Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
898-919)
MR ALAN
CAMPBELL MP, MR
MARK COOPER,
MR GERRY
SUTCLIFFE MP AND
MR ANDREW
CUNNINGHAM
16 JULY 2009
Q898 Chairman: Good morning. Thank
you for coming to our sixth evidence session in relation to our
inquiry into alcohol. For the record, could you introduce yourselves?
Mr Cooper: Mark
Cooper, Alcohol Strategy Unit at the Home Office.
Mr Campbell: Alan Campbell, Minister
for Crime Reduction.
Mr Sutcliffe: Gerry Sutcliffe,
Licensing Minister, Sports Minister and Gambling Minister.
Mr Cunningham: Andrew Cunningham,
Head of Leisure at DCMS.
Q899 Chairman: I have questions for
both ministers at this stage. Why has the 2003 Licensing Act not
led to the "café society" as suggested at the
time?
Mr Sutcliffe: It was never stated
by the Government that we wanted to create a café culture.
What was said was that we wanted flexibility in the Licensing
Act to meet the public need. The examples that were given at the
time were of people who perhaps went to the theatre and would
want to go for a drink after the theatre but had to rush that
in terms of the then closing hours. In fact, the Licensing Act
has meant only an extra 20 minutes on average to the length of
the day; only 1% of premises have 24-hour licences and most of
those are hotels. It is true that some pubs stay open late on
a Friday for an extra hour. We think in general terms that the
Licensing Act has worked very well. It gives that flexibility,
stops the loading up at 11 o'clock that there used to be in the
past when people drank a great deal at that time because they
knew closing time was upon them. We think we have made the spread.
We are certainly aware that there are issues up and down the country
about the interpretation and implementation of the Act but in
general terms we think the Act has helped the situation and not
made it worse.
Mr Campbell: As Gerry has said,
some of the things that people associated with what might have
been described at the time as a café culture have not come
about. There are relatively few 24-hour licences. The average
amount of extra time on licences is very limited. We are obviously
more concerned with the impact that it has had on crime and disorder
that might have been alcohol-fuelled. I very much agree with Chief
Constable Mike Craig who leads for ACPO on this that the effect
of the Act in those terms has been largely neutral.
Mr Sutcliffe: One thing to add
is that the beacon councils' status has helped with the night-time
economy and it has helped us look at good practice and being able
to share good practice with other authorities where there are
problems. In fact there was a joint Home Office/DCMS seminar over
a year ago when we brought together all these different players
and stakeholders to look at what we could do to make sure that
good practice went right through the various licensing authorities.
Mr Campbell: I know you are not
responsible for Scotland but why is it that in Scotland in the
Licensing Act "protecting and improving public health"
is one of the five objectives, but not for England and Wales?
Mr Sutcliffe: That is one of the
beauties of devolution that the Scots, in deciding on the make-up
of their particular problems relating to drink, felt that health
had to be an objective.
Q900 Chairman: Do we not think that
health is an objective in licensing?
Mr Sutcliffe: It is an interesting
concept in the sense of how it could apply to the Licensing Act
when the Licensing Act looks at premises and problems around drinking
occur with home drinking, for instance, and drinking in other
places. Whilst we are not unsympathetic to it and perhaps it is
something to look at, I think it would be interesting to hear
what the committee's views would be about how effective it would
be to have it as lasting condition. The principal objectives of
the Licensing Act are to prevent crime and disorder, to stop public
nuisance, to protect children and public safety. We think that
those objectives combined meet perhaps some of the health objectives
as well. I would like to preface all the things that we are going
to talk about today with this. We recognise that there is a problem
in term so binge drinking within the country. Certainly, as the
Licensing Minister, I am concerned that the Licensing Act is sometimes
used as a scapegoat for those problems. The reality is that the
change in the Licensing Act, which gives more power to the police
forces and to local authorities, has given us an opportunity to
deal with problem premises. I do not think that the Licensing
Act should be seen in isolation and certainly should not be seen
as the only tool to be able to deal with the problems of the drinking
culture that we have.
