Mr.
Campbell: It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats
reject the advice of the chief medical officer, but leap to the defence
of the chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—it
is well that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is not
here. The
measures are not about further criminalising young people, but they do
take into consideration the frequency of the offence of public drinking
and the severity of the associated antisocial behaviour through the use
of a tiered approach. Again, that returns us to flexibility. We do not
envisage the situation that the hon. Member for Chesterfield flagged
up, in which the police simply wait before using the measures or move
to use them too quickly. We envisage that one-off offenders will be
dispersed from the locations and the alcohol will be confiscated. Those
caught a second time may well be subject to an acceptable behaviour
contract, and prosecution may be reserved for serious persistent
offenders; but those are the people who are beyond the diversion that
the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
Those people
may also be beyond other measures. The hon. Member for Chesterfield
flagged up the age-old idea of ASBOs being badges of honour, but the
National Audit Office report shows that in reality interventions using
those measures work, by and large. Two thirds of people change their
behaviour after one intervention, and 93 per cent. change their
behaviour after three interventions. It is for the small group of
people who believe they are beyond the law that we need further
measures. I thought that that was a theme picked up by
the chief constable of Northumbria when he gave evidence to the
Committee. It is not that the police do not know who the people in
question are; the hon. Gentleman said that the police do know that. The
question is what they can do with them. Do they have the tools and
powers? Are those effective and useable, and do they give the police
the flexibility they
need? Paul
Holmes: The point I was making was that the police know
who those people are; but do they wait 12 months, or do they
start doing something much
earlier?
Mr.
Campbell: They do not wait. They intervene. We are talking
about occasions when there is persistence—perhaps not only in
having alcohol but in disregarding police warnings and action. The
strong message that we received when the chief constable of Northumbria
gave evidence was that the police would welcome the measures because
they believe they need an extra push to be able to deal with the few
people to whom the offence would be relevant.
I want to
answer the points that the hon. Member for Hornchurch raised about
amendment No. 35. We have been clear throughout that parents should
take responsibility for their children. That includes their
children’s drinking. However, as the hon. Gentleman has said,
some parents do not take that view at all. An alarming number of young
people said that they had either taken the alcohol that they had from
their homes, or had been given it by their parents. That is entirely
unacceptable. Winding on slightly, to see what might happen if parents
were involved in that way and their children had been caught with
alcohol in public, they would probably say, “We gave it to
them.” If they had no qualms about giving it to them in the
first place, why would not they leap to their defence if the police
became involved? The provision is not about saying that the idea of
parental responsibility is not a proper way of looking at the question.
We are saying that for some people we need to go beyond it.
The hon.
Gentleman asked about reasonable excuse and made a point about
possession. Unless I am mistaken—I shall certainly
check—I do not think that possession is the same as consumption.
Part of the problem that the police were talking about was that young
people might have drink that had not been opened, and they wanted the
power to take that too, as a preventive measure. That is a very
important step
forward.
James
Brokenshire: This is a pretty important point about the
ambit and scope of the clause. Is the Minister saying that the clause
will cover only the possession of sealed bottles, or is it wider than
that? Obviously, if a bottle is unsealed it could potentially link to
consumption indirectly, because people are in possession of alcohol so
they can consume it. That was the point I was trying to
make.
Mr.
Campbell: No, it applies whether the container has been
opened or not. Sealed or unsealed: it would not matter.
What would
constitute a reasonable excuse? It is probably better to sketch out a
couple of quick scenarios. For example, if a young person was employed,
perhaps
in a part-time job, and part of that involved the delivery of alcohol,
of course that would constitute a reasonable excuse. Helping a family
member or other person to transport alcohol from one location to
another would likely be a reasonable
excuse. The
hon. Gentleman raised the issue of teenagers in a park with parents,
but that goes back to the point made about the common-sense approach
that the police would be expected to adopt. I would not see anything
wrong with the scenario he sketched.
