Mr.
Campbell: Amendments 62 and 63 seek to make the licensing
arrangements established by schedule 3 of the Local Government
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and our amendments to that regime
mandatory for all local authorities, whereas we are seeking to maintain
the current position, whereby the adoption of the licensing regime
provided by the Act is optional. I hope to reassure my hon. Friend the
Member for City of Durham that the Government’s approach is
appropriate, by suggesting some of the difficulties of going down the
mandatory
route. First,
when the proposals were brought forward—not least in response to
the excellent efforts of my hon. Friends—they were not without
strong support from local authorities and communities. The idea that
there would be a struggle in local authority areas to have the
provisions adopted will not prove to be the case. The communities that
have felt that they lacked this power
in the past will find that, under the legislation, they are empowered,
and so too will other communities, which may not have a lap-dancing
establishment but where there may be plans for a lap-dancing
establishment. So, there is strong support, and I do not think that
that would lead to a situation in which one could imagine any
difficulty in the provisions being taken
up. Not
for the first time, I was a little perplexed by the hon. Member for
Oxford, West and Abingdon who said, on the one hand, that local
authorities should be able to decide—he and I share a lot of
common ground, as does the hon. Member for Hornchurch, about localism,
local empowerment and the role of local authorities—but went on
to say that the way we ensure that the localism takes place is that,
somehow, we force them to take on the powers with a mandatory regime,
irrespective of whether there are clubs or plans in their areas. I do
not think that that argument necessarily stacks
up. I
shall deal with the point about morality now. In effect, local
authorities that adopt the provisions will have to decide how many
establishments in their area may be appropriate and will have to take
into account the views of local residents. That is the whole point of
the legislation, to empower local communities by giving them a power to
object that they do not have now. They may take into account all
relevant considerations. I would imagine, from my experience—not
with lap-dancing clubs, but with clubs that have applied for temporary
event notices, involving strippers and the like—that people
would bring various reasons for objecting to establishments if they are
proposed. Some of them will undoubtedly be on the basis of their moral
objection to what is happening. That would not be universal, but it
would be a strand of many residents’ objections. They do not
want these establishments in their areas, but others will object on all
sorts of other grounds, such as the kinds of people that might be
attracted to the establishments, car parking problems and the other
issues that are particular to licensed premises, but also common to
planning matters in general. There will have to be a good reason why a
local authority takes the objections into consideration, but, on the
evidence of existing cases and other planning and licensing matters, I
do not think that that will prove too difficult.
I want to
address some of the other issues that going down the mandatory route
might raise. It would mean that local authorities that do not have sex
establishments in their areas would have to implement this licensing
regime with no means of recovering the associated administrative costs,
which we would normally expect to be recovered through licence fees,
but if there are no or a limited number of lap-dancing clubs, a
council’s ability to impose fees and thereby reclaim the cost of
the new licensing arrangements will be
minimal.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods: What does the Minister mean by costs? I
thought that we were talking about a resolution being passed at a
council meeting to take the legislation on board, and there may be a
minor cost in paper, but it would not be
substantial.
Mr.
Campbell: Having never served on a local authority this
may be a million miles from the truth but my understanding is that it
could, of course, be a matter of
the council adopting a motion, but then a licensing regime is in place.
Someone would have to issue the licences, presumably the licences would
have to be checked up on, the establishments would have to come back
year on year to review their licences and that would all cost time and,
therefore, money. Those costs would be recouped through a licensing
arrangement, so the establishments would have to be charged. I am not
saying that that is an insurmountable reason for not going down the
route that my hon. Friend is suggesting, but it is something that
should be borne in mind.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods: If clubs come forward wanting a licence
and the authority has not adopted the new legislation, the clubs will
have to do so under the Licensing Act 2003. The local authority still
has to have a licensing regime, so there will still be associated
costs. I cannot see how there would be substantial additional costs
from adopting the amendments.
Mr.
