---

We also contend that local authorities and businesses have taken considerable steps forward. There are 62 business improvement districts around the country. That is very important. That is the community coming together. Those are businesses recognising their responsibilities to the social life of their area, and working with local authorities to improve it. I wonder

13 May 2008 : Column 988

how much discussion the Government had with them before drawing up these regulations. Then there are several local schemes, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, ranging from the Community Alcohol Partnership in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, to one that I am aware of in Somerset, called Operation Joined-up. I discussed alcohol-related incidents with Councillor Mochnacz, the county councillor concerned with community safety issues. The one thing that he would have liked the Government to do is bring in a power to enable local authorities to require the use of shatterproof glass if it was thought necessary. That was echoed by the police, who were also at my meeting with Councillor Mochnacz. They said that the single thing that would reduce the bad effects of alcohol would be the introduction of either safety glass or a complete alternative to glass. That was a very positive suggestion, on which the Minister could act. I should be grateful for his comments on that.

The ADZs have attracted criticism across the board, from industry, the police, the LGA, LACORS and, not least, as I mentioned, the Merits Committee itself. Why? Because if they are bureaucratic, it is unlikely that anyone will use them. As the Minister said, they are a tool of last resort, but if they are this bureaucratic, is it likely that local authorities will make such a rod for their own backs, and one that will take so much time? To give an example of where they are bureaucratic, the Minister quoted the charging mechanism. The charging mechanism assesses premises by rateable value and hours of opening during the service period. The Minister said that rateable value was a proxy for capacity. That is impossible to measure. A big pub, perhaps with bedrooms and serving suppers, would have a high rateable value as big premises, but the amount of alcohol consumed and the amount of disorder to come from that pub might be minimal, compared to a smaller, rather “shacky” type of nightclub, selling alcohol to kids already loaded up with vodka before they go in. It might be vodka purchased 20 miles away. I do not believe that this charging mechanism will be able to withstand all the appeals that will be brought as soon as the first ADZ is established.

The Minister also made a comment about supermarkets. Noble Lords will understand that a supermarket will have a defence. Somebody will go in for 12 cans of Special Brew and one bottle of vodka, but, thinking about it, they also buy a pint of milk and a newspaper. They can claim, quite rightly, that they were going to have a coffee before they went out drinking, so it was the pint of milk that drew them into the supermarket. The supermarket can carry out a few surveys like that and quickly say that it should be exempt. There are all sorts of problems with the charging mechanism, as highlighted by everybody else who has been through these regulations.

Then there is all the police time that will be taken up by this, when the community would rather that police officers were out on the beat, talking to youngsters and discouraging violent behaviour in the first place in that way, which we know a police presence can do. We do not feel that the charging system reflects the whole idea behind the zones. The Minister should also explain how there will be a proper differentiation between

13 May 2008 : Column 989

responsible and irresponsible premises, because if it is based on rateable value, it looks as if the regulations treat all premises in the same way.

I know from talking to owners of wine bars, for example, that some are incredibly responsible and go to enormous lengths to ensure that their staff are trained not to serve alcohol to customers whom they feel are over the limit. In town centres where there is joined-up working, they have systems whereby they warn one another about groups of people going around who should be refused that evening because they are, it is felt, over the limit.

7 pm

The other option that the Government had was to ensure better enforcement of existing laws. There is an explanation of how ADZs will fit alongside other measures, but I bring the Minister back to the fact that the Merits Committee, having examined it, felt that it was not clear how they would fit with the other items in the local authorities’ toolkit. I remind the Minister that the police already have sufficient powers covering all sorts of issues concerning alcohol and violence. They can even confiscate alcohol under a designated public places order, with a variety of punishments depending on the nature of the disorder: fines, temporary closure or review of the premises licence.

As the Minister will know, responsibility comes back to the local authority as the licensing authority. This is my last point: the licensing authority—the local authority in its guise as a licensing authority—must take numerous issues into account. It does so responsibly with a lot of local input, but I believe that, under the regulations and the Licensing Act guidance, it is illegal for local authorities to promote a voluntary code or scheme against the practices that encourage binge drinking. Only the industry can commence such a scheme. I would like the Minister to say whether I am correct about that, as it seems surprising. Local authorities would like to have that power, which would tie in with their licensing authority powers.

We believe that, although the effort being made through ADZs to control violence that comes from heavy drinking and alcohol-related abuse in town centres is worthy, the regulations fail, for all the reasons that I have given. I urge the Minister to withdraw the regulations and let his department have another go at them. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert “but this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government to withdraw the regulations and to re-lay them having taken account of the opinion of the Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments that ‘the system will be unduly bureaucratic and without a clear idea of how ADZs will fit in with the other items in the local authorities’ toolkit for combating alcohol-fuelled disorder.’” (HL Paper 100).—(Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer.)

