Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 107, in clause 12, page 7, line 21, leave out ‘one’ and insert ‘two’.

The amendment tests the extent of the Government’s commitment to rehabilitation. It would make only a small change. The Home Secretary recently made a statement in the House, in which he told us that the Government are focusing on reducing reoffending. We believe that punishment tells individuals and society that certain forms of behaviour, or certain acts are not tolerated or acceptable. It should act as a deterrent. Without rehabilitation, however, it will not necessarily change behaviour.

I hope that all parties are in favour of changing such behaviour. Our ambition should be to convert offenders to become responsible members of society who will not reoffend, who will not engage in antisocial behaviour and who, ultimately, will not be a burden on the taxpayer. The caution is an alternative to entering the criminal justice system. It is a non-punitive means of encouraging people not to push their luck, to learn their lesson and to take a reprimand. However, it is a serious measure. It is a wake-up call, and a reprieve from the full arm of the law being extended. It gives the recipients a chance to change their behaviour.

Applying conditions to cautions would give us the opportunity to enshrine the Government’s message on rehabilitation and reparation. The amendment would allow that to be done statutorily rather than arbitrarily. At the moment, we have to use only one of the ways forward—perhaps punishment without rehabilitation—but the amendment would allow us to use more than one condition. We argue that it would be better for rehabilitation and reparation to become part of the process.

I seek a reassurance that cautions will not be misused. I acknowledge that a person has a choice whether or not to accept a caution, but the freedom to refuse a caution is likely to be limited by a person’s fear of prosecution. To a great extent, it is Hobson’s choice. I hope that the Minister will accept this small change, which would put flesh on the Home Secretary’s aspiration that rehabilitation should stop reoffending.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I understand the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. It is clearly our intention   that conditional cautions should include conditions for rehabilitation, reparation and punishment, as set out in the clause. It is important that we send out the clear message that we want to change behaviour. The driving force behind all our policies on tackling antisocial behaviour is to ensure that, with enforcement and support, such problems do not occur in future.

Under the existing conditional caution scheme, conditions must be either reparative or rehabilitative, but they do not need to be both. Each decision has to be taken in relation to the offence, and the prosecutor has to decide what conditions are appropriate. Conditional cautions are entirely voluntary. It is up to offenders whether to accept them. The clause amends the scheme so that, in addition to rehabilitation and reparation, there is an element of punishment. It also recognises that, as in the existing scheme, it may be desirable to attach conditions that have more than one effect. For instance, if someone makes off from a filling station without making payment, we might want to impose a conditional caution that has a provision for compensation to the victim, which is a financial penalty; a fine, which is a punishment; and something that makes good the damage caused, which is reparative. The clause is designed to ensure that there is flexibility to put a range of conditions into the scheme.

There will be some cases in which only one condition is appropriate, which is why I want to reject the amendment. In the cases of a drug-misusing prostitute, we may want simply to rehabilitate. We may not want to punish, and it may be difficult to find reparative work that a drug-misusing prostitute may want to do. I am sure that the hon. Lady would accept that it is therefore important for the Bill to have sufficient flexibility to enable there to be only one condition in some cases.

Another example would be if somebody were guilty of a minor public order offence. The appropriate response could be a punitive condition requiring the offender to undertake unpaid work to clear up the mess in a town centre after a Saturday night. That is not reparative, because he might be clearing up damage that he has not personally caused. It would be perfectly proper for such conditions to be used in circumstances in which somebody has caused damage such as graffiti or vandalism. There must be flexibility to direct conditions towards only one of the objects set out in the clause rather than at least two, which would be far too restrictive and would not cover the range of offences at which the clause is targeted. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider that point and withdraw her amendment.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I am somewhat persuaded by the Minister’s argument. What she says is fair. In the long term I would like some monitoring of how the conditions to a caution are being applied, so that we   can watch performance and establish whether what she says should be happening actually is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 141, in clause 12, page 7, line 31, at end insert ‘and undertake specified activities.’.

This is essentially a probing amendment on the conditions that can be attached to a caution. I want to obtain some clarification on the intent behind clause 12. The clause mentions

“a condition that the offender attend at a specified place at specified times.”

The Minister has spoken of the need, for example, in drug-related offences, for someone to attend a centre and receive treatment. The explanatory notes state that that might include the completion of a specified activity. My amendment would put that concept into the Bill.