Ms
Keeble: My hon. Friend is right about the police
interpretation of what people are doing with the alcohol, but is a park
definitely included under the category of public place? My local police
force wanted some clarification on what exactly constitutes a public
place. Does it include recreation and sports grounds, school playing
fields and those types of places? Will the Minister give us a list? I
am sure that a list will be
produced.
Mr.
Campbell: My understanding is that a park and the other
things that my hon. Friend talked about will be included in public
places. However, she will however be aware of the dangers of producing
a list: if we produced a list, we could leave something off it, which
could provide a way around the legislation. We will look at the
situation, and I will get back to her. We will also look at guidance
and giving greater clarity. It is not only a case of the police using
common sense; if there were a prosecution, the Crown Prosecution
Service would have to take a
view. On
acceptable behaviour contracts, I want to refer in passing to my hon.
Friend’s wise words. We do not want to get the approaches mixed
up. Acceptable behaviour contracts are voluntary agreements with
persons involved in antisocial behaviour. They are voluntary by nature,
and if we somehow tag that on to the offence, it would not be long
before the young person worked out that they should not enter into a
contract.
We want to
encourage the approach that the hon. Member for Chesterfield talked
about, but not to muddy the waters or complicate matters by making the
breach of an acceptable behaviour contract a condition. Similarly, we
would not want to get it mixed up other antisocial behaviour measures.
If we linked the offence to acceptable behaviour contracts, what would
happen if the person was on an ASBO? That takes us into all sorts of
areas to which we do not need to go. It would be beneficial to keep the
many pillars of the policy absolutely separate from one
another.
James
Brokenshire: I have listened to what the Minister has
said, but will he confirm that it is no longer the Government’s
policy, as stated in the “Youth Alcohol Action Plan”
that
“Prosecution
will require evidence of continued confiscation and failure to abide by
an” acceptable
behaviour
contract?
Mr.
Campbell: I do not think that the position has changed in
that regard. We are saying that there is an alternative, complementary
approach. I do not think that the two approaches contradict each other
in the way that the hon. Gentleman says.
James
Brokenshire: That is what the plan
says.
Mr.
Campbell: We clearly disagree, in which case the hon.
Gentleman must let me come back to him on the issue. He obviously does
not accept my words on
it.
Ms
Keeble: I should have asked my hon. Friend about this
earlier. He gave two examples of reasonable excuses that were
employment related, but what about a reasonable excuse that is socially
related? What if a young person is carrying alcohol, not for the
purposes of employment or helping, but for consumption, when there is a
reasonable excuse, and when it might be consumed in a place where it
would not fall foul of a ban on drinking in public places? Will those
reasonable excuses be accepted in such
situation?
Mr.
Campbell: I am not absolutely sure that I get my hon.
Friend’s point. Does she want to have another go?
Ms
Keeble: Suppose someone is taking alcohol to a party or
having a drink with friends outside school following exam results. They
would not be causing a huge mischief. That is the scenario I was
talking
about.
Mr.
Campbell: I think the answer is that the officer will have
discretion. I meant to say in passing that I parted company with my
hon. Friend when she talked about people celebrating exams. Having
spent some time in education, I assure her that it is not as benign a
situation as she has described. It will be at the officer’s
discretion, but I am not confident that the scenario she sketched of
going to a party with young people would not fall foul of the
provision. We
do not want to link the acceptable behaviour contracts approach with
the group of amendments. We believe that the amendments would
complicate the situation. We need a clear and tiered approach and the
amendments do not provide that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will
withdraw the
amendment. 10.15
am
James
Brokenshire: I have listened carefully to the Minister and
note that he will reflect on some of the points that have been made.
The amendments were intended to test the Government’s
intentions. I believe that he has set out a change in policy and
emphasis, as encapsulated in the “Youth Alcohol Action
Plan”. It is sensible and practical that there be greater
flexibility. However, it seems that there has been a move away from a
requirement for a breach of an acceptable behaviour contract, which
gives greater discretion. I note that he will reflect on that matter
and have heard his comments on reasonable excuse. This issue will need
careful consideration as the Bill proceeds. On the basis of his
comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Campbell: I beg to move amendment 126, in
clause 29, page 22, line 37, leave
out ‘licensed’ and insert
‘excluded’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 127 to 129.
