Clause 26
7:00 pm
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
In introducing clause 26, which relates to the increase in penalties for the offence of consuming alcohol in a designated public place from level 2 to level 4, it is important to look at the context to understand why the Government believe that further changes to the law are needed, both in the clause and more generally in relation to the provisions that we will be debating in this part of the Bill. There are obvious and clear links between alcohol and violent crime. In their document, “Safe. Sensible. Social. The next steps in the National Alcohol Strategy”, the Government pointed that out quite clearly:
“Alcohol consumption is most likely to be associated with violence committed by strangers and with incidents which result in wounding.”
As part of its proposals to address these problems of violence linked to binge drinking and criminality, the Licensing Act 2003 was passed, promising to realise the concept of a cafÃ(c) culture and a reduction in the problem of alcohol-fuelled crime. However, on the basis of the Government’s own assessment, the effect has been neutral as far as the evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act is concerned:
“The impact on overall crime levels appears to be limited, with evidence of some displacement into the small hours.”
Arguably, the Government’s proposals under the Licensing Act have made the situation worse, with the displacement of this problem of violent crime to the early hours of the morning, with hospital accident and emergency departments having to pick up the problem. I presume that that is partly why the Government feel they need to introduce clause 26 to address the problem of binge drinking. It is clear is that alcohol admissions to hospital casualty departments have jumped by a quarter since the introduction of the Licensing Act, with real costs being involved. Equally, there are increased pressures on the police in the early hours of the morning.
Young people who are consuming alcohol are consuming much more, feeding into the culture of binge drinking, alcohol-fuelled crime, and long-term health damage. In “Safe. Sensible. Social.” the Government highlighted that:
“The UK has among the highest incidences of youth drunkenness. Among 35 European countries, the UK has the third highest proportion of 15-year-olds (24 per cent.) who have been drunk 10 times or more over the past year, based on self-reported data.”
We need to be mindful of the fact that death rates from alcohol-related illnesses continue to rise. Moreover, in terms of the impact on the public and on our communities, the Government themselves appear to accept that 61 per cent. of the public think that alcohol-related crime on the streets is increasing.
I certainly welcome measures that will be effective in combating the problems that have been created and that we see in our communities as a consequence of alcohol-fuelled disorder and crime. My question in relation to clause 26 is what impact the measures will have and whether they may in fact undermine or hamper existing good practice and partnership working to combat underage sales and drink-fuelled crime. Clause 26 increases the penalty for consuming alcohol in a designated public place from £500 to £2,500. However, as was highlighted on Second Reading, no one has received the maximum fine to date, so in a sense this is window dressing rather than an effective way of combating those offences. That view is reaffirmed when one considers that in 2007, the number of people charged under section 12(4) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was 113, of whom 98 were found guilty. The most relevant fact in relation to the clause is that the number of people who received a fine at level 2—over £200 and up to £500—was five.
Given that no one received the maximum fine even under the existing level 2, and with only five people in 2007 receiving a level 2 fine, will the Minister explain how the provision will make an impact and how it will deliver the messages that were referred to, and which the Government often rely on to support their introduction of the measures, and to try to show that they are being tough? The reality appears to be that no one is receiving the maximum fine under the existing arrangements, and that very few people are receiving a fine anywhere near the previous maximum. That raises the question of what impact the change will have.
Another question is how the proposal fits into the Government’s drive towards summary justice. According to the Home Office, more than 1,500 people received an £80 fixed penalty ticket for the offence, Presumably, notwithstanding the change that the Government propose in clause 26, many people will still receive penalty notices for disorder offences. Again, what difference will the clause make if the majority of people will simply be dealt with by way of a fixed penalty ticket?
When the Home Secretary talks about sending out messages, is she saying through this increase in the fine that she wants more people to be taken to court rather than dealt with summarily? Is that the indicator? Is that the message that she and the Ministers are trying to communicate through the change proposed in clause 26? They are sending out a message to the public on the seriousness of the offence, but how will it be sent to the police? That may not be the intention—if it is not that, too, raises a question about the purpose of the provision. If, as we have been told, the clause is about communicating the message to the public that the intention is to deal with the offence more seriously, will the Minister explain what public relations campaign will be initiated to launch that message?
The focus of the Government’s proposals is youth drinking. The measures before us appear to implement several previous statements such as the one in the youth alcohol action plan. In that context, it might be helpful to understand how many of the five people in 2007—we could use any other figures the Minister may be able to provide—who were under the age of 18 were convicted of an offence under section 12(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2001. We also need to understand better how the proposal in clause 26 has been arrived at. Can the Minister confirm whether the additional power was actively sought by the police or the magistrates courts in advance? Can he confirm what assessment was undertaken of the operation of section 12(4) in its previous form, and whether the results of that investigation provided evidence to support the Government’s proposal?
It is important that we consider what changes may be brought about as a consequence of the measure. In its briefing note on this part of the Bill, the Young Women’s Christian Association stated:
“Increasing the fine to such a level is unlikely to help any of these people who are likely to be unable to pay the fine. An offer of support to combat alcohol problems would be a more effective lever for behaviour change.”
What potential do other interventions have to stop reoffending? Does the Minister support other innovative interventions such as the programme adopted by Hertfordshire police for drink offences more generally? It provides an alternative to a penalty notice for disorder, and gives people the option of accepting a reduced fixed penalty of £40, which is then used to pay for an alcohol treatment programme—a project that the person attends on a Saturday morning. It gets them to face up to the consequences of binge drinking and to focus on the consumption of alcohol units. The punishment is the payment of the £40 plus attendance on the course.
I had the pleasure of being invited to observe how the programme worked in practice. It was interesting to see that several people actually went away questioning their behaviour. They were challenged to behave in a more appropriate way in the future.
Yes, we seek to punish, but we also want to stop further offending and to get people to consider whether their consumption of alcohol is appropriate. They need to understand units and how much alcohol they are consuming, and to recognise that, in extreme cases, alcohol consumption can link to violence and unacceptable behaviour in our communities.
Hertfordshire uses the drink awareness programme as a variation on penalty notices for disorder, and from the initial studies, it seems to be effective. Clearly, however, other programmes and projects could be used as an alternative to challenge behaviour and focus on its causes. Again, although I recognise that the Government appear to be sending out a strong message—I do not demur from being firm on such offences—there is still a question of what is effective and makes a difference in such situations.