The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: Hugh Bayley, † Sir Nicholas Winterton

† Austin, Mr. Ian (Dudley, North) (Lab)

† Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Brokenshire, James (Hornchurch) (Con)

† Burns, Mr. Simon (West Chelmsford) (Con)

† Campbell, Mr. Alan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

Cawsey, Mr. Ian (Brigg and Goole) (Lab)

† Coaker, Mr. Vernon (Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing)

† Dorries, Nadine (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con)

† Fitzpatrick, Jim (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)

† Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD)

† Holmes, Paul (Chesterfield) (LD)

† Keeble, Ms Sally (Northampton, North) (Lab)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie (Bromsgrove) (Con)

† Ruffley, Mr. David (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con)

† Waltho, Lynda (Stourbridge) (Lab)

† Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab)

Chris Shaw, Andrew Kennon, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Column number: 329

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 10 February 2009

(Afternoon)

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Policing and Crime Bill

The Chairman: I welcome Members to the afternoon sitting of the Policing and Crime Bill. I apologise for my hoarse voice, but at my young age I have succumbed to a cold, which has attacked my throat and I am therefore not quite at my usual volume.

When the Committee adjourned at 1 pm, the Minister was on his feet, dealing with an amendment to clause 16. I therefore ask him to conclude his speech, which I believe he will do quite briefly, after which I shall call the hon. Member for Hornchurch to respond.

Clause 16

Orders requiring attendance at meetings

Amendment proposed (this day): 23, in clause 16, page 15, line 6, after ‘section’, insert

‘by making an order under section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or’.—(James Brokenshire.)

4 pm

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 24, in clause 16, page 15, line 8, at end insert

‘(such order requiring attendance at meetings being referred to as a “meeting requirement order” for the purposes of this section)’.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell): May I begin our deliberations this afternoon, Sir Nicholas, by apologising for inadvertently misleading the Committee this morning? I implied or gave the impression that, following a possible situation where a woman fails to comply with an order to attend meetings, a prison sentence would be looming for her. That is not, in fact, a possibility. What would happen is that a supervisor would go back to court, report a breach of the order and the court could summons the woman, at which point she could be arrested if she did not comply. The outcome would be either resentencing on the original offence or another order. If I misled the Committee, I apologise sincerely.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): To be clear, from what the Minister just said, the sanction for breaching the order seemed to be another order. Is he excluding any fine of any description for breaching the original order?

Mr. Campbell: No. If there was not a reasonable reason for the woman to have breached the order, perhaps by not turning up to the meeting, the supervisor would go to the court, which could summons the woman

Column number: 330

to appear. If she did not respond to that summons, she could be arrested. However, the purpose of getting her back into court would be to decide whether or not to return to the original offence and impose a fine, or to look at the original order, or to impose another order. I hope that that has clarified the situation.

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): I share some guilt with the Minister over this business of imprisonment, which I fess up to now in the hope that I will not be arrested. Will the Minister clarify that if the woman did not respond to the summons and therefore had to be arrested, imprisonment would not be a potential outcome of the offence, as I believe it to be, of not responding to a court summons? I may be wrong, but that was the information that led me to believe that there was imprisonment.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, it would be arrestable. If it was not possible for the woman to appear before a court then she could be locked up and put in a cell, awaiting that court appearance. There is a debate about how long that would be—a point that we shall pick up later—but that is not because of the subsequent offence that she has committed.

Returning to the amendment, I was responding to the alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. We were not satisfied that that would be an appropriate response, because of the severity that a community order would bring to the proceedings. We are confident that we have introduced a proportionate response to the situation, and therefore do not support the amendment. Amendment 24 provides that orders requiring attendance at meetings for loitering offences be referred to as “meeting requirement” orders. We are not convinced that an alternative name for the orders is needed, as the term used in the Bill is clear. For the reason that I gave in respect of amendment 23, we do not consider that the requirement to attend meetings should be imposed as part of a community order. The order is designed to deal specifically with prostitution and to be rehabilitative, rather than punitive. I would be happy to consider any strong argument to push amendment 24 further, but we do not consider it necessary. With that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): I appreciate the Minister’s reply, and the way in which he has framed the structure in which the clause will operate. It was helpful of him to put on record the details of what would happen following an arrest for non-compliance with a meeting order. It seems that some confusion has arisen in the drafting. Given some of the points that hon. Members have raised in debate, it would be helpful if, on reflection, he considered further amendments to clarify the language on the operation of the measure in respect of a breach of a meeting requirement.

