|
Mr. Malins: I hope that the Minister accepts that binge drinking and alcohol-fuelled violence has worsened in the past eight years. Why has it worsened?
Hazel Blears: We are facing these problems in our society for a whole range of reasons. We face them partly because people are better off, and it is a good thing that our economy has flourished and that people have more money to spend. In years gone by, many people would not have been able to afford to enjoy themselves by going to nightclubs on a Friday and Saturday night. The 90 per cent. of people who do that are not a problem, and they should be allowed to have a great night out with their friends. They should not have to face the minority who have had far too much to drink and who then get into a row at a kebab shop or in the taxi queue and start the violence. The majority of people who go out on a Friday and Saturday night do not end up being involved in a violent fracas, but some people indulge in behaviour that is frankly unacceptable.
There is a range of reasons why people in our society believe it acceptable to behave in a certain way. Some of that comes down to parental responsibility, some to role models. I do not pretend for a moment that criminal law can provide the ultimate answer to changing behaviour in society, but it can set the parameters, sanctions and rewards. However, every person also has to demonstrate leadership to show that such behaviour is not acceptable. That is clearly a key underlying platform for many of the measures that we take on binge drinking and antisocial behaviour more generally.
I have a plea for the hon. Member for Woking. I know that he has a great deal of experience in the criminal courts, but I want him to try to think a little more imaginatively and creatively about how we can make our criminal justice system fit the problems that face us today. In some cases, they are different to the problems that faced us 20 or 30 years ago. I do not know which side he is on in the debate in the Conservative party between modernisers and traditionalists, but he should think about modernising the criminal justice system so that it meets the challenges that we face.
Hon. Members mentioned fixed penalty notices and ridiculed our suggestion that people should have to pay immediately for the harm that they cause. From January to August of this year, 86,000 fixed penalty notices were issued across the country. That is a power that the police welcome; it is not bureaucracy.
Mr. Malins: How many have been paid?
Hazel Blears: Something like three quarters: 50 per cent. straight away and 25 per cent. after a little delay, which means that the person has to pay the fixed
Column Number: 64
penalty notice plus half again. A huge amount of notices have been paid.
Mr. Malins: I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that. Only in June I asked what the total value of fixed penalty notices handed out by the police in the Greater London area was in the past 12 months for which figures were available and what percentage of the sum remained unrecovered. The answer was that the total value of fixed penalty notices issued is not collected centrally. It is helpful to know that that has changed since June.
Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman mentions a question that he raised in relation to the Greater London area—
Mr. Malins: The Minister makes it up as she goes along.
Hazel Blears: Nothing could be further from the truth. I regard the information that I give to Parliament as extremely important and I would not dream for a moment of misleading the Committee.
The changes made by the Licensing Act 2003 will come into effect in November and will strengthen the police's ability to attack problems. They will be given powers for immediate closure and decisions will now be made by local authorities, which is an increase in democracy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that. In many cases, local authorities are refusing or restricting applications and local people can make the decisions and influence their local authorities. That is an improvement.
I have dealt with exclusion orders and why we need to do something different, as well as how they differ from ASBOs. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green talked about dealing with the causes of binge drinking. I am pleased to be able to tell her that we are working closely with the industry and that a couple of the big chains have now outlawed the irresponsible happy hour promotions such as ''All you can drink for £10'' and ''Girls drink free'', which are a recipe for the binge drinking and mayhem that we see. I want the industry code of practice to bite and to ensure that all the retailers and people involved sign up to the responsible retailing of alcohol products. I am sure that we will do that.
The alcohol harm reduction strategy means that we are also considering some of the health issues and the sensible drinking messages that we send out. As well as enforcement, we need a campaign that gives people information and changes their behaviour. I have always said that we need enforcement and support for people to change if they want to. That does not mean that we do not need tough enforcement in such circumstances.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke about police resources. He knows as well as I do that the Government have put 13,000 extra police officers on the street and that we will have 24,000 community support officers—we already have 6,000 out there—with a range of powers to tackle alcohol problems, especially among our youth, including intervention and confiscation. Again, if we are to have more police—we are committed to maintaining our
Column Number: 65
historically high number of police officers—we have to will the means as well as the end. That means more resources, yet the Conservative party votes time after time against the resources that need to be invested in the police service.
12.45 pm
Mr. Prisk: I am not tempted to enter into the Minister's rather silly banter. She knows perfectly well that the Conservative party has been robust on resources and on ensuring that we have the right officers on the streets. She says, in a rather complacent tone, that our streets are somehow better off because of the number of police, and that the Government are doing all that needs to be done. If matters are so good, why is the situation getting so much worse?
