The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman: †
Mr.
Peter Atkinson
†
Brokenshire,
James
(Hornchurch)
(Con)
†
Campbell,
Mr. Alan
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
†
Carswell,
Mr. Douglas
(Harwich)
(Con)
†
Cash,
Mr. William
(Stone)
(Con)
Chaytor,
Mr. David
(Bury, North)
(Lab)
†
Clarke,
Mr. Kenneth
(Rushcliffe)
(Con)
†
Coaker,
Mr. Vernon
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
the Home Department)
†
Foster,
Mr. Don
(Bath)
(LD)
†
Gilroy,
Linda
(Plymouth, Sutton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Gwynne,
Andrew
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
†
Ingram,
Mr. Adam
(East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)
(Lab)
†
Kemp,
Mr. Fraser
(Houghton and Washington, East)
(Lab)
†
Lucas,
Ian
(Wrexham)
(Lab)
Öpik,
Lembit
(Montgomeryshire)
(LD)
†
Randall,
Mr. John
(Uxbridge)
(Con)
†
Reed,
Mr. Jamie
(Copeland)
(Lab)
†
Whitehead,
Dr. Alan
(Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
Glenn McKee, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
The following also
attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Mackinlay,
Andrew
(Thurrock) (Lab)
Third
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 12 May
2008
[Mr.
Peter Atkinson
in the
Chair]
Draft Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder Zones) Regulations 2008
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mr. Vernon Coaker):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder
Zones) Regulations
2008.
It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson. I welcome
you and all members of the Committee to our deliberations this
afternoon. I am sure that none of us can think of anywhere better
to be on a glorious sunny afternoon than in Committee Room 12
at the House of
Commons.
In
2005-06, nearly one fifth of all violent incidents were committed in or
around pubs and clubs. Police and local authorities have a wide range
of tools and powers available to them to tackle alcohol-related crime
and disorder. A key tool is the Licensing Act 2003, which gives
licensing authorities a wide range of powers to tackle alcohol-related
crime, nuisance and disorder, including violent crime and under-age
sales, if it can be attributed to individual premises. The powers
include the modification, suspension or revocation of licences on
review. However, while a wide range of tools and powers is available to
the police and local authorities, it is not always possible to make a
clear link between the crime and disorder happening in or around one or
more licensed premises, and the premises
themselves.
Alcohol-related
crime and disorder in the public space is perhaps the cumulative result
of people drinking in a number of on-trade licensed premises or of
purchasing alcohol in one or more off-licences when, for example, they
are already intoxicated. In such cases, the provisions under the
Licensing Act might be insufficient to deal with such premises to make
sure that they act in a collectively responsible manner. There will
almost certainly be a need for additional enforcement activity. As
such, as a measure of last resort—I emphasise, as a measure of
last resort—alcohol disorder zones have been designed to enable
local authorities, in partnership with the police, to tackle high
levels of alcohol-related crime and disorder within a defined zone by
requiring licence holders in the zone to pay for additional police and
local authority enforcement services. If licensed premises are part of
the problem, it is only right that they be part of the
solution.
I am not
saying that all licensed premises are part of the problem; in fact, I
am not saying that the majority of licensed premises are part of the
problem—far from it. Many trade responsibly, they do not sell to
kids, they do not sell to drunks and nor do they have promotions
designed to get people so drunk that they do not know what day of the
week it is. They make sure that at closing time, dispersal is managed
in calm, efficient way
and that glasses are tidied up properly so that they do not become
potential weapons. I congratulate the industry on working with us to
tackle problems in most circumstances; I am grateful for its
co-operation.
However,
we know that such points do not apply to all pubs, clubs, off-licences
or supermarkets. Too many sell to under-18s and to people who are
drunk. Too many do not trade responsibly, and as a result of their
“It’s not my problem” attitude, collectively they
make the spaces in some of our towns and cities unpleasant in the
evenings.
James
Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): The Minister mentioned
supermarkets in the context of outlets that trade responsibly or
irresponsibly. Can he give a categorical assurance that supermarkets
will be covered by the
regulations?
Mr.
Coaker:
Supermarkets will be covered by the
regulations.
When all
other options have been exhausted, ADZs should be considered to ensure
that licensed premises collectively behave responsibly. Critics of ADZs
will say that they are unnecessarily bureaucratic, but they have been
designed to ensure that licensed premises are given an opportunity to
change before any charges are imposed on them. There
are three key stages to an ADZ: proposing to designate an area as an
ADZ, the action plan stage and, finally, the designation and operation
of a full ADZ. If, following the proposal stage—in which a local
authority consults about whether to have an ADZ in the first
place—it decides to move ahead, it would then publish a
voluntary action plan jointly with the police, setting out the
specified locality such as the high street or town centre. The action
plan will set out a combination of measures that should prevent
alcohol-related crime and disorder from taking place in that specified
public place.
Mr.
Don Foster (Bath) (LD): The Minister makes a strong case
for ADZs, although I suspect that he might not get the support that he
hopes for. Within the action plan, he talks about the local authority
working with partners and coming up with a scheme. That will involve
additional bodies on the streets, but it could include a number of
other measures. Is he aware that the guidance for licensing legislation
makes it illegal for a local authority to promote its own scheme? It
can promote a national scheme introduced by the industry, but it is not
allowed to promote its own scheme. How will he get round
that?
Mr.
Coaker:
What we are proposing is a voluntary
action plan and on my understanding, in those
circumstances a local authority would be able to promote that. In the
spirit of having these Committees, which are pretty pointless unless we
try to take on board what others say, I will look at that matter and,
if necessary, address it in the guidance. My understanding is that
because it is a voluntary action
plan—
[
Interruption.
] Well, if there is an
issue we will look at it, but my understanding is that, given that it
is a voluntary action plan, the local authority can move ahead because
it is working with others to promote that plan. However, I will
consider the hon. Gentleman’s point.
The action
plan will involve the local authority, police and the licence holders
by setting out what is to be expected from each of them. For example,
the police may agree temporarily to put on additional officers during
the early hours, and expect licensed premises to sign up to an approved
accreditation or award scheme such as “Best Bar None”.
Under the action plan, the affected licensed premises will be given a
chance to make the necessary changes and if they do, there may be no
need for the local authority to take further action. However, where
there has been insufficient implementation of the voluntary action plan
on the part of the licensed premises, the local authority may designate
that locality as an
ADZ.
Designation
allows local authorities to levy compulsory charges on certain licence
holders for above-normal levels of enforcement activity by the
authority in question and the police. That includes frequent visits by
police officers and police community support officers to licensed
premises, or additional activity by trading standards officers. Let me
be clear: a local authority should consider designating a locality as
an ADZ only after other measures available to that authority, and the
police, to tackle high levels of alcohol-related nuisance or disorder
have been tried and have failed to solve the problem. ADZs are not
intended to be used like any other tool—they are a measure of
last resort. In any event, an ADZ must be reviewed every three months
to ensure that it is still required.
Mr.
Foster:
Can the hon. Gentleman clarify one point about the
measures that can be taken? Could, for example, the scheme include a
minimum price for alcohol within the proposed ADZ
area?
Mr.