If a condition is attached to a caution requiring an offender to attend a drug rehabilitation treatment centre, some involvement must be required. Just turning up at a specified time and place may not be sufficient, because an offender may not wish to co-operate with the service or facility. If the condition is to achieve its stated aim of facilitating rehabilitation, ensuring that an offender makes reparation, or punishing him, it should not be limited to attendance somewhere at specified times. For example, in the case of somebody who has damaged a wall or written graffiti on it, the condition might be that he should attend at a specified place at a specified time to clean up the mess that he has created. That is a creative way of making an offender appreciate the harm or damage that his actions have caused. However, it seems strange that the only condition that can be attached—and that can, therefore, be breached—is to tell the person that he has to attend the specified place at the specified time, without going on to say, “and you will undertake certain specified activities,” so that, should he not co-operate, it would be clear that he had breached the condition.

I tabled the amendment in order to clarify the intent behind the provisions and to find out what teeth they have to enable them to be followed through appropriately, so that if reparation is required, reparation actually occurs. Similarly, rehabilitation will take place by virtue of the fact that somebody attends a clinic and receives treatment and support in order to change his ways, whether they result from a drug habit or another problem. I shall be grateful for the Minister’s clarification.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I hope to provide the hon. Gentleman with sufficient reassurance to enable him to withdraw his amendment. The purpose of conditional cautions is to deal with low-level offences and to ensure that conditions are attached that facilitate rehabilitation or reparation or impose punishment.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure that, in addition to having to attend a specified place at a specified time, a person should carry out specified   activities—we envisage such things as drug rehabilitation, undertaking unpaid work or attending an anger management course. Clause 12(2) says that

“The conditions which may be attached to such a caution are those which have one or more of the following objects—”

and it states rehabilitation or reparation and punishment. The power to make general conditions is contained in that clause. New subsection (3A)(b) includes provision to ensure that an offender attends

“a specified place at specified times”.

That is to give us a peg on which to hang new subsection (3B), which includes provision for the offender not attend for more than 20 hours. We needed to specify a time limit. The general power to set conditions on what an offender should do is contained in a substantive clause by reference to the stated objects of the Bill.

If that has not given the hon. Gentleman clarity, I apologise. However, the power to make the conditions is set out by reference to the objects, and is therefore contained in the legislation—we specify time and place in order to provide ourselves with a legislative peg on which to hang the provision on the time limit, and a similar argument applies to the fine as well. Therefore, I can assure him that his amendment is superfluous. That is not his fault. However, given that the Bill as drafted enables us to ensure that the conditions can specify the kind of thing that he has set out, a breach will be a breach of the conditions and appropriate action will be taken. I hope that, on that basis, he will withdraw his amendment.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I am grateful for that clarification. I am reassured by the inter-relationship between the provisions. When one seeks to amend a statute—the Bill seems a little disjointed in terms of which bits are being amended and how it will all hang together subsequently—it is not necessarily clear whether something needs to appear in a certain part. The Minister has reassured me that, in essence, clause 12(2) sits alongside and supplements the additional measures proposed in clause 12(3). There is therefore no breakdown of the linkage between those two points. As she said, the objects are the fundamental driver and, therefore, the provisions on conditional cautions drive at what we have been talking about this morning. On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 137, in clause 12, page 7, line 38, at end insert—

‘(3A)In section 22(4)(a) after “constable” there is inserted—

“or, in the case of a condition which has an object under subsection (3)(c) above, an officer of the rank of sergeant or above”.’.

It is important that we have a debate on clause 12 and the principle of conditional cautions. Amendment No. 137 seeks to address a particular aspect of the operation of conditional cautions. At the moment,   they can be imposed by a police constable—an officer of any rank. My suggestion is in line with the one I made in relation to the street bail provisions that we discussed earlier. It is that a punitive conditional caution should be made only by an officer with the rank of sergeant or above. I shall explain why I think that that is a good idea—

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps it will help the Committee if I make it clear that the decision to administer a conditional caution is taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, not a police officer.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, which might mean that the amendment is unnecessary. I should like, however, to make a number of general remarks about the operation of conditional cautions. Perhaps I should do that in a clause stand part debate.

Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. If I can help the hon. Gentleman, I have not proposed the question on his amendment yet. If he does not want to pursue it, he does not have to. The Committee is entitled to a clause stand part debate, so if he wants to be more wide-ranging, I will be happy to ensure that he can make that contribution during that clause stand part debate. Of course, the decision is his.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I am grateful for your advice, Mr.d¤Conway, and in the circumstances, that is probably the best thing to do, because I tabled the amendment on the basis of a misunderstanding about the operation of conditional cautions. I would therefore prefer not to move the amendment.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

On Second Reading, I expressed concerns about the operation of conditional cautions. Those concerns come under three parts, which it is appropriate for the Committee to consider in more detail.

First, concern has been expressed outside the House and by a number of hon. Members about the fact that the power to impose punitive cautions will effectively allow the police to act as investigator, prosecutor and judge. Hon. Members might have received a letter from the Magistrates Association, which said that it considers it to be

“contrary to the principles of justice for prosecutors and police to be able to impose punishment without the involvement of the judiciary. A democratic legal system ensures that an independent tribunal—the judiciary—should sentence and impose punishment, thus preventing bias from prosecutorial authorities”.

The Magistrates Association also pointed out that the Secretary of State will be

“given powers to increase these potential penalties in the future. It opens up the possibility of more serious offences”,

than those currently proposed,

“being dealt with outside a court. This would mean that the prosecutorial authorities would be given extensive powers to impose penalties that should solely be the responsibility of the judiciary. It is an overriding principle of any criminal justice system that sentencing is for the judiciary”.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree with the concerns that have been expressed by the Opposition, including, incidentally, the Liberal Democrats, that so much of the Bill is dependent on secondary legislation? I am referring to the Magistrates Association’s concern about what additional powers there would be. Although the Minister will no doubt assure us of the good intent of the present Home Secretary, having seen the film “V for Vendetta” last night, I can see the potential should a less benevolent Home Secretary ever be in power.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I am grateful, as always, for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I have not seen “V for Vendetta”, so I am not able to comment.

This is a serious issue. Many of the provisions in the Bill give Ministers powers, for example, as we have already discussed, in the reshaping of police authorities. In relation to such a big extension of summary justice, it is questionable whether the Government should have such a power. Perhaps the Minister will say more about that and the Magistrates Association’s concerns when she responds. That was the first of the concerns. The power is a big shift in the principle of justice, and one that we should not let go without considering it carefully.

The second concern that I set out on Second Reading was that the Prime Minister had said that summary justice would be tough and hard, when there is a question that it might mean softer justice. When using the provisions under the legislation for conditional cautions to attach punitive conditions, the maximum penalty will be £500, which may be an attractive alternative to an offender who might be given a stiffer fine or even a custodial sentence were the matter to go to court. Just as seriously, there is a danger that it will give rise to two-tier justice and that those who can afford to accept the conditional caution and pay a fine will do so, but those who cannot will not. Although a voluntary principle underlies the exercise of conditional cautions, it applies only to the extent that the offender might have the financial means to comply with the condition.

When we were debating street bail, I gave the example of a business man in my constituency who had been given a fixed penalty notice as a consequence of a warning by a police officer. He decided to accept that rather than travel to court because it was more convenient for him. He could afford to accept the fixed penalty notice, but others might not be able to. There is a danger that the provision could become a “get out of jail with your credit card” option, instead of one that is intended to exercise justice in an equal manner. Liberty points out:

“Since the conditions may include a financial penalty, there is a serious concern that this could lead to two tiers of punishment ... Those without the means to pay a fine attached to a caution could face prosecution while someone who could afford to pay the fine could avoid a criminal conviction by paying.”

My third concern was about how the cautions were to be exercised. My concern about that, which I expressed on Second Reading in relation to both conditional cautions and street bail, has been allayed by the Minister pointing out that the prosecution services are involved in conditional cautions, whereas that is not the case in relation to street bail. I am grateful for that. The concerns that I expressed about the seniority of the police officers concerned apply more properly to the street bail provisions. Provided that the Crown Prosecution Service is involved, it is not such a concern that a constable of any rank can exercise a caution.

However, before we allow this big transfer of justice and give far less say to the courts and far more say to the police in the exercise of summary justice, it is important that hon. Members stop to consider what that means. On Second Reading, I quoted from an article in The Daily Telegraph:

“According to one document circulating in Whitehall, about half of the two million cases heard by magistrates every year could be processed without the costly and time-consuming business of a trial.”

I do not know whether that suggestion relates, in terms of the number of offences, to the provisions in the Bill, or whether the Home Office is considering plans to extend summary justice further. Can the Minister comment on that report?