Hazel Blears: I have never said that we are doing all that we need to do; that is why we need more legislation. However, crime is down under this Government by more than 30 per cent. I could reel off statistics, Mr. Benton, but I shall not bore you or the Committee with them. The Government have an excellent record on crime reduction.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said some powers have not been used. Surely he knows that 4,700 ASBOs have been made, and that people are beginning to use those powers. Police superintendents often say to me that in the past they had to tell the public that they did not have the power to help but they now have a range of powers; their officers feel more empowered than ever as a result of the Government's actions.
Jeremy Wright: Will the Minister give way?
Hazel Blears: No; I shall not give way.
I met a lady on Saturday who gave me something to think about. She lives in Kingston—I do not know London that well, but I believe that is a fairly affluent area and a lovely place. I was talking to her about respect and about tackling binge drinking. She wished that the debate was not always centred on people from poorer communities, and she was right. She told me of incidents she had witnessed at Henley, saying that the drinking on many occasions was appalling. She told me about young women falling about drunk, and about hooray Henrys whose behaviour was appalling and arrogant. She said to me, ''Hazel, you are right that we need all those powers. The police need the power to issue drinking banning orders.'' In future, we might see drinking banning orders preventing people from going to Henley, just as they might prevent people going to the Rat and Parrot or whatever the local pub is called.
We will be enforcing those powers without fear or favour, and I am sure that they will be effective.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Orders on an application to magistrates' court
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
Column Number: 66
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 170, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out '16' and insert '15'.
No. 121, in clause 6, page 5, line 15, leave out subsections (8) and (9).
No. 125, in clause 10, page 8, line 1, after 'person', insert
'aged 18 years and above'.
No. 126, in clause 10, page 8, line 3, at end insert—
'(2A) A person of 16 or 17 years of age guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable, on conviction in the youth court, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.'.
No. 29, in clause 10, page 8, line 22, leave out subsection (8).
No. 30, in clause 10, page 8, line 26, leave out subsection (9).
Mr. Malins: The Minister will note that amendments Nos. 12 and 170 are essentially probing amendments, as they allow the Committee to discuss two separate ages. Clause 2 states that an application can be made to the court if certain conditions are satisfied, including that the individual is ''16 or over''. Amendment No. 12 would insert 18 in place of 16. More important, amendment No. 170 would insert 15. That is because I wish to draw the attention of the Committee, and possibly a wider audience, to the enormous problem of drinking among young teenagers—those aged 13, 14 and 15. By amending the provision, a drinking banning order could be applied for against individuals who are 15 rather than 16.
The background is set out in the interim analytical report of the Prime Minister's strategy unit's alcohol harm reduction project. That is an important report—all reports from strategy units in Downing street are important—about young people's drinking. It reveals that British teenagers, along with those in Ireland and Denmark—I do not know why those two countries are linked—are among the heaviest teenage drinkers in Europe. They are more likely to drink, to get drunk and to report problems associated with drinking than their counterparts in other European countries. Here's the rub, and here is the reference to a 15-year-old. The report says that more than one third of 15-year-olds in the United Kingdom report having been drunk at age 13 or earlier. That is true of no more than one in 10 French and Italian children.
If we are to believe that report, and I see no reason why we should not, drunkenness is becoming, if not the norm, certainly a regular feature of life for very young teenagers. That not only implies but almost establishes that drunkenness among 14 and 15-year-olds is a problem. Who is to wonder? I say that because when young persons go to licensed premises—I think principally of on-licence premises—they have to take ID with them. I happen to know that it is extremely easy to fake one's ID. Such is the world of computers that fake IDs are prevalent.
I couple that with the fact that, perhaps owing to diet or the way in which they dress, many people aged 14 or 16 can and do pass for 18 when seen at licensed
Column Number: 67
premises. Both women and men, for obvious reasons, have apparently become considerably more mature physically in the past few years, thus making identifying that age group a real problem. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether there is a parallel proceeding in the Bill for juveniles, to cover persons appearing in the youth court. When the disposals are made in the youth court for young persons, plainly the incidence of alcohol behind the crime for which the young person is appearing is extremely relevant. I note that the age given here is 16 or over. My understanding—I will be corrected if I am wrong—is that a 16-year-old appears before a youth court rather than a magistrates court, but for the purposes of this section of the Bill, magistrates court should include youth courts.
The purpose of the amendment is to stimulate an important, but not over-long, debate on where the problem starts in relation to young people and drink. Is it, as the Prime Minister's strategy unit believes, at age 12 to 14, or is it later? If the appalling binge drinking does start as early as is suggested—I repeat, more than one third of 15-year-olds in the UK report having been drunk at age 13 or earlier in stark contrast to our continental friends and neighbours—is there not a case, and if so does the Government want to advance it, for extending drinking banning orders to a different age group?
I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I intend them simply as probing amendments, because I want the Minister to explain the exact meaning of subsections (8) and (9). I think that they are to do with the normal provisions about disclosure of the names of young persons in court, and the directions normally made about protecting their names. If the provisions are to do with naming young people in court for publicity purposes, will the Minister expand on that?
| 
