Clause 26
7:15 pm
Simon Burns (Whip, Whips; West Chelmsford, Conservative)
And in Romford.
James BrokenshireAnd in my borough, too. The street pastors look at behaviours in the late-night economy, talk to people and engage positively. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that there is a need for criminal justice interventions to send a strong message when people transgress and behave inappropriately.
I understand why the Government, through section 12 of the 2001 Act, have created the offence of consuming alcohol in a designated public place. It can be an effective tool in the box. I accept entirely that we do not necessarily want people wandering the streets with alcohol. I fasten on to the point that this is a question of ensuring that the changes that we make are effective and are used. We need to ensure that proposals are effective, and that is why I say again that the power has not been used to its fullest extent, which raises the question of what difference will be made by increasing the fine.
Equally, as I understand it—I am sure that the Minister can provide some detail about how the court sets fines—affordability must be considered. How many people would be captured by that increase in the quantum? How will sending out that message affect the anticipated number of people receiving, for example, a sentence in excess of existing limits? Understanding that better, and understanding the Government’s approach, will be of great assistance to the Committee in appreciating the rationale and purpose behind the change and why it is envisaged that it will be effective.
It is important, in that context, to consider that paragraph 24 of the British Retail Consortium’s briefing notes to the Committee states:
“Clause 26 increases the maximum fine for consuming alcohol in a designated public place from level two (currently £500) to level four (currently £2,500). However, no person since 2004 has been given a fine of more than £250 meaning that the current £500 maximum fine has never been used. We do not therefore understand the logic of altering this at this time.”
I hope that the Minister will explain the logic. Is it simply about sending a message, or is there a more substantive rationale? I am not in any way opposed to tough sentencing and a firm approach, but as the power has not been used, I want to understand whether he believes that the proposal will make a noticeable difference in the fight against alcohol-fuelled disorder.