Coaker:
No, at the moment it cannot do that. It is not
known at this stage exactly how many ADZs will be designated in the
first year. The regulatory impact assessment estimates that 30 areas
will start the ADZ process in the first year, but that could mean that
all, or none, move towards full designation. That will be entirely
dependent on the success and take-up of the voluntary action
plan.
I now turn to
some of the specific issues relating to ADZs. On the charging
mechanism, the first step for a local authority in calculating charges
that will apply to licensed premises is to work out the total cost of
administering and enforcing an ADZ. That will be the total cost to the
local authority of imposing, collecting and recovering charges and of
reviewing the ADZ, plus the cost of additional policing and local
authority services. Local authorities should aim to keep the cost of
administering charges and reviewing the ADZ as low as possible. We
expect those costs to be recovered over the first three months of ADZ
charges, and that the level of charges will be reduced after that
time.
James
Brokenshire:
The Minister will be aware that part of this
process involves drawing up a baseline cost when trying to assess what
additional services have to be provided. Does he accept that if this is
to be a last resort, that baseline cost is likely to have already been
escalated and is therefore not the true
baseline?
Mr.
Coaker:
Not at all, because the baseline starts before the
28-day consultation on any ADZ and before the eight weeks in which the
action plan would be
introduced, so we are talking about the three months before that starts.
The hon. Gentleman will have read the regulations, so he will know that
they refer to the point when the notice of the proposal is put
forward.
James
Brokenshire:
The Minister clearly said that the measure is
intended to be a last resort. Therefore, following his logic, all sorts
of different interventions are likely to have been put in place.
Although the baseline created is for a period prior to the consultation
on the action plan, surely the associated cost is likely to be
much higher, reflecting the fact that there is a problem in the first
place.
Mr.
Coaker:
As I said, obviously, the police police such areas
and they take action, as they do in all sorts of areas. However, where
that fails to deliver the results that we want, notice will be given of
the intention to establish an alcohol disorder zone. The three months
will be calculated before that is put in
place.
Mr.
Foster:
The Minister is being generous. Just to help me,
in terms of the cost borne, particularly by the local authority, but
other agencies as well, is there a mechanism by which the set-up
costs—the initial costs incurred—can be recouped during
that three-month period? What happens if it is decided that there is no
need to go ahead with the enforcement of the ADZ after those costs have
been incurred? How will the local authority and others recoup those
costs?
Mr.
Coaker:
The local authorities will not be able to recoup
their costs before the ADZ is in place. One of the decisions for a
local authority will be whether it considers that pursuing an ADZ is
worth its while. There is no compulsion. If a local authority decides
that the costs it would incur would be disproportionate or if it
decides that it would not want to incur the costs, it would not pursue
the setting up of an ADZ. That would be a matter for the local
authority. As the hon. Gentleman knows far better than me, local
authorities choose to incur all sorts of costs because they believe
them to be in the best interests of their
area.
Having worked
out the total cost of administering and enforcing the ADZ, the second
stage in calculating charges is to spread the total cost of an ADZ
among individual licence holders—who are not exempt—in
accordance with regulation 16. That is done by local authorities using
the national ADZ charging formula, which allows for
local flexibility. The formula comprises two indicators:
premises’ rateable value, as a proxy for capacity, and hours of
opening during the ADZ service period. All licensed premises will be
scored against both indicators. The formula sets out that individual
premises’ total scores are calculated by either multiplying or
adding together their scores under each of the two indicators. The
local authority may give more or less weight to either of the two
indicators. The total score that each premises receives will determine
the charge that it has to pay. There is further detail in the
guidance.
Going back to
the question asked by the hon. Member for Hornchurch, some have also
asked if supermarkets will be exempt from the charging mechanism. As I
indicated earlier, the short answer is not necessarily. If the
availability of alcohol is one of the main reasons
why people visit a supermarket during an ADZ service period, then it is
right that they are liable to pay a charge. Earlier versions of the
regulations allowed for a 100 per cent. discount. We were advised that
that was ultra vires, as the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 does not
allow for an exemption—a 100 per cent. discount amounts to an
exemption. As such, it was necessary for us to amend the regulations.
However, when calculating the charge for premises that are open for
only a short amount of time during the ADZ periods, it is possible that
they will receive a large reduction in their charge. If a premises is
open for a short amount of time during the hours in which the ADZ is
operating, its score for hours of opening during the service period
will be low. If a local authority multiplies the premises’
rateable value score—whatever that may be—by that low
score, the total score or total charge to be paid will also be much
lower than that of identical premises that are open throughout the ADZ
service period. In that way, premises that are open for only a short
time during an ADZ service period will pay a much lower
charge.
Mr.
Foster:
Just for clarity, what will be the position of,
for instance, a supermarket that decides during the operating time of
the ADZ to sell no alcohol, although it will still be
open?
Mr.
Coaker:
If the primary purpose of an
establishment is not to sell alcohol, it will not be covered by the
regulations so it is possible that there would be no charge in those
circumstances. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, I can think of all
sorts of examples about which it is quite fair and proper to ask, as no
doubt can he. Local authorities, in consultation and liaison with the
police, will have to determine whether an establishment is trying to
deal with alcohol-related disorder, or whether it is trying to get
round the charge. That would be best done at local
level.
ADZs represent
a solution to the current problem, where it is not possible to get a
collective change from a number of licensed premises in a given
location. They are designed, as I have said time and
again, as a measure of last resort. Even then, it is hoped that
licensed premises will avoid having to incur compulsory charges by
choosing to comply with the voluntary action plan. Where they do not
comply, it is right that a tougher approach be taken and that those
responsible for contributing to crime and disorder pay for the services
of those who have to deal with it. With those remarks, I commend the
regulations to the
House.
4.46
pm
James
Brokenshire:
Welcome to the Chair, Mr.
Atkinson. I also welcome other members of the
Committee.
There
is little doubt that the impact of the Government’s policies on
alcohol in the context of the regulations before us has been somewhat
troubled. In the last few years, there has been a surge in violent
crime committed in the early hours of the morning since the
Government’s introduction of 24-hour drinking. The Home Office
admits in its regulatory impact assessment at paragraph 2.23
that
“61% of the
population think that alcohol-related violence on the streets is
increasing”.
We have seen accident and emergency
department rates of alcohol-related admissions soar, with an increase
of 26 per cent. since the introduction of the Government’s
licensing laws. In 2005, there were around 128,000 finished admissions;
by last year that number had jumped to 162,000 and rates of death due
to alcohol continue to climb.
In that
context, I understand why the Minister may wish to propose measures to
deal with this serious issue—to address some problems of the
Government’s own causing. We have before us the
Government’s proposals for alcohol disorder zones, which they
describe as a highly selective power for local use as a last resort, as
we heard from the Minister. The idea is that these proposals will solve
the problem of booze-fuelled crime where all other activity has failed,
but the Committee should be aware that, aside from the Minister and the
Home Office, nobody appears to think that they will do
so.
Even the
Government have hardly been falling over themselves to bring alcohol
disorder zones into effect, and to say that the gestation of ADZs has
not been smooth is to underplay the situation—it has been
chaotic from start to finish. This apparently important measure was
first dreamt up over three years ago and it seems to have been a
nightmare ever
since.