Campbell: Of course, there are costs with the licensing
regime as it stands, and those costs are similarly recouped. However,
we are talking not about going down the licensing route using the
Licensing Act 2003, but about using a local government provision, which
is a different licensing mechanism. If she will bear with me, I will
explain why the costs are not simply associated with lap-dancing
clubs. We
do not want to impose unnecessary burdens on local authorities. It
would be contrary to what we are trying to achieve in changing the
licensing arrangements, which is to empower communities and give them a
greater influence over the number and location of lap-dancing clubs in
their areas. By keeping the adoption of these arrangements optional,
local authorities will be able to respond quickly and appropriately to
the concerns of their local
communities. The
concern has been raised that where one authority takes on the
provisions and lap-dancing establishments feel the heat, they may go to
a local authority that has not taken on the provisions, but the second
local authority can do so very quickly, and within a very short time
the lap-dancing establishment will be subject to the same licensing
arrangements that would have pertained had it stayed in the first
authority. Therefore, where it is appropriate to apply the measure is
important. As I said before, we received strong messages from many
local authorities on the pressing need for the powers, but others may
not feel the need for them. They may believe that the powers are not
necessary to deal with the regulation of sex establishments in their
areas. If the position changes, and a community hitherto untroubled by
lap dancing clubs becomes concerned about the problem, the council will
be able to respond by resolving to adopt the 1982 licensing
regime.
Lynda
Waltho: I believe that a consultation was held during the
summer, and that contact was made with local authorities. What was the
result? I understand that the overwhelming result was that local
authorities wanted that ability. Are there statistics to say
otherwise?
Mr.
Campbell: My recollection is that there was a strong
response, and that there was overwhelming support for what we are
doing. That supports my hon. Friend’s
case. However, the response was not universal, because the problem is
not perceived to be universal. If we were to make the provisions
mandatory, they would affect all local authorities; that is precisely
what we would be saying.
Although my
hon. Friend prays in aid the strong support of local authorities for
this measure—it proves the case that I am trying to
make—it will not be difficult for them to adopt the measure; nor
will it be difficult to convince them of the need to adopt it. They are
keen to have the legislation, but we are debating whether to make the
remaining authorities subject to the provisions. For reasons that I
have given and hope to give, we believe that it is a proportionate
response to give those powers to local authorities when they want to
use them. There is no shortage of demand for them, but it is not
universal.
I wish to
explain to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham another of the
amendment’s effects. It would affect not only lap-dancing clubs
but it would have implications for the regulation of sex shops and sex
cinemas in those local authority areas where schedule 3 is
not adopted under the regime of the 1982 Act. We could find ourselves
telling local authorities that they had to adopt the provisions, but if
there were no lap-dancing clubs in the area there could be associated
costs for sex clubs and sex shops.
I do not know
my hon. Friend’s opinion, as we have not discussed the matter,
but she may say, “So what? That is exactly the sort of
establishment that we would want to be caught.” However, she
should not underestimate the cost of doing what she suggests. Should a
local authority bring forward proposals to take up these provisions, I
would be delighted. However, it can do so only on the basis that it
will be responding to the needs of the local community, which it
undoubtedly will be, and that it can recover the costs.
I also point
out to my hon. Friend that there has been no consultation with local
authorities or with the Local Government Association on whether the
arrangements should apply on a mandatory basis to the licensing of
other establishments such as sex cinemas, and what the impact on local
authorities of such a change would be. Imposing the new arrangements
without such a consultation would be contrary to our approach, which is
to try to respond to the needs of local communities. I acknowledge my
hon. Friend’s concerns, but I assure her that by maintaining the
optional nature of the licensing arrangements we will not deny local
people a say on the establishment of lap- dancing clubs—quite
the opposite. It is entirely consistent with our aim of giving more
influence to local people over these important decisions and empowering
local communities that feel unempowered. However, that falls short of
saying that it ought to be mandatory and that we should force local
authorities to go down that route.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods: The Minister is generous in allowing me to
intervene. I seek clarification, as I understand that the provisions of
the Licensing Act 2003 are mandatory and apply to all local
authorities, as do the provisions of the 1982 Act that deal with local
authorities that are faced with a licensing application from a sex shop
or sex cinema. A mandatory licensing regime is already in place. All we
are asking is that lap-dancing clubs are added to what are already
mandatory provisions everywhere
else with regard to licensing. To apply them to lap-dancing clubs is
very straightforward. There should not be substantial additional costs.
I would be grateful if the Minister would give the Committee his
opinion on
that. 7
pm
Mr.
Campbell: I will go away and look at this issue but I am
advised that it is not mandatory to do so in the way that my hon.
Friend says, and that local authorities can adopt these provisions or
choose not to do so. We are talking about situations where they have
not adopted them, but would do so on the basis of the power we are
providing. We do not agree on this, so let me give a commitment to go
away and look at this point because there is a clear difference of
opinion. I will come back to my hon. Friend and other Members of the
Committee.
