Schedule 14 - Penalty notices for disorderly behaviour
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill
1:00 pm

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 426, in schedule 14, page 178, line 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Philip Hollobone (Kettering, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 427, in schedule 14, page 178, leave out lines 7 to 17 and insert

‘““approved educational course” means an educational course run by the Probation service””.’.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

We have concerns about the schedule and the proposals to extend penalty notices for disorder, or rather, the proposed relaxation of the process for issuing such notices. Amendment 426 is designed to maintain the obligation for a police officer issuing a penalty notice for disorder to be in uniform and for the act to take place within a police station. I want to explain why we have that concern, and I need to say some things about penalty notices for disorder to set it in context.

Penalty notices for disorder are fixed financial penalties that can be imposed as a result of committing minor offences. They are a long-standing measure for dealing with speeding and parking fines, but in 2000 the then Labour Government extended them to prevent antisocial and drunken behaviour. They were introduced for the 43 police forces in England and Wales in 2004 under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

At present, any person over the age of 16 may receive a PND for a minor disorder, provided that the issuing officer has reason to believe that the person has committed a specified offence. Currently, the fine level is £50 for minor offences, but may be up to £80 for more serious offences.

PNDs were intended to offer officers an effective alternative means of dealing with low-level crime, to deliver swift, simple and effective justice, to reduce the amount of time spent on paperwork, and to increase the amount of time spent on the beat. In fact, it is estimated that they have had those effects. Preparing an evidential case file takes two hours, but a PND takes about half an hour to process. There are also various provisions in the event that an offender does not comply with the PND, and they may be taken to court and end up with a criminal record.

We are worried about allowing PNDs to be issued by police officers who are not in uniform, but are out on the street anywhere. I want to take the Committee back to a former Prime Minister’s idea of marching people to cash points. That was generally thought not to be very sensible, and I suggest that the proposal before us is similar to that. The practicalities are alarming. We are worried about personation if a police officer is not in uniform, and about intemperate use of PNDs on the spot. We believe it important to retain the requirement that only authorised constables in a police station may issue PNDs and not, for example, new recruits. Her Majesty’s Opposition are totally committed to membership of the European Union, but the provision moves us in a continental direction with which we are not entirely comfortable.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

Amendment 427 seeks to amend schedule 14 by redefining “approved educational course”—[ Interruption. ] We are dealing with the amendments together, and I am able to make only one speech on them.

Philip Hollobone (Kettering, Conservative)

Order. The Minister may make as many speeches as he wishes during this part of the debate. He is not restricted to one speech.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

I cannot tell you, Mr Hollobone, with what enthusiasm your ruling has been received by the Committee. With amendment 427, I will get my retaliation in first, and I imagine that you will be generous enough to enable the hon. Lady to return to the charge. I will try to inflict only one speech on the Committee and deal with both amendments.

Amendment 427, which the hon. Lady did not address, seeks to amend schedule 14 by redefining an “approved educational course” as an

“educational course run by the probation service”,

rather than the police. That would not be appropriate and would run counter to our vision for education schemes. Probation resources are stretched in the current climate—the Opposition constantly remind us of that, despite being responsible for the problem—and are therefore rightly focused on much more serious offenders than those who would receive a PND, whom educational course schemes are intended to target. The probation service would therefore not be qualified or resourced to establish national or local PND educational courses. The police are far better placed to run such courses locally, which will highlight the consequences of the sort of low-level antisocial behaviour that PNDs are intended to tackle. Indeed, a number of forces already run informal education schemes. PNDs are not suitable for offenders with the ingrained underlying problems that existing probation services are designed to tackle.

Amendment 426 would reinstate the requirement that a constable must be in uniform when using a PND outside a police station, and that an officer must be formally authorised to issue a PND inside a police station. Such requirements are unnecessary and can cause difficulties for the police at an operational level. The first element concerns authorisation of police officers in uniform in a police station. We definitely consider that to be unnecessary bureaucracy that can be done away with, as far as issuing PNDs within the confines of a police station is concerned.

As for the issue of police on the streets in plain clothes, what we are seeking to address is operations such as test purchases for under-age alcohol sales. Such officers are not in uniform, and are consequently forced to bring suspects back to the police station to issue a PND. We want to remove such inefficiency and bureaucratic obstacles and simplify front-line police processes. There is no longer a need for such restrictive practices.

Let me return to the issue of police officers in police stations, because the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was looking deeply sceptical at that point. She talked about trainee police officers. Of course, all officers are fully trained to issue PNDs appropriately as part of their probationary training. To then require them to be formally authorised to issue PNDs after they have received that probationary training inside a police station  is undoubtedly an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, which is what we seek to remove. It is part of the process of supporting our police by enabling them to concentrate on their front-line responsibilities.

