The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mr. Alan Campbell): It is a rare occasion when
I hope that no young people read the record of the Committee and
discover the power that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford tells us
that they have; I will return to that point in a
moment. The
hon. Member for Chesterfield asked whether the power is necessary,
because all existing powers are—I think he
said—superfluous, but that is certainly not the case. The power
should be seen for what it is, which is a power to plug a particular
gap that has been flagged up to the Committee during the evidence
sessions by the police, who complain of a situation where a mixed group
of young people might be having alcohol and causing trouble, or have
the potential to cause trouble. There is a clear power for those aged
16 and over, but it might be a mixed group we are talking about, so
what do we do with the younger members of that group? Just because they
might be younger, it does not mean that they might not be the most
serious perpetrators of disorder or trouble among that
group—that is what the clause is
about. The
hon. Gentleman states that it might be more suitable just to move
children on, and there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent a
police officer from doing that. It takes us back to the point raised
throughout our deliberations in this part of the Bill about allowing
the police to use their discretion and ensuring that they have the
power that they need. In their view—a view that we
share—it is a power that they may need to use in some
circumstances, but it is a power that they do not yet
have.
Paul
Holmes: I was in fact asking whether it is suitable just
to move the children on, or move the problem round the corner, rather
than tackling it as a wider issue. On the previous point, if there are
children aged 10 to 16 with a group of older children and they are
intoxicated on the street, why are the existing powers not allowing
them to be taken back home or referred to social services? If the
children are on the street with a gang of intoxicated youths, what
exactly is the gap that this is
filling?
Mr.
Campbell: I had written down the point and then
misinterpreted it, so it is my fault and not the hon.
Gentleman’s. The point that I am trying to make is that it might
be entirely suitable for a police officer simply to
move children on. In other circumstances it might be suitable for the
officer to take the child to a place of safety. The police must have
the ability to make that judgment. We must not be too restrictive and
second-guess what they must do in every circumstance. We had little, if
any, debate on clause 28. Clause 30 should be seen only in the context
of clause 28 because that clause deals with the issue of child safety.
Again, it depends on the
circumstances. The
hon. Member for Chesterfield went on to argue a point about the age of
criminality. That is a bigger debate than this particular measure has
the time or inclination to deal with. But it is not about criminalising
young people. It is a preventive measure to be used when the police
officer thinks that it is proportionate and useful to do so. It is not
about a quick
escalation. Ms
Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Does my hon.
Friend agree that the measure is a response to the common-sense
observation that a lot of people make, which is that when the younger
kids cause a nuisance the police do not have any powers to do anything?
They can get social services and do all kinds of things, but simply
getting them to go home, which might be some distance or just round the
corner on the same estate, is a useful power to deal with a problem
that everybody knows exists with the younger kids on their
estates.
Mr.
Campbell: That reminds me of a recent visit to South
Tyneside where very good work by the local partnership has been
successful in tackling youth disorder, and problems with alcohol too.
One part of the solution was to build a shelter for young people on the
other side of a field rather than at the side where they were
congregating. It certainly moved the children on, but in the view of
residents it helped to tackle the problem. It was not a case of out of
sight, out of mind. As far as the residents were concerned, the problem
was
removed. I
do not underplay, however, the point about child safety that the hon.
Members for Hornchurch and for Chesterfield raised. In an emergency the
police have the powers to bring in social services and other agencies
that the hon. Member for Hornchurch was talking about. But that is not
what this is about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North
said, it is about giving the police a particular power to move children
on, and if used in conjunction with clause 28, the opportunity to take
them to a place of safety
too. The
example of a young woman complaining that she may be put into a more
dangerous situation by being moved on is something that a police
officer would need to consider. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford
made a point about 10-year-olds in the dark at night. I do not think
that that is incredible. It is incredibly sad that that should happen,
but we acknowledge and the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that in some
circumstances that can happen. Of course, the existing legislation
applying to 16-year-olds has a time scale on it. We are not talking
only about tackling problems in the dark of night. If we do not put a
time scale on the measure, we could be talking about situations that
the police might encounter at 5 pm or earlier, say on a school holiday
or weekend. I hope that that helps to explain
things. Why
are parents not notified of the powers? We have to be proportionate. We
have a very good scheme in my constituency called Child Safe to take
children back to
their parents. That is how to notify the parents. We must be careful not
to make the measure too burdensome. The police want a power
specifically to move children that are younger than those that they are
currently able to move on. I am not sure whether a detailed recording
mechanism or having conditions applied would be helpful, particularly
when we are conscious of the time and energy that the police already
have to spend on such
matters. The
hon. Member for Hornchurch asked where the measure fits in the overall
scheme of things and in particular why parents are not involved. This
measure is part of a range of measures. There is an element of
escalation, so we could be talking—at some point in relation to
the same child—acceptable behaviour contracts and ASBOs.