I am not
dismissing the validity of my hon. Friend’s arguments or her
concern. This is an important piece of legislation and we have moved
forward on a clearly understood basis. There are principles that apply
to get that community empowerment. We want to empower local people, but
we want local authorities to have that choice so that local people can
hold them accountable for whether or not they adopt these measures. On
that basis, I think that what we have introduced is appropriate, but I
will look again at the points she makes to see if we can make the
provision even more watertight. I have to say that at this point we are
not convinced that this needs to be mandatory. On that basis, I hope
that I have at least satisfied her and that she will withdraw the
amendment even if she returns to the issue at a later
date.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods: I have heard what the Minister has to say.
There are some matters that require clarification. At the moment I am
not totally convinced by the arguments about localism, as the Minister
appears to be arguing that localism can win out as long as it is the
localism of the local authority rather than the localism of the local
communities that might be served by the authority. That matter needs to
be
addressed.
Mr.
Campbell: I do not want anyone either to read the account,
or listen to that explanation and believe that it was a fair
representation of my position. On the contrary: I am not saying this is
entirely a matter for local authorities. My sincere view over a long
period of time is that local authorities need to be even more
responsive to local communities than they are. I am certainly not in
favour of a top-down approach in any shape or form. The purpose of the
legislation is to empower communities from the bottom and that is what
we intend to
do.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods: I thank the Minister for his helpful
explanation. We need more clarification, and I hope the Minister will
take this away and that his team will look at it closely and do
everything it can to close down this second loophole. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
3 agreed to.
Clause
26Increase
in penalty for
offence Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
James
Brokenshire: In introducing clause 26, which relates to
the increase in penalties for the offence of consuming alcohol in a
designated public place from level 2 to level 4, it is important to
look at the context to understand why the Government believe that
further changes to the law are needed, both in the clause and more
generally in relation to the provisions that we will be debating in
this part of the Bill. There are obvious and clear links between
alcohol and violent crime. In their document, “Safe. Sensible.
Social. The next steps in the National Alcohol Strategy”, the
Government pointed that out quite clearly:
“Alcohol
consumption is most likely to be associated with violence committed by
strangers and with incidents which result in
wounding.” As
part of its proposals to address these problems of violence linked to
binge drinking and criminality, the Licensing Act 2003 was passed,
promising to realise the concept of a cafĂ(c) culture and a
reduction in the problem of alcohol-fuelled crime. However, on the
basis of the Government’s own assessment, the effect has been
neutral as far as the evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act is
concerned: “The
impact on overall crime levels appears to be limited, with evidence of
some displacement into the small
hours.” Arguably,
the Government’s proposals under the Licensing Act have made the
situation worse, with the displacement of this problem of violent crime
to the early hours of the morning, with hospital accident
and emergency departments having to pick up the problem. I presume that
that is partly why the Government feel they need to introduce clause 26
to address the problem of binge drinking. It is clear is that alcohol
admissions to hospital casualty departments have jumped by a quarter
since the introduction of the Licensing Act, with real costs being
involved. Equally, there are increased pressures on the police in the
early hours of the
morning. Young
people who are consuming alcohol are consuming much more, feeding into
the culture of binge drinking, alcohol-fuelled crime, and long-term
health damage. In “Safe. Sensible. Social.” the
Government highlighted
that: “The
UK has among the highest incidences of youth drunkenness. Among 35
European countries, the UK has the third highest proportion of
15-year-olds (24 per cent.) who have been drunk 10 times or
more over the past year, based on self-reported
data.” We
need to be mindful of the fact that death rates from alcohol-related
illnesses continue to rise. Moreover, in terms of the impact on the
public and on our communities, the Government themselves appear to
accept that 61 per cent. of the public think that
alcohol-related crime on the streets is increasing.
I certainly
welcome measures that will be effective in combating the problems that
have been created and that we see in our communities as a consequence
of alcohol-fuelled disorder and crime. My question in relation to
clause 26 is what impact the measures will have and whether they may in
fact undermine or hamper existing good practice and partnership working
to combat underage sales and drink-fuelled crime. Clause 26 increases
the
penalty for consuming alcohol in a designated public place from
£500 to £2,500. However, as was highlighted on Second
Reading, no one has received the maximum fine to date, so in a sense
this is window dressing rather than an effective way of combating those
offences. That view is reaffirmed when one considers that in 2007, the
number of people charged under section 12(4) of the Criminal Justice
and Police Act 2001 was 113, of whom 98 were found guilty. The most
relevant fact in relation to the clause is that the number of people
who received a fine at level 2—over £200 and up to
£500—was
five. Given
that no one received the maximum fine even under the existing level 2,
and with only five people in 2007 receiving a level 2 fine, will the
Minister explain how the provision will make an impact and how it will
deliver the messages that were referred to, and which the Government
often rely on to support their introduction of the measures, and to try
to show that they are being tough? The reality appears to be that no
one is receiving the maximum fine under the existing arrangements, and
that very few people are receiving a fine anywhere near the previous
maximum. That raises the question of what impact the change will
have. Another
question is how the proposal fits into the Government’s drive
towards summary justice. According to the Home Office, more than 1,500
people received an £80 fixed penalty ticket for the offence,
Presumably, notwithstanding the change that the Government propose in
clause 26, many people will still receive penalty notices for disorder
offences. Again, what difference will the clause make if the majority
of people will simply be dealt with by way of a fixed penalty
ticket? When
the Home Secretary talks about sending out messages, is she saying
through this increase in the fine that she wants more people to be
taken to court rather than dealt with summarily? Is that the indicator?
Is that the message that she and the Ministers are trying to
communicate through the change proposed in clause 26? They are sending
out a message to the public on the seriousness of the offence, but how
will it be sent to the police? That may not be the intention—if
it is not that, too, raises a question about the purpose of the
provision. If, as we have been told, the clause is about communicating
the message to the public that the intention is to deal with the
offence more seriously, will the Minister explain what public relations
campaign will be initiated to launch that
message? The
focus of the Government’s proposals is youth drinking. The
measures before us appear to implement several previous statements such
as the one in the youth alcohol action plan. In that context, it might
be helpful to understand how many of the five people in 2007—we
could use any other figures the Minister may be able to
provide—who were under the age of 18 were convicted of an
offence under section 12(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2001. We also
need to understand better how the proposal in clause 26 has been
arrived at. Can the Minister confirm whether the additional power was
actively sought by the police or the magistrates courts in advance? Can
he confirm what assessment was undertaken of the operation of section
12(4) in its previous form, and whether the results of that
investigation provided evidence to support the Government’s
proposal? It
is important that we consider what changes may be brought about as a
consequence of the measure. In its briefing note on this part of the
Bill, the Young Women’s Christian Association stated:
“Increasing
the fine to such a level is unlikely to help any of these people who
are likely to be unable to pay the fine. An offer of support to combat
alcohol problems would be a more effective lever for behaviour
change.” What
potential do other interventions have to stop reoffending? Does the
Minister support other innovative interventions such as the programme
adopted by Hertfordshire police for drink offences more generally? It
provides an alternative to a penalty notice for disorder, and gives
people the option of accepting a reduced fixed penalty of £40,
which is then used to pay for an alcohol treatment programme—a
project that the person attends on a Saturday morning. It gets them to
face up to the consequences of binge drinking and to focus on the
consumption of alcohol units. The punishment is the payment of the
£40 plus attendance on the
course. I
had the pleasure of being invited to observe how the programme worked
in practice. It was interesting to see that several people actually
went away questioning their behaviour. They were challenged to behave
in a more appropriate way in the
future. Yes,
we seek to punish, but we also want to stop further offending and to
get people to consider whether their consumption of alcohol is
appropriate. They need to understand units and how much alcohol they
are consuming, and to recognise that, in extreme cases, alcohol
consumption can link to violence and unacceptable behaviour in our
communities. Hertfordshire
uses the drink awareness programme as a variation on penalty notices
for disorder, and from the initial studies, it seems to be effective.
Clearly, however, other programmes and projects could be used as an
alternative to challenge behaviour and focus on its causes. Again,
although I recognise that the Government appear to be sending out a
strong message—I do not demur from being firm on such
offences—there is still a question of what is effective and
makes a difference in such
situations. 7.15
pm Mr.
Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): My hon. Friend is
probably not aware that on the Saturday before last, I was up until 4
in the morning with street pastors in the centre of Chelmsford. Does he
accept that there is an element of carrot and stick to the problem? The
street pastors have a tremendous role to play in helping and comforting
young people who often over-indulge and get into trouble, or cause
problems for the local
community.
| 
