Agenda item

Invitees;

Gareth Price Head of Law and Regulation

Rhys Thomas Regulatory Services Manager

Sergeant Mervyn Priest Gwent Police

Claire Drayton Community Protection Manager

Cllr Ibrahim Hayat Pillgwenlly Ward Councillor - Newport City Council

The Regulatory Services Manager presented the report for the PSPO. The previous PSPO in place in Pill had expired in the middle of 2020, and due to being mid-pandemic, this has been the first chance to bring a remodelled proposal.

The PSPO has been worked on by community protection officers and in partnership with police. The aim is to identify the previous restrictions, consider whether they were effective and if they need to be amended, and consider if any additional controls are needed. This PSPO being proposed for 2021 will see an increase in restrictions in the PSPO, to increase the ability of enforcement between community safety wardens and Gwent Police. The aim of the PSPO is to prevent low level anti-social behaviour and respond to issues, being able to issue a fixed penalty notice if required.

The Committee is being asked to consider the PSPO, whether it needs to be re-implemented, and the conditions of the PSPO. The committee need to consider if they are satisfied with the public consultation process. It was mentioned as a point of clarification that this is a draft to proceed on consultation.

Sergeant Priest echoed the comments of Mr Rhys Thomas, agreeing with what was presented. Sgt Priest remarked he would welcome any questions as the consultation proceeds.

Councillor Ibrahim Hayat, representing the Pill Ward, commented that the PSPO has been effective in making Pill a better place to live. It is important to make the area a more pleasant place. As a council we should want to encourage local business to invest in the area (i.e. Commercial Road). Investment has started to come back in since the PSPO. Need to ensure this PSPO is extended and reinstated, giving people the confidence to live and invest in the Pill ward.

Members asked and discussed the following:

·       A member commented that he fully supports the Pill councillors in wanting to reinstate the PSPO. It was commented as important to recognise the particular pressures faced in the Pill ward. The report provided mentions that previous sanctions were minimal (page 22), and that there have been minimal fines issued, particularly in relation to those involved with sexual exploitation. Why are the fines still being included if there have been minimal fines in the past?

The Regulatory Services Manager replied that in addition to the police, community safety wardens have also used the PSPO powers. Both the police and the community safety wardens have used these enforcement measures. Sgt Priest advised that the issuing of FPNs is not the only work that would be done with the sexually exploited females, who are not the target of this PSPO.

·       A member asked how ‘minimal’ in this report is being defined?

The Regulatory Services Manager replied that there have been 8 PSPOs and 10 FPNs issued by council officers, also been non PSPO-FPNs issued, primarily associated with littering.

·       A member asked how much of a benefit would the power of issuing FPNs be? And is it worthwhile given how likely the Police are to issue these FPNs?

Sgt Priest replied that a lot of wrap around support is being made available for these individuals (sex workers and other vulnerable people in the community), and it is recognised that this is linked to other issues such as drugs and other anti-social behaviour. These FPNs are therefore a tool that could be utilised by the officers, but the aim is not to be issuing excessive FPNs. 

·       Members raised the issue regarding the proposals in the PSPO linked to begging. Will the PSPO address in further detail specific sites of areas were this will not be allowed, for example near cash points or in shop doorways?

The Regulatory Services Manager replied that the current restriction can apply anywhere within the Pill area, not just specific areas. There is no evidence to suggest that these specific measures are needed. It is not allocated to a particular area (e.g. shop front), this is to allow officers to interpret this as they feel is needed and where necessary, to give the officers the freedom they may need to move people on.

·       A member asked when this order will be enforced?

The Regulatory Services Manager replied that, if this is agreed to go out to consultation in this meeting, the final draft will be brought back to the Committee for agreement in April. It will then go to next meeting of Council for agreement for implementation.

·       A member commented that given there has been 12 months without a PSPO in Pill now. It was then asked what has been the impact of this, and has there been any detriment as a result of it not being in place?

Sgt Priest replied that this is not just about police powers but also for partners (e.g. community safety wardens) and how they interact with the community. The member replied asking if the success of this PSPO dependent on the amount of resources that the council are willing to deploy to this area? The Head of Law and Regulation replied to say that it is understood that this request for a PSPO is from the police perspective more so than the council officers

The member then replied to say that from the police perspective, these powers haven’t been used to a great extent, so are they necessary? The Head of Law and Regulation responded saying that from a NCC perspective, this PSPO is much more about prevention and a deterrent, not about number of FPNs delivered, but about behaviour being improved and controlled. The number of FPNs issued is not the measure of success. A member agreed with this point, commenting that this PSPO should be used as a preventative tool rather than with the aim to issue more FPNs.

·       There has been a period without this PSPO, what has happened as a result of this? Will this PSPO allow officers to do their job more effectively?

The Regulatory Services Manager replied that the purpose of this PSPO is about having tools available in order to deal with anti-social behaviour, A member agreed that it is important to emphasise that this is just another way to enforce public order and improved behaviour in the area. The Regulatory Services Manager agreed that reaching enforcement is not the ideal outcome.