To clarify, the beginning of the report stated:

“Ministers are drawing up plans to bypass the courts in the handling of hundreds of thousands more low-level crimes. Defendants who plead guilty to most offences with non-custodial sentences would, under their proposals, be sentenced by prosecutors, in consultation with the police.”

I think that that refers to the proposal for conditional cautions, but the report went on, as I said, to say that about half of the 2 million cases heard by magistrates every year could be processed in that way. Is the report accurate? Does it refer to conditional cautions, or are there other proposals to extend summary justice further? We should scrutinise that significant development properly.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

My hon. Friend raises interesting points about the development of summary justice. It is interesting to see the provisions in clause 12, and we have debated the objectives of conditional cautions. We are talking about an extension of the conditions that can be attached to cautions. In some ways, that reflects practical approaches undertaken in the summary justice system in Scotland, where it is possible for the procurator fiscal to attach fiscal fines. However, I understand that there is a fundamental difference with the system in Scotland inasmuch as the caution does not carry with it a formal acceptance of criminal liability, and does not have a criminal record attached to it, whereas a conditional caution in England and Wales would have that connotation. I suppose that the equivalent in Scotland would be a settlement out of court with no attachment of liability, albeit that the fiscal fine and the details of that could be provided to the victim of the crime and other interested parties.

I should be interested to hear from the Minister why the development that we are considering is taking place in England and Wales, in contrast with the slightly different system in Scotland. I should like to know what the logic is and what the thought processes were in developing the Home Office’s policies in that regard. How was that approach established?

There are questions about where the development may ultimately lead. When Bills such as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill come before the House, we receive assurances in Committee about the scope and operation of the provisions, but there is a risk. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill allows wholesale amendment of primary legislation without the need to return to the Floor of the House for full scrutiny of that. Such Bills make us somewhat cautious, because although we can understand the logic and the Minister’s explanations, we do not know where they may ultimately lead if there is the ability to amend them without full and proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House, if further amendments to primary legislation are required. It is important that the issue should be considered carefully and that the provision be given appropriate scrutiny.

I can see what is sought to be achieved. However, the question is whether that may subsequently be built upon and whether there will be any further erosion of the operation of the judiciary in this country’s system of justice, which I hope we would all accept as common ground, and which should remain an essential part of our democratic and free process. I hope that the provisions are not a precursor to a more expansive approach on summary justice and that they are intended, as the Minister says, to address low-level crime, which could be dealt with efficiently and without delay or expense, provided that that is done with the appropriate checks and balances, without the need formally to go to court, if that is accepted. I hope that the aim is to assist in the process of justice, rather than being a perhaps unintended Trojan horse for something more fundamental and sinister.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

My hon. Friends have already spoken quite eloquently about clause 12, but I have a concern about secondary legislation, which I mentioned in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I am the first to accept that all Governments, of whatever colour, cannot have everything debated on the Floor on the House, as that would simply cause a logjam. However, whereas it is appropriate to have secondary legislation for setting levels of fines and that sort of thing, it becomes dangerous when it fundamentally reforms legislation.

My hon. Friend has already quoted the Magistrates Association, so I will quote only one more line. It says that secondary legislation

“opens up the possibility of more serious offences, rather than extremely low level ones, being dealt with outside a court.”

That clearly does not meet the requirements of natural justice, of the judiciary or of one’s peers making judgments. It would be fundamentally wrong if more serious crimes were included within the ambit of the Bill through secondary legislation.

The Minister told us in the previous sitting that we have a “benevolent” Home Secretary, but what serious assurance can she give us that no future Home Secretary—perhaps not because of his nature, but because of changing circumstances in Britain—will decide that he must bring more serious crimes under the auspices of clause 12, meaning that they could be dealt with outside a court? How can we be assured that there would still be a role for magistrates and Crown courts if there were changes in secondary legislation? What safeguards can the Minister give us to assure us that someone who was not as “benevolent” as the present Home Secretary—I use the Minister’s word, although some would argue that he is not so benevolent—would not extend the powers considerably?

Does the Minister agree that, in principle, it would be wrong for more serious cases to be dealt with in that way? If she sets out the principle, lawyers will always be able to say that a Home Secretary who is not benevolent and who tries to extend the powers beyond what is provided for in clause 12 is in breach of the spirit of the law. I should be most interested to hear what she has to say, first, about the spirit of the law and the principle and, secondly, about the safeguards that exist to ensure that the power is not extended.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

Given the lobbying that goes on and the various representations that are made, it is understandable that debates tend to look at these matters from the point of view of the offender or the legal system. However, it is important also to look at them from the point of view of victims and the wider community.

