Ms
Keeble: I agree with the issues about representations, but
it is possible for elected representatives to make representations,
provided they have the agreement of a local resident. Therefore, it is
possible, but there is a process.
James
Brokenshire: I agree that, in essence, councillors, and
indeed Members of Parliament, can do that. I have had to say that I was
appointed by a particular resident to make representations on their
behalf as their agent. It seems so perverse and peculiar that we have
to go through that formal process of ensuring that we have someone who
lives within 100 m of the licensed premises. It would be sensible,
particularly for ward councillors, to be able to have an interest in
applications and in making representations, given that they are
supposed to be the representatives of the people living within that
area. Therefore, I sympathise with the purpose of new clause 6, which
appears to embody those points and add them into the Licensing Act. It
avoids the formulaic and unnecessary process the local councillors need
to go through to participate in something that directly affects their
ward. After all, they would be able to get involved on issues such as
planning. I
should be interested to hear the Minister’s response to new
clause 6, because it touches on a relevant and serious point. I hope
that it will be given some consideration and that this debate about the
amendments and the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Stourbridge
will be reported to her.
Ms
Keeble: On that last point, I must say that I was taken
aback at having to produce a signed consent form from a local resident
agreeing to my representing them in a licensing application. I, like
the hon. Gentleman,
thought it a bit odd, given how it is normally accepted that when we, as
elected representatives, speak on behalf of our constituents, we do
just that. The only justification I can find for the provision is that
the situation under discussion involves a quasi-legal process, so we
also perform a function that has a direct financial bearing on local
businesses. Although I agree that the measure goes strongly against a
particular principle, it will add rigour to our thinking and
representations. Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall be interested to hear
my hon. Friend’s response.
Schedule 4
goes to the heart of the Bill, which is why it is infuriating that we
will have so little information about the proposed code and so little
access to the process until the code is published. It is also why I ask
my hon. Friend the Minister for the definition of reasonableness. We
all say that, by and large, drinking in pubs is reasonable. Indeed,
many of us think it reasonable to go to the corner shop to buy some
alcohol, and to do so outside our former licensing hours. We accept
that, but we then end up with the current binge drinking problem among
young people, and everyone says, “How did we get here?” I
am concerned that, unless we are clear about what society considers to
be the reasonable drinking and selling of alcohol, we will end up with
a mandatory code that does either too much or too little.
I am
concerned also because the opportunities to legislate on this matter
are extremely rare. I first became interested in the happy hour issue
when a constituent’s son died after following a happy hour
promotion at a pub. He got very drunk and behaved in what was thought
to be a threatening way to a man, who thumped him quite heftily.
Unfortunately, the man was a doorkeeper at a pub in town, and my
constituent’s son fell over, hit his head on a kerb and died a
couple of days later. He was not remotely threatening, but his
behaviour was read as such, and if he had not been drinking, he would
not have behaved in that way. He was a student, did not have much
money, was in a pub with a special promotion, and that is what
happened. Moving from that day to this, we reach the point where
regulations might have to be put in place. However, we must get them
right, because, if it is another 10 years before such an opportunity
comes along again, a lot of mischief will be done, the public will have
to live with the consequences of it and it will be impossible for us to
regulate.
3
pm I
am not so concerned about the question, “Why nine?” There
are fewer than 10 commandments, and that is the only significance I can
see in the figure. I am, however, extremely concerned about what the
nine conditions will be. It is important that they are seen, not just
by the industry but by the public, as the nine key things that can be
used to manage one of the public malaises of the present
time—the chronic rise in binge drinking, particularly among
young people. This is a Public Bill Committee, not a policy debate, so
I will not go into all the statistics; those are on the record not only
on crime but also on health consequences for young people.
It is
extremely important that we know what the nine proposed conditions are.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch; if they concern types of
glasses and similar matters, people will think that we have taken
leave of our senses. Everybody will accept that there are much bigger
fish to fry than the issue about glasses, important though that
is. I completely
accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch, my hon. Friend
the Minister and others that the bulk of the industry is perfectly
reasonable, operates properly and wants to help people live and work in
a decent society. There are many other ways in which local authorities,
pubwatches and other bodies—I have a very good pubwatch in
Northampton—can work to mitigate some of the downsides of the
night-time economy and drinking generally. However, those are special
interest groups; some are in industry, some in local government and
some are law enforcement agencies. They are not generally collective
upholders of the public interest and do not have powers to regulate
within it. That power rests with the Government, and that is why this
legislation is so important.
