Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 339)
TUESDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2008
GERRY SUTCLIFFE
MP, MR STUART
ROBERTS AND
MR ANDREW
CUNNINGHAM
Q320 Philip Davies: When ACPO gave
evidence they said that we have probably seen some rise in disorder
and we have seen some rise in violence at certain hours of the
evening. The Police Federation said that the growth of very large
pubs is very difficult to secure and police effectively without
a significant drain on police resources. Do you not accept those
concerns of ACPO and the Police Federation?
Mr Sutcliffe: I can understand
why ACPO and the Police Federation might raise those concerns.
However, I do believe that the figures are down. If you look at
some of the lesser crimes of harassment they are on the increase
perhaps and that needs to be addressed and how we deal with that.
Whilst we are not claiming that everything is perfect, certainly
the authorities that I have been involved with and the evidence
I have looked at shows that there is a reduction in the peaks
and the police authorities and most of the local authorities welcome
the opportunity to be able to deal with it in a more ordered way.
I think I gave the example last time I came before the Committee
of the time that I went round with the police in Bradford where,
as you all know, they have seen an increase in a better way of
dealing with the night time economy through the introduction of
the Licensing Act.
Q321 Philip Davies: Would you not
accept, simply because these places are open in a way that they
were not open before, that later at night the police resources
are now more stretched than they otherwise would have been later
into the night?
Mr Sutcliffe: I think you have
to look at the number of overall premises that are licensed to
sell alcohol. In 2004 it was 179,865, in 2008 it was 179,400 so
there has been a reduction in the number of places selling alcohol.
Again I am sure from all of our constituencies you will notice
the number of alcohol establishments that are closing.
Q322 Chairman: The original vision
which we were given by the Secretary of State at the time was
that the Licensing Act was going to foster this new culture of
families sitting out at tables gently sipping glasses of wine
of a balmy evening. It was not that we were going to have what
are now being called vertical drinking establishments of a thousand
people trying to consume as much alcohol as possible in the shortest
possible time and then spilling out onto the street at two o'clock
in the morning. The latter seems to have been what has actually
happened rather than the former.
Mr Sutcliffe: I do not think so.
If you look at the overall time it is 20 minutes that has been
added to the overall length of time and it is true that a number
of pubs and clubs are staying open for an hour later on a Friday
or a Saturday night for instance. I do not accept that we have
any massive problems. There is a change in demographics; there
is a change in how people look at the night time economy and how
they deal with alcohol which I know you have received evidence
about. The survey was a key part of the All-Party Parliamentary
Beer Group's report to me as well.
Q323 Mr Sanders: A lot depends on
the area and I think there are some very different experiences
nationwide. The night time economy is very important to my constituency.
There are a large number of nightclubs and also increasing numbers
of cafés with drinking on the streets in a pleasant almost
continental-style environment which our natural climate helps
I have to say, compared perhaps to some northern climes. My point
is what the police locally have found difficult is to get the
pubs and clubs together to try to reduce the number of happy hours
and very cheap promotions. What the pubs and clubs have turned
round and said is that it is all very well asking them to contribute,
but what about the supermarkets who are actually selling alcohol
at below cost? They are actually subsidising alcohol at loss leader
prices. The pubs and clubs are finding that their clientele are
often coming out to the pubs and clubs in the evening having already
consumed a degree of alcohol that has most likely been purchased
in supermarkets at below the cost that it could be sold elsewhere.
What is the government's response to that?
Mr Sutcliffe: I think there are
two issues. First of all on irresponsible promotions, we agree
that there should not be irresponsible promotions. I have looked
at the industry and I have spoken to the industry very recently
about what they can do about stopping irresponsible promotions
which encourage people to binge drink. I think there are things
that we can do as a sponsoring department in terms of irresponsible
promotions. I think in terms of the pricing issue that is something
the Government has looked at as a whole and I continue to look
at and we are expecting to hear very shortly decisions about the
issues around pricing, the issues around the problems of alcohol
which the Committee has looked at before and has been a live issue
across government.
Q324 Mr Sanders: A local response,
led by the police, which went to pubs and clubs, falls down because
the view is that there is another sector that is not playing ball
and nobody locally has control over the supermarkets. That has
to come from a national lead and it really needs everybody to
work together at the same pace. There does not seem to be anybody
leading that movement to pull everybody together to move at the
same pace to get the supermarkets to stop undercutting the price
of alcohol to below its cost price because once that is resolved
then the pubs and clubs will pull in and say that they will start
to engage in this process of more responsible pricing policies.