The proposal to introduce conditional cautions was referred to in our respect action plan and is about ensuring that our system takes seriously offences that really affect people’s quality of life, such as graffiti, shoplifting, vandalism and low-level antisocial behaviour. It is about having sanctions, punishments, reparation, rehabilitation and restorative justice to deal with what is sometimes referred to as low-level crime, even though its impact on communities can be enormous.

The legal system is complicated, time consuming and sometimes bureaucratic, so offences and acts that cause people a lot of damage have not always been taken seriously. Sometimes, because of the time involved in processing a case, people have got away with such acts. The whole point of introducing measures such as conditional cautions is to ensure that we address these issues speedily and effectively, so that the victims and the community have a real sense that the system is working.

Let me give hon. Members one example, which relates to shoplifting, although not specifically to conditional cautions. In many cases, shoplifting has not been seen as a serious offence, but it is serious to the people involved. When we introduced a fixed penalty notice provision last year, there was an outcry because people thought that we were downgrading the offence; they thought that it was no longer a criminal offence because it was subject to a fixed penalty notice. In practice, however, shoplifting now has a sanction attached to it in far more cases and is easier to dispose of. Instead of the offender simply getting away with it, there is now a punishment, and I think that everybody recognises that that is a good development.

Similarly, in the case before us, we are talking about ensuring that the justice system takes antisocial behaviour extremely seriously. I make a plea to the Committee, and particularly to the Opposition, to look at the issue from the other end of the kaleidoscope for a change—from the point of view of the public and the victim, not the offender.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

I think that it is a little unfair of the Minister to accuse the Opposition of not taking account of the view of the victim. I agree with everything that she has said, other than her last remark, which was a little cheap and party political. Incidentally, the John Lewis Partnership—a company with which I have certain connections—very much welcomes the legislation to which the Minister referred. Will she, however, address the issue of using secondary legislation to deal with more serious issues? Although we must take the side of the victim, must we not also take the side of justice? The victim will not thank the Government if the wrong person is found guilty. The measures are wholly appropriate in the instances that the Minister gave, but we are asking about other crimes, which could come under the ambit of the clause as a result of secondary legislation.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I think that I have been very generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to make his point yet again. He has made it previously, and I will come to it, if he will just have a little patience—[Interruption.] I think that I have been very generous to hon. Members in seeking to have a proper debate on these serious matters. It is important that we look at them properly.

Mark Pritchard (Wrekin, The, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

A conditional caution is not a court sentence or a criminal conviction, but an admission of guilt. The person who accepts the caution must accept the conditions, so it is a voluntary process. That deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs about there being a two-tier justice system in which a person who can afford to pay a fine will take a different kind of caution. The person has to agree to the conditions, whether they are punitive,   whether they concern compensation, reparation or rehabilitation. If they are not prepared to accept them, they always have the option of going to court.

The financial and unpaid work penalties are significantly lower than the fines that magistrates courts would be likely to impose. That is an incentive to get matters dealt with as speedily, effectively and efficiently as possible. It is important to ensure that our courts system works properly. If it does not and there is inordinate delay, it is brought into disrepute. The maxim that justice delayed is justice denied is as appropriate in criminal matters as in civil matters.

As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) said, making the connection between the relevant behaviour and the punishment and rehabilitation as quickly as possible helps to change behaviour. If the sanction or penalty comes three or six months after the relevant low-level antisocial behaviour, it is difficult to make that connection. I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that the proposals are radical, but they will be significant in making a connection between the behaviour and the sanction, and showing the public that the criminal justice system works.

I envisage that, if someone commits criminal damage on a Wednesday evening, within a couple of weeks they might be out in the local park at the weekend putting right some other damage. I hope that such punishments will be carried out in a visible way, so that the community can see that such work is being carried out, and we can start to get some public confidence in the criminal justice system.

This is not about wandering into areas of serious crime; the hon. Member for Lichfield makes a fair point. There is clear guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions about the kind of offences that should be subject to conditional cautions. Because the conditions are set lower than the fines and punishments that magistrates courts can impose, it clearly is not appropriate to stray into that serious crime area. The proposal is an innovative and radical departure to try to ensure that, at long last, we deal with some of the issues that have gone unnoticed, unpunished and untackled in the past, which has led to a diminution in public confidence in the criminal justice system that these matters are to be addressed.