Q901 Chairman: Under the 2003 Act,
by and large, providing you are a fine, upstanding citizen with
no record, when you apply for a licence, you are likely to get
it under the circumstances. So when you talk about local control,
local control is not very local in that respect. Could I ask you
about this phrase that I have picked up since being on this committee:
limiting the number of vertical drinking establishments in our
towns and cities. These are pubs that used to have what we would
call tables and chairs in them. Those have been removed now so
that by volume you can get more people into them. They are establishments
where you are likely to consume more alcohol than if you had gone
into a drinking establishment 20 years ago. In fact many of them
are the same drinking establishments. Should we not have something
in the Licensing Act that gives power at local level to control
these types of establishments?
Mr Sutcliffe: Within the Act we
have some things like dealing with irresponsible promotions and
we have the opportunity for licences to be reviewed when the objectives
of the Act are not being maintained. So there are opportunities
for local decision making to review the licences when we think
problems are occurring. I was out recently with a local force
in Bradford and we met with various licensees. The police felt
that they had the powers to be able to say to a licensee if he
was not playing the game, if he had irresponsible promotions,
if he was doing think that led to a binge drinking culture, then
his licence could be reviewed. Obviously the objectives of the
Act give the police opportunities and powers to remove licences.
Q902 Chairman: Are many reviewed?
Mr Campbell: I think there is
an issue around the interpretation of the powers that are available.
There is an exercise that the Home Office certainly is engaged
in to make sure that front-line practitioners are aware of how
best to use the powers that are available in the Act. There is
also an issue around how the public are aware of the powers that
are available in the Act and what their entitlement to that is.
I also think it is about licensing committees stepping up to the
plate too and using the powers that are available in that. There
is a wider issue, however, around vertical drinking establishments
and indeed promotions, which we are seeking to address through
the Police and Crime Bill. Even after the Licensing Act has come
in and after the review, there are still some practices that the
public frown upon and find unacceptable—things like, for
example, "drink all you can for £10"—where
the purpose is not to encourage responsible drinking but to encourage
people to go beyond responsible drinking and at that point lose
control of their faculties and get themselves into trouble, or
indeed get into trouble with other people. That is why we are
bringing forward in the Police and Crime Bill not just new powers
that are available for local licensing committees but mandatory
conditions that will apply everywhere to get rid of some of the
worst practices.
Q903 Dr Naysmith: Following up on
what has just been said, given that it is illegal to serve a drunk
person in a pub, why is it that the number of prosecutions is
so pitifully low?
Mr Campbell: There are some prosecutions.
Q904 Dr Naysmith: It is a tiny number.
Mr Campbell: It is a small number
and there is again a relatively small number of on-the-spot fines
where you give a penalty notice. I accept that is relatively small.
The simple answer to your question is that it is quite a difficult
offence to enforce because the offence is about knowingly selling
to someone who is intoxicated. Unless there is a police officer
and a huge commitment by the police in an area to see this happen,
it is quite difficult to enforce that. There are two other aspects
to it which I think would take us further. One is about better
training for bar staff to know when to stop serving someone, the
signs to see and also the way in which they might go about that.
That is very important. The second point of course is to work
with licensees in a particular area, often through something like
Pub Watch, where there are some very good schemes of pub watching
practice where licensees actually agree to enforce standards.
That would include not only what happens in their establishment
but talking between establishments too about what happens if there
is group of people who are drink.
Q905 Dr Naysmith: How much of this
has begun to happen? You say that it is beginning to happen. How
many training courses have been set up?
Mr Campbell: It is happening.
Q906 Dr Naysmith: Is it happening
widely?
Mr Campbell: It is happening widely.
We tend to concentrate on the worst-affected areas in terms of
the courses which are run in each of the regions, in each of the
localities, making sure that that message gets through to the
front line because of course that is where the decision is going
to have to be made.
Q907 Dr Naysmith: There is one other
question in this area. You say it is difficult to get prosecutions
and it probably is quite difficult to get prosecutions, but it
probably could be done with surveillance and undercover work.