I return to the substantive point that I made when moving the amendments. In essence, we want to make it clear that the support services operate in a two-way fashion, such that there is compliance and intervention is meaningful. As I said, community orders follow assessment, reports and an examination of individual circumstances. For example, there might be follow-up, oversight and a mechanism to ensure compliance with a drug rehabilitation requirement. The orders need not

Column number: 331

involve only the person in receipt of the order; they could check and ensure that the relevant agencies and other bodies that are supposed to provide support and services do so.

I went to visit the Liverpool Community Justice Centre, and I was struck by the fact that the judge there takes a proactive approach in ensuring that the orders are followed through. Agencies and other bodies are supposed to step up to the plate to provide services, and he uses the orders to ensure that they are playing their part. My question about simply considering the meeting requirement is this: although it may have the ambition to provide the services, what is the follow-through at the end of the day? Will the Minister reflect on whether there should be a stronger reporting requirement on the person who provides the support to the offender in the meetings on the outcome of the meeting, and consider that kind of approach? That is relevant if agencies do not ensure that people, as proposed new paragraph 2B(b) states,

“find ways to cease engaging in such conduct in the future”,

because of addiction or various other things.

We will reflect on what is the most appropriate order, but in the light of the fact that the Minister said that he will reflect on the matter and consider further arguments and representations on why a separate approach may be better, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I understand that my co-Chairman indicated that he would not permit a clause stand part debate because the objective and purposes of the clause were fully discussed in the debate that we have had on the amendments.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Schedule to the Street Offences Act 1959

Dr. Harris: I beg to move amendment 248, in schedule 1, page 107, line 22, after ‘practicable’, insert

‘and in any event within 24 hours’.

The amendment seeks to probe how long someone can be detained under the schedule before being brought before a court. When the measure was originally introduced in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, the relevant schedule provided that an individual in breach of a rehabilitation order could be detained for a maximum period of 72 hours before being brought before a court. That was controversial enough at the time. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its report on that Bill, at paragraph 1.55 of the fifth report of Session 2007-08:

“However, we are concerned that these measures may in fact lead to the detention of women for up to 72 hours for failing to attend a meeting, and in fact may eventually lead to their imprisonment for failure to comply with the terms of court orders.”

The Minister clarified the latter issue—he cannot envisage a situation in which merely not turning up to meetings or having to be arrested because of not responding to a summons would lead to imprisonment—but it was a fact that the women could be detained for up to 72 hours under those provisions. As I understand it, in this

Column number: 332

Bill there is no such 72-hour limit. In fact, it says that an offender can be detained for an open-ended period of time before he or she must be brought before a court. The Bill simply states that he or she must be produced “as soon as practicable”.

The Minister will be aware that article 5 of the European convention on human rights is engaged in any indeterminate detention. We are not dealing with control orders or terrorists or anything like that, so it is necessary for the Government to explain why there is no time limit in the Bill. Why could the individual detained for breach of a rehabilitation order not be brought to a court within, say, 24 hours, as proposed in my amendment? That is what I am proposing. I am sure that the Minister will be able to answer that.

While I am on my feet—I hope to avoid a schedule stand part debate—I shall deal with one other issue and make two points on the approach in the schedule. First, on the definition of a “reasonable excuse”, at the moment the Government have provided that, if an individual

“has failed without reasonable excuse”—

the Minister has used that wording himself—

“to comply with the order...The court...must revoke the order...and...may deal with the offender”

“in any way” that the court would have been able to if he or she had been convicted of the original offence.

That much I understand, but there is a problem, because the consequences of the original order are rather uncertain for the individual subject to it. If someone does not turn up to the meeting, the question of whether they are brought back before a court depends essentially on whether their supervisor is of the opinion that they failed to comply with the rehabilitation order without reasonable excuse. There is no attempt to define what a “reasonable excuse” might be. Given that the sort of people who may be subject to the orders—as I think has been acknowledged—are likely to be vulnerable and leading chaotic lives, which may include drug dependency or severe economic deprivation, it is unreasonable not to provide a clearer definition of “reasonable”. Even if the Minister thinks it is reasonable, there is a question of legal certainty, in which people subject to criminal sanction are entitled to know—to have a clearer idea at least—what part of their behaviour is likely to lead them into trouble and a possible conviction. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

I want to make the point that I was in the middle of making when Mr. Bayley, who was in the Chair, said that it would be best made under schedule 1 stand part, rather than the clause that brought in the schedule. Although the Minister heard what I said about the impact of compulsory rehabilitation, I would be grateful if clarified the basis on which compelling rehabilitation is likely to be effective, especially in the absence of, or in contradistinction to, voluntary rehabilitation involving properly funded resources and people outside the criminal justice system seeking to engage with those vulnerable individuals.

---

Prepared 11 February 2009