So that the
Committee understands these matters, it is worth considering the
chronology of how we reached the current situation. The measures were
announced in January 2005 and became a Government manifesto commitment
in April 2005. They were introduced as part of the Violent Crime
Reduction Bill, which was announced in June 2005—quite a long
time ago. The VCR Act 2006 received Royal Assent in November 2006; it
is now May 2008.
The
Government have made a number of attempts to bring the regulations into
effect. The first regulations were published on 21
November 2007, with the expectation that ADZs would be introduced by
January this year, but they had to be withdrawn because of
typographical errors and the interesting provision that British
Transport police was to receive notification of all ADZs, regardless of
whether there was a station or any other direct BTP interest in that
regard.
As The
Daily Telegraph reported at the
time:
“A
Home Office spokesman said it remained the Government’s
intention to introduce the ADZ powers when drafting problems were
ironed out.”
The
spokesman
added:
“It is
important we get this legislation right. We expect the regulations to
come into force in
January.”
Well, sadly,
they did not. In fact, the second set of regulations was issued to the
House on 8 January 2008, which happily coincided with my 40th birthday.
It may have been a gift from the Home Office because it took only until
23 January for the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments
Committee to determine that special attention of the House should be
drawn to the ADZ regulations. It said that, although the policy is
optional, it is complex,
adding:
“We
wonder how many local authorities will actually take it up, and we draw
the Regulations to the special attention of the House on the ground
that they may imperfectly achieve their policy
objectives.”
The
Prime Minister reiterated on 28 January that the Government would be
proceeding with ADZs and
giving local authorities the power to ban drinking in public places, and
to charge pubs and clubs for the cost of policing with the disorder
outside their premises. The trouble was that on 30
January—two days later—the eighth report of the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments drew special attention to the poor
drafting of the ADZ regulations. Therefore, we have this set of
regulations, which was tabled on 1 April 2008. Even though they could
have been considered third time lucky, sadly, the Lords Merits
Committee again determined that the attention of the House be drawn to
the regulations, stating in its
conclusion:
“We
wonder how many local authorities will make use of this policy given
its
complexity”.
I
have described what was certainly not a particularly happy run-up to
this afternoon’s consideration of the ADZ regulations. Even now,
they are still riddled with uncertainty. It is also worrying that,
despite all the time that has elapsed since 2005, the Home Office felt
it necessary to rush through the latest version of the draft guidance
notes. Rather than consulting fully, industry partners were given four
days to consider the last draft, which is unacceptable in the context
of trying to get the regulations right, which is what people intend to
do.
I have a lot of
time for the Minister and I have some sympathy with him for having
picked up a poisoned chalice. However, even at this late stage, it is
not too late for the Government to perform another U-turn and consign
this flawed plan to the bin. I do not want the Committee to take my
word for it, so let us consider what others have said about ADZs. DAC
Chris Allison, the Association of Chief Police
Officers lead on alcohol crime, believes that ADZs are highly
bureaucratic and that it is doubtful that any local authorities will
take up the new powers even if they are
introduced.
The
Local Government Association, representing the councils that are
supposed to benefit from the additional measure in their toolkit, has
serious misgivings about the policy and said that ADZs will prove to
be
“a costly, complicated
and unwieldy tool for local authorities, particularly the costs
involved in preparing and implementing an ADZ and the additional
burdens involved in attempting to recover these
costs.”
LACORS—Local
Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services—has warned that
local authorities
are
“likely to be open to
all sorts of challenges, e.g. from challenging the level of
intervention tried before considering an ADZ designation; down to
challenges over exemptions and discounts. It seems highly unlikely that
this piece of legislation will ever be
used.”
As I have said,
the Lords Merits Committee says that even now it is
“still left without a clear idea
of how ADZs offer benefits additional to the other methods for
combating alcohol-fuelled disorder that are already available to the
local
authorities”,
and
added, with suitable understatement that the
regulations
“may
imperfectly achieve their policy
objectives”.
If ADZs were
such a good idea, one would expect local authorities to be banging on
the door of the Home Office to set one up, showing their interest in
and enthusiasm for the proposal. However, when I asked the Minister a
parliamentary question on how many local authorities had expressed an
interest to the Home Office in setting up an ADZ, the answer was
“none”.
Sections 15 to
20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 give local authorities the
power to designate, with the consent of the police, a locality as an
ADZ—somewhere there is a problem with alcohol nuisance and
disorder. That is the context of the debate. Aside from the general
principles attached to the creation of ADZs and the VCR Act, there are
a number of significant flaws in the principles of this plan. The
Minister has already highlighted one—the bureaucratic nature of
the process. In the guidance notes, we have the proposals to designate
a locality. We must define where the area is, consult on proposals and
draw up an action plan, which, I note, the guidance says
is
“in the hope that this
will make it unnecessary to designate a locality as an
ADZ.”
It is always great
when Government policy is based on
hope.
We then get on
to the designation and operation of an ADZ, bringing it into force and
trying to get the charges through. There is then the three-month review
of ADZs once they are in force. Interestingly, there is no long-stop
date on them—a point I will come to in due
course.
This is all
about showing that ADZs will be put in place only when everything else
has proven insufficient. Again, that highlights a number of important
issues and defects in the regulations.
Mr.
Foster:
While the hon. Gentleman makes
the point that there are no limits imposed, how does he react to the
fact that there is no limit or cap proposed on the resources that local
authorities could gather from businesses in their area through this
mechanism?
James
Brokenshire:
The hon. Gentleman highlights the open nature
of the charging regime. I am sure that hon. Members will be delighted
when we move on to regulation 16 and the complicated mechanism that has
been created. It seems to allow local authorities to come up with
whatever they feel like, and does not provide any scope or certainty.
In my judgment, that leaves it wide open to legal challenge. That in
itself will probably discourage local authorities from going down that
road, aside from the fact that the legislation and drafting are
poor.
On the
bureaucratic nature of the regulations, the LGA briefing
states:
“The
LGA and LACORS are also concerned that the time taken to implement an
ADZ is lengthy and the steps required are cumbersome for local
authorities. A 28-day consultation period, then an eight-week period to
take steps to implement the action plan is required, then the local
authority must wait until two months after invoicing the premises for
ADZ charges before they can suspend the premises licence for
non-payment of ADZ charges. This process will result in a licence
suspension five months after the initial actions that initiated the
implementation of the ADZ.”
Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I have listened
with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s account of the detailed
problems that there may be with ADZs. Perhaps he will be clear: is he
saying that ADZs in principle are always a bad idea or that they could
be a good idea if the circumstances under which they were organised
were to be changed?
James
Brokenshire:
The regulations are fundamentally flawed, and
I do not apologise for going through the detail. It is important to put
on record the problems that exist in relation to them. It is argued
strongly that creating an ADZ will create a stigma for the area
attached to that ADZ. Ironically, an ADZ could make matters worse, with
the risk of displacement and somewhere becoming a magnet for
trouble.
Linda
Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): Such areas already
have considerable stigma attached. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us
clearly whether he is completely against the concept of ADZs or just
against the
regulations?
James
Brokenshire:
Again, I say that the proposals before us are
simply
unworkable.
Linda
Gilroy:
The
concept?
James
Brokenshire:
The concept of an ADZ, as before us here, is
utterly unworkable because of the cost, its nature and the bureaucracy.
ADZs are intended to be a tool for promoting partnership, as suggested
in the regulations. The regulations are intended to build on the
concept that an ADZ will assist in getting local areas to work
together.
