Q
49James
Brokenshire: Mr. Brennan, perhaps I can ask you
about the potential business impact of the changes. In particular, page
23, paragraph 19 of the regulatory impact assessment—this
relates the impact assessment of the code of practice for the alcohol
industry—which states:
“However, we recognise
that in the short run, there is the potential for significant
transitional costs including job losses and the closure of small
businesses.” How seriously
should we take that
paragraph? Shane
Brennan: I think we need to be very concerned about
what that might entail. It is very specific about the conditions in the
consultation—we are in the dark on these. If we look at the
recommendations of the regulatory impact assessment, such as training
requirements, the estimates are in the tens of millions of pounds for
the industry—I think that those may be conservative. In other
areas, such as tackling under-age sales, those requirements, which are
placed on a blanket basis across all types of premises, are so
inflexible that they may impose significant and inappropriate costs on
premises. It is alarming that that may lead to the closure of
businesses at this
time.
Q
50James
Brokenshire: There is a balance to be struck between harm
reduction and the importance of ensuring that we deal effectively with
binge drinking, but we need to do that in a proportionate way. In terms
of the impact of the measure, do you have any feel of the numbers we
are talking about? Are we talking about hundreds of businesses that
might close? Can you give any feeling to the Committee based on what
you know thus
far? Shane
Brennan: It is hard to do that, because we do not
have the details about exactly what has been said. Looking at the
figures in the regulatory impact assessment, we have estimated a cost
of about £100 million for the training requirements.
Imposed on our sector, that would significantly undermine the
operational ability of tens of thousands of smaller businesses. Whether
it would force them to close, I do not know, but it would certainly
affect them. The British Beer and Pub Association has worked on those
problems in its
sector. Don
Shenker: I cannot see how anyone would object to the
training of people who serve intoxicating substances. People who serve
alcohol are serving an intoxicating substance, and they must consider
the law in relation to under-age sales and serving to drunks. It would
be completely remiss of anyone to argue that there should not be any
training. We need to establish that it is good practice to ensure that
people are trained. The
way in which people are trained is a matter for debate. Having looked
at the regulatory impact assessment, I was surprised at the cost. We
found online training at a fraction of the cost outlined in the RIA for
bar server training. We found a £20 per person online course
from Learn2Serve. There are low-cost ways of doing this, and there are
low-cost ways for licensing authorities to be confident that people who
are serving alcohol in their locality have been trained, whether they
are a student on a summer break or a long-term member of bar staff. It
should be established that training is good practice, and large
retailers and producers all talk about the training that they provide
for their staff. We are asking for training to a minimum standard to be
a mandatory condition to serve alcohol, which is an intoxicating
substance. The question is: what is a minimum standard?
Rob
Hayward: To pick up on what has been said, and on
Mr. Brokenshire’s question. I think everyone knows
that 39 pubs are closing a week—that is 39 families losing their
businesses. We must remember, too, that they employ accountants,
cleaners, bar staff and others. We are talking about a large number of
people in our sector alone. We have a calculation just on duty, and we
think that over the next five years, the escalator may well cost 59,000
jobs in our supply chain for brewing and pubs. That does not take into
consideration the off-trade or other elements. What is striking about
that quote—and there are a number of other quotes in the
RIA—is that it effectively says that it is a price worth paying.
I thought it was bad enough to say that to people who were losing their
businesses last July when it was originally written, but to include it
in a document published this winter, when we are touching 2 million
unemployed, will be quite offensive to most people.
What is also striking about the
RIA is that it projects the cost of a 1 per cent. fall in alcohol
consumption. That has been achieved, according to the latest figures
from Customs and Excise. There has been a 5.1 per cent. fall in all
alcohol consumption over the past 12 months, which shows the
impact the current state of the economy is having on our businesses.
What is also significant about the RIA is that it contains no costing
at all for unemployment—in other words all the people I have
just referred to. There is, quite rightly, a costing for the impact on
the economy of violence and health of alcohol and the like. There
should also be a costing for the social costs of unemployment, because
the state has to pay out benefits. It is not a balanced RIA, and it has
a number of
deficiencies.
Q
51James
Brokenshire: Mr. Craik, I just want to come
back to you, and then I will wrap up my line of questioning. I know
that others want to come
in.