Mr.
Campbell: We made it clear when we published the youth
alcohol action plan last year that our aim is to deter young people
from drinking unsupervised in public. Unfortunately, the Bill
inadvertently captures young people drinking in premises with a
qualifying club premises certificate, such as a working men’s
club or sports club bar. As the offence aims to deter persistent
drinking in public places, it is important to be clear about what a
public place is in relation to alcohol consumption. A young person in
possession of alcohol in a licensed club premises should not be at risk
of committing this
offence. The
Licensing Act 2003 is clear that persons under 18 cannot be sold
alcohol in, nor can they consume it unsupervised in such premises. By
accepting these amendments to the definition of licensed premises so
that it includes premises that hold a club premises certificate, young
people will be prosecutable under the new persistent possession offence
only if they are caught in possession of alcohol in a public place
three times within a consecutive 12-month period without a reasonable
excuse. This provision will reduce the incidence of alcohol consumption
by children in public and thereby reduce the likelihood of antisocial
behaviour, crime and
disorder. Amendment
126 agreed
to. Amendments
made: 127, in
clause 29, page 23, line 8, leave
out from ‘subsection (2)’ to end of line 14 and insert
‘“excluded
premises”— (a) in relation
to England and Wales,
means— (i) premises
which may by virtue of Part 3 or 5 of the Licensing Act 2003 (premises
licence or permitted temporary activity) be used for the supply of
alcohol, (ii) premises which
may by virtue of Part 4 of that Act (club premises certificate) be used
for the supply of alcohol to members or
guests, (b) in relation to
Northern Ireland,
means— (i) licensed
premises within the meaning of the 1996 Licensing
Order, (ii) premises of a club
registered under the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order
1996, (iii) premises for which
an occasional licence (within the meaning of the 1996 Licensing Order)
has been
granted.’ 128,
in
clause 29, page 23, line 19, after
‘1996’ insert
‘Licensing’. 129,
in
clause 29, page 23, line 20, after
‘1996’ insert
‘Licensing’.—(Mr. Alan
Campbell.) Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: I hope that we can complete consideration of the
clause before
10.25.
James
Brokenshire: I will take your comment to heart, Sir
Nicholas. I just have some quick questions for the Minister. First, is
it intended that there will be formal recording of the warnings to
trigger whether the offence has actually been arrived at? How will that
procedure operate in
practice? The
equality impact assessment
notes: “The
police commented that in order to be effective the new offence of
persistent possession will require details of all alcohol confiscations
to be recorded. Whilst this will help us to monitor the effectiveness
of the policy, it may increase the amount of time the police need to
spend dealing with each confiscation.”
What assessment has the
Minister made of the impact of the operation of the clause on police
time? That is obviously a relevant factor in considering the
operability of the
clause. The
equality impact assessment also
states: “No
reliable trend data on the use of existing alcohol-related police
powers
exists.” Is
the Home Office likely to remedy that to ensure that there is best
practice and best effect in relation to the various triggers that might
be used and the various provisions that might be
appropriate? The
regulatory impact assessment notes that the cost of implementing the
provisions is estimated at £56.1 million, yet it
states that the annual benefits are currently “unknown”.
What consideration has been given to that
issue? Finally,
the regulatory impact assessment
states: “Although
we anticipate the number of young people drinking in public places to
reduce we expect there to be a lesser effect on the overall level of
consumption of alcohol by young people. In some cases it may simply be
that the young people switch to drinking at home or friends houses
rather than in public
places.” What
does the Minister see as the overall impact and how does he assess the
effects of the clause if, as the regulatory impact assessment seems to
suggest, it may simply result in displacement and nothing
more?
| 