I
pay tribute to a lot of the work done by local authorities up and down
the country with existing partnership schemes, whether it be schemes
referred to in the regulatory impact assessment or other things, such
as business improvement districts—the Broad street BID, for
example—which are actively targeting such areas. Other projects,
such as that in St. Neots in Cambridgeshire, involve early intervention
and pulling together the police, trading standards, schools and
education in a structured
way.
The
point is that I strongly believe that ADZs could undermine all that
good work by imposing the structure in the regulations. ADZs could
fundamentally undermine the concept of the good partnership work that
local authorities have been striving
for.
What are the
supposed benefits of ADZs? Paragraph 2.4 of the regulatory impact
assessment tells
us:
“Alcohol
disorder zones would...Help improve operating practice in a number
of premises, without having to go down the route of a licence review
for each one. These improvements could be things like rigorous proof of
age checks or a clear policy on drinks
promotions”—
or
they could help to manage the public space. The problem could be caused
by a lack of late-night transport facilities, for example, or a
need
“for staggered
closing times to avoid letting a flood of people out on to the streets
at the same
time.”
However,
how can an ADZ improve operating practice without the need for a
licence review if the draft guidance makes it clear that all other
avenues would need to have been exhausted before proceeding down the
ADZ route? How can an ADZ manage public space through staggered closing
times? Closing times are a licensing issue. That also contradicts the
draft guidance, which says that ADZs should not be used to tackle
problems that are attributable to individual licensed
premises.
Mr.
Foster:
The hon. Gentleman has rightly made the point that
some of the proposals simply cannot be done, for a variety of reasons.
I draw his attention to one other. He rightly referred to a possibility
that many of us would like to be a power of local authorities,
which is to take action on happy hours, cheap drink promotions and so
on. However, in answer to my question, the Minister categorically told
me that the Government cannot include a minimum price for alcohol
within an ADZ area—that simply cannot be done as it is against
the
law.
James
Brokenshire:
There is an issue about the pricing of
alcohol. I believe strongly that the issue of low-cost sales is a key
factor that needs to be addressed. However, I appreciate that that is
outside the scope of the regulations, Mr. Atkinson, and it
would be better for me to focus on what we have before us, rather than
speculating more widely on other relevant themes and
issues.
There seem to
be a number of false assumptions contained within the
regulations, such as the assumption that 30 local authorities will
start the ADZ process in the first place, justifying the benefits that
are supposed to be attributable to the regulations, as stated in the
regulatory impact assessment. As everyone seems to be suggesting, it
seems inconceivable that there will be 30 in the first year, assuming
that all my points about the defects, problems and fundamental failures
of ADZs are right.
The benefits
assumed in the regulatory impact assessment are based on voluntary, not
compulsory, schemes. Reference is made to Manchester city centre safe
and other similar schemes. I am sure that they are very good, and I
hope to be able to visit those areas in due course, because such a
local impact can make the difference. However, the attempt in the
regulatory impact assessment to extrapolate that to benefits is
fundamentally
flawed.
Mr.
Adam Ingram (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)
(Lab): If I understand correctly, the new Mayor of London has
announced an alcohol-free zone on London transport. Is that right or
wrong? How will he regulate it, and what are the implications for the
hon. Gentleman’s opposition to the
regulations?
James
Brokenshire:
I am very grateful to the right hon.
Gentleman for mentioning alcohol-free zones on public
transport and the Mayor of London’s innovation, but that is very
different from an ADZ. I suspect that the Chairman is about to correct
me on
that.
The
Chairman:
Order. Indeed I am. We are debating something
quite different, not alcohol-free
zones.
James
Brokenshire:
Thank you, Mr.
Atkinson.
We come to
the question of who is covered by an alcohol disorder zone, which I
partly flagged up to the Minister. Regulation 12 states clearly that
there is a two-stage process. There is the principal purpose test, in
which it is assessed whether the principal use to which the licensed
premises are put is covered, and there is what might be described as
the patronage test. For licensed premises to be exempt from an ADZ, it
has to be shown that their principal purpose is not the sale of alcohol
and that the patronage test is
met.
There still seems
to be huge doubt about who will be caught by the regulations and who
will not. We have mentioned some who might be excluded, but we must
consider things such as hotels. We are told clearly in the
guidance notes that hotels should not fall foul of the tests, but LACORS
made the point that it wished
to
“reiterate our concern
that hotels will be exempt, as many councils have a large number of
stag and hen hotels where drinking on the premises is an
issue.”
In response, the
Government said merely that they disagreed,
stating:
“This
would require amending the original ADZ policy as agreed by Ministers
and Parliament.”
The
approach to which outlets will be caught and which will not is quite
variable. The guidance seems to make it clear that whatever problems
are caused by certain bars or nightclubs in hotels, even in an alcohol
disorder zone, they will not fall within the zone’s
ambit.
The Minister
mentioned supermarkets. He started off by saying that
they would fall within the regulations, but then he qualified that by
saying that they would not do so necessarily. That underlines the
uncertainty about who will and will not be caught by the regulations.
That uncertainty is understandable if we examine the principal purpose
test and particularly the patronage test. Page 25 of the draft guidance
makes the following
clear:
“If the
proportion of non-alcohol related transactions is higher than alcohol
transactions then the patronage test is passed.”
We need only to examine that accounting
method to see that if there were more non- alcohol sales than
alcohol-related sales, a premises would fall within the exemption and
not be caught. That seems to suggest strongly that supermarkets would
fall outside the net of ADZs. The market in which people consume and
buy alcohol is moving more and more towards off-trade and off-sale
premises. If we are really trying to get at the issues, ADZs will not
help. In my judgment, they fall outside the ambit of the
regulations.
We must also
consider issues such as “pre-loading”—I do not
know whether you are familiar with this, Mr.
Atkinson—which is drinking lots of alcohol before even going out
on the street for an evening’s entertainment. We are trying to
define the zones in which disorder happens, but licensed premises may
not be the primary or principal cause of the consumption of alcohol in
the first place. There is a disparity in the effects that the disorder
zones are meant to cover. Again, they seem pretty wide of the mark in
how they will operate.
Then, we come
to the wonderful provision on calculation and rates of
charges.
Dr.
Whitehead:
I must confess that I am becoming increasingly
puzzled and concerned. My purpose on this Committee is to judge whether
the regulations should be passed. As our discussions cannot amend the
regulations, there is a substantial difference between the suggestion
that they should not be passed because they ought to be amended, and
the suggestion that no regulations should be passed at all and that
nothing should be done about the subject on which the regulations seek
to take action. Which line is the hon. Gentleman pursuing? Is he
suggesting that the regulations should not be passed in order that new,
amended regulations can be passed that ensure that ADZs cover the
points that he talked about; or is he suggesting that no regulations
should be passed, and that no action should be taken on the subject
that we are discussing?
James
Brokenshire:
I am encouraging the Committee not to support
the regulations this afternoon because they are fundamentally flawed. I
am happy to consider whatever regulations the Home Office might come up
with, but on the basis of its three failed attempts to get this right,
I have little faith that any further drafts will do so. The basis for
how the measures will be calculated and put into effect is
fundamentally riven with errors. It is a failure in concept as an
attempt to address the problems of alcohol-related
crime.