In the
discussions so far, the lists and names that I have heard are all
honourable organisations and I would not question their motives or
integrity. Some, such as Alcohol Concern, are outstanding. I have deep
respect for the retailers and know that some do outstanding work in
managing their businesses properly. However, such groups have
particular interests at heart. I am concerned that I have not heard the
list of those representatives of the public interest with whom my hon.
Friend has spoken. Secondly, I have not heard what might be in the
code. It is clear that discussions have been going on and that people
in industry know what the discussions are about. It is wrong that
certain sectoral interests should have access to that information while
MPs who are debating this matter and making decisions on it do
not.
My hon.
Friend is shaking his head. Maybe no one has seen a list, but there
will have been discussions on different issues and points of concern
for the industry. We are looking at a matter that is of great concern
to our constituents, and MPs should know roughly the content of those
discussions and which general areas are being considered. I hope that
my hon. Friend will say what those areas are in his reply, but in case
he does not, I have a few suggestions.
The first
suggestion is about minimum pricing. That issue is deeply
controversial—I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the subject.
Whenever I ask about it people say, “Don’t worry; we are
not doing that but we are doing something about happy hours.” I
do not accept that doing something about happy hours is compensation
for not doing something about minimum pricing or pricing more
generally. The general consensus is that happy hours are not a good
idea. It is accepted that they should be regulated against.
The hon.
Member for Hornchurch has repeatedly mentioned a change in drinking
patterns. I cannot conceive why anyone would want to stop people buying
a pint of beer for 89p or 99p, as in some of the special pub
promotions, when they are not being stopped from going to a supermarket
and buying 3 litres of a much stronger cider—White Lightning,
say—for something over £1. A Department of Health study
reveals that price and availability are factors in leading to people
drinking too much and causing antisocial behaviour. If price is a
factor, then one has to hit both the happy hours and the White
Lightnings, especially since White
Lightning benefits from the lower tax rates that apply to ciders. It
seems the tax system rewards the drinks industry for producing a
noxious drink that makes people very drunk very cheaply. I therefore
want to know that there will be a level playing field between the on
and off-licence. We have not had much discussion about the off-licence.
On the pricing issues, the regulatory framework is roughly the same.
One can take the same attitude to price, whether people are drinking in
a pub, or going to the supermarket and then going to the pub, provided
they are over 18, to get blind drunk there. The second
suggestion concerns labelling, which goes back to the issue of
responsibility and what is reasonable in the sale of alcohol. Do people
actually know what they are drinking? If I go to a pub or buy something
from an off-licence, I normally have no idea how many units I am
drinking. I very much hope that one of the mandatory conditions will
stipulate that drinks are labelled or that people are told how many
units they are drinking. Again, it would have to apply to an on and
off-licence. When
I introduced my ten-minute Bill and I talked about this to the
industry, they said, “Well, that’s very stupid. The kids
would look at the strength of the drink and the price, and then work
out how they could get really drunk cheaply.” But it is
important for the ordinary, reasonable drinker to know how much they
are drinking, so that they know whether they will get into trouble if
they drive, or to limit their intake for health reasons. I wonder,
therefore, whether the code will deal with labelling and whether that
will include on and off-licences.