However, we could also be talking about parenting contracts and
parenting orders. We have to see the measure for what it is, but we
must also put it into the context of the measures that are available at
the discretion of the
police.
James
Brokenshire: I rise to remind the Minister—this may
be in his pile of papers—that I asked a specific question on the
youth alcohol action plan and the proposal for a more partnership-based
or collegiate toolkit. I do not think that he has addressed
that.
Mr.
Campbell: Forgive me; I do indeed have a note on that. The
guidance that the hon. Gentleman mentioned has not yet been published.
The decision has been made not to do so until we have the new laws on
the statute book and see how they fit into the overall picture of what
needs to be done regarding young people. He may have a view on that.
[Interruption.] He looks
bemused.
James
Brokenshire: I am bemused only about the parliamentary
timetable. I suppose the Minister is saying that he needs the Bill to
be on the statute book before the guidance for all the agencies can be
issued, and no more than that. However, I am sure he appreciates that
the guidance that is referred to is quite important in the context of
fitting all the different aspects and tools together to ensure that we
get the necessary cohesive approach.
Mr.
Campbell: The guidance is important, and I do not by any
means underestimate its importance. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right
on why we have taken the decision.
Mr.
Burns: Will the Minister respond to the point that I made
in the debate?
Mr.
Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman remind me what that
was?
Mr.
Burns: My point was that parents have no legal powers to
prevent their children leaving home if they want to go
out.
Mr.
Campbell: Again, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. That
is an interesting point, which I suppose touches on the measure we are
discussing. However, if a child leaves home, the parents can call the
police if they think that they are not safe. In that case, presumably,
the child could be taken to a place of
safety.
Mr.
Burns: I am grateful to the Minister, but that is not what
I was asking. I was asking this: as part of solving or minimising the
problem, are the Government going to consider taking such an approach,
and why have they not already done
so?
Mr.
Campbell: That is an interesting question. I will reflect
on it and perhaps write to the hon.
Gentleman.
The
Chairman: Before the hon. Lady intervenes I should say
that the question of parental controls goes rather wider than the
clause itself. The Minister said that he will respond to Mr.
Burns, and I am sure that he will circulate the letter to other
Members. The hon. Lady should therefore seek to ask him about another
matter.
Ms
Keeble: I had not realised that parents do not have that
power—I hope nobody tells my son. If the Minister is going to
respond, perhaps he would also say how any such measure could be
enforced. It seems difficult to do.
1.30
pm
The
Chairman: I must give the Minister the last word and then
he may have some concluding remarks.
Mr.
Campbell: I think that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford
is seeking not simply the enforcement of the power, but a clarification
of the situation now. Parents do have the power of reasonable
chastisement, and I am confident that if they took reasonable steps to
prevent the situation that the hon. Gentleman talked about, no court
would prosecute them.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
4General
licensing conditions relating to
alcohol
Paul
Holmes: I beg to move amendment 244, in
schedule 4, page 123, line 17, leave
out paragraph
2.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 37, in schedule 4, page 123,
line 24, leave out ‘appropriate’ and insert
‘necessary and
proportionate’. Amendment
38, in
schedule 4, page 123, line 25, at
end insert ‘provided always that
no such condition shall increase the minimum statutory age at which
alcohol can be
purchased.’. Amendment
39, in
schedule 4, page 123, line 26, leave
out sub-paragraph
(2). Amendment
40, in
schedule 4, page 124, line 2, at
end insert— ‘(4A) Before
making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall
undertake such public consultation as he considers appropriate in the
context of the conditions proposed and have due regard to the
representations
received.’.
Ms
Keeble: On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. Will
you definitely be having a stand part debate? I wanted to speak on the
clause, but it is pointless to speak to each group of amendments. I am
happy to speak in a stand part debate, provided we have one at the
end.
The
Chairman: If it helps the Committee, I intend to hold a
stand part debate with which we will also consider new clause
6.