Mr Sutcliffe: You may remember
the prime minister held a summit with the supermarkets earlier
in the year in terms of issues around the sale of alcohol as part
of the overall strategy of dealing with problems relating to alcohol.
These are being looked at within government but we are not in
a position to give any announcements immediately.
Q325 Philip Davies: Can I ask you
what you deem to be an irresponsible promotion?
Mr Sutcliffe: Those that are sometimes
linked with football matches, as much as you can drink before
the first goal and things like that which encourage people and
it depends on which football team you watch how much you drink!
Things like that that encourage unsafe and unfair practices.
Q326 Philip Davies: Do you not accept
that with these so-called irresponsible promotions it is not the
promotions that are irresponsible, it is the people who are actually
abusing those promotions who are the irresponsible ones. The vast
majority of people who go into pubs for a happy hour or go where
it is half price for an hour or whatever it might be—I know
a lot Conservative functions and I am sure Labour Party functions
are the same—where people buy a ticket and included in that
is all the drink they have for the evening as well. These are
supposedly seen as irresponsible promotions, but what evidence
is there that the overwhelming majority of people abuse these
things? My contention would be that the vast majority of people
who go for a drink when there is an offer on or when it is half
price or when the drink is included in the ticket are perfectly
decent, law abiding, honourable people who do not go out on a
binge drinking spree, they drink responsibly and are a bit grateful
that somebody has actually reduced the cost for them. Why should
my constituents, who are perfectly decent, law abiding and responsible
drinkers, have to pay more either at the supermarket or in a pub
simply because a handful of yobs cannot take their drink and insist
on abusing the system?
Mr Sutcliffe: I certainly agree
there is a certain amount of personal responsibility and the health
promotions and advertising campaigns that we have had within government
to expose the dangers are important because it is about personal
responsibility. What is encouraging for me is that the industry
themselves have seen that irresponsible promotions can lead to
problems. That then causes problems for the business. I am quite
pleased that the industry itself is looking at what can be done
in terms of how it sees problems. Unfortunately, though, there
are increasing problems where people, perhaps because of the economic
situation, are promoting alcohol in an irresponsible way. I think
they should act on that in the interests of everybody.
Mr Cunningham: The Department
of Health and Home Office are leading a review on price promotions.
What you have just raised is precisely the debate about the evidence,
what the effect and impact of these promotions are and the extent
to which it would be appropriate either to have mandatory arrangements
that apply to every premises that sells alcohol or whether it
should be targeted on premises where those promotions cause problems,
which would not be everywhere. The effect of a promotion in a
restaurant might be quite different from a pub in certain circumstances.
That is being looked at very carefully and eventually we will
have a decision as to the right way to go to address this, but
the underlying better regulation principles still apply to it,
which are that any regulation around that should be necessary,
proportionate, targeted and it should relate to evidence of the
actual social harm we are addressing.
Q327 Philip Davies: Would it not
be extraordinary at this particular time when many families are
struggling and are in a difficult financial position that their
government could be forcing them to pay more for buying some alcohol
at the supermarket or when they go down to the pub for a drink?
Do you not think that most people would find that extraordinary
and most people would ask can we really expect to see a huge reduction
in people getting drunk? If people are determined to get drunk
they are going to get drunk whether or not there is an offer on
at the time. It is the people who are getting drunk, it is not
the promotion that forces them to get drunk.
Mr Sutcliffe: That is why the
debate is about what the proportionate response should be. If
it is clear that a promotion is causing more people to be drunk,
is causing problems in a particular establishment, then it is
right that we should act and it is right there should be a response
to that.
Q328 Mr Sanders: There is also a
social cost, the tax payer is having to pick up the bill of cleaning
up afterwards, policing these people, treating them if they need
medical attention.
Mr Sutcliffe: I agree and that
is the wide-ranging debate there is about the issues around alcohol
and the abuse of alcohol. Certainly from the DCMS perspective
we want things to be proportionate relating to the actual harm
that is being caused.
Q329 Chairman: One of the key objectives
of the Act was to streamline procedures, reduce bureaucracy and
lower costs. You will have heard NOCTIS giving evidence immediately
before you where they talked about the costs and they said they
simply have not seen the savings materialise to the extent the
government claimed, and in particular they raise the question
of the requirement to advertise in local papers. Are these things
that you are sympathetic to? Do you propose to look for ways to
reduce bureaucracy further?
