Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
920-939)
MR ALAN
CAMPBELL MP, MR
MARK COOPER,
MR GERRY
SUTCLIFFE MP AND
MR ANDREW
CUNNINGHAM
16 JULY 2009
Q920 Jim Dowd: So you the claim that
alcohol-related violent crime has fallen by one-third could stand
up?
Mr Campbell: Yes. We would claim
in a number of areas of crime the figures have fallen quite dramatically
over the last few years, not just those that are alcohol-related.
The evidence for that partly comes from the British Crime Survey
and partly from recorded crime.
Jim Dowd: That is just as well because
your boss made that claim this morning.
Q921 Dr Taylor: Alan, before I come
on to ask you about the effectiveness of the Social Responsibility
Code, can I just share with you some figures we have been given
from the WHO? These are under 65 EU death rates from major diseases,
taking 1980 as 100%. Across the EU, death rates from liver disease
have fallen to about 60%. If you compare that with what has happened
in the UK, instead of falling, liver death rates have risen by
about 280%. That is why we are desperately concerned about this.
The Social Responsibility Code came out I think in 2005. We really
have the impression that lots of the voluntary controls and guidelines
are actually being flouted and that this voluntary system is ineffective.
Again, if you look at the rate of alcohol-related hospital admissions—and
this came out in 2005—they have increased even more steeply
since then. What can you do to make this more effective if the
KPMG report authoritatively feels that the system is ineffective?
Mr Campbell: Yes, it does, and
not only did it say that the voluntary code was not working as
had been planned, but more disappointingly it found that a lot
of people involved in the industry did not know that there was
a code in the first place and therefore, not surprisingly, it
was not having the right effect. I accept the point that you are
making about the cost to health but of course you can then add
to that the cost of policing and of the effects of crime and disorder.
If you are looking at somewhere in the range of £13 billion
a year cost from alcohol-related problems, then it is a huge amount
of money and suggests that we need more than a voluntary code.
What we are doing, of course, is moving beyond a voluntary code
because sections of the industry will not face up to their responsibilities
as the code has suggested that they should. That is why we are
moving to a mandatory code under the Police and Crime Bill to
get rid of some of the worst promotions, but also to introduce
some local licensing arrangements that can be applied to groups
of premises in an area where there is still a persistent problem.
We are moving beyond the voluntary to the mandatory. It is a contentious
subject, I understand. Some people believe it is disproportionate,
but what is happening in some town centres and what some people
involved in the industry persist in doing is unacceptable.
Q922 Dr Taylor: Do you think a mandatory
code will somehow be enforceable?
Mr Campbell: It will be enforceable
because they will be breaking the law and they will be breaking
their licensing conditions; so it will be enforceable. To be honest,
we have worked very closely with the industry on this. When they
see the mandatory code, I think most people will accept that things
like "drink all you can" promotions or the dentist's
chair, which I understand is where you sit in a chair in some
clubs and alcohol is poured directly into your mouth, missing
out the bit with the glass and the measure in the first place,
are entirely unacceptable practices and people accept that. That
is why I think the mandatory code will be widely welcomed.
Q923 Dr Taylor: We have been told
about schemes in Canterbury and St Neots which are aimed at reducing
alcohol misuse by the young. Have you learned anything from these
scheme? If they were voluntary and really could work, that would
be terrific.
Mr Campbell: Yes, we have and
we clearly look at these schemes and try to learn lessons from
them. Unfortunately, as your previous question suggested, it is
not consistent across the piece. We are very much in favour of
local solutions to local problems because although there may be
common factors across city and town centres, in fact in localities
there are often quite different aspects to the problem too. We
would encourage local partnership working. The St Neots' scheme,
for example, is very interesting, but, in saying that, I do believe
that we have to have a robust framework of enforcement. We have
to have legislation and we have to have the police there in order
to enforce that because, quite simply, if what is happening in
some town centres is unacceptable, then people need to be pushed
further. Legislation can have that effect. We do not have any
alcohol disorder zones yet but we have alcohol disorder zones
as a power, which is available. I can tell you that in a number
of town and city centres where there has been reluctance to address
this problem, threatening an alcohol disorder zone, which will
put conditions on a particular area on licensed premises but interestingly
charge them for things like extra police in that area, focuses
attention; it focuses minds. So, yes to voluntary but let us make
sure that we back it up if necessary with a stick.
Mr Sutcliffe: May I say, though,
that I think you are quite right to point out the health costs
and the damage alcohol, can cause if it is dealt with irresponsibly,
but we do have to remember proportionality here; we do have to
remember to concentrate on where the real problems are. If the
problems are in the culture of young people, then the solution
should be around how we deal with young people. What I am worried
about, from the industry perspective as the department that sponsors
the industry—and I said earlier that over 50 pubs a week
are closing—is that that controlled sector is reducing.