The third
suggestion concerns alcohol displays and whether they will be in the
code. We know that to protect children from the evil consequences of
smoking, cigarettes must be hidden under the counter and not even
displayed behind the counter. But the same child going into the corner
shop can trip over a whole shedload of super-strength lager right in
the middle of the shop on their way to buy the bread for tea. If we
think that exposure to something that is damaging to health should be
managed, we ought to look at the issue of alcohol
displays. In
the case of convenience store displays, the store is also the place
where people buy alcohol. In Scotland, they have taken quite an extreme
approach. I understand that parts of Australia have adopted a similar
approach and I personally think that they are rather severe given the
size of some corner shops. I would want the code to cover such aspects
as what is thought to be appropriate for a corner shop whose primary
purpose is to sell food, or for a supermarket, where there are issues
about whether the alcohol is in one place or pepperminted around the
shop. How does that relate to displays of drinks in pubs and clubs? It
is really important, again, that the code deals with off-licence as
well as
on-licence. One
reason why it is important to know what the thinking is and what the
possibilities are for the code is that consultation with the public,
who are concerned about the issues, takes much longer than Departments
give credit for. Three months, which is the usual time given, is just
about enough to get through the cycle of local community meetings. If
there is to be a proper consultation, there needs to be the opportunity
to take the issues out and look at them carefully. Being given a list
of nine and asked, “This is a proposal, what do
you
think of it?” is not quite the same as having real discussions to
identify the public’s priorities and looking to codify them in
an organised fashion. I hope that my hon. Friend will say what
timetable he is proposing. If the list of nine is to be drawn up, or if
the draft code is to be ready by the time of Royal Assent, what will be
the options for change? At what point will we as Members, or the
public, get to see
it? One
reason why it is of such concern is that some of the decisions that
have to be made might seem small to the people drawing up the code or
to the industry, but are massive to the people out there living with
the consequences. I shall provide my hon. Friend with one example.
Convenience stores—corner shops—rely on alcohol sales for
14 per cent. of their turnover. Anything that affects their
viability—such as a code that set the wrong standards for
in-store promotions or the amount of space devoted to alcohol
sales—could put a corner shop out of business. The impact on
some estates—we all know them: the post office is gone, the
newsagent is struggling—would be profound indeed. There needs to
be a discussion with the public about their concerns and priorities. Do
they want to see the sale of alcohol managed to prevent the antisocial
behaviour that sometimes occurs after youths have been out buying tins
of alcohol in the local shop? Or would they prefer to find some other
way to manage drinking? There may be a risk to the future of the shop.
There are some major issues, which it is important for the public to be
in a position to discuss. As I said, the schedule is probably the only
chance that we have to deal with the issues, and may well be the only
chance for a long
time. As
others have said, the pattern of drinking is shifting. It has shifted
from going down to the pub, having a few drinks and going home, to
getting cheap alcohol from off-licences, going home to drink it, then
going out and drinking again afterwards. Another issue is access to
different types of drinks. I am concerned that we might end up with a
code that is driven by yesterday’s agenda and which does not
catch up, anticipate and deal properly with the current patterns of
drinking and their impact on the well-being of our constituents and
their community.
3.15
pm Everything
that I have seen, and the input from my constituents, shows that this
is a major area of concern. I receive much fewer complaints about pubs
and clubs than about the drunken antisocial behaviour of people who
have had drink elsewhere. I would hate it if we had a code that was
toothless, or had the wrong teeth, and we then had to wait another 10
years for another real opportunity to deal with the problem again. It
is important that we get this code and I ask my hon. Friend to tell us
in exactly which areas thinking is going on that will lead to the
choice of the nine items.
Can my hon.
Friend also bring forward the publication of the draft? I am hoping to
do an online consultation—I have already written to ask if he
will come to launch it. I want to be absolutely sure that all the
different interest groups that have expressed concern—the
police, doctors, head teachers, the National Union of
Students—get a really good chance to have their input as to how
they want to see drink managed and regulated in our society so that it
can be a source of pleasure and we can reduce the incidence of
antisocial behaviour and health and other problems linked with
it.
Paul
Holmes: I will address my points mainly to new clause 6.
It was tabled by the hon. Member for Stourbridge. Unfortunately she
cannot be here today, so I have added my name to it so that I can also
speak to it. The initial arguments for the new clause could be taken as
part of all the issues we have been repeating throughout these debates
about the need for devolution and decentralisation, but let us park all
that on one side on this occasion, because it is a new clause that has
been submitted by a Labour Member. Those on the Conservative Front
Bench have also expressed their support for it and we also support it,
so it has a remarkable degree of cross-party
support.