Some people suggest that the police are more interested in controlling
the order in the streets outside than making sure the law is enforced
inside the pub. That would relate back to what Gerry Sutcliffe
was saying earlier that it is the responsibility in England not
to look at the health of the population but to control what is
happening in terms of crime and disorder. People are drinking
to excess who are not necessary getting involved in the drinking
disorder bit, and that health aspect is quite important too. So
both of these things would require more surveillance and more
promotion.
Mr Sutcliffe: Within the powers
of the Act, there is a number of reviews and I think over 1000
reviews have been carried out. The police and the responsible
authorities like Trading Standards and LACos, have the opportunity
to review what his going on with within premises. I think part
of the problem could obviously be, as colleagues will know, that
50 pubs a week are closing and the pubs are left to work in a
difficult economic climate. There are issues about that and that
is why I think it is more important for the responsible authorities
to make sure they use the powers of the Act that are there to
stop these irresponsible campaigns, to stop the nonsense that
takes place.
Q908 Sandra Gidley: To Alan Campbell,
what percentage of violent crime is alcohol related?
Mr Campbell: When we asked the
question through the British Crime Survey, which has been going
for some time now, of victims of crime whether or not they believe
that alcohol was involved, the latest figure for last year is
45%; that is only slightly down on the previous figure. It is
quite difficult to get a clear handle on the effect of alcohol
on recorded crime because of course the crime might be recorded
as something else and the alcohol might have fuelled it. I am
busy working with officials to see if we can drill down to get
a better hold on that. The best measure that we have is the British
Crime Survey.
Q909 Sandra Gidley: There is no tick
box on the police form to say drink, drugs or whatever?
Mr Campbell: It may well be but
it would not necessarily be recorded in that way. If someone is
involved in an assault and they are charged with the assault,
then it would not necessarily be recorded in that way. The most
reliable way that we have of measuring this over time is through
the British Crime Survey, which is a survey but it is a well thought
of and very well carried out survey that allows us to measure
over a period of time.
Q910 Sandra Gidley: Are there any
better statistics so that we can understand the number of prisoners
who are in prison because of alcohol-related crime?
Mr Campbell: We may get a better
idea when we look at the effects of the alcohol referral pilots
which are currently running whereby someone who is bought in to
a police station, having been involved in trouble where alcohol
has been involved, is given the option of facing up to the consequences
of that by addressing their alcohol problem. We have some pilots
running I think in nine areas now and it might be a better indicator
to see from that how many people where alcohol is a problem are
coming in to police stations and of course, if that is the case,
then addressing the alcohol as well as addressing the criminality.
Q911 Sandra Gidley: You do not know
how many people are in prison because of alcohol?
Mr Campbell: I do not have that
figure to hand. I can try to find it for you. These people are
probably in prison because they have committed a crime and alcohol
as part of that. They may be having their alcohol problem addressed
in prison but they would not necessarily be either recorded or
imprison because of the alcohol bit; it is what they have done
when they have been fuelled up by alcohol.
Q912 Sandra Gidley: It is the same
recording problem. You do not know?
Mr Campbell: Yes.
Q913 Sandra Gidley: You have mentioned
these referral schemes. Is this the scheme whereby somebody who
has an alcohol-related crime is put on some sort of course?
Mr Campbell: It could be. What
will happen is that someone will be put in a custody suite; certain
individuals will be highlighted as probably having been brought
in during the night before, the worse for wear with drink; that
may have been from a fight or they may have got themselves into
trouble. If they wish to engage in this, somebody in the custody
suite will go through with them the nature of the problem, talk
through how they got themselves into that situation, how the drink
is affecting their life and, as a kind of gateway, get them to
face up to the consequences. I have seen this working in Middlesbrough
where some people do not particularly want to engage but others
that do are quite surprised that anyone is seeking to address
that part of their life and are quite relieved, because of course
it is perhaps showing itself on the streets of Middlesbrough on
a Friday or Saturday night but it is impacting on the rest of
their life too. We are looking at the referral pilots. We will
be doing a thorough review of them but the intention is to roll
them out nationally and also to have referrals for young people.