As for why police should be in uniform, the hon. Lady raised the issue of personation. It would be slightly odd—I suppose it is conceivably possible—for someone to pretend to be a police officer and issue a penalty notice. Such a penalty notice plainly would not have any merit, because it would not be an official penalty notice. Penalty notices do not require the paying of cash on the spot; it is a penalty notice that is ordered, and the dealing of the penalty is not part of the process of issuing the notice. Therefore, it is not a concern that should weigh very heavily against the potential advantages of such a scheme. I mentioned the example of operations against under-age alcohol sales. Another situation envisaged is plain clothes detectives investigating reports of potentially serious offending. They will be unable to issue on-the-spot PNDs for the offence of wasting police time if those reports turn out to be false or mischievous.

Equally, if, during drug dealing investigations, officers in plain clothes have to deal with more minor offences being committed such as the possession of cannabis, which might attract a PND, they would not, under current arrangements, be able to issue a PND for the offence on the street. This measure is about appropriate operational flexibility. I hope that my examples make it clear in what circumstances police in plain clothes might issue PNDs. I do not anticipate circumstances that will widen their scope.

The hon. Lady has drawn attention to her worries.

Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)

If someone has been issued with a notice, does that appear on their record?

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

No.

Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)

A caution does.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

A PND does not.

Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)

I am grateful for that clarification.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

I am happy to provide that the hon. Gentleman with that information, and I shall be happy to listen to the hon. Lady’s case for amendment 427, if she is allowed another go. However, I hope I have provided a strong case against it that the Committee finds satisfactory, without my having to return to it.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman’s attitude to amendment 426 was rather cavalier. I remind him of the responses to the White Paper, “Breaking the Cycle”. The criminal sub-committee of the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges said:

“We have expressed our concerns about the ever increasing use of out of court disposals for what is, in reality, criminal activity for some years. We remain very concerned…Out of court disposals have, increasingly, been used as a response to truly criminal activity and the general public may have no idea how the situation has developed and the range of matters that may now be dealt with by extra judicial processes…Until recent years, in our view appropriately, the use of fixed financial penalties has been in relation to offences that might be termed ‘regulatory.’”

It then goes on to consider the extension of the provision to disorder:

“The use of fixed penalties as a response to truly criminal offending is to create the impression that truly criminal offending is not to be treated as significant. We are concerned that this is likely to encourage the belief that crime may not result in retribution and introduce the perception that some criminal activity does not merit proper process or consequences whilst other matters which might be deemed regulatory breach rather than truly criminal activity, result in equivalent or more serious consequences. In the long term, such a policy carries substantial risk. If less serious, but nonetheless criminal activity is to result in similar sanctions to regulatory breach, it is likely to come to be regarded as no more serious. So at the risk of stating the obvious if, for example, theft in a shop attracts the same consequence as unlawful parking, it may come to be regarded as equivalent in seriousness. This must have an impact upon the numbers who may be tempted to engage in truly criminal activity.”

The committee was not only the only body to ask some serious questions. Liberty was also worried about proposals aimed at increasing the use of out-of-court disposals, including notices for disorder. It believes that it is contrary to fundamental principles of justice for prosecutors and

“police to be able to impose on-the-spot punishment without the involvement of the judiciary. By-passing normal judicial and fair trial safeguards can leave individuals open to bias and irrationality in sentencing decisions.”

In their reply, Lord Justices Thomas and Goldwin said that there was a general question mark over the record of out-of-court disposals and, further, that it was sometimes difficult properly to assess the seriousness of a case.

The Minister is presenting the provision as a small improvement in efficiency. I fear that it is not.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

We have not had the stand part debate on the matter, which is where the hon. Lady is taking us. I was replying to her specific amendments, but I am detecting a change in Opposition policy. She made remarks about the previous Prime Minister. Has the Opposition’s policy on PNDs changed?

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

No. We are opposing the changes to the way in which PNDs put in place by this Government will operate. The fact is that they are proposing a change, and we are trying to maintain the existing boundaries and processes that we feel are necessary to get the balance right between effectiveness and flexibility, and the risk of inappropriate use of PNDs. We feel that these changes move over that boundary.

Dave Watts (St Helens North, Labour)

Is not the provision a charter, for example, for people to join a club, get themselves involved in vandalism and pay a fine that never shows up anywhere else on their record? They can then go out the following week and carry out the same sort of activity. Is such an approach not encouraging bad behaviour? It sounds to me like something that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor might have been involved in.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not suggesting that this relates in any way to the sort of activities that Government Members might have been involved in earlier in their careers. I am saying that there is scope for criminal activity and personation. For example, the Minister says, “Well, it’s all okay  because you send your cheque to an address.” How can a person who is in receipt of a piece of paper—a chit—from someone they happened to meet in the street be confident that it is genuine? It would be entirely possible to set up a scam under the scheme the Minister is proposing. While he pauses to reflect on that, I shall speak about the education aspect.