Linda
Gilroy:
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s giving
way. Is he saying that regulations on the concept of alcohol disorder
zones cannot be brought forward in any shape or form that would satisfy
him and the Conservative party?
James
Brokenshire:
In terms of the definition of an alcohol
disorder zone in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, I find it hard
to see how it would be possible to do so. As far as I can see, that is
also the view of all the stakeholders to whom I have spoken, because of
the problems that I have highlighted to the Committee. Frankly, the
mindset and logic of the measures are fundamentally flawed. That is
shown in the calculation of charges, the mechanisms and implementation
of which come from the 2006
Act.
Take, for
example, the concept of the baseline assessment. I listened carefully
to the Minister’s reply about how the baseline will be measured,
but if there is a problem in a particular area, the baseline will
inevitably be higher for that area anyway. It is difficult to see how
the ADZs will work in trying to assess or equate the cost attached to a
particular area and apportion it out, because it will start from a high
base in the first place, or what additional services would be
appropriate, given that, as he said, ADZs are intended to be a last
resort when every other possible option has been exhausted. The
guidance notes make that clear. That highlights the fact that the zones
are open to challenge. People will say, “Actually, you
haven’t done this, this or this.” That is one of the
weaknesses in the
regulations.
We have
not even considered the additional cost of trying to get the additional
information needed to justify what the baseline services are in the
first place. While the guidance notes state that they
will not generate an additional data collection burden on authorities,
it is difficult to see how that could not be the case. The zones in
question may well not neatly cover ward boundaries or particular areas,
so it seems inconceivable that there would not be a cost for gathering
the data in the first place, whatever the guidance notes say. That is
without taking into account the point made by the hon. Member for Bath
about the preliminary action plan costs and the fact that they would be
irrecoverable.
On regulation
16, to be fair to the Minister he did make reference to the scoring
system that is to be applied—that is, the rate of value and the
hours of opening that will form the two levels of test, to provide what
the regulatory impact assessment calls a “consistent national
formula” to set charges. It does not look consistent to me,
given that one can effectively add or multiply, or seemingly do
anything that a local authority would wish to do by virtue of
paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of regulation 16. That creates huge
uncertainty and a risk
that any alcohol disorder zone that might even be
contemplated by a local authority would be subject to significant legal
challenge, making it pointless in the first place. It is telling that
the draft guidance states that local authorities
must
“carefully consider
the consultation responses, to improve the quality of its decision (and
as a consequence reduce the risk of legal
challenge)”,
thereby
admitting that there is a significant risk of legal challenge.
Moreover, there seems to be confusion about how the discounts would
apply, and the statutory instrument says that these discounts
“may” rather than “will”
apply.
I
turn to the duration of alcohol disorder zones. Despite the fact that
they are supposed to be a temporary measure with a three-month review
period, there is actually no cut-off point and nothing to say that once
an ADZ has been created, it will end. In many ways, the problems I am
highlighting regarding the risk of legal challenge are exacerbated by
the fact that there is no mechanism within the process of ADZs to
challenge, question or appeal. As the guidance makes clear, there is
“no bespoke appeals process”, as it so succinctly puts
it, heightening the risk of legal challenge and putting local
authorities off in the first place.
In conclusion, it is worth
referring to the 18th report of the House of Lords Merits of Statutory
Instruments Committee, which states at paragraph
5:
“We are left
with the impression that the system will be unduly bureaucratic and
without a clear idea of how ADZs will fit in with the other items in
the local authorities’ toolkit for combating alcohol-fuelled
disorder. We were not clear why this policy was required in addition to
voluntary measures such as Business Improvement Districts, or
enforcement action such as suspending the licences of
delinquent bars, or charging delinquent individuals under existing
legislation.”
Mr.
Coaker:
On business improvement
districts, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned a couple of times,
will he concede that the difference between those and alcohol disorder
zones is that the former are voluntary, whereas ADZs, as a last resort,
introduce an element of
compulsion?
James
Brokenshire:
Clearly, there is a
difference between a business improvement district and an alcohol
disorder zone, and that is why, apparently, they are needed and why we
are considering the measure this afternoon. The Minister says in the
regulatory impact assessment that the way forward has to be promoting a
concept of partnership and a sense that people will work together. I
hear what he says about the last mechanism of compulsion, but I say to
him that this plan is so fundamentally flawed that it seems
inconceivable that we would even get to compulsion because of the
errors, weaknesses and doubts in the structure of the plan. As we have
heard, it does not seem as though those people whom the mechanisms or
measures are intended to benefit actually need or want them. Alcohol
disorder zones are unwieldy, unworkable and unwanted. They were a
back-of-an-envelope solution to a complex issue, and they simply will
not deliver any change to the problems of alcohol-fuelled crime over
which the Government have presided. They have been overtaken by events,
leaving huge scope for uncertainty and legal challenge, even if
parts of the law will simply sit on the shelf collecting dust. ADZs
represent a poor law that does the House and the Government no credit.
Frankly, they have become a policy disaster zone. I urge the Committee
to do what the Government should have done some time ago: call time on
this flawed
plan.
5.20
pm
Andrew
Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I do not want to aggravate
hon. Members, Mr. Atkinson. I am not a member of the
Committee, but I am exercising my right to speak because I feel
strongly about the matter and I want to urge colleagues to support the
measure. I am bewildered and surprised by the attitude of the hon.
Member for Hornchurch. I listened carefully to every
word that he said. I can understand an Opposition spokesperson pointing
out some of the disappointments about, or deficiencies in, a measure.
However, after doing that, to conclude that this is a waste of time and
to urge the Committee to reject the measure is a serious abdication of
responsibility to our communities and, in particular, to our poor
communities.
I
noticed that the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid a report from the House
of Lords. I do not know where Members of the House of Lords live, but
they probably do not live in the poorest areas. It is the poorest
people who are the victims of the harassment and aggravation that comes
from alcohol-related crime and disorder. I understand the hon.
Gentleman questioning the Minister about whether hotels and
supermarkets are covered and the patronage issue. One has to say that
my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and
for Plymouth, Sutton were right when they said—and I put it in
my own way—“Hands up, has he got a better
idea?”
I have
been a critic of some of the things that the Government have done,
particularly regarding how they have helped alcohol-related industries,
but this is a very worthwhile measure. Inevitably, it is
ground-breaking. It could be subject to judicial review, but there is
no harm or disgrace in that—when one is breaking new ground,
that inevitably happens. By that process, one creates new law. Although
the measure cannot be amended this afternoon, the Government and the
House can return to it if they want to introduce another statutory
instrument in the light of experience.
One of the criticisms
made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch was that the measure was
open-ended and there was no mention of how long the alcohol disorder
zones would last. I suspect that some will endure a long time—I
do not apologise for that—because we need to keep a cap on the
problem. If the various regulatory authorities, including the police,
local authorities and environmental health, wish to contain the problem
and demonstrate that they will no longer tolerate behaviour that causes
such distress—again, I make the point unashamedly that it is
mostly, but not exclusively, poor people who suffer—it might be
that they will have to exist for some time. I do not think that we
should apologise for that at
all.
It is clear, both
from what the Minister has said and the guidance notes, that the
measure is part of a tool kit. Other measures exist. I wish that local
authorities were using some of them more, particularly those under the
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 saying
that there should be no alcohol in particular
areas. The measure complements rather than negates that
provision.