The
Chairman: I do not want to cramp your style in any sense,
Mr. Brokenshire. I want you to have the opportunity to
question witnesses as you feel fit, but I must protect the right of all
parties, including Back Benchers, to ask questions. If you and
Mr. Ruffley have not brought your questions to a close at,
say, 4.30 pm, I will probably move on. If we have spare time left at
the end, I will obviously come back to Members who have already asked
questions.
James
Brokenshire: Thank you, Mr. Bayley. I come back
to Mr. Craik. The Bill gives some new powers to the police,
although there is some suggestion that the police have wide-ranging
powers anyway to deal with young people in possession of alcohol. What
do you think these provisions add to what you already
have?
Mike
Craik: There is a lot in these provisions that we
would, and did, ask for. There is some additional proportionality
around the deterrent effect of the increased sentences. More
importantly, the measure solves some real practical problems for the
officers on the street, such as the ability to distinguish
between 15 and 16-year-olds, to engage in discretionary
interventions that are preventive, such as taking them home and working
with other agencies to prevent them from being drawn into
criminalisation around alcohol. Those first and second opportunities,
particularly in
clauses 28 and 30, come from our officers on the street saying,
“This is quite awkward at the moment. We need clarity around
this. We need to be able to do something positive with them and not
just resort to arrest at the end of the
day.” There are
some very positive things in the Bill. There are some practical things,
such as the ability to review licensing now, not when the licence is
due for renewal, and to respond to the public’s needs now. It is
quite a broad and well-balanced package. If I were asked whether this
largely provides what we need in relation to the licensing industry and
offending around alcohol, I would probably say yes, given that there
may be some unforeseen things in the future. What it gives us now is a
base to take a more positive view of licensing in future. A very
negative picture has been painted historically, and there is a lot of
doom and gloom around drink-related violence. There is an opportunity
now not just to label places as alcohol disorder zones and deal with
premises as a problem. For example, the Civic Trust is currently
developing purple flag zones, which are based on the concept of the
blue flag for beaches. They will paint a positive picture and describe
a more positive narrative of places for safe, sensible and sociable
drinking in the future. That will be a credit to those places, and will
bring some positivity to the debate rather than the historical
negativity. There is a useful opportunity now to go forward with a
different view.
Q
52James
Brokenshire: The Bill makes it an offence for a person
under 18 to possess alcohol in a public place without
“reasonable excuse”. What do you understand by the term
“reasonable excuse” in this
context? Mike
Craik: Under-age drinking is about what they are
going to do with the alcohol. Are they going to drink it in public? Are
they taking it home, and are they demonstrably on their way home? This
allows officers the discretion to take some intervention with kids who
are on the street all the time. They tend to be, from my experience on
the street, the same kids over and again. It is not the average kid on
the block. These are a relatively small number of persistent kids who
make life miserable for everybody else. The measure enables our cops to
focus—not just dealing with them in the sense of prosecuting
them for offending, but taking those early opportunities with other
agencies to intervene and to speak to parents. An example is what is
going on in south Tyneside, where, between the local authorities, youth
services and ourselves, we have rented a premises, where we take the
kids. We bring their parents along, and that is where the intervention
starts, for both the parents and the kids. It is not just about
enforcement.
Q
53James
Brokenshire: But do you not already have the power to take
children back to their parents if they are in an unsafe
situation? Mike
Craik: Yes, if they are likely to come to harm. This
is specifically for those who carry alcohol. May I tell you about an
experience I had three or four months ago in the summer? The same two
kids were stopped twice in the same afternoon. You take the drink off
them, they go away, and they come back again. It is important that my
officers have the ability to help make
the problem go away from the street at that time, and not just do
something that results in a prosecution. That is why I think that it is
a well-balanced package in that
respect.
The
Chairman: I will call Mr. Holmes soon, but
Mr. Ruffley may come in
briefly.
