House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Gary Streeter
Blunt, Mr. Crispin (Reigate) (Con)
Campbell, Mr. Alan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
Cohen, Harry (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Field, Mr. Mark (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Flynn, Paul (Newport, West) (Lab)
Foster, Mr. Don (Bath) (LD)
Harris, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, South) (Lab)
Heppell, Mr. John (Nottingham, East) (Lab)
Hesford, Stephen (Wirral, West) (Lab)
Huhne, Chris (Eastleigh) (LD)
Lilley, Mr. Peter (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Redwood, Mr. John (Wokingham) (Con)
Sharma, Mr. Virendra (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Sheridan, Jim (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)
Southworth, Helen (Warrington, South) (Lab)
Wilson, Mr. Rob (Reading, East) (Con)
Simon Patrick, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee

First Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 1 March 2010

[Mr. Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2010
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2010.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Streeter. The order sets out five new mandatory licensing conditions to apply to all those licensed to sell or supply alcohol in the on-trade, such as pubs and clubs. The condition on age verification will apply also to those in the off-trade, such as off-licences, supermarkets and convenience stores. The aim of the conditions is to stamp out irresponsible promotion and practice, and ensure high standards throughout all premises to protect young people and to give customers greater choice. That will, in turn, help to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder and make the night-time economy safer. Alcohol-related crime has fallen, but it remains too high, which is why it is important to take such action.
Alcohol is part of the culture of our country, but it leads some people into crime and disorder, either as the perpetrators or the victims. It can impact on communities, particularly where pubs and clubs compete to attract customers through various types of promotion. As a result, people get very drunk very quickly, which contributes to alcohol-related crime and disorder. Such incidents are not isolated, and throughout the country irresponsible promotions are run to attract people to premises. The order is needed to stamp out irresponsible promotion and practices that are designed only to get people drunk, without the establishments taking responsibility for the consequences. It has widespread support from the public, the police and responsible members of the licensed trade.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I am sure that all members of the Committee share the aim of dealing with alcohol-induced bad behaviour, but when the Minister evaluated the measure, he came up with a scheme costing £381 million, which seems high. Did he consider alternative options that would have delivered more for less?
Mr. Campbell: We have been conscious of the potential costs throughout our considerations: the number of mandatory conditions is limited under the Policing and Crime Act 2009, but we examined several actions over a long period. We have been involved in an exemplary case of consultation before enacting a measure. We held extensive discussions and intend to continue those discussions.
In reality, the figure is nowhere near the sum that the right hon. Member for Wokingham suggests, because some of the measures that were considered have either been changed or not introduced. Under the impact assessment, the cost of age verification to each premises is in the region of £570 a year. That is a considerable amount, but about 80 per cent. of off-licences and two thirds of pubs already operate an age verification policy. While we have been careful to introduce only the measures that we believe are affordable—these are difficult times, particularly for pubs and some clubs—we have also been careful to limit the extent of the order. However, we have ensured that we do not lose sight of the purpose of the mandatory code.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): On that point, and following the comments made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, are costs the reason why we suddenly have only five mandatory conditions when, during discussions on the 2009 Act, the Minister promised that there would be nine? Indeed, he said:
“There will be nine because five would probably be too few”.——[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2009; c. 416.]
Will he explain why he thinks that we are stuck with too few conditions?
Mr. Campbell: I recall that extensive discussion, which to some extent was on the fairly surreal point of the reason behind that particular number. We said that there could be up to nine. We wanted to limit the number of elements in the mandatory code under the Bill because it would be unreasonable to have an open-ended list. We also wanted to ensure that we had some headroom not only to introduce these measures, but to have some flexibility for the future.
The key word that underpins our approach to tackling alcohol-related crime and disorder is “proportionate” response. The five measures that we are introducing are proportionate. I cannot give the hon. Member for Bath a guarantee that there will not be more—or, indeed, fewer—in the future. That depends on the success of the measures under the order, along with other things that we want to do better to tackle some of the ills of the evening economy.
During the passage of the 2009 Act, we ran an extensive consultation exercise on the number of mandatory and locally applied licensing conditions designed to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder. The mandatory conditions received broad support, the local conditions less support.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): In response to the pertinent question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, the Minister said that the real cost would not be £381 million, as given in the impact assessment, because a large part of the industry already incurs the cost of identifying young people and only a third of the industry does not. However, if that figure is not the cost, it should not be in the impact assessment, which says that the cost
“will largely fall on the minority of retailers who are selling alcohol irresponsibly.”
In other words, the £381 million is on those who are not taking action at present. It is not the cost incurred by those who are taking action. Will the Minister clarify the situation?
Mr. Campbell: I shall attempt to clarify the position for the right hon. Gentleman. When we bring forward an impact assessment, as we are obliged to do, we give a headline figure. My point to the right hon. Member for Wokingham was that that figure encompasses across-the-board changes that the mandatory code insists upon, but that some establishments already do such things. The example I gave was age verification.
