The hollow authoritarianism of Labour’s ‘respect orders’

It is over 18 months since Labour announced that it would solve the ‘virus that is anti-social behaviour’ by introducing ‘respect orders’. Despite regular repetitions of this pledge, it is clear that the Labour government still has very little idea of how these orders will work.

We have heard so far that respect orders will give the authorities the power to crack down on those persistently causing anti-social behaviour, from vandalism to street drinking. Under these orders, these people will be prevented from going into certain public spaces like town centres and parks. If the orders are breached, Labour says that there will be criminal sanctions.

Yet in a recent interview with Sky News, policing minister Diana Johnson admitted that the details of respect orders are still being developed. And no wonder. It has never been clear how these orders will differ from, or indeed replace, myriad already existing anti-social-behaviour powers. These have multiplied since New Labour pushed through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which first introduced ‘anti-social behaviour orders’ otherwise known as ASBOs.

Currently, there are three main powers that can be used to ban people from town centres and other public spaces on the basis of ‘anti-social behaviour’: civil injunctions, community-protection notices (CPNs) and dispersal orders. These orders come with few limits on their use, and have been deployed against anyone, from pensioners feeding the pigeons to homeless people begging.

If these orders aren’t working, it’s not because they are insufficiently ‘tough’. A civil injunction is issued through a court, and although violation is not in itself a criminal offence, it carries a ‘contempt of court’ penalty that can mean imprisonment for up to two years. Violation of a CPN or a dispersal order is also a criminal offence. Breaching a dispersal order carries a punishment of up to three months in prison, while breaching a CPN carries a maximum £2,500 fine.

Furthermore, if a CPN or dispersal order is violated, a person can then be issued with a criminal behaviour order (CBO), which carries an unlimited fine and up to five years in prison. (One pensioner I am in touch with has been threatened with five years in prison for feeding birds on his local beach, which violates the terms of his CBO.)

These current powers are used much more frequently and with tougher penalties than the ASBO. Yet neither of these current powers nor the ASBO itself has managed to solve street drinking or drug taking, or make neighbourhoods nicer. The reason for this is two-fold. First, issues such as street drinking have their roots in social problems such as poverty, mental ill-health and social decline, which cannot be solved through coercive powers. Second, the tougher and slacker the powers, the more that they will be used in an arbitrary and unpredictable manner. This leads to random punishment that particularly affects vulnerable members of society, such as homeless people or pensioners who live on their own.

Indeed, the arbitrary use of anti-social-behaviour powers has a negative effect on community life. It divides neighbours from one another and creates insecurity and distress. There is no situation that cannot be made worse by anti-social-behaviour powers.

Yet it seems that Labour is sticking to the same, tired old thinking about tackling ‘anti-social behaviour’, answering every social problem with new, tougher powers – while apparently having absolutely no idea as to what these powers should be. Campaign group StopWatch rightly described the respect order as a ‘recycled’ policy based on a ‘rehashed’ (and failed) theory of policing.

Indeed, the only aspect of this policy Labour seems certain of is the name, respect order. This suggests that the power is first of all a concept – something that will magically bring ‘respect’ and solve all manner of problems – rather than a serious piece of legislation.

It seems likely that the respect order will carry a criminal sanction, and be arrestable. But beyond that, respect orders remain something of a mystery. Will the orders go through the courts, or be issued on the spot? Will the standard for issue be the same as the civil injunction (harassment, alarm or distress) or the same as the CPN (detrimental effect on a community’s quality of life)? Will the respect order replace any existing orders or be introduced alongside them?

In many ways, the respect order captures well the political impulse driving the expansion of behaviour-control orders over the past 25 years. They are principally a PR exercise. They exist to show that politicians are doing something to solve something. They suggest that the answer to every problem is a shiny new, tougher power, with a new name.

Yet this mode of policymaking, of generating order after order, is exhausting itself. There are now orders for knives, for protest, for anybody annoying anybody else. Few people know or remember what these orders all are (a JUSTICE Working Party Report counted 33 different types of order).

Starmer’s Labour seems stuck in the same order-creation routine. It feels it needs to create a new order, and has thought of a name, but it doesn’t know what this order should contain. The order market is so crowded there doesn’t seem room for another. But it still has to create respect orders because it has been talking about it for a year and a half, and it’s a manifesto pledge.

The respect order appears to be a blank sheet – no doubt the Home Office will be hurriedly scrabbling to come up with something to fill it with. We just have to hope that it does not follow its previous form, by which each new power increases arbitrary enforcement, increases injustice and worsens just about every situation it touches.

Josie Appleton is director of the Manifesto Club, which is campaigning against CPNs and measures in the Criminal Justice Bill.