I think it would be disproportionate just to aim the legislation
at the on-trade; we do need to look at the off-trade where the
Licensing Act does have powers to restrict what goes on in the
off-trade if free-loading is the issue. We have to be careful
that we focus on what the real problems are rather than having
a general approach that damages those sectors of the industry
that are trying to do the right thing.
Q924 Dr Taylor: When will we hear
about the mandatory code?
Mr Campbell: It is out for consultation
and the consultation closes on 5 August, but of course the Home
Secretary will have the power to bring in the mandatory code as
part of the Policing and Crime Bill.
Q925 Chairman: Minister, could I
take up the point of 50 pubs a week closing? Is it not true to
say that some of those pubs will re-open because quite a lot of
them are run by these pub companies now? My local just down the
road was closed but it has re-opened. It is a little bit fictitious
to say that pubs are closing at the level that they are if they
are re-opening. There are issues about people trying to manage
on what I am told are very awkward contracts; they have to sell
X amount of money in beer per week and things like that. All the
pubs would have closed by now if the closure rate was 50 pubs
per week, would they not?
Mr Sutcliffe: It is quite a serious
problem. I have sympathies with the point you raise. In fact the
DCMS select committee made reference to this, as did the Business
and Enterprise select committee, and ministers are considering
the issue of the relationship of the tie. It is a contributory
factor to what goes on in licensed premises and I think it is
a key issue affecting the industry, but perhaps separate from
our discussions today. The figures have gone up dramatically;
it was 30 pubs a week and it now up to 50. That is a contributory
factor but there are other issues around as well.
Q926 Chairman: Are those your department's
figures or somebody else's figures?
Mr Sutcliffe: It is a mixture
of industry figures and figures from within the department.
Q927 Chairman: If a pub closed temporarily,
would the licence go and therefore would the licence have to be
reapplied for?
Mr Sutcliffe: As I understand
it, the licence has to be reapplied for.
Q928 Chairman: Would we be able to
get to know exactly what this figure is about how many pubs per
week are closing? I am a bit confused about the whole debate.
Mr Cunningham: As we understand
it, the figure is a net figure. It takes account of pubs opening
as well as pubs closing, and so it is a net figure. It is approximately
1200 jobs a week. People First, which is the Sector Skills Council
for the hospitably industry, gives that figure as part of their
number of job losses within the industry. The figure will partly
be derived from the industry itself and consultants. Essentially,
it is a growing figure. On the question of whether it changes
as we come out of an economic downturn, yes, it is perfectly possible
that places will go.
Chairman: We would appreciate it if you
could you share with us how you come to these calculations within
the department.
Q929 Dr Naysmith: Could I follow
up the area that we are in now with pubs closing? Actually, although
pubs are closing. a lot of the trade is being transferred to supermarkets
and people are still drinking. All the statistics suggest that
a large proportion of the profits of drink manufacturers come
from people who exceed and are abusing alcohol and drinking beyond
what is the recommended limit. What we should really be concentrating
on, particularly here since we are in the Health Select Committee,
are the health effects and the fact that many of these people
are drinking a lot. You say that we have to be careful because
pubs are closing and we do not want to penalise people who only
drink moderately. In fact there is a huge health problem that
is getting worse and the drinks industry is certainly contributing
to that. I do not want the focus to shift to "can we keep
more pubs open" because that may be a good thing but we are
hear to talk about the health of the population.
Mr Sutcliffe: I understand that
and I am certainly not minimising the problem. I am saying that
there needs to be proportionality and an identification of what
the problem is. If that is the issue with people getting drink
from supermarkets, then that is what we need to deal with but
not to use the Licensing Act or other legislation in a disproportionate
way that affects the sectors that are trying to be responsible
and to deal with the issue in a proper way. Things like community
pubs, for instance, are key parts of our communities and I believe
should be supported. They act in a very responsible way. They
do support the sporting clubs that exist and have a high impact
on our community. I agree with you and that is why I keep going
back to proportionality and what the issue is. If the issue is
about young people, if the issue is about people getting alcohol
from supermarkets at a cheap price, then that is what we should
be dealing with.
Q930 Dr Naysmith: Finally, it is
not just young people who are getting cheap alcohol under age
at supermarkets. The population is shifting its drinking habits
and buying crates of alcohol and taking it home and drinking it.
Mr Sutcliffe: That is what Alan
referred to earlier in terms of young people deciding to drink
wine at home as opposed to going down to the pub and things like
that. We accept that there are problems there, but for me, and
that is why I think it is right the Government looks across the
range at all of its various levers to be able to deal with the
specific problems, I slightly worry. I take your point that the
health of the nation is vitally important, for all the reasons
we know and not just individual personal health but the costs
to the nation, but we have to make sure, I believe, and, dare
I say it and I have said this elsewhere, that health took a particular
view about tobacco and health has taken a particular view about
drinking, and that is quite right, but there has to be a balance
somewhere. There are cultural issues as well in relation to how
this nation deals with alcohol in terms of those people who do
act in a responsible way.