I want to
ask the Minister one question. Presumably, if we have such disorder
zones, people cannot go drinking in the streets, leave their glasses by
the kerb and so on. If that is not the case, I want that to be put in
the file for when Parliament revisits the issue. We want to stop this
business of people getting drunk and stealing glasses from pubs, and we
want to demonstrate zero tolerance.
Incidentally, in relation to
the order, there clearly needs to be enforcement. As
part of enforcement, if police officers confront people who are drunk
or who have taken glasses from licensed premises, they should charge
them. People should be prosecuted for having those glasses because not
only is it theft, but it presents a serious hazard to
people—[
Interruption.
] I see that the hon.
Member for Bath wants to intervene. I am keen to give way
because I cannot tell from his peculiar body language whether he is for
or against the measure. Perhaps he will reveal whether he is
with us or against
us.
Mr.
Foster:
I am agin the hon. Gentleman, but slightly more
supportive of his position than others—I will explain why. I am
enormously grateful to him, as the Committee should be, for drawing our
attention to enforcement. Does he agree that we might not have to go
down this route if existing legislation on many such matters was being
enforced?
Andrew
Mackinlay:
I would like many pieces of legislation to be
enforced more rigorously. I have already indicated that more local
authorities should use their powers to designate areas in which one
cannot drink alcohol—for example, the streets—and that
those designations should be enforced. However, that does not detract
from this
measure.
This measure
means that local authorities will have to consider
whether to exercise their powers. That should legitimately become a
matter for debate in the community. For instance, I will take the
regulations to my local authority and invite it to be a pioneer in this
area. I hope that it will do so. I do not make a party political point,
but if my local authority, which is a majority Conservative council,
supports me, I will applaud it. If it does not, I shall use its
decision as evidence against the Conservatives in the next municipal
election, and that would be perfectly legitimate. If I see a Liberal
“Focus” from some part of the country saying that the
measure should be implemented, I shall point to the fact that the hon.
Member for Bath said that he does not support it. This is what politics
is about, and it is
legitimate.
The
Government are breaking new ground—they are pioneering. Nobody
is suggesting that the measure is absolutely correct,
but it will mean that local authorities will have to consider the
situation, as will the police authority and the individual commander.
Of course, he or she might be attracted by the fact that might be
additional resources for which he or she could apply in a particular
area—
[
Interruption.
] If I could just get
the Minister’s attention for a moment, it seems that, under
various powers, many local authorities have appointed enforcement
officers in addition to the police. A district
council may have its community wardens who are
called different things—town guards and so on—and you
will recall from your previous incarnation, Mr. Atkinson,
that there are, for instance, the Wandsworth parks police. Such
agencies could legitimately draw on such resources to help them protect
an area. There is a lot in the measure for local authorities and
various enforcement agencies. We should at least begin to experiment,
because there is nothing wrong with experimenting with such a
measure.
I see that
the regulations have been extended to bring in the British Transport
police—quite rightly—when an ADZ is proposed in close
proximity to a railway station. I very much welcome that because many
of these problems either emanate from railway premises, or are
associated with
them.
One of the
interesting things about the point on which you stood up,
Mr. Atkinson—I hope that I am in order—is that
the proposal to have alcohol-free public transport is right, but not
right politically. I say that it is left. It liberates people
from the unacceptable levels of sexual and racial abuse and
other forms of harassment that occur on trains I mention that as an
aside, but I welcome that measure. The ADZs that we are discussing will
complement that measure, and they will complement provisions of the
2001 Act that allow for no-go areas for
alcohol.
People look
to Parliament to be more robust about, and intolerant of, the kind of
behaviour that blights relatively small hectares of our towns and
cities. It is spurious to say that such a zone will reflect badly
reflect on an area. In my view, it will enhance an area, because people
will stay in one place. Estate agents will say, “We are in an
alcohol disorder zone, isn’t that a good
thing?”
The
hon. Member for Hornchurch, or it might have been the hon. Member for
Bath, asked about pricing. If the zones endure, of course the cost will
eventually be reflected in prices. I make no apology for that; it
is a good thing. If such an industry is a source of
disproportionate aggravation to residents, that industry should pay,
and it is appropriate for the price to work through to the customer. I
cannot see anything wrong with that—it seems to be profoundly
logical.
Mr.
Foster:
The hon. Gentleman is right. If costs are put on
to the on-trade and the off-trade, those costs will be reflected in the
prices that are charged. However, depending on the pricing regime,
would we not have the ludicrous situation of doing absolutely nothing
to help to address the disparity between the ridiculously cheap prices
in supermarkets and the sadly ever-increasing prices in our pubs?
Surely we want something that disproportionately weighs more heavily on
the supermarket.
Andrew
Mackinlay:
I have been in politics a long time, so I know
what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. By raising the legitimate
point that perhaps there should be higher prices for alcoholic drinks
in many areas, which I support, he is using that as an excuse. If
anybody reads the official record of today’s debate, they will
see that, with great dexterity, he is justifying the extraordinary move
of voting against the measure, although at some stage—in Bath or
another part of the country—he will criticise the Government for
presiding
over bad behaviour in towns and cities. That will not stick. It is
make-your-mind-up time. People have got to see the proposal as a
worthwhile attempt, even though it will inevitably be revisited. The
legislation will be beefed up. If we come back in five years,
the regulations will clearly have been revised by Parliament in some
way.
Dr.
Whitehead:
Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement that
apparently, if someone is very drunk and stands at a bus stop waiting
for a bus, taking action against them is a bad idea; however, once they
get on a bus and it is moving, action is a good idea? That appears to
be a contradiction.
Andrew
Mackinlay:
I am coming to the end of my remarks, but I am
pleased that my hon. Friend intervened. I want to respond to him, even
if it is not within the footprint of the order. One of the problems,
Mr. Atkinson, is that when you and I were boys, if a person
was drunk in the street, there was a degree of shame associated with
it. Police arrested them and they were put in the slammer that night
and appeared in a magistrates court the following morning, with
additional shame. We do not have that now for health and safety
reasons. I think it is a big mistake but the police are frightened of
deaths in the cells and the problems of monitoring people who are
drunk. Not unreasonably, I understand that the police do not like
people throwing up in their cars, so people are not arrested. In my
view, people should be arrested. I hope that the next debate on an
order that I attend is to do with one in which the Minister will be
tightening up the legislation so that police authorities arrest people
who are drunk and disorderly, put them in the clink over night and have
them appear in the magistrates court. Why? Because such behaviour is
threatening, menacing and dangerous to them and to others.
That is the first of my
interventions in the area. [
Interruption.
] I move
on. I can see that the Clerk is making legitimate signals to you,
Mr. Atkinson, but I did not raise the issue; another hon.
Member did and you allowed him to broach the
subject.
The
Chairman:
Order. I have been quite tolerant so as not to
interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow, but he is going off the
mark at this stage.
Andrew
Mackinlay:
In any event, you will rest assured,
Mr. Atkinson, that I feel content that I came to the
Committee today to persuade hon. Members to support the measure. I have
been able to articulate my wider canvas and to say that, in clamping
down on antisocial behaviour, the Government should be supported by the
Opposition. The measure is at least in part designed to combat
antisocial behaviour and I applaud the Government for
it.
