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 affordablethese are difficult
times, particularly for pubs and some clubswe 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 moreor,
indeed, fewerin 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 Ministers
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 compulsioncertain 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
timemany of these elements might have not only fitted, but
workedbut 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.