Q931 Jim Dowd: Gerry, you have just
touched on that very point and the question of pub closures is
a health issue. The trade itself, as I am sure you are aware,
contend very strongly that part of the reason for the acceleration
of the closure rate has been the smoking ban. Does DCMS share
that view or does any other part of Government share that view,
of which you are aware?
Mr Sutcliffe: From our perspective,
we have supported the smoking ban. I even voted for the smoking
ban. We think it is the right thing to do.
Q932 Jim Dowd: That was not the question.
Mr Sutcliffe: There is always
a tension. We have seen an increase in the number of people attending
pubs because there is more food in pubs and because people feel
there is a cleaner environment. I believe that it was the right
thing to do and support it.
Q933 Jim Dowd: But the industry contends
it is a contributory factor in the accelerating rate of pub closures.
Does the Government share that or not, and not whether it is the
right thing to do?
Mr Sutcliffe: We do not. We believe
that there are alternatives and we see the sector of the industry
coming up with alternatives that show growth in particular areas.
Q934 Dr Stoate: Gerry, you argued
very strongly a minute ago for proportionality, and I entirely
agree with that. We should not do anything to damage the vast
majority of people who just enjoy occasional drinks without getting
into any trouble whatsoever. I entirely agree with that. I would
like to come on to the much more difficult area of advertising
and promotion. It could be argued, and has been, that alcohol
advertising significantly affects particularly younger drinkers
and there is good evidence that we have seen that encourages younger
people to drink more. The BMA and others have told us they think
there should be an outright ban on advertising because the sensible
drinkers are not going to be swayed by advertising anyway. Someone
who just likes a bottle of wine at the weekend is not going to
be influenced much by advertising. What is the Government's view
on alcohol advertising?
Mr Sutcliffe: We have looked at
this consistently and there have been a number of reviews. There
was the Sheffield Review and I think it was in 2007 Ofcom and
the Advertising Standards Authority published research on the
effectiveness of advertising rules and the changes that were made
in 2005. This showed that children and young adults were being
exposed to less alcohol advertising on television and they saw
a significant decline in the proportion of young people saying
that they feel alcohol adverts are aimed at them. I think this
is something that we continue to keep under review. We talked
about the voluntary code earlier; we looked at the 9 o'clock watershed.
It is something that is under review constantly because we need
to be sure of the evidence available. There is also an issue,
perhaps speaking as the Sports Minister, relating to sponsorship
of teams and sporting events by alcohol companies. There have
been voluntary improvements. For instance, the Premier League
now will not manufacture shirts for young people that carry a
drinks advert on the shirt.
Q935 Dr Stoate: That is not really
much of an answer, with respect. I asked you whether the Government
agrees there should be a ban as the BMA wanted. We heard last
week that, yes, there has been a reduction in television advertising
but they have just simply moved to what is called the new media:
through viral marketing, through emails, through websites, which
is now taking off exponentially. We have heard there is a huge
growth in that. In our view, that is just advertising by another
method. To say that advertising to young people has gone down
is simply not borne out by the facts. We want to know what the
Government is doing about controlling advertising, particularly
to young people.
Mr Sutcliffe: I accept the new
media that there and that technology will develop even further
in the years to come. DCMS have been looking at Digital Britain
and what is likely to happen. As a government, we have continued
to encourage voluntary codes. We do not feel that there is at
this stage the need to go further but it is something we keep
under review and we will obviously reflect on what this committee
and others have to say to us.
Q936 Dr Stoate: For example, you
would not agree with the 9 o'clock watershed for this advertising?
Mr Sutcliffe: That has been looked
at in the various reviews that have taken place. On the evidence
put to us, we do not feel that the 9 o'clock watershed has been
proven.
Q937 Dr Stoate: You mention that
football clubs are removing advertising on their strips for children.
Nevertheless, some clubs continue to advertise alcohol on their
main strips, so it is seen just as much by young people as it
is by older people. You are not prepared to do anything about
that?
Mr Sutcliffe: We are saying that
young people themselves tell us that they are not influenced by
advertising of alcohol in the way that perhaps other things have
been. All I am saying is that we will keep that under review in
government across the various departments that are looking at
the problems of alcohol. To be candid, if you look at what has
happened to children's TV—ITV in particular—with the
loss of advertising, we are concerned that we have proportionality
and balance in place. If the evidence proves that advertising
is causing a problem, then we have to respond to that. The evidence
is not showing that. The reviews that are taking place are consistent
reviews in 2005, 2007 and so it is high on the agenda.
Q938 Dr Stoate: Yet if a British
club goes to France, for example, they have to remove the advertising
of alcohol off their strip? The French clearly believe that removing
sponsorship has had an effect and they have evidence to prove
it.
Mr Sutcliffe: We are happy to
share in that evidence. We will look at evidence put to us and
if that evidence is compelling, then we would act.
Q939 Chairman: Minister, are you
familiar with the restrictive codes on advertising alcohol?
Mr Sutcliffe: The restrictive
codes?
| 