Q914 Sandra Gidley: We do not yet
know what impact that is having because they are still pilots?
Mr Campbell: No, but I would say,
from the evidence I have seen, that I think they are having a
positive impact. They are certainly worthwhile, from the evidence
that I have seen.
Q915 Sandra Gidley: Have they been
tried elsewhere in the world?
Mr Campbell: Not that I know of.
Q916 Sandra Gidley: This question
is to both ministers. One of the problems we have been told about
is that young people will pre-load or pre-lash, so that they will
go out and get the cheap booze and then go out for the evening.
How do you plan to address this problem?
Mr Sutcliffe: That is a very important
part of the jigsaw really in terms of what happens because the
Licensing Act and some of the licensees are discredited because
they refuse entry to people that are pre-loaded. We think these
are issues of the on-trade and the off-trade, issues around pricing,
which are being taken care of by the wider government strategy
and looking at alcohol harm and what we can do to address this.
Therefore, the industry has launched a campaign about binge drinking
and the effects of binge drinking. We have had the health campaigns
relating to the number of units that people should be looking
at and not exceeding. I believe it is an educational process to
try to get young people to understand the impact of binge drinking
on them. We are looking at what is taking place in Scotland, for
instance. Minimum pricing is not something that we have looked
at in any great detail or felt the need for here, but we are looking
at all the aspects as to why people want to pre-load before they
go into town on a Friday or Saturday night.
Q917 Sandra Gidley: Finally, most
of the evidence we have seen is that education is fairly ineffective.
Is there anything other than that we can do?
Mr Campbell: Let me put on the
record that I think alcohol-related disorder is a problem for
the on-trade and the off-trade that they need to address. I know
there is an issue around supermarkets and the price at which drink
is sold compared to the on-trade and what has become known as
pre-loading. It is part of the consultation that we are currently
carrying out, which will close at the beginning of next month,
about the code which we intend to bring in as part of the Police
and Crime Bill. We are currently looking at proposals which could
be imposed locally, if licensing committees decided to do that,
around the quantity of drink that might be sold in a supermarket
with the intention of discounting that in order to get people
to buy more. For example, if you discounted 24 cans of lager hugely
in order to get people to buy that, then the intention could well
be that you were encouraging them to drink more and go beyond
responsible drinking. I think that is a very interesting approach
and I am interested to see what the public have to say about that,
but of course it is with the proviso on all the issues around
pricing that we do not want to penalise responsible drinkers who
might go to a supermarket on a Friday night and buy three bottles
of wine for £10.
Q918 Sandra Gidley: Alcohol has never
been so cheap. I think the get-out is always "we do not want
to penalise responsible drinkers".
Mr Campbell: With respect, I do
not think it is a get-out at all. I think it is a genuine issue
because the culture of drinking has altered. I think fewer people
clearly are going to pubs; more wine is being consumed; it is
probably being bought in supermarkets. People's drinking habits
are changing and we do not want to penalise people who go home,
enjoy a reasonably priced bottle of wine and do not cause any
trouble at all. I think that is a different issue from someone
who goes into a supermarket, is allowed to buy two crates of extraordinarily
cheap lager, drinks it, goes out, tries to buy more in a pub and
get into a fight. I think the two are separate.
Q919 Jim Dowd: Briefly, Alan, on
that, if I understood you correctly, what you are saying is that
what is recorded is an offence, which may or may not have been
influenced by alcohol. The fact that it may or may not have been
is not recorded. How would you react to a statement saying that
alcohol-related violent crime has fallen by one-third since 1997?
Is that demonstrable?
Mr Campbell: Some crime may well
be recorded as to do with alcohol, but I took the question as
how much of crime in general is fuelled by alcohol. The point
I am making is that it is difficult to say because we use two
measures for crime: we use the British Crime Survey, which is
a survey as its name suggests, but we also use recorded crime.
I will look into this, but it could well be that those figures
have actually come from the British Crime Survey.
| 
