Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I think that I speak for all of us when I say that I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for introducing the amendment. She highlights an issue of some importance, but having looked at the matter carefully in the last day or two, I do not think that the amendment can quite have my support.

I declare an interest—I should have done so earlier—if, indeed, it is one. I have been a lawyer and sit as a part-time district judge and Crown court recorder. My work in that field has made me very familiar with the issues of mental illness in relation to courts. It is important to distinguish between two types of defendant. At the London courts where I sit—Camberwell, Bow street, Horseferry road or wherever—those who have been drunk when they have offended fall, broadly speaking, into two categories. The first is comprised of those persons whom one looks at and says, “This is hopeless; there is nothing that can be done”. Such people live on the streets, have a mental illness and are so vulnerable—that was the word that the hon. Lady used—that there is not a single sentence that a court could impose that would help in any way at all. It is as bad as that.

The second category is of people who are different from that; they are without mental illness, have offended because of alcohol and can be dealt with in a certain way. However, the hon. Lady referred to the very vulnerable, and I understand her point only too well.

I do not quite support the hon. Lady’s amendment No. 116 because its effect would be that a court would have to receive a report on the relevant person before a drinking banning order was made. In my judgment, that could be bureaucratic; the court would appear to have its hands tied. It would be considering a drinking banning order but be required to have a report. The court ought to have a wider discretion. In many cases, one would not need a report because one could summarise the nature of the defendant, who might be, to use a bit of slang, “up together” in every sense, but have offended in a way that is connected with alcohol. One could then move forward smoothly to the drink banning order if one felt that to be appropriate.

On the other hand, one sees cases for which a drinking banning order would be no use at all because of the extreme vulnerability of the person concerned. The other slight problem is that if one is to have a report every time one makes such an order, that will take a lot of time, and I think that the Minister will be concerned about that. Such reports nowadays are prepared by people working for what we call the probation service, although it sometimes has a new title; they are the same people working desperately hard. They are awfully underfunded and the reports can take weeks. That is a debate for another day.

How could the probation officer get in touch with the most vulnerable people so that a report could be prepared? That is a practical handling exercise. I have sat in court and asked for a report on a certain person, but the questions, “What is your mobile phone number?” and, “What is your address?” are completely irrelevant—the person has no mobile   phone number, address or any method of contact. The tying together of the two parties is extremely difficult and takes a great deal of time.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is excellent in many ways. Importantly, it highlights, at an early stage in our deliberations, the position of the most vulnerable in our communities. Let us not be mistaken: there are many of them. However, would it not be more appropriate if the amendment No. 116 read, “Before making a drinking banning order, a court may ask for a report from an appropriate officer”? That would be an extremely sensible approach.

See this speech in context