James
Brokenshire: My hon. Friend effectively highlights the
work of street pastors, which is well received and effective in a
number of the communities in which they operate. I am pleased to hear
that street pastors are being positive and useful in engaging young
people in his
constituency—
Mr.
Burns: And in
Romford.
James
Brokenshire And in my borough, too. The street
pastors look at behaviours in the late-night economy, talk to people
and engage positively. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will
recognise that there is a need for criminal justice interventions to
send a strong message when people transgress and behave
inappropriately.
I understand
why the Government, through section 12 of the 2001 Act, have created
the offence of consuming alcohol in a designated public place. It can
be an
effective tool in the box. I accept entirely that we do not necessarily
want people wandering the streets with alcohol. I fasten on to the
point that this is a question of ensuring that the changes that we make
are effective and are used. We need to ensure that proposals are
effective, and that is why I say again that the power has not been used
to its fullest extent, which raises the question of what difference
will be made by increasing the fine. Equally,
as I understand it—I am sure that the Minister can provide some
detail about how the court sets fines—affordability must be
considered. How many people would be captured by that increase in the
quantum? How will sending out that message affect the anticipated
number of people receiving, for example, a sentence in excess of
existing limits? Understanding that better, and understanding the
Government’s approach, will be of great assistance to the
Committee in appreciating the rationale and purpose behind the change
and why it is envisaged that it will be effective.
It is
important, in that context, to consider that paragraph 24 of the
British Retail Consortium’s briefing notes to the Committee
states: “Clause
26 increases the maximum fine for consuming alcohol in a designated
public place from level two (currently £500) to level four
(currently £2,500). However, no person since 2004 has been given
a fine of more than £250 meaning that the current £500
maximum fine has never been used. We do not therefore understand the
logic of altering this at this
time.” I
hope that the Minister will explain the logic. Is it simply about
sending a message, or is there a more substantive rationale? I am not
in any way opposed to tough sentencing and a firm approach, but as the
power has not been used, I want to understand whether he believes that
the proposal will make a noticeable difference in the fight against
alcohol-fuelled
disorder. Paul
Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): I have asked this question in
Committee before: what is the point of increasing a maximum fine from
£500, although it has never been used at that level, to
£2,500 when, presumably, that is even less likely to be used?
The Minister replied that it would send a message. Sending a message to
the Daily Mail might achieve one purpose, but it will have no
effect on the problem on the street that we are talking about. In
reality, would a group of 14, 15 or 16-year-olds who are going to go
and drink in a public place really sit down and think that they had
better not do so because the maximum fine has increased to
£2,500? That is simply not part of their calculation of what
they are doing. Similarly, someone with an alcohol problem who is
sitting in Chesterfield town centre, where the council has designated a
spot in the marketplace area, will not rationally sit down and think
about the maximum fine. If £500 never deterred them, neither
will
£2,500. The
National Association of Probation Officers has made the point that most
of the drinkers who ever arrive in probation officers’ hands are
people with multiple social and personal problems who struggle to pay
fines a great deal lower than £2,500. The association
specifically says that the fivefold increase in the fine, if it was
actually used, would be unrealistic and would probably result in
jailing more people by default, which is probably not the intention
behind the proposal. The people on whom the fine is levied could be
incapable of paying it, whatever their life circumstances. An
unforeseen
consequence of the measure could therefore be more people going to jail
for non-payment of a huge fine, if it were ever levied. What is the
point of increasing a maximum fine that has never been used to a level
at which it will never be used, given that even if it were used, it
would end up sending people to jail rather getting them into help
programmes that they
need? Mr.
Campbell: This is not an either/or situation in which
there is a question of whether or not we get people into the kind of
support that they need to get out of their problem, and whether or not
we enforce the fine. We need to put a comprehensive alcohol strategy in
place, and the measure is an important part of
it. Let
me set out the reasons why we are bringing forward the proposals.
