The
Chairman: The sound system is not terribly good in this
room. Although you are having a conversation between the two of you at
that end, some of us down this end also want to
hear.
Q
57Paul
Holmes: If magistrates, for example, are not fining people
more then £250, when it could be £500, would they go to
£1,250 to split the difference again? Is it purely a
psychological deterrent?
Mike
Craik: It should be both. I hope that the impact on
offenders is clear and obvious, that there is a reassurance value for
the public, and that there is a practical application for
magistrates.
Q
58Paul
Holmes: You say that ACPO and the police force have
supported these moves. Did you consult magistrates, for example, about
whether they thought tougher sentences were
needed? Mike
Craik: It is not our proposal to consult them about;
we were consultees in the process.
Q
59Paul
Holmes: In practical terms, it is not going to work unless
magistrates use the
power. Mike
Craik: The psychological impact may work and unless
magistrates use that power you will find that element will not
work.
Q
60Paul
Holmes: A similar example raised on Second Reading was
that people can already be prosecuted for serving alcohol to somebody
under age on three consecutive occasions, but that measure is not very
much
used. Mike
Craik: It is difficult because there is time in
between occasions to change the licence holder. Having the opportunity
at the second offence means that we can get in quickly enough. To catch
people doing that is quite an expensive process requiring undercover
test purchase officers or trading standards officers. It is not an easy
thing to do: it is time consuming, and having to do it three times has
meant that people have been slipping through the
net.
Q
61Paul
Holmes: One of the things that pub landlords in my area
are indignant about is that all the pressure in the past seems to have
been on them, as licensed premises are the easiest to get at through
regulation. Yet they will say that most of the binge drinkers who are
drunk in their pubs are drunk when they arrive at 9 pm, having bought
cheap alcohol and then drunk it at home before they go out. I assume
you would agree with that,
Rob? Rob
Hayward: There is a growing tendency socially for
people to consume large quantities of alcohol before they go out. All
the statistics show that. We have an obligation to which we must
adhere, which is not to serve people who are drunk. I would like to
emphasise that as far as we are concerned, there are clauses in the
Bill that we support and that we do believe that tackling bad premises
is important.
You are right, though. We feel,
as representatives of the pub industry, that it is all too easy to
pursue the landlord and the pub and not necessarily other sets of
circumstances. As to a code, we have said in our evidence that we do not
want one because that will add to the regulatory burden. One thing that must be done,
however, under any form of regulation, is to impose an equal burden on
a small pub or convenience store, which has a low throughput, as on a
big supermarket, for example, which has a high throughput. Otherwise,
if a regulation is imposed on those small venues, it is in effect
closing them. We think that there are other ways of achieving the
objectives. In relation
to the chief constable’s comments on cost and the question of
prosecution—and remembering that that power of three strikes is
a very new one—I have here the Home Office’s
“Practical guide for dealing with alcohol related
problems” and on page 12 it
states: “Reviewing
a Licence can be undertaken whether or not there has been a
prosecution. It can prove to be an often quicker and more cost
effective solution”. In
fact, although there are recommendations in the Bill for increased
prosecutions, and actions taken at a tighter level, the Home
Office’s own document encourages people to review a licence
without a prosecution. There is an oddity
there.
Q
62Paul
Holmes: Shane, one of the problems with off-licence sales
is that they are more accessible to people who are under age than are
licensed premises—and that would apply to convenience stores.
Another is using alcohol as a loss leader, which presumably you would
argue is more a supermarket issue.
Shane
Brennan: Yes, loss leading is a supermarket issue and
I do not represent supermarkets. The point about their being more
accessible is one that needs to be understood more clearly. It is
illegal for any premises to sell alcohol to anyone under 18. It is an
imperative responsibility of all licensees to prevent under-age people
from buying alcohol in their premises. So, I do not know whether it is
more accessible. There tends to be a parity of targeted test purchasing
by people who seem to be a problem. There tend to be relatively similar
levels of failure across all different kinds of businesses whether
large, an off-licence or a pub. I am not sure that accessibility is an
issue in itself with regard to under-age sales. It is about stopping
those young people from getting hold of that product, which retailers
have to do. If they do not do that then they have to be prosecuted or
have action taken against them to prevent it from
happening.