Paul
Holmes: In the consultation, before the Bill was in its
final form, Rob Hayward, the chief executive of the British Beer and
Pub Association, expressed a fear that a mandatory code would
disadvantage already struggling pubs. He said:
“The
Government has the weapons it needs to tackle irresponsible retailers
by rigorously enforcing the Licensing
Act”— the
existing
laws— “We
don’t need new laws and regulations, just better enforcement of
existing
laws.” I
would not go the whole way along with him on that, but the general
point is good. The vast majority of licensed premises are not a
problem. With proposed new section 19A the Minister is creating a
series of mandatory offences; and a blanket roll-out across every
licensed premises, regardless of whether the measures are needed in
nine out of 10 cases, is overkill. From working with the Local
Government Association—I declare an interest as a former
councillor for 12 years —I know that local authorities
would rather not see blanket requirements produced from the centre, and
would rather have the flexibility to act as they see fit. They know
best because they are on the spot, are elected by and live in the local
community, and know where the trouble spots are and what is needed to
tackle them.
We have
already debated the concept of decentralising power on police
collaboration and direction from the centre, and the same principle
applies here. We are one of the most centralised democracies in western
Europe. If we really believe in decentralisation and localism, why not
give democratically elected local authorities more flexibility and
power to operate as they see fit in their localities?
Schedule 4
amends the Licensing Act 2003 to create the enabling power to impose
mandatory licence conditions on all existing and new pubs through
secondary legislation. Surely that is a retrograde step. Do we believe
what all three parties have been saying recently, and the Liberal
Democrats for a very long time, about decentralisation, devolution and
localism? The Licensing Act 2003 introduced greater local flexibility
and democratic influence in the licensing regime and this measure
reverses that completely.
It would be
interesting to hear from the Minister on the mandatory code and
Conservative amendment 39. Out of interest, I should like to know how
the Government have arrived at the figure nine in this measure. Why not
five, six, a dozen, 10 or 20? It seems a strange figure to arrive at,
but that is a side issue. Local authorities know which premises cause
concern, and they can focus licence conditions on them, so why impose
restrictions and requirements on staffing and so on that might be
expensive and that will affect everyone, including many pubs that are
struggling to survive in the present climate, with taxation and the
economy?
Removing
subsection (2) would remove a swathe of over-regulation that many
well-run pubs and restaurants cannot really afford in the current
climate. For example, the Licensing Act 2003 requires premises to have
a designated premises supervisor, in the form of a personal licensee,
in place whenever alcohol is sold. The unforeseen consequence of that
blanket condition has been an
excessive burden on community groups when organising events at which
alcohol is sold on a relatively ad hoc and irregular basis. As a
result, only 30 per cent. of such groups have carried on applying for
licences to sell alcohol at such events, and the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport has since undertaken a costly, retrospective
legislative reform order to try to undo the damage done by that
legislation. We are in danger of going down the same road and making a
similar mistake that we might want to reverse in a few years’
time. Local
licensing authorities are best placed to know and recognise the
diversity of premises, or groups of premises, in each community and the
problems that do or do not arise from them, depending on the area.
Surely, the Government’s licensing objectives could be better
met through local conditions and flexibility for local authorities.
Where regulations need to be consistent across the country, the
Government should provide guidance to that effect, rather than having
automatic, stifling legislation and a blanket, mandatory
process.
Some people
in the trade have said that the danger of letting local authorities
have greater freedom and flexibility is that there will be different
conditions in different local authority areas, but so what? We get that
in varying degrees now in different areas of local authority activity,
as there are different licensing regulations on taxis and minicabs in
different parts of the country. That is why we have democratically
elected local authorities. There are also different educational regimes
in different parts of the country, in so far as the Government allow
that, because that is what locally elected authorities want, but so
what? The
Home Office has indicated that the mandatory conditions are likely to
be totemic and concerning activities that no premises should be
carrying out. In reality, they are likely to include many things that
the vast majority of premises simply do not do, so why take a
sledgehammer to crack a nut by imposing blanket regulations across the
board? One example that comes to mind is an “all you can drink
for x pounds” promotion. A mandatory list is likely to be a list
of “do nots” rather than “dos”, and staff
training would be affected when licensed premises moved from one
category to another.
Elsewhere,
the Government follow the logic that mandatory conditions apply to
responsible retailers as well as to irresponsible ones, and that there
should be some variation in local conditions. In defending the new cost
of the code, the Government say in the impact assessment:
“Allowing
local authorities the discretion to apply some of these conditions will
ensure that, to a large extent, these costs will be targeted at those
premises which pose a real threat to the four licensing objectives.
This is in accordance with the principals of Better
Regulation.” If
that logic applies to other provisions in the Bill involving local
conditions, why does it not apply to this measure? Why not allow all
nine mandatory conditions—I still do not understand why it is
nine—to be within the gift and control of local authorities,
which are locally elected and locally accountable, and know local
circumstances far better than any Minister sitting here in
London?
| 