Mark Pritchard (Wrekin, The, Conservative)

On that point about public confidence, whilst I do not doubt the motivation of the Minister and the Government with these new proposals, does she agree that there is public concern about the lack of fine money being collected under existing legislation, never mind under the proposed legislation? The public are also concerned that many people do not turn up to do the work required by their community service orders, and that they are never tracked down and never serve them. If we are to extend the use of fines and community service orders—albeit under a new name—surely there is an issue regarding the continuing lack of public confidence.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that fine collection has improved dramatically in the past few years. We have had a number of high profile operations, such as operation payback, in which the Court Service and the national enforcement service stepped up the recovery rate of fines. He is right to say that the fines system fell into disrepute because fines were not being paid, but that has been tackled. I cannot give the current figures off the top of my head, but I think that collection rates are up to almost 80 per cent., which is a significant improvement. I am sure that we can do more on that.

The same notion applies to community service orders. I am absolutely convinced that, if we are to get the public to have confidence in community penalties, we must ensure that they are rigorous, that people complete them, that they are hard work and that they are properly enforced. We have a big programme to ensure that that happens. Community payback operates across the country, and there is more visible community punishment. My experience is that, when the public do not have a sense that community punishments are working, they do not have confidence that the system is on their side, so it is imperative that we ensure that the whole system works. We are determined to do that, and we are making significant progress in making that happen.

Opposition Members talked about the possibility of 1 million offences being diverted from the justice system into more forms of summary justice. We estimate that the number of conditional cautions will be around 30,000 a year, which is a small proportion of the figure mentioned in the reports. It is dangerous to take information from reports in TheDaily Telegraph.

The Government are looking at ways to process cases through the magistrates court system more effectively. Magistrates courts deal with a huge number of offences and when the custody plus provisions are introduced later in the year they will take on significant extra responsibility. Cases involving things such as TV licence fines, motoring offences, council tax arrears, can be batched together and dealt with more efficiently and effectively. Work is still in the fairly early stages, but we are considering how we might make that happen. I hope that that will have the support of all hon. Members: if we can free up magistrates’ time to deal with the cases that are contentious and have significant judicial impact, so much the better. Dealing with many cases is very much an administrative process, and if we can make the system work better we will do so. We will take a staged approach, however, because I am conscious of the need to ensure that the justice system is properly balanced between protecting the rights of the accused—until a person is found guilty he is not an offender—and the rights of the decent, law-abiding majority of people in this country. Rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of victims and law-abiding people is something that we need to do and be seen to do.

I emphasise that throughout the process, the person who has admitted their guilt has the right of access to free legal advice, so we are not talking about vulnerable people being coerced into accepting a caution against their will. We are talking about speedy, common-sense disposal of a case and making sure that bad behaviour does not go unpunished. I hope that that has the support of the whole of the Committee. We are taking a radical step, but the Government and the people involved should be congratulated on having the courage to deal with the issue.

When cautions were introduced they were very useful. The proposed changes are the result of our experiences and of recommendations from the police, prosecutors and people involved in administering the schemes. We need to ensure that we have a variety of conditions that we can attach. There are safeguards in the fact that it will be the Crown Prosecution Service, not the police, exercising jurisdiction. There is proper guidance in place—the conditional cautioning code of practice was agreed by the House in 2004. The guidance sets out clearly the role of the Crown prosecutor in the process and the role of the police officers. Para 2.4 makes it absolutely clear that it is for the prosecutor to decide that a conditional caution is the right disposal and what conditions would be suitable. That has already been debated by the House.

With those safeguards, the proposed arrangement should be a welcome, imaginative and creative addition to the way in which we can use our criminal justice system to protect both victims and the wider public.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

The Minister’s suggestion that we should consider not just the offenders or the courts, but the victims, is of course right—we must be mindful of the victims throughout our discussions on this Bill and others. The statement that there are victims suffering from antisocial behaviour and that the courts are too bureaucratic to deal with that serious problem could be used to justify any measure to try to shut the courts out, but it is not a sufficient argument in itself to justify any measure and it does not justify the measure that we are debating now. The question is whether the proposed measure strikes the right balance.

It is never acceptable for Ministers to use such arguments, but they used precisely the same arguments in relation to the 90-day proposals for the detention of terrorists. The House rightly took a different view: we had to debate what number of days was right and not just accept the general principle that, because it was necessary to deal with terrorism, an extension was bound to be justified. The question is whether the measure is proportionate and whether there are sufficient safeguards in it.