Q
63Paul
Holmes: Chris, from a local government point of view,
which is the biggest issue that you want to see tackled by this
legislation—the issue of licensed premises or that of
off-sales? Chris
White: It has to be off-sales. A previous speaker
mentioned the positive aspects of licensing. We must remember that a
community without a pub or small shop is in serious difficulty.
Legislation should be framed to be generous to pubs and shops where
possible. If they are operated properly, they are places where alcohol
is sold under supervision. In many areas, shops and pubs work closely
with local authorities to ensure that they are operated properly. That
is surely the regime that we want to see. Although I would not
advocate hammering supermarkets, legislation should ensure that outlets
that are beneficial to the community and to the delivery of a good
licensing policy are helped wherever
possible.
The
Chairman: Paul, may I say, as I did to your Conservative
colleagues, that I will move on to questions from Government Members at
about a quarter to
5? Mike
Craik: It is important that you remember we are not
concerned just with enforcement. There are many licence holders in
off-licences and some fairly hapless licensees whom we support and
advise. We help them through their difficulties. If they are in a
difficult neighbourhood where lots of kids persistently try to get
alcohol, we work with them and help them to work with each other under
schemes such as pub watch to avoid the problem. I emphasise that we are
not concerned just with
enforcement. Don
Shenker: The point about people who turn
up to pubs drunk, having consumed alcohol from supermarkets and
off-licences, goes back to the point about the rise in consumption that
we have seen. Leaving aside arguments over whether that is dipping down
or staying the same, rising consumption has been driven largely by the
cut prices we have seen in off-sales. We must consider what are the
root causes of young people drinking and of crime and disorder in
relation to off-premises. Those problems are largely due to the sale of
alcohol in supermarkets and price promotions in the
on-trade. We must be
able to tackle the issue of price, otherwise we will see continuing
problems of crime and disorder. We know that having minimum prices in
the on-trade and off-trade will cut down on crime. The consultation
will look closely at the effect of the enabling power on that.
According to university of Sheffield research, if there was a 30p
minimum price in supermarkets alone crimes would be reduced by about
3,800. There is good evidence to show what happens when minimum prices
are introduced for alcohol. That would not necessarily impact on
revenues for the drinks industry. Although the volume of sales might go
down, the price increase would mean that the profits go up or stay the
same.
Q
64Paul
Holmes: I have one final question for Rob on voluntary
agreements versus mandatory agreements. Pub landlords and club owners
in Chesterfield had a voluntary agreement not to have happy hours,
women drinking free promotions and so on. As the recession started to
bite in the run-up to Christmas some of them broke ranks and were
followed by others. Can such agreements be voluntary or must they be
mandatory? Rob
Hayward: On pricing, we used to have the point of
sale promotions policy, which we discussed with Ministers. I raised it
at the Prime Minister’s summit at No. 10 because we received
legal advice that our operation of it was illegal under competition
law. One of the problems on the issue of price is which schemes can be
operated legally by a group of pubs, even in concert with police and
local authorities. Our advice is clear that such schemes cannot be
operated. Therefore, they must come from other powers. We are not
convinced that there will be powers that can control price, as Don has
suggested. That comes back to your original point about hammering pubs
as against other venues.
I was interested in the
Minister’s comments during the Second Reading debate, when he
said: “It might
well enable us to tackle some of my right hon.
Friend’s concerns about
promotions.”—[Official Report, 19
January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 589.]
I was interested in the fact that he said
“might”, because I think there is a lot of doubt in the
Government’s mind as to what powers they can take or give to
local government to tackle the issue of price and promotions. If the
Minister could clarify what is actually intended, I think every
sector—the health sector, the regulatory sector, and the
industry sector—would be overjoyed. We believe that you could
toughen our standards document and operate it against problem
venues.