For the purpose of the measure, there is a headline figure, but, although both right hon. Gentlemen are absolutely right to be concerned about the impact and cost of changes, the costs will not reach such a level.
We do not want to go back to the impact assessment and micro-manage this. The figure is an overall figure that provides an indication of what the cost would be if we were starting from square one. I am saying that many establishments are part of the way down that route already, which is why we want to build on their good practice. If some establishments are not doing such things, and are less well run, it stands to reason that the cost for them will be disproportionate, because they have not started the journey towards age verification, for example.
I want to go back to the point about locally applied conditions.
Mr. Lilley: I am sorry, but that is not an acceptable explanation. The document is provided to the Committee so that we can decide whether the benefits exceed the costs. We are therefore entitled to assume that the stated costs are the costs. We are also entitled to assume, if the document says the costs will fall on the minority who are not complying, that those costs will indeed fall on the minority not complying. We do not have to accept the Minister’s assertions on the costs, because such costs should not have been included in the total as they are being incurred by those who are already compliant. Unless and until we have a proper explanation, I do not see how we can reach a judgment on the measure.
Mr. Campbell: We are making a distinction on the new costs that will be brought about by the order. When we brought forward the measures, we looked at their effect right across the industry, as if we were starting from scratch. Quite rightly, we had to come up with a figure, which is what the right hon. Gentleman is looking for. However, my point is that the journey is to some extent unequal, because some people have already started upon it. This is the distinction: currently, people do those things voluntarily, but we are seeking to introduce compulsion—certain things will be mandatory. That is why the cost will be unequal, falling more on those establishments that have not accepted their responsibilities to date.
We looked across the industry for a voluntary code for quite some time—many of these elements might have not only fitted, but worked—but such an approach did not work and we received widespread support for the measures and the mandatory code in the 2009 Act, elements of which we are discussing today.
I want to return to the point about locally applied conditions because, quite rightly, they excited some debate during the passage of the Bill and in the discussions around it. We concluded that, instead of locally applied conditions, local councillors should receive the power to act as interested parties under the Licensing Act. I am pleased to tell the Committee that, since the end of January, they have had the ability to bring individual premises to review themselves, taking irresponsible premises to review and tackling them without having to wait for others.
That action not only responded to concerns expressed during the consultation, but changed and removed some of the more controversial and potentially more burdensome elements of the conditions at a local level. Again, I return to the point that we went out of our way to consult, and many stakeholders welcomed that approach.
The order sets out five new mandatory conditions that will ban irresponsible promotions; ban the dispensing of alcohol directly into the mouth; ensure that customers have access to free tap water so that they can moderate the amount of alcohol they drink; ensure that an age verification policy is in place to prevent under-age sales; and give customers a chance of smaller measures of beers, ciders, spirits and wines.
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Will the point about irresponsible promotions also apply to supermarkets?
Mr. Campbell: No. We considered that as part of the local licensing conditions and we are looking at it from the two perspectives to do with pricing, which is what my hon. Friend is talking about. For example, there is concern about alcohol that is sold below cost. One approach is to ensure that particularly strong lagers and ciders, for instance, are not sold at too low a price. We are considering that. There is also a wider discussion, on which the Government have not closed the door, about unit pricing, which would affect not only supermarkets, but the on-trade.
On crime and disorder, the evidence on pricing is less clear than it is on the health effects of alcohol, but across Government we have not dismissed the possibility of taking action in that way. In many areas, there is an imbalance between what supermarkets and small off-licences can retail and prices in pubs and clubs.
Returning to the consultation, there were more than 7,000 responses from the public, the alcohol retail trade, and police and licensing authorities. There was strong support for the elements that we are introducing in the mandatory code, and particularly for the banning of clearly irresponsible promotions and practices. In addition, the public and those in enforcement and licensing made a strong call for the introduction of a mandatory age verification policy for all licensed premises, and for all those who serve alcohol to be properly trained.
The requirement, as a mandatory condition of requiring age verification from everyone who sells alcohol, replaces the original age verification proposal, which was focused solely on online and mail order sales.
We also decided that this is not the time to proceed with a mandatory condition requiring all staff who serve alcohol to be trained. Many places already provide excellent training to their staff and we were concerned that a mandatory condition on training would place unnecessary burdens on the licensed trade. Instead, we intend to publish good practice guidance in April. My officials are developing that guidance with people in the alcohol industry.
We also intend to delay the introduction of the age verification condition until October to allow more time for businesses to prepare. We will make examples of suitable age verification policies available to businesses for them to adapt or adopt to help to reduce the burden and ensure that the policies are effective and of a good standard.
I believe that that strikes the right balance between putting a stop to irresponsible promotions and practices that contribute to crime and disorder, and keeping costs to businesses as low as possible. It will effectively target the minority of irresponsible premises and ensure that the majority can continue to trade responsibly.
 
Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 2 March 2010