|
Column Number: 003
Fourth Standing Committee
on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 14 September 2004
[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]
Draft Criminal Justice & Police Reform Act
2002 (Modification) Order 2004
9.55 am
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) and Police Reform Act 2002 (Modification) Order 2004.
I am delighted to move the order under your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. The order concerns penalty notices for disorder, which were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. They are on-the-spot penalties for disorderly behaviour, and police officers can issue them for the offences listed in section 1 of the Act, which include being drunk and disorderly, causing harassment, alarm or distress, wasting police time and being drunk in a highway. They are targeted at a range of fairly low-level, antisocial offences that can blight our neighbourhoods and communities and can increase the fear of crime among local people.
Penalty notices for disorder form an important part of the Government's determined campaign—working with the police, local authorities and concerned citizens—to tackle antisocial and nuisance behaviour and offending. However, as I said, such offence are at the lower end of the scale of seriousness, so need to be dealt with in a way that punishes the offender and reassures the community, but does not take up large amounts of police and court time.
Penalty notices for disorder have been proven to fulfil that remit. They enable offenders to be dealt with quickly—either on the street or at a police station—by issuing a ticket. A significant amount of police time is already being saved by not having to prepare the paperwork necessary to take the offender to court. Normally that would take about two and a half hours per case, whereas each fixed-penalty notice takes about 30 minutes. Further police time is saved by the officer not having to attend the subsequent court hearing. In fact, assistant chief constable Paul Blewitt, who leads on these matters for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
''The Penalty Notices for Disorder are a useful tool for officers to deal quickly and effectively with simple and straightforward cases of disorderly behaviour. We are keen as a service to fully exploit the potential of this scheme to free up officers and maximise time spent on visible patrol.''
So the scheme is welcomed by police officers on the front line. They are free to spend more time on the streets, deterring crime and dealing with other offenders who might otherwise not be apprehended if the police were constantly tied up dealing with low-level offenders.
The amounts payable for penalty notices are currently £80 and £40. The recipient of a notice has
Column Number: 004
21 days to decide how to respond to it. If they pay the penalty within that time, they cannot be tried and will receive no criminal record for the offence. However, if they choose to go to court and contest the notice, they can be tried for the offence in the normal way. If the recipient chooses to do nothing, a sum of one and a half times the original penalty amount is registered against them as a fine and is pursued in the normal way.
The penalty notice scheme was piloted and then rolled out nationally earlier this year. The police welcomed it but have also called for it to be extended to further offences. One new offence—causing harassment, alarm and distress—was added to the original list in 2002. That new provision has been well-used and that offence represents almost half of the penalty notices issued so far. The Government have now decided that the time is right to add a further 10 offences to those that can be dealt with in this way. They are largely low-level offences and are suitable for penalty notice disposal. For two of the offences, the least serious examples are also suitable. It is the addition of those 10 offences that we shall debate today.
The proposed new offences include four offences relating to alcohol misuse by under-18s. I think all members of the Committee will appreciate the problems, particularly in town and city centres, associated with young people gaining access to alcohol and binge drinking, which affect not only the individuals concerned, but the wider community.
There are also three new fireworks offences, which I hope my colleagues will welcome as we come to the run-up to 5 November. All of us, as constituency MPs, will find our postbags full of letters from people suffering real harm and distress as a result of the misuse of fireworks. The first new offence to be added is under-18 possession of an adult firework in a public place; apparently an ''adult firework'' is anything other than the relatively harmless fireworks that are available, such as party poppers and sparklers.
The second fireworks offence is possession of a category 4 firework by any person, because those fireworks have been banned. In some cases they have been used almost like explosive devices. I recently received a dossier from Liverpool police, who showed me how the fireworks had been used to blow up vehicles outside police stations. That is a very threatening use of fireworks. In my constituency those fireworks have been put up the exhausts of motor vehicles and then set off, causing huge damage and problems for people. So although fireworks can seem relatively harmless, in the wrong hands they cause tremendous problems.
The final offence is use of an adult firework between 11 pm and 7 am. That is a pretty good curfew to prevent people from being woken up at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning by the use of fireworks. We have the exceptions of 5 November, 31 December—new year's eve—Chinese new year and Diwali, so that people can have genuine celebrations at those times, but other than that, there will be a curfew.
Column Number: 005
The other offences being added include criminal damage—destroying or damaging property—where the damage is valued at less than £500. That issue was discussed when the original legislation was before the House. The proposal was withdrawn at that time, but we said that we would review the situation and we now feel that provided the value of the damage is less than £500, the offence is appropriate for disposal by a fixed penalty notice.
