultation and the costs of implementation, if the PSPO goes ahead, with the Committee Members.

[Councillor Doswell declared a disclosable pecuniary interest as Secretary of the Tenants’ Union and withdrew from the room for this item.]