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive explanation, but the fact that his considerable powers of persuasion and analysis have been so tested with the whole question of charging is revealing in relation to the complications that the regulations present.

13 May 2008 : Column 990

None of us is under any illusion about the seriousness of the problem of alcohol-related disorder, but the history of the regulations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned, has been a mess. The Merits Committee in its report makes some unusually trenchant criticisms. We welcome the Government’s decision to reconsider the regulations, but we still feel that they have not gone far enough. The plans for the ADZs are still amiss and bear all the signs of not having been thought through properly. They are impractical and grossly complicated. The consultation period was too short. Serious reservations have been expressed by the Local Government Association and ACPO.

Attention has been drawn by both speakers to the problems with the supermarkets. We remain deeply sceptical about the effectiveness of the provision. Those bodies are very well advised and I am extremely concerned that they may escape the full rigour of the ADZs.

I urge the Government to think again. If we are unsuccessful, we shall watch the progress of the regulations carefully. My party remains committed to more control by local councils of licensing, more visible policing on the streets and a firmer approach to those who cause disorder having drunk to excess. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for their comments. The noble Baroness gave us a full flavour of her concerns. That is fair enough; it is why we have these debates. I know that there was a similarly robust response to the moving of the regulations in another place, and rightly so.

We had a good debate on this when we passed the original legislation, which I quite enjoyed shepherding through the House. We then had a constructive engagement about ADZs, although I think that both parties opposite expressed some concerns. I am sure that I reflected at the time that we had to try to get the practicalities right.

In fairness, the Merits Committee has, as it always does, done the House a service by highlighting some issues and concerns. We should be grateful to it for its comments, although noble Lords will gather from what I am about to say in response that we do not entirely agree with its conclusions.

I ought to comment on the fact that the regulations were initially delayed and brought back after some drafting amendments. That was because there was some misdrafting and we wanted to get this absolutely right. In fairness, that raises the question whether we have the mechanism absolutely right. We think that we have, but if in the light of experience what is, after all, a new and groundbreaking policy is found to be wanting in some regards, we are flexible enough to come back to amend the regulations so that they work better. We do not anticipate that, but I say that because we have that degree of flexibility.

On whether the regulations are unduly bureaucratic, in the terms of the Merits Committee report, the worry is understandable. It comes from the tiered approach that we have created, where you have first the proposition, then the action plan and then the full ADZ. In a sense, that approach is designed to remove

13 May 2008 : Column 991

bureaucracy, because if you do not need the action plan because remedial measures and steps have been taken by responsible businesses in the area, you do not have to proceed any further. If a local authority has an above-normal alcohol problem and sets out the steps that it plans to take, it is surely a good thing if those steps lead to a reduction in the problem without having to go to the full-blown ADZ process.

The noble Baroness gave some examples of good practice around the country where local authorities and police forces have worked well together with partnerships to determine how to tackle local alcohol problems and what actions best work to resolve them. In many of these cases, the licensed trade takes positive steps to help to address the issues of concern. That is what we are asking local authorities to do. Police forces working with them in partnership will also be asked to do this. There should not, therefore, be any additional bureaucracy in that process.

In the first instance, I think that only a few areas—perhaps half a dozen or so—will take up the full range of ADZ powers, having gone through the initial stages. That is because, as I have said several times, ADZs are a measure of last resort. The tools and powers available to the police will have worked, or the threat of an ADZ will have pushed those problem premises into taking action in their own self-interest. We will be more than happy to be flexible over these issues and we will probably want to report back to Parliament in 12 months or so on how the regulations work and on the operation of the ADZs.

The noble Baroness referred to other elements of our toolkit. It is true to say that we have a wide-ranging kitbag at our disposal and local authorities are making good use of it. About 60 are already using different elements of the measures that are available in the Licensing Act 2003 and in other places to try to improve the management of premises and the general performance both of licensed premises and of localities.

