The bye-law debate comes just over a fortnight after the Council threw out a city-wide Designated Public Places Order (DPPO) in relation to the drinking of alcohol in public places. This was voted against by Liberal Democrat Councillors on the grounds that it gave police too much power to arrest law abiding citizens enjoying a social drink outside. They likened the DPPO to the "sus-laws" of the 1970s which saw police arresting innocent young black men who they thought looked suspicious. The principal difference with the new bye-law from the DPPO is that before acting a constable must have "reasonable belief" that the person is consuming alcohol in an anti-social manner. Nonetheless, any action remains up to a particular constable's discretion and the danger is that discretion can quickly turn into discrimination.

Police already have extensive powers in relation to drunkenness and anti-social behaviour; in particular police can deal with people being found drunk in any highway or public place (section 12, Licensing Act 1872), people engaging in disorderly behaviour while drunk (Section 91, Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides police with a specific power of arrest) or people using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour (section 5, Public Order Act 1986). That these powers are not considered adequate for the police gives a worrying indication of the attitude of those supporting the new bye-law.

A further concern with the new bye-law is that "police would have powers of arrest if the person did not have a satisfactory address for service of a summons..." which reinforces the notion that homeless and other vulnerable people would suffer most under the new bye-law. The guests, staff and volunteers of Jimmy's nightshelter, which works with homeless people, have responded to the proposed bye-law and, amongst other things, have expressed,

"a great concern that people, who have nowhere else to be during the
daytime except on the streets, are being held responsible for much
of the bad behaviour we have read about in the local press. This has
resulted in a dangerous stereotyping of homelessness and a serious
risk of resentment towards homelessness."

They go on to observe that in the eight years that Jimmy's has worked with homeless people they have found that a long term focus is required, rather than seeking quick fix solutions to perceived problems. Certainly this bye-law seems to be an attempt at finding just such a quick-fix solution.

You too can respond to the proposed bye-law - a consultation process is currently in train and will terminate on Wednesday 3 December. People are invited to email Trevor Woollams ( Trevor.Woollams@cambridge.gov.uk) to voice their opinions on the proposed new bye-law and are asked to include their address in their submission (details to be found at  http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/councillors/byelawnotice.htm)

If the bye-law is passed by council then it will be submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (OPDM) for confirmation. There will be a 28 day period during which members of the public can make representatios to the OPDM at the end of which the OPDM may or may not confirm the bye-law. If confirmed the bye-law usually comes into effect 28 days laters.

Some sources:
Council Consultation page:  http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/councillors/byelawnotice.htm
Report to Council on the issue:  http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/councillors/agenda/2003/1119cncl_files/02.pdf
Cambridge Evening News:  http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk