Violent Crime Reduction Bill |
|
Chris Ruane: Society is to blame! Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman must listen. The point about cause and fault lies at the heart of the debate, because we are faced with the prospect that countless premises will sell alcohol to the public without being at fault because they are permitted by law to do so. They will be selling to adults, and behaving utterly in accordance with the code in accordance with which the Minister wants them to behave. Nevertheless, violent behaviour will result. Where is the fault? It is far too easy for the Minister glibly to say that it is not a punishment for a premises to be charged under the alcohol disorder zone provisions. That is a penalty, and it penalises them. There is a point of principle about where the blame lies. We would not be having this debate if the existing law on drunkenness and criminal behaviour were properly enforced by the police, and if the proper number of closures of licensed premises that we know to be at fault had taken place in the past year or two. The emphasis should be on proper enforcement of the existing law. It is wrong in principle—this is key—for blame, charges and penalties to be levied against premises that behave in accordance with the law and sell alcohol to adults, as they are entitled to do. Mr. Jones: In my experience, the individual described by the hon. Gentleman would not consume a bottle of gin, although he might drink a bottle of extra-strong cider or other beverage. The measure would not be used to deal with one individual. The Government are trying to deal with areas that suffer constant disorder and large numbers of people; the solitary individual would not be dealt with like that. Mr. Malins: I use the point to illustrate a matter that has not been properly addressed in the debate, which is blame. What causes what? Who is to blame? Rather than heap the blame on lawful suppliers who behave responsibly, which is what the Bill does, we should heap the blame on the person or persons who conduct criminal activity. If the current law was properly enforced, we would not need to debate the subject. Column Number: 133 Ms Dawn Butler (Brent, South) (Lab): My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) outlined some of what I wanted to say. If a person over the age of 25 who consumed a bottle of gin and went on to cause antisocial behaviour, an antisocial behaviour order or a drinking banning order would probably be imposed. The blame would not be laid on the off-licence that sold the alcohol; it would be laid on the individual who caused the problem. Mr. Malins: I understand what the hon. Lady says, but she misses the point. [Interruption.] She can speak again if she wishes, but she cannot deny that alcohol disorder zones can be created for areas where licensees have behaved responsibly and been honourable in their dealings. The Bill provides no exemption for premises that, according to the amendment, have sold alcohol but have not caused nuisance or annoyance to members of the public. In a sense, the amendment would assert that those who are guilty should pay the penalty, and that those who are not guilty should not be swept into the alcohol disorder zone and have charges levied upon them. Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): My area may be one of those where such measures might be considered. The industry makes a large amount of money, and it imposes an undue burden on one service—the police—because of the level of crime and disorder associated with that industry. Does the hon. Gentleman not consider it completely unfair that the wider population should have to pick up the bill, and suffer the consequence that policing resources are raided from the suburbs to manage the problem? Does he not consider it perfectly fair for the industry to pay for the consequences of a problem that is associated with it? Mr. Malins: Associated is the key word. I do not think it fair for the industry to pay for a problem that should properly be sorted out by the police. We are talking about criminal activity, which is a police issue and can be dealt with under existing law. If the industry is behaving lawfully, it should not be penalised. Again—it increasingly happens under the present Government—the blame is moving in society from the person who is guilty to someone who is not. John Thurso: I am a little concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s use of the word blame; I hope that he can clarify the matter. The point is also about responsibility. When I was a licensee and had charge of a licence, and I knew that I had a legal responsibility to the people to whom I was selling alcohol, and that if they got drunk it was my duty to stop serving them. In the pub, the hotel or the bar, it is the person on duty who has that responsibility. Although the same duty applies in the supermarket, if the person buying the gin is stone cold sober, the store has discharged its legal responsibility. This is about responsibility. Mr. Malins: It is. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Minister has not satisfied me on the amendment. A number of bodies have constantly raised queries and doubts about the merits of imposing
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 13. [Division No. 3] AYES Clappison, Mr. JamesDjanogly, Mr. Jonathan Featherstone, Lynne Hosie, Stewart Malins, Mr. Humfrey Thurso, John Wright, Jeremy
NOES Abbott, Ms DianeBlears, Hazel Brennan, Kevin Butler, Ms Dawn Cooper, Rosie Jones, Mr. Kevan Keeble, Ms Sally McCabe, Steve Pound, Stephen Ruane, Chris Sheridan, Jim Waltho, Lynda Wilson, Sammy Question accordingly negatived. Amendment made: No. 79, in clause 12, page 11, line 30, after ‘provision’, insert—
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Lynne Featherstone: We have some understanding of the Government’s intentions in those areas where it is as plain as the nose on one’s face that there is serious criminal activity and disorder as a consequence of alcohol, and we certainly wish to deal with that, but the prescribed solutions are somewhat draconian on one level and muddled on another. The unintended consequences of trying to tackle a real evil in our midst may be complete mayhem. There is a lack of clarity about the zones. I do not agree with the Minister that the authority on one side of a road should be able to impose a zone while the authority on the other side should not be compelled to work with it in some way. The charging regime seems to be a mess as well, although that is hard to tell, because there is nothing in the Bill and no regulations for us to consider. Mr. Jones: On the charges, is it not correct that the hon. Lady just voted along with her colleagues for local ratepayers to pick up the tab for disorder in their communities? Will she be saying that in her local “Focus” leaflet? Lynne Featherstone: I do not think I should dignify that with a response. There is nothing in the Bill. Therefore, if the innocent could be charged as guilty, we should have sight of the regulations to determine whether the
The unfairness also leads to a concern that small businesses may go out of business. The regulations may so punish them that they become unsustainable. Another issue is that the Secretary of State seems to have the absolute right to vary anything at any time without a positive resolution of the two Houses. 10.15 amI am happy to work with the Government on sensible and well planned proposals to deal with town centre issues, such as those that we have discussed, but I do not consider the present provisions adequate. The threshold at which an ADZ is triggered is so low that it would apply almost anywhere. The intention is obviously to apply it in town centres with extreme and persistent disorder, but anywhere could be designated. The simple designation of a place as an alcohol disorder zone could be significant for the wider community, as the hon. Member for North Durham suggested, in its effect on residents or businesses when they want to sell up or get insurance. Most of the detail is left to regulation, which, as I have said, is not, sadly, before the Committee. I must hold the Government to account because there has been so little effort to use current law to deal with many aspects of what they want to deal with through alcohol disorder zones. I should be more impressed if the horse came before the cart. They have not introduced local authority minimum pricing policies to end happy hours. They refuse to look at saturation policy; much of the disorder that the Government mean to tackle through ADZs is caused by the number of establishments in close proximity in one area. Yet they were not prepared to consider creating, in the Licensing Act 2003, any cap, or power to cap, for the number of establishments in one area, although that factor is a prime contributor to disorder. The clause seems ill thought out and possibly unworkable. If we are to support the Government the entire premise should be workable. Mr. Clappison: I should be interested to hear what plans the Government have to review whether the policy is working, after its implementation, and how the Minister proposes to keep it under review. What measure of its success will be used? Hazel Blears: I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is as aware as any member of the Committee of the problems that our constituents face because of the misuse of alcohol. It is a widespread problem and the Government are determined to ensure that the police and local authorities have the powers that they need to make a difference on the streets of our country. Those include
Time and again constituents have told us that they are sick and tired of police officers being dragged into fights and disturbances in town and city centres as a result of people’s misuse of alcohol, because it is then difficult for them to police the rest of the community. It is right that premises in an area that has, as a last resort, been designated, should contribute to the extra police and local authority costs in dealing with those problems. I should hope that the hon. Lady would support a measure designed to support communities and ensure that they are not victims of alcohol disorder. The hon. Lady says that our policy is draconian. I do not regard it as draconian. I regard it as a proper balance to enable us to protect decent, law-abiding citizens. She mentioned small businesses. It is important that businesses can thrive, but they have a responsibility to conduct their operations in a way that does not harm innocent people. People are besieged sometimes by the activities of completely irresponsible individuals, as well as businesses. I ask the hon. Lady to bear that in mind. There is a provision for consideration every three months of whether the alcohol disorder zone is still necessary. If all the operators have come together and implemented the proposed action plan and there has been a significant impact on the relevant behaviour, the designation will be lifted. I do not envisage alcohol disorder zones as long-term solutions. That would be a matter of accommodating our current problems. The policy intention is to prevent them, and to reduce the mayhem that goes on in town and city centres. We shall keep the policy under review. The test of success is making sure that our town and city centres, including those in rural areas, are safe places for the decent majority to go and have a night out without being forced out by unacceptable drunken and violent behaviour resulting from people’s alcohol misuse. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 Designation of alcohol disorder zones Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 174, in clause 13, page 11, line 37, after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 138, in clause 13, page 11, line 38, after ‘been’, insert ‘persistent and repeated’. No. 139, in clause 13, page 11, line 39, leave out ‘or disorder’. No. 44, in clause 13, page 11, line 40, leave out from ‘with’ to ‘the’ in line 41. Column Number: 137 No. 162, in clause 13, page 11, line 45, at end insert
Mr. Malins: With this probing amendment, we seek to clarify how satisfied the local authority should be of the need to make a designation? Does the Minister want simply to leave the word “satisfied” in the Bill? She probably does. What are her thoughts on whether there should be a higher or lower test, as with civil and criminal court proceedings? What about using the word “sure”? I move on to discuss amendment No. 44. It seems to me—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that under clause 13(1)(b), it is entirely possible that an area could be designated as an alcohol disorder zone even though none of the alcohol that has caused the problem has been supplied by any of the premises within it. That paragraph states that an authority can designate an area as a zone if it is satisfied that the nuisance is
This is not a point of principle; the problem may be down to poor drafting. It is odd to say that if alcohol is supplied irresponsibly in one town and drunk there by a whole lot of irresponsible people who then go together to another town where they neither purchase nor consume any alcohol, the second town could be designated as an alcohol disorder zone even though
Lynne Featherstone: The purpose of amendment No. 138 is to raise the threshold of and require a more causal link for the establishment of alcohol disorder zones. There must be a fear that the threshold is too low and that a local authority might, in designating an area as an alcohol disorder zone, particularly if there is an incentive to get funding for policing, believe a nuisance or annoyance to be relatively low. The Minister looks at me quizzically, but that fear applies throughout the Bill: we do not know how far the measures will be applied. The intention may be obvious, but the wording is not. If the words “persistent and repeated” were inserted, the threshold at which a local authority could designate such a zone would be raised. Jeremy Wright: I tabled amendment No. 162 to address a concern similar to that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. The clause states that a local authority must be satisfied that an alcohol disorder zone is necessary and the appropriate response to the problem that has been identified. Should not there be some fetter on the local authority’s discretion in that regard? To be satisfied of something is a subjective test, and I wonder whether the test should be more objective, given the financial consequences— It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned till this day at One o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 21 October 2005 |