Eighth Report
Instruments drawn to the special attention
of the House
The Committee has considered the following instruments
and has determined that the special attention of the House should
be drawn to them on the grounds specified.
A. Draft Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder
Zones) Regulations 2008
Summary: These Regulations set out how Alcohol
Disorder Zones (ADZs) are to be designated and administered, and
how charges within them are to be levied. We found the Explanatory
Memorandum unclear. Much of the practical detail is in the draft
Guidance which was not published with the instrument, which we
regard as poor practice. The Committee was left with an impression
of a rather bureaucratic system and without a clear idea of how
ADZs fit in with the other items in the local authorities' toolkit
for combating alcohol-fuelled disorder. Correspondence from the
Local Government Association endorses these concerns. We also
had some questions over the robustness of the figures given in
the Regulatory Impact Assessment. The House may wish to seek further
information on how the temporary nature of ADZs is to be assured
and how the complex charging structure is to be implemented in
a practical and transparent way.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they may imperfectly achieve their
policy objectives.
1. The Home Office (HO) have laid these Regulations
under sections 15-17 and 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act
2006 and sections 13 and 105 of the Local Government Act 2000,
together with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) and a Regulatory
Impact Assessment (RIA).
2. Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZs) are a Government
manifesto commitment which were enacted by sections 15-20 of the
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. These Regulations set out how
the ADZs are to be designated and administered, and how charges
within them are to be levied.
3. We found the EM more of a press notice than
a clear explanation of the policy objectives and of how the Regulations
contribute to their achievement. Much of the practical detail
is in the draft Guidance which was not published at the same time
as the instrument, which we regard as poor practice. We understand
that it was posted on the Home Office website[1]
about a week later.
4. The RIA which accompanies the Regulations
is the same one that was provided for the Bill in 2005. It relies
heavily on the evidence from pilot projects such as Manchester
City Centre Safe where "the rising trend of late night
disorder was reduced by 8.5% in the first year and 12.3% in the
second year". However, following our enquiries, the Home
Office have revised the initial figure to 6.2%, and plan to revise
the RIA to say:
"As a result of this approach [Manchester
City Centre Safe], which also includes an accreditation scheme
for well-run premises, and full use of enforcement tools by the
police and Trading Standards, the level of serious assaults in
Manchester City Centre was reduced by 46% between 1999/ 2000 when
the scheme was established and 2004/ 05 (the last year for which
comparable data is available) [2]
| Year | Number of serious assaults in the City Centre
| Percentage change on previous year
|
| 1999/ 2000 | 225
| N/A |
| 2000/ 01 | 211
| - 6.2 |
| 2001/ 02 | 185
| - 12.3 |
| 2002/ 03 | 198
| + 7.0 |
| 2003/ 04 | 186
| - 6.1 |
| 2004/ 05 | 122
| - 34.4 |
The temporary rise in the number of serious assaults
in 2002/03 may be due to the fact that the Commonwealth Games
and World Cup were both held in that year. The fall in the number
of serious assaults over five years is equivalent to an average
of approximately 12% per year." The
revised extract is printed at the Appendix.
5. While this claim may be statistically true,
the more detailed figures show a rather more complex story, and
the Committee questions how robust the Home Office's estimates
of the anticipated benefits can be if extrapolated from these
figures: "based on the experience in Manchester we estimate
that ADZs, which would have a greater focus on public space issues,
would lead to a reduction in all alcohol-related crimes (including
more serious wounding, less serious wounding and common assault)
of around 10% over a year."[3]
6. We also noted that the Home Office estimate
in the RIA that 30 areas will commence the ADZ process in the
first year, but only 6 would move to the charging regime. They
have not supplied projections for subsequent years which they
say will be reviewed after the first year of implementation. The
Local Government Association (LGA) have expressed "serious
misgivings about this policy", in particular about how
they are to recover set-up costs in the case where the issues
are resolved before the charging regime can be initiated and whether
local authorities will be liable for the costs incurred by other
agencies if the income from ADZ charges is inadequate. The LGA
letter is printed at the Appendix.
7. It also appears that a key measure of success
which might lead to bars having their fees discounted or the ADZ
lifted would be strict checks on the age of drinkers. To justify
this element of the policy, it would have been helpful to be given
an indication of what percentage of the alcohol-fuelled disorder,
that these Regulations seek to combat, is attributable to underage
drinking. The HO argue that those establishments which fail to
take action to eliminate underage sales also tend to be the premises
associated with crime and disorder more generally.
8. The Committee was left with an impression
of a rather bureaucratic system and without a clear idea of how
it fits in with the other items in the local authorities' toolkit
for combating alcohol-fuelled disorder. We were not clear why
this policy was required in addition to voluntary measures such
as Business Improvement Districts, or enforcement action such
as suspending the licences of delinquent bars, or charging delinquent
individuals under existing legislation.