The Minister did not address my point people who can afford to pay will have the option of paying a lower fine, by way of the fixed penalty, than they might have received had they gone to court. The Minister conceded that by saying that the fines would be set at a lower level than if the matter were dealt with in court.   That will lead to people who can afford to pay fixed penalty notices finding them to be a convenient way of avoiding higher fines, while those who cannot afford to pay will be in a totally different situation. That is the two-tier nature of the proposal.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the system should be monitored continually and carefully to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where, for the sake of expediency, offenders are given a caution rather than taken through the full judicial process even where a tougher sentence might be more appropriate? The caution must not be overused. To ensure that justice and that the victims of crimes are properly served, offenders must continue be taken to court rather than handed conditional cautions.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

That is precisely my point. Justice will not be served if an offender can get away with a lower level of fine by way of a fixed penalty when that is not merited. Magistrates are no longer to make those decisions—they will not be able to exercise their judgment on the proper level of fine for such offenders because they are not to be involved in the process. The decisions are to be taken only by the police with prosecutors.

The Minister said that the measure will free up magistrates’ time. One might, therefore, have expected the Magistrates Association to be terribly grateful for a measure to deal with the bureaucracy that confronts them, but they have not said that. Instead, they have expressed great concern about the fact that they are to be removed from the process altogether. That is a fundamental shift in the basis on which justice has been exercised in this country.

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that the press report that I mentioned referred not to the introduction of punitive conditions in relation to cautions, but to potential future changes through which there may be a further extension of summary justice. We look forward to hearing those proposals. The Minister said that she expected us to welcome them, but we cannot know that until we have sight of them.

It confirms—and we know this from the Prime Minister’s statements during news conferences and in the House—that a large change is under way which involves the appropriate level of punishment being decided, not by magistrates who are trained and qualified to make such decisions, but by prosecutors and the police. The only safeguard lies in the fact that the measure is voluntary—the offender can choose not to accept the fixed penalty and can opt to go to court. However, we must be concerned about those offenders who are less able to afford the possible fine or who find themselves coerced. By coerced, I mean that there is a serious danger that the police might overuse the measure to dispense summary justice and to deal with people they find troublesome, meaning that cases never reach court or, indeed, public attention.

It may be true that this measure will make it easier to deal with antisocial behaviour, and we should take it seriously. However, it will also change the balance of   how we dispense justice in this country, so it merits a serious debate. It is not sufficient argument to say that because antisocial behaviour is a problem, the change must be merited and anybody who cares about antisocial behaviour must be in favour of it.

Mark Pritchard (Wrekin, The, Conservative)

The issue of coercion and confusion is most pertinent. Is my hon. Friend aware that some people, rather than go to court, have accepted cautions, which are then revealed by a Criminal Records Bureau check when they go for a teaching post, for example, although they were not told at the time that the caution would form part of a CRB check? At least six or seven people have told me that because they believed they were innocent they would have gone to court, but they did not want to go through that process and therefore settled for a caution; however, they would not have done so if they had known that it would have an impact on their livelihoods every day of the week.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very good example of a situation in which people will settle for cautions that they might not otherwise have been willing to accept.

If, as the Minister suggests, the processes that involve bringing people to court are over-bureaucratic, it behoves us to examine those process and to decide how cases can be speeded up. However, to shut magistrates courts out altogether is a much more radical option. I am grateful that we have had this opportunity to discuss the matter.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to accept the proposed shift in the way of dealing with some antisocial behaviour to admit the possibility of a swift reaction, there should be very strict auditing of the cases involved and the cautions and conditions that are applied? We would then be able to analyse those cases retrospectively to see whether what the Minister says will be applied is actually applied, and ensure that summary justice does not overstep the mark and apply in cases that should really go through the courts.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

The hon. Lady raises an interesting question: the extent to which it will be possible to scrutinise publicly how the cautions are exercised, because these cases will be almost private matters between the prosecutors, the police and the offender, whereas when a case is heard before a magistrates court it is a public matter. That is an interesting example of an element of scrutiny that we have not really discussed and to which the Minister might like to respond. There may be ways in which the exercise of the conditional cautions can be scrutinised.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make wider points about the exercise of the conditional cautions. The whole House should watch the results of this measure and the process very carefully as the extension of summary justice is developed in the years ahead.