The clause is
not asking the Government to reverse the whole thrust of central
direction and give local government more power; it is asking for a
simple, logical amendment or extension of a power that is already in
the Licensing Act 2003. The issue is that, at the moment, a ward
councillor can only make objections to the licensing authority if they
are acting directly on behalf of a resident of the ward. The hon.
Member for Northampton, North said that that is not a problem because
members of the ward can approach the ward councillor and take the issue
up. It seems strange that the councillor cannot do so directly and it
raises particular problems if they can act only on the open public
instruction of one of their ward members. There is the basic,
democratic principle that an elected ward councillor should surely be
able to make representations about something that happens in their
ward, but particular problems can arise.
I want to
give an example, from a London councillor whom I know personally. In
2007 a nightclub in inner London was raided by the police. As a result,
a premises licence review was instigated. Local residents who were
concerned about the club and had sensitive, confidential information
about drug dealing on the premises went to their ward councillor and
asked if the councillor would raise their concerns in the licence
committee hearing. However, under the present licensing regime from the
2003 Act that can only be done if the residents will publicly declare
who they are. As we were dealing with local residents living near a
club, where drug dealing was taking place, the residents were too
frightened and were not prepared to go public. The council would have
done so but could not, because the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003
state that council can do only so when acting in the name of publicly
declared local residents. The licence holder’s lawyers were
therefore able to effectively gag the elected representative, thus
requiring the councillor to leave the committee hearing without putting
forward the concerns about drug dealing on the
premises. It
seems strange that although the 2003 Act makes provision for licence
reviews and for local voters to make objections, it does not
automatically allow an elected local councillor to do exactly the same.
As a general democratic principle, I urge the Government to look at new
clause 6, since it has obvious cross-party support in most cases. It is
not only a democratic principle, however, but a practical issue of
residents who live above premises that cause problems being simply too
scared to go public and give evidence, whereas their ward council could
do
so. A
temporary events notice works on the same principle, in that the police
can object, but local councillors, the local council as a whole, and
the environmental health
authority cannot, so they have to lobby the police to raise an
objection. A new schedule that I tabled on the matter was not selected
for debate, but the subject follows the same principle as the issue of
a ward councillor on a licence review. Why not simply allow a local
authority’s ward councillors to make objections, rather than
have them follow a circuitous route that does not always lead anywhere?
The argument can be seen as being about devolving power, but if we
leave that to one side, it is actually about making a simple change to
legislation introduced by the Government in 2003 that would allow it to
work much more effectively and allow local elected representatives to
do their job
properly. The
Bill and the schedule aim to deal with the problem of sales of alcohol
to under-age people from on-premises as well as off-premises. The Bill
also aims to deal with the issue of premises selling cheap alcohol in
happy hour deals and all you can drink deals. However, it misses the
opportunity to deal with the much greater problem of the sale of cheap
alcohol from off-premises. While some pubs and clubs have happy hours,
all you can drink deals and so on, the vast majority of supermarkets
take part in loss-leader sales of alcohol at very cheap prices, and
some of the larger off-licence chains do so, too, on a regular basis.
In my experience, the majority of complaints that I receive from my
constituents relate to the problem of cheap alcohol getting into the
hands of people, both under and over age, who then drink it in public
places. I obviously receive complaints about Chesterfield town centre,
where the central pubs and clubs are located, and some complaints about
Brimington and Staveley town centre, but the vast majority of
complaints that come to me, and as far as I can see from talking to the
police, that go to them, concern young people, some over age, many
under age, drinking cheap alcohol that they bought from
off-licence premises, in the parks, children’s play areas,
cemeteries, bus shelters, and all the other public areas where
they can gather. They pose much the greater problem, yet the Bill,
despite have some welcome measures, seems to
sidestep that.
In some
countries, supermarket customers who wish to buy alcohol must go into a
separate, sectioned-off part of the store rather than finding it while
walking through the aisles containing food, sweets and frozen goods.
The alcohol is not just placed in two or three separate aisles on the
premises: the customers actually have to go through a door into a
separate section. Why can such simple measures not be considered? When
will the next Bill in which we could take those steps come along and
how big a missed opportunity will this be if the Government do not
respond to
that?
|