Q
54Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): Thank you,
Mr. Bayley. I will observe your strictures and keep it
short. Chief
constable, a question for you on the alcohol provisions, in particular
clauses 26, 27 and 28. As you will understand, we cannot make sense of
them in this Bill unless we understand the precursor provision, since
those three clauses do not create new offences, but merely toughen up
existing law. In clause 26, for the offence of consuming alcohol in a
“designated public place” where a direction from an
officer is ignored, the fine available is bumped up. Clause 27 toughens
up laws against persistently selling alcohol to under- age
individuals. Clause 28, in relation to under-age drinking, says that
officers will be able to confiscate alcohol from under-age drinkers,
whether or not there is an intention to consume that alcohol. So, we
are merely talking not about new law, but about hardening existing
law. On Second
Reading, there were quite a few comments from hon. Members to the
effect that those existing laws that I have referred to were not being
properly enforced. Could you give us a better understanding of that and
anecdotal evidence? How many prosecutions or sanction detections are
there under those three precursor pieces of legislation that relate to
clauses 26, 27 and 28? Do you have that
information? Mike
Craik: No, I do not have that data with me here now.
But what my officers would see as the advantage of the hardening up is
the practicalisation, if I dare make that into a word, of making the
legislation operable to them on the street. There is a notion that you
cannot move on some kids because you cannot tell their ages and they
are not required to give you that information. This is about making it
simple and workable for the cops. I do not think that it will mean more
people coming in through the criminal justice system at
all.
Q
55Mr.
Ruffley: That is quite interesting.
I think that all of us like to
be seen to be firm on law and order and, therefore, in and of
themselves, these clauses are not problematic for me at all, since they
are toughening existing legislation. However, a repeated theme crops up
in our deliberations in Parliament: if only the existing law tackling
alcohol misuse and its associated disorder could be enforced. The
police do not have the resources they need. Perhaps you can furnish the
Committee with a written submission on the profile of sanction
detections. We are not going to pick on Northumbria, chief constable,
do not worry. I would like data from the Association of Chief Police
Officers on the enforcement levels of existing legislation,
specifically, of the precursor legislation that relates to clauses 26,
27 and 28—not 29, because that is a new offence—so that
the Committee can understand whether the existing law is working,
because it may not
be being enforced enough, which is what I mean by not working. It may be
perfectly reasonable legislation with the right sentiments and previous
Ministers may have been right to propose it, but do you, the police,
have the resources to utilise the existing powers, never mind new ones?
We would value your ACPO data. Mike
Craik: We will obviously provide what we can. On
enabling resourcing, these are powers that neighbourhood cops and the
response officers who are out there 24/7 use. They are dealing with the
kids who are out late with drink in the parks, on the streets, and
hanging around the estates and the blocks of flats. These are the
powers that the cops on the street on normal patrol in the
neighbourhood use when they are tasked with dealing with drink-related
disorder in their communities. I guess that we probably have as much
human resource in the police service as we have ever had, and we are
probably unlikely to get
more. I
was interested in this morning’s debate about the tensions. If I
had more resources, would I put them into local policing, as I have
just done with another 160 officers in my force, or would I
use them for more serious matters? It is not simply about pouring more
resources on to neighbourhood streets so that there are more officers
doing more, it is about making measures practical and workable for the
officers. I see the clauses as a response to demand, so officers do not
have to move some kids on, when they cannot move other kids on; do not
have to seize alcohol in some circumstances, when they cannot in
others; and can get the job done there and then. Then the public will
see the outcome there and then, and not only see that some kids are
moved on, while others are not; and that some are prosecuted, while
others are not; that some are taken home, while others are not. It is
about giving officers the opportunity to create clarity in their
responses for the benefit of the kids—so that they understand
what is happening—and for the public who are disturbed by kids
drinking in their streets, their parks and their neighbourhoods. It is
about more than just figures, it is about
workability.
Q
56Paul
Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): To pick up where we have just
left off, I can see the argument about giving more clarity to officers
and I can see the benefits of the change in the law that allowed
officers to seize opened alcohol. I have been out on patrol in
Chesterfield with officers and seen them doing that—it is
effective. However, I am still puzzled by some of the suggested changes
and by how much they are, in effect, window dressing. You used the
phrase “deterrent effect”, but you can already fine
people £500 for consuming alcohol in a prohibited area, for
example, and the point was made on Second Reading that nobody has ever
been fined more than £250, so what is the point of increasing it
to
£2,500? Mike
Craik: I think that there is a deterrent impact. You
could argue about whether it works. ACPO supports something that would
enhance that deterrent effect and is proportionate. We hope that that
would have an effect on sentencing and the financial tariffs imposed,
but that is for the courts to decide.
|