Another offence is retail theft under the value of £200. That is to deal with cases of fairly low-level shoplifting that at the moment go unpunished far too often because of the length of time that it takes the police to process someone who has, for example, stolen some sweets from a shop. Dealing with such an offence through a fixed-penalty notice will mean that the offender is properly dealt with. If very young people are involved, the parents will be notified, so that they know exactly what has been going on. In the case of retail theft, the person issuing the notice—the police in this case—would have to consult the victim as to whether they were happy with the offence being disposed of in that way and would have to take their view into account when deciding how to proceed. In those circumstances, disposal in that way is appropriate.
The final offence is dropping litter. Again, the measure is an effective way of bringing to people's attention the fact that there are consequences to degrading the environment by dropping litter. A further order will be laid before the House to set the penalty amounts for each of those new offences.
This order proposes that most of the offences should become penalty notice offences by 1 November, but the three fireworks offences will be available for penalty notice disposal two weeks after the order comes into force. I was concerned to ensure that we were able to issue those notices in the run-up to bonfire night, rather than again having to wait until the problem was upon us. That means that police officers will be able to issue the notices a few weeks before bonfire night, which will help us to combat a very serious problem of firework misuse.
As the Committee knows, theft and criminal damage are generic offences that can cover wide ranges of behaviour. Theft ranges from stealing sweets, at one end of the spectrum, to very serious theft at the other, and the situation is similar for criminal damage. We intend to restrict the use of penalty notices to offences at the lower end of the spectrum in each of those cases. However, that does not appear in the order; it cannot, given the way in which those offences are set out in law. We would be creating a new criminal offence if we referred to an offence only up to the value of £200.
However, we shall issue the police with guidance that makes clear the cases in which fixed-penalty notices can be used. For theft, that means shoplifting where the value is no more than £200 and criminal damage where the value is no more than £500. The guidance will make it crystal clear to the police that those are the circumstances in which the notices can be issued.
Column Number: 006
The order pursues the Government's general agenda for tackling antisocial behaviour. We are keen to ensure that the police have a range of tools available to them—not simply fixed penalty notices, but all the other measures that we have brought before the House, including antisocial behaviour orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, dispersal orders and the power to close drug dens. All that adds up to a pretty good armoury to enable the police and, in many cases, community support officers to tackle the low-level antisocial behaviour that makes people's lives a misery. I hope that these measures, which are fully supported by the police, who are tackling the problems on the front line, also enjoy the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I commend the order to the Committee.
10.5 am
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con): May I, from these Benches, warmly welcome you, Mr. Griffiths, to the Chair this morning? I also thank the Minister for the helpful way in which she has explained the effect of the proposals that are before us for discussion.
My colleagues and I offer a guarded welcome to much of what the Minister said. She is right that the penalty notice system is a useful tool in the hands of the police, providing that it is used with great care and discretion. Adding the alcohol-misuse offences is probably a step forward, because it shows that the Government recognise—as does the Committee—that alcohol-related offences, particularly among young people, are a growing worry. The scourge of binge drinking is one that we must be careful about and get a grip on.
The Minister is also right to introduce the fireworks issue. Over the past few years, all of us present will have had complaints from constituents about fireworks being used well away from the normal bonfire night, and the stress that that causes not only to people but to pets.
However, I want to probe the Minister on the two new matters, which could be considered more controversial; the inclusion in this category of offences of criminal damage under £500 and of retail theft at a low level. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. If she is not able to deal with them today, I know that she will be kind enough to respond to me in writing.
The purpose of the penalty notices was to deal with fairly low-level, small-scale, disorderly conduct and, to that extent, the police properly welcomed them. I shall interpose by saying that I should declare an interest. As a lawyer by background, and sitting as a deputy district judge and recorder, from time to time I come across instances of disorder and the sort of offences that might be covered by the penalty notice.
I shall now tackle the nuts and bolts of the matter. The penalty notices have been in force for a matter of months rather than years. Will the Minister tell me exactly how long the penalty notice system has been in force, and how many penalty notices have been issued since its inception? What is the total amount of cash imposed by way of penalty under the penalty notices issued so far? Can the Minister also give me an
Column Number: 007
estimate of the total amount of money recovered so far under the penalty notice system? If one sits in the London courts, it is plain that a vast proportion of the fines imposed are not collected for one reason or another, but that is a debate for another day.
Are the fines imposed under the penalty notices actually being paid? If not, can the Minister tell me whether the defendant—for want of a better word—is subject to the normal enforcement proceedings in a magistrates or other court? That is to say, are they subject to fine enforcement, when a person is brought before a means court, his means are examined and appropriate orders made? Appropriate orders can involved the imposition of an immediate or suspended prison sentence for non-payment of a fine imposed for a criminal offence. Is the situation with penalty notices exactly the same? If so, I would like more information about that. Anecdotally, I cannot recall anyone appearing before me in a London means court recently in relation to failure to pay fines under a penalty notice.