First, although I do not think that hon. Members have focused on this
in the debate, the proposal sends the clear and strong message that
someone will be subject to a greater fine because they have failed to
comply with the police in a DPPO, which is unacceptable. This is not
about whether a person has drink, but whether they comply with what a
police officer says. The hon. Member for Hornchurch used the phrase
“window dressing”, but it is not window dressing to
introduce measures to ensure that people respect police officers who
are going about their
business. On
the second point that hon. Members picked up, the measure will, in our
view, strengthen the deterrent. I shall come back to why we need to
send out the strong message, but the third reason behind the measure is
that it will bring the maximum penalty in line with other similar
offences, notably failure to comply with directions to leave.
On the
deterrent effect, the vast majority of breaches of DPPOs mean that a
person will receive a penalty notice rather than be prosecuted. We
believe that raising the fine will provide an incentive to the police
and Crown Prosecution Service to pursue a prosecution in more cases
than at present. We also believe that it will send out a clearer signal
that alcohol-related disorder will not be tolerated. We have said for
many years, and on many occasions, that it will not be tolerated, and
we have acted. We are seeking to ratchet up that response to send out a
stronger message, for the reason that I will come back to in a
moment.
The hon.
Gentleman mentioned the YWCA, which talked about the fundamental issue
of why people drink. We have 13 pilots for alcohol referral orders,
some of which we announced before Christmas. They are designed to stop
people from going straight into the criminal justice system by getting
support for them in place. I do not recall—I will go back and
check the media comments—strong support for that measure from
Opposition Members when it was announced, and it certainly did not win
us universal plaudits in the tabloid newspapers. However, I believe
that it is an important step in the right direction. This is not an
either/or measure; rather, it complements what we are trying
to
do. We
have a comprehensive alcohol education programme. Of course we need to
do more, but there is support through measures in schools and things
like making people aware of the health message and of how many
units it is safe to consume. We also want to send out a stronger
message. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford mentioned street pastors.
They do a fantastic job and make up an important piece of the jigsaw,
but they are not the whole message—I know that he did not
suggest that they were. We need an enforcement strategy and that is
what this is
about. The
hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned the police. During one of our
evidence sessions, I remember asking the ACPO lead the police’s
view about a basket of measures, of which this is one. Unless my memory
is failing me, I think that he said that ACPO welcomed the measures. It
welcomes them because what we are introducing is based on police
officers’ experiences and on police officers saying,
“Yes, we do want to see these measures being used, but
let’s tell you how they are working in practice”. It is
not always possible to get legislation absolutely right the first time.
Sometimes legislation has to be adjusted to changing
circumstances. I
will tell hon. Members what those changing circumstances are. The time
is right for us to take a more focused approach that reflects on not
the failure, but the success of measures that we have introduced. That
means that we can target individuals, whether they are individual
establishments that sell drink to under-age drinkers, rowdy pubs that
fuel disorder, or the small minority of young people who get involved
in acts of wanton vandalism and violence because they are fuelled up
with alcohol. That was certainly part of the discussion that I had with
the ACPO lead on these matters, although he is not here to contradict
me.
James
Brokenshire: I am grateful to the Minister. As we consider
this part of the Bill, we can certainly debate at length some of his
points about apparent effectiveness. A lot of people would, I think,
question the effectiveness of some of the measures. However, he
said—I agree—that the ACPO lead said that he welcomed the
measures during our evidence session. Did the police ask for the powers
in advance of them being drafted? If the Minister is saying that one of
the reasons why the measure is being introduced is to get more cases to
court, was the message from the police, “We need this increase
in the fine to help us to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service to
take more cases to
court”?
Mr.
Campbell: As one would expect, we work closely with the
police on these matters. We can pass as many laws as we want, but they
will have effect with regard to what we are talking about only if the
police make them work. The message coming back from the police is,
“We are grateful for the powers that we have. When we use them
they make a difference in communities, but we want to ensure that we
have the proper tools to go even further.” The hon. Gentleman
asked when we consulted the police. We talk to the police all the time
about such matters and ensure that we introduce legislation that has
their support. We are grateful for their support for the Bill. On that
basis, I hope that we can support the
clause. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Mr.
Ian
Austin.) 7.29
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 12 February at Nine
o’clock.
| 