Mr Sutcliffe: We would say that
the costs that were saved were independently audited and we believe
that savings have been made. We estimate that to be around £99
million a year. Certainly there are issues and during the review
of the Act in March we clearly said that we needed to look at
areas of concern of which bureaucracy was one, advertising, looking
at simplifying form filling and things like that and hopefully
we will be making announcements in due course.
Mr Cunningham: The savings that
we described in red tape costs in the evidence that has been given
to the Committee were validated by an independent panel which
includes people from industry. Indeed, one of the people on that
panel is a member of the legal firm for which the person who just
gave evidence is the head. They are figures that both sides have
accepted. I think the issue is that there are policy costs which
relate to the cost of conditions that might be attached. There
may be a debate between us all about how that works, what those
costs are and whether they have gone up. I think the position
on bureaucracy and whether we can go further, yes the Department
has published a simplification plan. We believe we can go further.
We believe without affecting public protection there are further
things we could do. We hope to table a minor variations scheme
in Parliament very shortly and we hope that the regulatory reform
committees will look at those favourably. We are looking at a
de minimus system which is to look at very low impact activities
and whether we could take them out of the regime completely. There
is also one which relates specifically to village halls because
of the situation of certain committees and whether they would
prefer it if the committee were responsible and not an individual.
We have a proposal on that as well.
Q330 Chairman: What about advertising
in local newspapers?
Mr Cunningham: Within the simplification
plan we have undertaken to look at all that area. It is a difficult
one. In terms of the regulation the balance is between ensuring
that residents in the area are absolutely aware of what is happening
on the premises and that balance between bureaucracy and not undermining
the right of residents to engage. One of the things we were very
proud about in the Licensing Act was that far more residents are
engaging with this system than engaged with the old systems. The
issue is not to lose that in making sensible changes.
Q331 Philip Davies: Following on
about the bureaucracy and the cost, is how it has had an impact
on sports and social clubs because many sports and social clubs—whether
they are working men's clubs or sports social clubs—claim
that the cost burden from the licensing fees are killing them.
I think one of the working men's clubs in their evidence actually
said it was killing them. When Richard Caborn, when he was a minister,
said in a normal question session that "the vast majority
of sports clubs will fall in a band between about £70 and
£100". According to a survey carried out by the Central
Council of Physical Recreation of 2430 sports clubs they found
that the majority fell into fee bands B and C, meaning their application
fees and annual renewal fees are £190 plus £180 or £315
plus £295. Do you accept that for many sports and community
clubs and social clubs that the Licensing Act has had a huge impact
on their costs?
Mr Sutcliffe: First of all I think
we all recognise the unique nature of sports clubs and we would
want them to grow. That is why we have looked at a variety of
schemes that support the sports clubs. I think in terms of the
Licensing Act the difficulty is that we are talking about alcohol
and the subsidising of alcohol. It is interesting that we carried
out work which shows that the closing time of premises on a Saturday
night suggests that one in ten members' clubs are now using that
facility as opposed to one in fifty before the Act. So clubs are
benefiting and profiting from the opportunities within the Act.
The Independent Licensing Fees Review Panel reported in 2006 that
it found no evidence that any amateur sports clubs had closed
because of the licensing fees and did not recommend a discount
to sports clubs.
Q332 Philip Davies: Do you not think
it is wrong that volunteer-run sporting and social clubs are treated
the same way as commercially run premises? Do you not accept that
there should be some distinction between those two?
Mr Sutcliffe: I think this is
one of the problems in terms of the discussion that was had around
the time of the Act.
Mr Cunningham: Rules governing
fees and charges do not allow cross-subsidisation. We cannot ask
pubs to pay for the costs associated with the system as it applies
to a rugby club. As such we have to look at what the actual costs
are and that is the fee that we should be charging. That is what
the Independent Fees Panel were doing; they were looking at whether
the costs were actually lower in respect of, say, sports clubs
compared with certain types of pubs, accepting there is a variation
based on rateable values and that kind of thing. The conclusion
that they drew—they were completely independent of us—was
that there was not a case made on the evidence presented by the
clubs for them being discounted in some way. If there was a discount
it would have to be paid by government.