5.35
pm
Mr.
Foster:
I am delighted to follow the
hon. Member for Thurrock and am particularly delighted to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson. I am well aware that it is
totally against parliamentary convention
to accuse any hon. Member of misleading the House. However, may I gently
say to the Minister that he was certainly not representing the views of
all of us when, in his opening remark, he said that he thought that
none of us could think of anywhere better to be today than in this
Committee room? I was going to say that he was wrong, but having heard
the comments of the hon. Member for Thurrock, I am prepared to revise
my original view—I have rather enjoyed the debate and think it
has been
interesting.
Whatever
their views, all hon. Members who have contributed so far have shared
the view expressed so eloquently by the hon. Gentleman that regardless
of what we believe to be the cause, the current levels of antisocial
behaviour linked to the misuse of alcohol are unacceptable. As he said,
we must be more robust and intolerant of such behaviour in all our
communities, and I entirely agree with him.
The debate is not about
rehearsing, as others have done, the statistics about
the rising number of admissions to accident and emergency departments
and the number of sales to under-age people. We could all do that and
play a game with the statistics. I hope that we all accept that there
is a problem. I also hope that we agree that some good measures have
been put in place around the country to try and address the problem.
Those measures are a result of partnership working in a range of local
authority areas and elsewhere. As others have done, we could list
them—“Challenge 21” led by the British Beer and
Pub Association and individual cases in Manchester and so on. In my
local authority area in the city of Bath, there has been some wonderful
partnership working, for example, bringing in street and taxi marshals
to sort out getting people away from the city centre at night by
re-jigging public transport arrangements.
Much good work has been done,
and I have been concerned that until recently there has not been enough
effort to co-ordinate and bring together examples of good practice and
disseminate it. I am delighted—and slightly surprised that the
Department of Health has done it—that in the last brief period
of time the Department has funded work by Alcohol
Concern called HubCAPP—Hub of Commissioned Alcohol Projects and
Policies—that will bring together examples of good policies and
practices and disseminate them. That is
crucial.
If we agree
that we must do something and accept that good things are going
on—although more needs to be done—the question is
whether, as currently conceived, the alcohol disorder zone provides an
additional tool in the armoury. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test
asked the hon. Member for Hornchurch the critical question. In effect,
he said, “Are you opposing these measures in principle, in
practice or both?” May I answer the question of the hon. Member
for Southampton, Test, as if he had posed it to me? I am not opposed to
measures being in place that are available as a last resort if
partnership working with licensed premises, the local council, police
and others has failed to address the problems that exist in a local
community. I am not opposed to there being something in place as a
final step, but regulation should always be the last resort. We should
first pursue voluntary approaches.
I say to the
hon. Member for Thurrock that my problem is that I genuinely believe
that there are so
many problems associated with alcohol disorder zones that, as it is
conceived, this is not the right package to be that last-resort
measure. The hon. Member for Hornchurch has listed several reasons, and
I do not want to go over the same ground, except to say that I believe
that the bureaucracy surrounding the ADZ scheme gives rise to
significant issues, and that the bureaucracy is such that many local
authorities would not dream of going down the route in
question.
There are
real concerns about the proposed charging regime. It will lead to many
licensed premises challenging the charges that are set. Because there
has been, as we all know, a problem with the appeals
procedure—which was one reason for the legislation getting yet
another reincarnation—all the answers that we have got about the
appeals mechanism is that it will rely on judicial review, ombudsmen
and so on. That will be incredibly complicated and will frighten a lot
of people off.
There
are also concerns that we are perhaps not considering what problems
will be associated with the fact that the measure butts up
against separate pre-existing legislation. I asked the Minister in an
intervention how he would deal with that problem, in relation to the
guidance in the Licensing Act 2003. That guidance makes it clear that
if there is a national scheme to, for instance, get rid of happy hour
drinking, it is possible for a local authority to promote it. However,
the guidance specifically states that if the local authority came up
with its own scheme, it would be illegal to pursue it.
I have raised that point
numerous times, whenever the issue has been debated. It is a
fundamental mistake that we should be debating opportunities for local
authorities to do things, while those authorities are hamstrung by
other legislation from doing things that they think right for their
areas. I am grateful that the Minister has agreed to consider the
issue, because I think that he will find that there is in the guidance
notes—I may be wrong, but I think it is at paragraph
10.4—a fundamental conflict between his proposal
about ADZ and what is permissible under the Licensing
Act 2003.
I am also
concerned about other aspects of the charging regime. It was very clear
from interventions on the Minister, and from his answers, that there is
still confusion in the minds of the Government about how they imagine
the regime working. Of course, they can get off the hook by saying they
have given so much freedom that local councils can solve the problems.
However, that makes things more difficult for the councils. We cannot
say that there will be a national charging regime and then leave all
the difficult decisions to councils, because they will come up against
charges of
maladministration.
Mr.
Coaker:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but, if I
turned it on its head, how would he envisage a national charging scheme
that gave local authorities no flexibility to determine things on the
basis of what was happening in their
area?
Mr.
Foster:
The Minister and I are not that far apart. I
entirely agree, and believe in local decision-making. However, he is
imposing a way for the charges to
operate that is likely to be challenged. The business of patronage and
floor footage is hugely flawed, and those two fundamental planks of the
charging arrangement are going to lead councils into huge difficulties.
There have already been supermarkets voluntarily deciding not to sell
alcohol during the operation of the zone. The Minister has already told
me that they probably would not, therefore, be charged, but he then
went on to say that if, however, it could be demonstrated that the sale
of the alcohol before that time added to later problems, the
supermarkets might perhaps be charged. That is a hugely complex thing
for a local authority to have to take on board. The business of the 100
per cent. rebate now being reduced to only a 90 per cent. rebate causes
concerns as well.
The
patronage issue is interesting too—incredibly
complicated to sort out, as the hon. Member for
Hornchurch said. The Minister might want to intervene to correct me,
but from my reading it is not clear whether the volume of
non-alcohol-related sales is based on price or on something else. Is it
on the amount of money taken? If so, imagine what will
happen—the supermarket near the edge will discount its alcohol
prices still further, to avoid getting into the charging arrangement.
That has to be pretty
nonsensical.
Other
hon. Members said that it is no good standing here and saying we are
against something. I have to know what it is that I want to do. I have
to be able to say that there should be something at the end—a
way forward—if voluntary mechanisms do not work. So let me say
to the hon. Member for Thurrock that the first thing that I
would do—which I mentioned on intervening—is to have
existing legislation properly enforced. It is frankly ludicrous that
there have been minimal prosecutions of those who sell alcohol to
under-age people. If they are prosecuted, the level of fines that they
are charged is also miniscule. The number of licences that have been
taken away is almost miniscule. It is frankly ludicrous that hardly
anyone in a pub or club or wherever is prosecuted for selling alcohol
to someone who is already drunk. I know what the policing difficulties
are, but hardly any prosecutions take place in any single year. There
is the whole business of not enforcing areas where one is not allowed
to drink on the street and so
on.