·       A member raised that he has been contacted by a number of charities with regards to this PSPO. Concerns were raised about whether PSPOs really work or not. Comment was then made that organisations such as Amnesty International opposes these type of PSPO restrictions, and favour the decriminalisation of sex work. This is partly due to concerns that this pushes the problem ‘underground’, where this cannot be dealt with. There needs to be a focus on helping these individuals who are sexually exploited, rather than opening up the possibility of criminalising them. Real exploitation and trafficking is going on off the streets.

The wording of the PSPO suggests that this will allow officers to target a person who is on the street offering sexual services. The member requests that we consult with specialist groups who have a strong understanding of these issues. New pathways are keen to give their view on this legislation. The Member also seeked assurance that we will seek the views of the Wallich, New Pathways, and other local outreach groups on this point in the PSPO. Also want clarity whether someone loitering can they be targeted.

Claire Drayton replied wanting to clarify that the PSPO is not targeting the sexually exploited women. We want to be targeting the people who are soliciting these services (curb crawlers). The member replied to ask that the officers would concede that the wording needs looking at. The Regulatory Services Manager confirmed that this PSPO is not targeting the sex workers. The member noted the use of the word ‘exploitation’ in this PSPO, mentioning that it is important to consider the definition of exploitation, as this can be a contentious issue. The Regulatory Services Manager proceeded to ask the member if there are groups who need to be consulted who are not mentioned in the paperwork. If so these groups can be consulted with.

The Regulatory Services Manager agreed that we can review the wording of the ‘soliciting and loitering’ with regards to sexual exploitation

·       A member commented wanting to ensure that what we do is evidence based. There has been this PSPO for three years and similar orders in the city centre, and it is better to view them as preventative measures. Evidence suggests that these have been effective measures because there have not been these intimidating behaviours in the city centre since the introduction of the PSPOs. Do we have evidence that people have been decriminalised? Do we have evidence that sex workers have been unfairly treated? Councillors want to stop anti-social behaviour, and want the police to have powers to stop situations developing. Addressing appendix 4- want to consult as wide a section of the community as possible.

A member replied to this question, wanting to clarify that this PSPO does not decriminalise this behaviour. However, we do want to ensure that vulnerable people are protected.

The Regulatory Services Manager replied regarding consultation, explaining that there are community steering groups currently included. He is happy to include additional groups for consultation. The member replied saying that a lot of money has been invested to make Pill a pleasant place to live and work. It will therefore be important to include businesses concerned in this consultation, as they have invested in the area.

·       A member then commented that currently, the city centre area is very quiet. It is questioned whether all we’ve succeeded in doing moving the problem away from the centre and into Pill? Also a concern raised about people who solicit sexual services- does this FPN allow them to get off lightly?

Sgt Priest replied to say that there are currently penalties for persons caught soliciting sexual services in that area. The Head of Law and Regulation replied saying that a fixed penalty should not be seen as a soft option- it is a preventative measure, and gives the police additional powers earlier on to prevent people coming into the area

·       Members returned to the question of how many fines have been issued. 211 fines in total have been issued over 3 years. This does seem like measured use, not excessive. Cllrs for the Pill Ward live and work in this area, and have been elected for this purpose. It is therefore important to put weight on what the councillors from this area have said. Members agreed that there are a number of issues in the Pill area and commented that we do need to recognise the people who live and work in Pill. Some of the issues in Pill are unacceptable for the residents who live there. We need to listen to the views of the public there.

·       Members enquired what the response was from the consultation of the public for the first time this was put out?

The Regulatory Services Manager replied saying that previous methods used for consultations are lower in number due to people not being out as much, not in the community. The Regulatory Services Manager also commented that it is worth reflecting that this is a Pill proposal, so the need to engage the local residents is essential.

·       Members made reference to the questionnaire on page 20 of the report. Concerning the question about where people are from, there needs to be greater detail regarding whether people are from Newport or not, if they are an individual or representing a business or a charity. Weight should then be given to their views accordingly.

The Chair thanked the officer for attending.

Conclusions and comments

·       The Committee agreed that question 1 of the consultation form (Page 30) needed to specify more detail about who was filling in the form, with regards to whether they lived inside or outside of Newport, and whether they are responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. If they are responding on behalf of an organisation, there should be details provided about the group so it is clear what the source of that information is.

·       As well as the avenues that were suggested in the report, Members hoped that the consultation would reach specialist groups, such as New Pathways, Helping Caring Team (HCT) and Pride in Pill.

·       Concern was raised about the wording of Prohibition 9 – “No person(s) shall enter the area, engage, loiter or solicit on the streets for sexual exploitation within the Restricted Area”, in particular the word “exploitation”. It was queried if the definition of “exploitation” in relation to such matters in terms of consent, could be checked, and possibly look at the Crown Prosecution Service’s definition of the word. A Member also suggested that the words “loiter” and “solicit” be taken out of the wording.

·       The Committee requested that once the public consultation has been completed, the results and the final report are brought back to the Committee on 30^th April 2021 to discuss further.