Q333 Philip Davies: Surely there
is a distinction between a commercial pub or club which is being
run simply to make a profit and a volunteer sports social club
which is not specifically there to make a profit but simply to
provide a service to people who are actually using the facilities
at the end of a game or at the end of a match. Surely the government
must recognise that they are two very separate entities.
Mr Cunningham: We are not allowed
under Treasury rules to charge what you might put in terms of
what somebody ought to pay or what somebody is capable of paying.
We are supposed to look precisely at what the costs of the service
are for the regime.
Q334 Philip Davies: But you are the
government so you can change the rules if you do not like them.
It is no good hiding behind the rules; these are your government's
rules so presumably the rules can be changed.
Mr Sutcliffe: The rules are to
be fair and proportionate and there would be a counter-claim;
that is why the Independent Fees Panel look at the validity of
a case that is being put.
Q335 Philip Davies: That still does
not get round this point that the government at the time—I
appreciate it was your predecessor saying this and not you, Gerry,
so I am not holding you personally to account for this—stated
that the vast majority of sports clubs would fall within a band
between £70 and £100. That quite clearly is not the
case. If that was the government's intention that sports and social
clubs would fall within that kind of figure—and they are
not—surely the argument is that the government should do
something about it to make sure that they do fall within the kind
of price band that the minister at the time clearly anticipated.
Mr Sutcliffe: We will keep those
things under review and if there are opportunities then we will
look at that again. Clearly we do feel that sports clubs are benefiting
from the Act as well in terms of the hours that are available
for them and which they are taking up to increase their turnover
and increase their profitability. I do take the point and it is
something that we would be prepared to at least have a look at.
Q336 Chairman: Can I turn to the
issue of live music? You have probably heard some of the evidence
we received from Feargal Sharkey a couple of weeks ago. One of
the things which he very strongly objected to was the fact that
applications for live music were being judged on whether or not
they might lead to increased public disorder. Do you think that
that is a consideration for live music applications?
Mr Sutcliffe: I think there has
to be a balance struck as we have tried to say through a proportionate
approach to the Act where the local communities have to be involved
in terms of what goes on within the area. Statistics have shown
that there has been a 7% increase in terms of the premises with
a live music permission on their licence but there has not been
what we thought would happen, an increase in the number of premises.
We think that is down to a number of reasons, not particularly
the Licensing Act but factors such as the suitability of premises,
the lack of demand and simply an unwillingness to put out entertainment
in the current climate.
Q337 Chairman: On this issue of disorder
do you consider that disorder is a factor when judging applications
for live music?
Mr Sutcliffe: It is a contributory
issue that needs to be looked at certainly.
Q338 Chairman: Feargal Sharkey and
UK Music argued very strongly that there is no evidence that there
is any disorder associated with live music performances.
Mr Cunningham: There is evidence
that certain live music performances do give rise to disorder.
The question is proportionality. There will be certain types of
event and it may be certain forms of live music which do not give
rise, but I am quite certain if you had local authorities and
the police sitting here asking them the same question they would
say that certain events do give rise to issues of public order.
Therefore it usually is a consideration for a licensing authority
to look at. To change the regime in the way that Feargal would
like us to do would require primary legislation. We have the reform
order route available and ministers are looking at whether something
could be done in terms of exempting some aspects of live music.
The problem is that undertakings were given during the passage
of the bill which makes those orders possible, that nothing controversial
would be brought before the committee which should be left for
full scrutiny by Parliament through the ordinary primary legislation
route. One of the difficulties with this area is that we do know
from our own regular contact with the licensing authorities that
there are a very large number that are worried about a proposal
which would be a sweeping exemption for live music. It is quite
a difficult issue.
Q339 Chairman: Leaving aside legislation
which obviously creates the same difficulties, another point that
Feargal Sharkey made was that in actual fact local authorities
and some police forces are exceeding the requirements of the existing
legislation and imposing conditions which are far more onerous
and unnecessary than were ever intended. Do you accept that that
is the case?
Mr Sutcliffe: Again it goes back
to the initial comment about consistency of approach between the
different authorities and different police forces and that is
why we need to try to get to a situation where we can share best
practice. I think there are some extreme examples that Feargal
shows that would not be acceptable, but there are issues again
about interpretation of what live music is as well and that is
a consideration. We are obviously trying to work to make sure
that the intentions of the Act are delivered. That is why we are
looking at rehearsal spaces, that is why we are looking at supporting
live music in different ways.
| 