Depending on the number of penalty notices that have been issued over the past few months—or whatever the period is—the Minister will want to confirm that all such persons have been excluded from the criminal statistics. So what in fact is a crime is not a crime in relation to a penalty notice issue, and we need to examine that.
One of two of us might worry if the offence of theft were included in the penalty notice system. It is perfectly obvious that if you or I, Mr. Griffiths, were drunk and disorderly in the street—of course, that would never apply in our case—it would be regarded as low-level disorder, we would receive a penalty notice and that would be the end of the matter. I am content that we would have no criminal conviction for that offence.
However, what about theft? Theft is potentially a serious offence, which is triable in either a Crown or magistrates court and can carry a sentence of seven years on indictment. The offence relates essentially to a person's honesty, so is very important. Let us carefully consider first the proposition that guidance will be issued—I hope that the Minister will circulate a copy of the guidance to all members of the Committee—and secondly, what could be encompassed by a theft of under £200 and the possible implications of that.
The Minister spoke about shoplifting. If one sits in any magistrates court in south London or elsewhere—from Camberwell, Bow street or the south west to Thames or Highbury corner—they will see that a high percentage of the cases in the morning list will be for shoplifting and small scale thefts of between £40 and £100. They are committed by men and women—there is no particular rule one way or another—but, significantly, the vast majority are drug-related.
I am amazed by the cases sometimes. For example, someone might have stolen £48 worth of razor blades from Boots. What the devil does anyone want with £48 worth of razor blades, I used to ask naively? However, I have learnt that such items are small and easily
Column Number: 008
takeable as well as being easily sellable. Nobody needs that number of razor blades. They go and sell them for money to buy drugs. My point is that if that person is charged and brought before the court, the intervention of outside agencies comes into play; the probation service can intervene or the court can make a drug treatment and testing order. It is important to catch the small-scale shoplifter, who is stealing to sell goods to buy drugs, at an early stage.
I worry that it might be too easy for the retail department in question—the loser—to say, ''I am not bothered, it's your penalty notice'', and the chances of intervention from various services, including the drug agencies, would be remoter. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. At some stage, will she give us her estimate of the total amount of retail theft in the past 12 months compared with the previous 12 months? I think that it is generally on the increase.
Getting back to the nuts and bolts of my point, in the case of theft and the typical shoplifter, when the policeman is at the store, does he know of the existing antecedent history of the offender prior to deciding whether to issue a penalty notice? It might be me, a first offender; it might be person X, a serial offender. However, person X may not have offended in that shop before. They may have offended in eight shops around the capital and have four convictions in Dundee for similar offences. Will the Minister give me an absolute assurance that when police are considering whether to issue a penalty notice for theft, they will have the antecedent history of the defendant?
Will she also assure me that the guidance will say in effect that no penalty notice shall be issued if the person has form, and that if there is any suspicion that the theft is drug-related in any way, no penalty notice shall be issued and the matter will be placed before a court? Some thefts from retail stores are committed by employees, and simply to refer to a theft of £200, an arbitrary figure, leaves open the possibility of the measure applying to such thefts, which constitute very serious breaches of trust and almost always result in a custodial sentence. We are getting to a situation in which a more serious offence, with rather big ramifications, could be hived off to the discretion of a policeman, and the Minister needs to give us an assurance on that.
This is a critical point. Can the Minister also confirm that when a defendant is standing in court, having pleaded guilty to, say, an offence of theft, the antecedent history—prepared by the Crown to be placed before the district judge to enable him or her to pass an appropriate sentence—will definitely include all details of previous fixed penalties? This is about previous conduct. For example, a judge sentencing someone who, luckily for them, has had 10 previous penalty notices in places scattered round the country, none of which was a conviction—I think that is the case—would find it much more relevant to impose a more substantial penalty on such a person than on a person who plainly had never been in trouble of any description before. Will the police have guidance on the number of penalties that a police officer can issue
Column Number: 009
before a charge inevitably will be made against the defendant?
Those are my serious and, I hope, constructive observations. I am happy to congratulate the Minister on bringing under the umbrella of penalty notices a number of offences that should properly be there, but I remain a little concerned about the issue of theft. Without going into the matter further, I should point out that for similar reasons criminal damage can and often does carry a custodial sentence in a magistrates court.
In its very helpful report, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments says that
''the Home Office explain . . . that the offences relate to disorderly behaviour where they fall at the lower end of the severity scale. Nothing in the order limits . . . the offences to those at the lower end of the severity scale.''
It does not because, as I have illustrated, offences of theft of less than £200 can be very grievous indeed. I hope that the Minister will comment on those aspects of the measure. I thank her warmly for the way in which she presented the issues to the Committee.
10.18 am
| 