I take the point about business improvement districts having a potential impact. There is evidence that bids in city-centre areas can be useful in tackling issues such as this. However, one has to remember that a bid is an entirely voluntary process. The difference between a bid and the ADZ approach is that, if neither the voluntary approach nor the action plan has worked, there is a measure of last resort to force the issue and to make sure that measures are taken to tackle the problem. That is the big difference. Ultimately an ADZ can make licensed premises comply, whereas bids may be something the local authority considers as part of an action plan; they cannot be a substitute for making premises act in a collectively responsible manner.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but could he just clarify whether the local authority licensing committee has the power to do something about a licence when it is looking at renewing it?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is absolutely right. However, as I am sure the noble Baroness understands better than most, our case is that it may not necessarily be one isolated premises that is the problem. It may be the accumulated effect of a

13 May 2008 : Column 992

supermarket off-sale, an off-sales premises itself, a club, a pub and perhaps even a restaurant—though I think that restaurants are the lower-order end of the problem—in a given area. I have in mind St James’s Street in Brighton, which has all of those things. It occasionally has a problem with disorder which is related to the consumption of alcohol in that part of the city. You would be hard pressed to say which pub or club is the cause of the problem. The licensing authority has the flexibility to isolate a particular premises and to deal with it in a particular way. As the noble Baroness will readily admit, these powers can work well.

I want to move to a few of the other points that the noble Baroness made. She made reference to shatter-proof glass and safety glass. It is sensible for pubs to have access to those and it may well be that a pub or club that has a particular problem makes use of them. It makes great sense. The noble Baroness’s discussions with a Councillor Mochnacz alerted her to that particular issue. One would want to encourage best practice in licensed premises.

I thought that the rateable value point was relevant but only in so far as we understand it as one part of the formula. We also have to understand that the local authority has some flexibility through the discounting scheme. That should enable the charges to be more finely tuned. We accept that the charging mechanism may at first instance be seen as complex but that reflects the way in which different areas work, the way they have different types of licensed premises and the way those premises might contribute in different ways to a larger problem.

A charging mechanism that simply took the cost of enforcing and administering an ADZ and divided that amount by the number of licensed premises could disproportionately affect some premises, particularly restaurants, but not others, such as nightclubs. If the licensed premises with an ADZ were all the same type—pubs, for example—then a local authority might consider it sensible simply to divide the costs more evenly, in which case it would be very straightforward indeed. The key point is that, without the flexibility that we have included in the regulations, local authorities would not be able to make sensible decisions about what amounts to charge particular premises.

We have a clear idea of how the ADZ benefits operate as a method of combating alcohol-fuelled disorder and we think that it is right to say that local authorities and the police have those powers to deal with alcohol-related problems. The Licensing Act 2003 is a key tool in the local authority’s arsenal. If it is used well, it can reduce many of the problems associated with problem premises. However, the Act is about targeting specific premises. It does not allow local authorities to take action against premises when the problems occur in the public space between a number of licensed premises. It is that gap that the legislation aims to fill.

There are avenues of complaint for licence holders who are concerned about the application of the charges. All local authorities have a formal system of redress for complainants and local authorities should incorporate provision for addressing licence holders’ complaints about ADZs into those complaints procedures. There

13 May 2008 : Column 993

are also systems of appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman and to the Public Services Ombudsman in Wales should licence holders feel sufficiently aggrieved. They also have the facility to apply for judicial review.

These measures are sensible and practical. I take the point that for some they may at first blush feel a bit unwieldy. When they are seen to work in practice, however, areas that have a problem with alcohol disorder on the streets caused by an accumulation of different sorts of licensed premises will see a longer-term benefit.

I have heard what the noble Lords have said this evening. We will keep this policy area under review. We would be foolish if we did not as we want to make these things work and work well for the communities that might be affected by them. For those reasons, I hope the House will support the regulations.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. On a matter of detail, he did not tell me how he could empower councils to require premises to use shatter-proof glass and perhaps I will table a Question for Written Answer to enable him to do so.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do have a response. If some areas wish to use shatter-proof glass in some licensed premises, we think they could consider using the powers in the Licensing Act 2003 to put a condition on that premises. That facility is available and I think that answers the noble Baroness’s point.

13 May 2008 : Column 994

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, that is very helpful and I thank the Minister. On the broader point of the debate, I think this House will look very carefully, as it should, at the way the Government react to the reports of the Merits Committee on secondary legislation. The Minister will know that both opposition Benches have been very cautious about the amount of secondary legislation coming through. They are very nervous that more and more is being devised as secondary legislation by the Government. That is the very reason for the Merits Committee. When secondary legislation is not satisfactory—bearing in mind that we cannot amend it; we can only vote it through or not—it behoves the Government to take account of the comments of the very committee that we set up to look at this.

Having said that, I am mindful of the Minister’s offer to see how this is working and come back to us in 12 months. He can rest assured that we, too, will see how this works and very much look forward to it coming back in 12 months so that we can debate whether our fears have been realised and whether the LGA and ACPO between them could have devised something far more useful which the Government could pick up and use. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 7.20 pm.

---