9. Our further enquiries failed to gain a clear
assurance on two points which the House may wish to pursue in
more detail during the debate:
- the temporary nature of ADZs:
the documentation repeatedly states that ADZs are a temporary
measure of last resort but, although Regulation 22 requires there
to be three-monthly reviews of the action plan, there is no measure
to set a finite time-limit to this additional, if carefully ring-fenced,
source of income to the local authorities.
- the arcane nature of the
charging system: as well as offering significant scope
for discounts and exemptions, the basic method of calculation
is highly variable. Regulation 16 sets out a formula comprising
two indicators (rateable value and hours open) but these factors
can first be weighted and then added or multiplied. Under Regulation
16(6), the basis of calculation can differ within the zone as
long as all premises of the same description have their scores
calculated in the same way. The Home Office guidance states (para
6.20) that authorities may have bespoke local bandings to ensure
that premises pay for the amount of additional services they receive,
but Regulation 16(4) allows a higher charge to be levied if local
authorities think that premises are using a higher level of non-baseline
services. The level of charge is not capped as long as it reflects
the actual enforcement costs, but the guidance also states that
the charge should seek not to endanger the economic viability
of premises (guidance para 6.25). Our concern is about the transparency
and practicality of this proposal: we suspect that, if implemented
as set out, this charging structure could result in a large number
of individual premises contesting the level of their charge in
comparison with that of their competitors, which would result
in a significant diversion of local authority resources from addressing
the alcohol disorder problem.
CONCLUSION
10. Although the policy is optional, given its
complexity we wonder how many local authorities will actually
take it up, and we draw the Regulations to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they may imperfectly achieve their
policy objectives.
B. Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation
Scheme) (Amendment) Order 2008 (SI 2008/39)
Summary: The Ministry of Defence have brought
forward this Order to amend the rules of the armed forces compensation
scheme, to respond in particular to concerns expressed about the
level of awards to personnel who have sustained more than one
injury in one incident.
This Order is drawn to the special attention of
the House on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
11. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) have laid the
Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Amendment)
Order 2008 ("the 2008 Order") under sections 1(2) and
10(2) and (3) of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation)
Act 2004. An Explanatory Memorandum (EM) has been provided.
12. The EM states that the 2008 Order amends
the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order
2005 ("the 2005 Order"), in order to amend the provisions
of the 2005 Order that apply where more than one injury has been
sustained in one incident, and to amend a number of injury descriptors
in Table 5 (Amputations) of the injury tariff.
13. The EM explains that, since the introduction
of the 2005 Order, MOD have monitored the operation of the compensation
scheme, taking account of experience of live claims. It states
that one particular case received widespread media coverage in
2007, and that MOD were prompted to review the particular rules
applied to that case and similar cases in order to assess whether
the Scheme still fulfilled the original intent of focussing resources
on the most severely injured. The review identified a requirement
to amend the effect of the rule which applied discounting to an
award of lump sum benefit where the individual sustained more
than one injury in one incident. The EM adds that the injury tariff
contained in Schedule 4 has been amended to enable final injury
benefit to be payable for an injury for which no provision was
available previously, and to decouple certain categories of combined
amputation items.
14. On 15 January 2008, Mr Derek Twigg, MP, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Defence, made a statement about these
amendments:
"I am pleased to confirm that the rule will
be amended so that in future those who qualify for 100 per cent
of the guaranteed income payment (GIP), who are by definition
the most seriously injured, will receive 100 per cent of the surplus
payable of all injuries sustained in a single incident, up to
a maximum of £285,000. Those who do not qualify for 100 per
cent GIP payments will continue to have the current discounting
rule applied to their multiple injuries. This does not affect
injuries sustained in separate incidents as these are already
paid at the full tariff value of the injury.
"The new rule applies to those whose injuries
are sustained on or after the legislation comes into force. Cases
whose multiple injuries were sustained between 6 April 2005 (the
start of the scheme) and the date the new rule comes into force
and who qualify for 100 per cent GIP will, exceptionally, have
an additional benefit paid to bring them to the same level as
those who have the new rule applied."
15. MOD have stated that they carried out a consultation
exercise on the proposed changes in October/November 2007 and
received 15 responses, of which 10 were from ex-service organisations
and five from service personnel. They say that "on the whole
these were supportive of the proposed change."
16. We believe that the House will be interested
to see that the Ministry of Defence have brought forward this
Order to amend the rules of the armed forces compensation scheme,
to respond in particular to concerns expressed about the level
of awards to personnel who have sustained more than one injury
in one incident.
1 http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/Alcohol_disorder_zones_guid1.pdf?view=Binary
Back
2
Greater Manchester Police recorded crime statistics Back
3
See paragraph 5.12 of the Home Office's revised RIA, at the Appendix. Back
| 