Enforcement would
be the No. 1 thing that I would do. Therefore, when I look at an ADZ,
for example, I would want to make sure that I am putting in place
something that can easily be enforced. However, we do not know from the
Minister whether a hotel that spends most of its time having hen nights
and stag nights would be covered. We do not know whether a supermarket
would or not. No wonder the hon. Member for Thurrock admitted that no
one is suggesting that it is absolutely correct. We are meant to agree
to something and he is suggesting that it is not absolutely correct; I
am saying that it is deeply
flawed.
The first
thing that I would do is to have much greater enforcement. The second
thing that I would do is to have much greater sharing of examples of
good practice—I welcome the fact that that is beginning to
happen. The third thing that I would do is to give local authorities
far more powers than they currently have, by changing the guidance on
the licensing legislation. I say to the Minister that that point is,
for me, absolutely critical. If local authorities had the power, they
could
have their own ADZs, designed in the way that they
want to sort out their particular needs and circumstances. That should
be the right way forward, not an essentially imposed one—give
local authorities the powers to have what suits their local
community.
The final
thing that is absolutely critical for us to do is to address the issue
of supermarket cheap booze. We keep being promised a
statement from the Prime Minister, but it is ludicrous that 50-odd
pubs—much more safe and secure environments—are closing
every month. We would surely prefer that not to be happening, yet we
have that ridiculous pricing for supermarket booze. You and I,
Mr. Atkinson, are meant to drink something like 21 units a
week, and no more, if we are to be responsible people. In my local pub
that would cost me more than 20 quid, but I can buy that amount in my
local supermarket for £2.70. Someone has got to do something
about that—about signs like “booze busters” and so
on.
Such measures
would make a difference: proper enforcement and powers for local
authorities being the two most crucial in the armoury. Then local
authorities could develop their own ADZs. In principle, ADZs are a good
idea. In practice, the ones proposed before us have so many flaws that
we cannot possibly support them.
5.49
pm
Mr.
Coaker:
This has been a good debate. I will start by
agreeing with the hon. Member for Bath—I know that the hon.
Member for Hornchurch would also agree, although he did not do so
explicitly. I believe that everyone on the Committee has the objective
of reducing alcohol-related harm in our community, and it was a fair
point for the hon. Member for Bath to make. We can dance on the heads
of pins about many of the issues that have been mentioned, but the nub
of the debate is how we can achieve such a
reduction.
I agree with every point that
has been made about the need to ensure that all existing laws are
enforced. Designated public place orders are crucial. As hon. Members
will know, they give police officers the power to
confiscate drink from someone on the street. Alcohol disorder zones
will not give the police the power to do that, and I suggest that my
hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asks his local authority to impose
a designated public place order. I say that to people time and time
again at meetings. Local authorities have the power to do that, and it
gives the police officers in the area the power to confiscate alcohol
from people drinking on the street.
We are not debating whether
existing powers should be used—of course they should. I have
given DPPOs as one example, but there are countless others. Disorderly
premises should be dealt with under the Licensing Act 2003, and to be
fair to the industry, it wants rogue premises and licence holders who
are causing problems to be dealt with
robustly.
Mr.
Foster:
The Minister falls back on existing powers, such
as those under the 2003 Act. He will know that except when there is a
new licence or a change of licence, it is not possible for any
imposition to be made on the vast majority of licences unless there is
clear
proof that there has been disorder. For instance, a local scheme
to improve good order could not be
introduced.
Mr.
Coaker:
I have said time and time again that I understand
that the 2003 Act could be used much more robustly against rogue
premises than it currently is, and that is what I
want.
We are debating
an important addition to the powers that I have mentioned, which Labour
Members believe is essential. It will give a further tool and power to
local authorities, working with the police. If there is a problem and
nothing else has worked, and all the powers that can be used have been
used, they will have the power to designate an area an alcohol disorder
zone. My view is that most members of the public, including most of my
constituents, would welcome that if everything else has failed. They
believe that it is necessary in certain circumstances.
There is a clear divide: we can
say either that existing enforcement powers are sufficient or that they
are sufficient in 99 per. of cases, but that there are cases in which
they are not. That is the difference between us. It was
interesting that the hon. Member for Hornchurch—unlike the hon.
Member for Bath, to be fair—failed to say whether he was opposed
to alcohol disorder zones in principle or just opposed to the
regulations because of what he saw as certain flaws.
There will be no compulsion on
local authorities or the police in a particular area to use the new
power. If they do not think that it is appropriate, and if they think
that they have all the powers necessary to deal with the problems in
their area, of course they can use those existing
powers.
Linda
Gilroy:
Does my hon. Friend agree that in some
areas, the mere introduction of the regulations might concentrate
people’s minds wonderfully and make them get
together? Some have done so voluntarily, but now the low-hanging fruit
has been taken and the more difficult areas have to be
tackled.
Mr.
Coaker:
That is a reasonable point. Alcohol disorder zones
may well concentrate minds on those few areas where
people do not believe such an approach to be possible.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch
mentioned those who did not necessarily support alcohol
disorder zones. If he reads the explanatory memorandum,
however, he will see that the Home Affairs Committee recommended in the
conclusions to its report in 2005 that pubs and clubs in designated
areas should pay a mandatory contribution to help solve local problems
of alcohol-related disorder. As he said, we have not had formal contact
with the local authorities, but we have had informal contact with some
of them, and they have asked whether we will introduce alcohol disorder
zones. Notwithstanding some of the drafting amendments and the problems
to which he alluded and which we have sought to resolve, the substance
of the policy is about whether we wish to have alcohol disorder zones
on the statute book so that we can use them as a last resort when all
other options have been considered.
I was asked whether the level
of charging could be excessively high. I remind hon. Members that the
level
of charges is not limited by regulation, but will be determined by the
level of additional enforcement services required to meet local needs.
The regulations clearly specify that charges may be used only to pay
for additional police and local authority enforcement
services.
It is
important to point out that, as hon. Members will have seen, the
guidance is issued under section 19 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act
2006. It is the duty of every local authority, police authority and
chief officer to have regard to that guidance in exercising their
powers under the regulations—they have a statutory duty to have
regard to the guidance. We will finalise the guidance following
parliamentary scrutiny in this and the other place. I should add that
if the actual regulations need to be amended following our debates, I
will not be afraid to tell hon. Members that I will amend them in the
light of experience.
I will look at and, if
necessary, deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bath about
local authority powers. He was right about the need to spread good
practice, which is something that we could all agree on. He also made a
point about pricing measures. As he will know, a report will be
published about that in the not-too-distant future, which the
Government will consider. However, he needs to be patient and to wait
for that report, as we all do. Finally, he asked whether price or
volume would apply in relation to supermarkets, and it will be
volume.
To conclude,
I will be flexible on this issue. I have already made a commitment that
guidance will be produced following parliamentary scrutiny. If
necessary, I will amend the regulations in the light of
experience. At the end of the day, however, the choice before the
Committee is whether to put an additional tool on the statute book to
enable us to tackle alcohol-related disorder or to believe that the
existing powers are sufficient on their own. I believe that they are
sufficient in most circumstances, but that the regulations will be an
important additional power. Of course we want partnership, and we have
good partnership with the industry, local authorities and the police in
most areas of the country. We are talking about the few areas that have
let us all down.
Question
put:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
Division
No.
1
]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder Zones)
Regulations
2008.
Committee
rose at one minute past Six
o’clock.