Q
65Ms
Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): I want to ask
about the practicality of some of the measures around policing in
public places. There are obviously a number of areas that have total
bans on alcohol in public places, such as several town centres,
including Northampton. Can you say from your experience of policing
such measures what lessons you would take from that about actually
practically implementing the measures that are set out in this Bill, in
terms of officers’ interpretation and
management? Mike
Craik: Two things matter. One is early intervention
in response to difficulties that the public express. The other is the
ability to task officers to use powers very quickly to make a
difference. So, there is a question of whether we can identify the
problem quickly and whether we can respond quickly enough, which the
measure will enable us to do. There is also a question of whether the
officers have the ability, together with the powers, to make all the
problems go away—together with their partners, as this is not
just a police thing. There is also a question of whether we can not
just get the problem moved off the street for the time being, or a day
or two, as some of our powers allow, but find the individuals
responsible and work with partners to stop the
cycle?
Q
66Ms
Keeble: On policing total bans in public areas, has that
actually been manageable and
possible? Mike
Craik: Yes, we would say that to get 100 per cent.
compliance, it will happen on a street when we are not looking. But in
terms of making a real visible difference to the people who live there,
which is really what matters, I think we are capable of making a
success of
this.
Ms
Keeble: So this is really
positive. Mike
Craik:
Yes.
Q
67Ms
Keeble: There are particular issues, obviously, about
young people drinking in public places, particularly parks, about which
people have a big grievance. How are you going to manage this, and how
would police officers practically police these kinds of measures,
assuming that the park is a public place, and draw the line between
young people who may be
drinking and those who might be causing a nuisance, given that we must
consider picnics, pop concerts and so
on. Mike
Craik: Yes, it is fairly clear from the circumstances
when you get there whether kids who should not have been drinking have
been moved on by the police and have gone to the local park or
riverbank to continue that misbehaviour. That is not the same thing as
meeting someone who is having a picnic. You have to trust the
discretion and judgment of officers on the
street.
Q
68Ms
Keeble: You are quite confident that all that is
manageable? Mike
Craik: I think it happens day in and day
out.
Rob
Hayward: All the evidence that we have in relation to
confiscation is that the police manage it well. I said to Vernon in a
meeting that we had a few months ago with other associations that we
actually wanted greater confiscation powers, because it is that public
nuisance to which you are referring, such as at bus stops and in parks,
that causes a large part of the grief for most of the population.
Therefore, the Home Secretary announced about this time last year a
campaign on confiscation around half-term, which worked very
effectively. I welcomed it on the day she announced it, and I have said
that we would like more confiscation powers. We believe that that works
well with the
police. Mike
Craik: It is important to note that
confiscation, banning orders and those sorts of things should not be
permanent. The idea is that we should solve the problem, and once we
think we have solved it, we return to a new normality. We might have to
come back to that again in six months or a year, but it should not be a
permanent
thing.
Q
69Ms
Keeble: I want to ask about the code. Obviously, its
content is for the future, and everyone seems to have their wish list
of nine items that they would like in it—I know that I have
mine—but the key issue for this part is the process. What is
your view on the extent of the consultation? The industry will have
input, but this is a massive community issue, and it is very important
that young people have the opportunity to have some input. How would
you like that to be
managed?
The
Chairman: I call Mike Craik. Forgive me for shouting your
names if it is not immediately obvious to whom a question is addressed.
That is for the benefit of the Hansard writers. If I really want
to stop you from talking, I shall shout your name very loudly and
repeatedly. Mike
Craik: You might have noticed that at the start I
hesitated to be the first to suggest a list. I do not think that it
should be a police-constructed list—you are absolutely
right—because this is about hearing all the voices, including
those concerned and particularly young people, who are traditionally
difficult to reach, but are becoming increasingly easier to reach
through IT, schools, the internet and that sort of thing. There are
real opportunities to get some good ideas and pull them together. At
the end of the day, someone has to make the choices and decisions, but
as long as all our
voices are heard, better choices will be made. I would not for a minute
suggest that it should be just the police’s
choice. Shane
Brennan: I urge that there should be no rush and that
we take time to think through the implications. Some very costly and
complicated things might be brought in, and I am concerned because we
have been told that there will be a shortened consultation period for
this—perhaps eight weeks instead of 12. That is unnecessary and
could be quite dangerous, given what might come in. The biggest concern
is that there will be perverse consequences. I understand that there
are real concerns about targeting and whether this is the right way of
doing things—that is an issue—but mechanisms might be
brought in that have perverse outcomes and harm other parts of the
industry more than the industry people at whom they are targeted. Those
things need to be properly thought
through.
| 
