Clause 16
12:30 pm
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
The provisions of clause 16 effectively follow on from those of the previous clause in that, rather than levying a fine for an offence under clause 15, the court may deal with a person convicted of such an offence by making an order requiring the offender to attend three meetings with a supervisor. That effectively reproduces, with schedule 1 and with some modifications, proposals that were dropped from the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Orders to promote rehabilitation are now more neutrally described as:
“Orders requiring attendance at meetings.”
Under the previous provisions, it would have been permissible for an offender arrested for breach of an order to be detained for up to 72 hours if he or she could not be brought immediately before the appropriate court. We will obviously go on to discuss the detail in schedule 1.
Amendment 23, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, is the principal amendment in the group. It is designed to test the Government’s approach to the orders and to question how effective they will be. If we assume—again, this is an assumption made for the purposes of debate—that a criminal justice approach is right or appropriate in certain circumstances, what should that approach and response be? In the previous debate, we heard from the Minister that the 1959 welfare approach remains valid, so I assume that he accepts that some form of positive intervention to try to change behaviour and prevent harm is appropriate, in addition to or as a supplement to the existing, more traditional criminal justice punishment approach. If we follow that line of logic, the clause merely provides for a requirement to attend meetings. The provisions go on to say that the purpose of those meetings is to
“address the causes of the conduct”
and to help people to
“find ways to cease engaging in such conduct in the future”.
The amendment seeks to test why an alternative approach could not be taken—a community order, for example, with a drug rehabilitation requirement attached to it, or some other support mechanism. Would that not be a more appropriate way of addressing some of the underlying causes, challenges or issues that might be connected with the criminal behaviour in question?
In determining what may be appropriate, a court will receive various reports from probation and other services about the offender. Those reports will set out and test what requirements or sanctions might be appropriate to address aspects of the individual’s behaviour. Why does the Minister believe that the meeting requirement will be effective? There is some scepticism about whether making someone who has been convicted of an offence simply attend three meetings will be effective. It is all very well wishing that something might happen, but where is the follow-through?
A court order, which reflects a more compulsion-oriented approach, could be more effective in providing assistance and support mechanisms in relation to drugs and other problems. As we know, sadly, many people involved in prostitution are also addicted to drugs and rely on a pimp for their supply of drugs as well as for marketing their services. How can we use the criminal justice approach in a constructive way to direct and ensure that support services are followed through and acted on? Instead of simply saying that there will be some meetings, could a different, more effective approach be considered? That is why we propose the reference to section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which is the signpost to those community orders.
I hope that the Minister will clarify why the Government have taken this approach. Will he consider looking at whether it is appropriate and whether alternative approaches, providing support through a community punishment, might be more effective and achieve some of the ends that Members on both sides of the Committee want to be achieved?