Ben Gummer (Ipswich, Conservative)

I am glad that the hon. Lady shares my concern about the activity of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon in male voice choirs earlier in his career. The point is not about PNDs—on which we can have a legitimate discussion elsewhere, and which were the subject of considerable debate in previous Parliaments—but about the bureaucracy involved in the issuing of PNDs. Clearly, a plain-clothes policeman showing a warrant card should be able to issue a PND, rather than having to go through the palaver of asking a uniformed officer, who is probably needed elsewhere, to turn up at the scene to issue one. All the Government are trying to do is to simplify and de-bureaucratise what is now a commonplace.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

That may be the Government’s intention, and I am not going to question the motives of Government Members, but Opposition Members see risks with what is being proposed. Those fears have not been allayed by what has been said so far.

Let me move on to education. To be honest, we were a bit puzzled by this. At a time when the police are under pressure to manage their resources very tightly, Ministers are suggesting a whole new area of activity. I appreciate that the proposal is that people pay for the courses; nevertheless, given issues such as the amount of time required to set up these things, up-front investment will be required. I am not confident that the range of skills required to do that successfully are available to police forces at the moment. What do the police think about the matter? When I had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers, it was totally unaware of the proposal. I am not sure what consultation Ministers undertook on the issue. It is not at all clear whether we can have courses of an even standard throughout the country, or what kind of quality control the Minister is thinking of.

Finally, may I bring to the Minister’s attention a practical example? A constituent of mine in Durham was charged with speeding in Wales, and was asked to go on the course in Wales. That is not a practical or sensible way of carrying on, yet the Bill will reinforce that problem—people who commit an offence in a particular place being expected to go back to that place. Can the Minister offer a little more by way of explanation?

Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)

On speeding in Wales and the courses there, I can tell the hon. Lady about a friend of mine who was a graduate of such a course. When he was having his mid-afternoon tea, his “tutor” asked him whether he lived near Bala, and he said yes. He was asked, “How long will it take you to get home?” He said, “Well, if I put my foot down”. I hope that helps.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. So, we are concerned about the way the Minister is proposing to relax issuance, and  we have questions about the efficacy of the police running education courses, which is why I tabled the amendments.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

I am afraid that I shall inflict another speech on the Committee, for which I apologise, but I must respond to the hon. Lady’s points. I think I have disposed of the personation issue and I do not intend to return to it.

Education courses are simply an option for police forces. They do not have to set up such schemes if they do not wish to, but the provision gives individual forces the opportunity to do so. The hon. Lady drew attention to the difficulties experienced by people on the speeding scheme, who are expected to attend a course instead of taking the points, and who pay for the course rather than paying the fine. She said that her constituent had to go to Wales because that is where they were caught speeding. First, people have the option of taking the points and paying the fine; they do not have to go to Wales to attend the programme. As I understand it, if such a scheme is available closer to someone’s home, they can choose to go on a course closer to home, so there is already some flexibility built into the system. There is a national website that lists where courses are available. That is just one example of the case that the hon. Lady gave.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

It is an example that applies only to the driving courses. The Minister has just told us that education courses could be set up by police forces if they so wish. A person can take points in a speeding case, but what is the alternative with education courses? Although he may have a case—not a very strong one—regarding moving around the country for the speeding courses, if, say, only five out of 43 constabularies decide to go down this road, it will not be possible to do the education courses.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

The parallel is precisely the same as in the case of speeding courses now. A person is issued with a penalty; they can effectively buy out the penalty by doing the education course. They do not have to do the course; if they decide it is massively inconvenient to do the course, they can pay the penalty. That is the position. The operational objections do not exist. In the speeding cases, the purpose is to try to encourage people to take part in the programme so that they receive education on the issue of speeding. If police forces set up education schemes relating to particular forms of disagreeable antisocial behaviour to try to make people behave better, the object will be to get people to take part in such programmes. If they do not, they will have to pay the penalty. Plainly, it will be better for people to take part in a programme than pay the penalty, which is why the price of a programme is likely to be less than a penalty. I do not imagine that police forces will come forward with programmes that will not, at the very least, cover their costs; the hon. Lady is right about that.

I invite the Committee to resist the amendments.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I shall press amendment 426 to a vote, but not the other amendments.

Philip Hollobone (Kettering, Conservative)

I call the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland to move amendment 421.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

The remarks I made about amendment 427 have covered the issues comprehensively, so I do not want to move amendment 421.