Violent Crime Reduction Bill

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and I congratulate her on her maiden speech. Those of us who knew her predecessor, Debra Shipley, will recognise that the hon. Lady is in every sense living up to her reputation and ability. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), all three of whose predecessors I had the privilege of knowing. Tony Berry was an absolute star, I admired Michael Portillo, and I respected Stephen Twigg. My hon. Friend has shown every sign of being able to follow in their footsteps. I wish him well in his north circular campaign, but as a fellow London MP, I advise him not to hold his breath. This Bill is timely. According to today’s edition of The Times, a ferry in Devon that has operated for more than 1,000 years is having to suspend service on Saturday nights because its operators cannot cope with the binge-drinking hooligans who use it. That illustrates the need to do something about this issue, but it remains to be seen whether this Bill is the answer. It is by any measure a modest Bill, and with the exception of the alcohol disorder zones, I remain slightly sceptical as to whether it will make much difference. There is a rising tide of crime; indeed, recorded violent crime has risen by 83 per cent. since 1998. However, one feature that I do welcome is the Bill’s looking beyond deterrence through punishment to another way of addressing the problem. Conservative Front Benchers are right not to oppose the Bill. My main concern in representing the borough of Croydon in this debate is alcohol use, but I want also to mention the very serious problem of real and imitation firearms being used by young kids as fashion accessories, which they show off to others. If the Bill goes even a small way towards addressing that problem, it is to be welcomed. But a lot of violent crime is caused by alcohol, and whatever the Home Secretary may say, there is an inconsistency in introducing legislation to combat excessive alcohol use and violent crime, while at the same time introducing legislation to promote 24-hour drinking. When I intervened on him, he said that it is a question of personal use, and that one should not confuse such use with 24-hour drinking. That is no answer. There is an inconsistency here, and no less a person than Sir John Stevens says that the move to 24-hour drinking has to be slowed down. Many Members have spoken about the impact of alcohol-related disorder on the night-time economy. The British crime survey has pointed out that 30 per cent. of city-centre arrests are related to alcohol use. There is no doubt that dealing with alcohol-based problems imposes a huge burden on police resources, as it is expensive as well as time consuming. A recent survey showed that 70 per cent. of police officers were diverted from dealing with other crimes in order to cope with alcohol disorder and that 88 per cent. of police sergeants found that alcohol was the most significant disorder problem. The Prime Minister’s strategy unit, referring to the Police Complaints Authority, said in a study of 58 deaths in custody that alcohol was a factor in two thirds of them—a quite staggering statistic. We now face the situation where the PCC is actually suggesting that it is inappropriate for police officers to take drunken detainees into custody because of the difficulties that such action causes. The Prime Minister’s strategy unit estimates the cost to society and the country as a whole at some £7 billion. In the borough of Croydon, the largest in London, alcohol-related problems are very serious indeed. There is a successful night-time economy at the centre of the town. It is a great place to go and it pulls in people from all over south London to enjoy a night out, to indulge in social drinking and to have a good time—but that brings its problems. A youth lifestyle survey showed that 39 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds now go binge drinking and binge drinkers are far more likely to offend. Some will remember the riots in Croydon town centre during the last World cup, when so many people came out of the vertical retail outlets to protest when England got knocked out of the competition. However, it is not just an occasional problem that happens only on such special occasions; it is a daily regular occurrence in Croydon. The British crime survey showed that more than half of all alcohol-related violence is between strangers and acquaintances and that it occurs in and around pubs, clubs and discos. The Home Secretary was right to say that we need a new approach to deal with that problem. The challenge is deciding how best to respond to the problem. Croydon police responded by putting on an extra shift of police officers—amounting, if we include all the trainees, to 18 extra officers. The problem is that that means 18 police officers are not out in the rest of the borough dealing with all the other crime going on—and, believe me, there is plenty of it. There is a fair amount of dissatisfaction within the borough about that. Securing adequate resources is the main problem. The industry is making substantial sums out of these vertical retail outlets. Anyone going into any of them on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night will see hundreds of people drinking away like mad, smoking and having a good time. The vendors and owners of these outlets are making huge sums of money, which poses the question why they should not be paying for the extra security demands. That is why I support the alcohol disorder zones in the Bill. The Prime Minister said in his press conference that the alcohol disorder zones were a last resort. I have to say that that smacks of uncertainty and I would ask Ministers to approach the Bill with greater confidence in its positive outcomes. A consultation document before the election spoke of these outlets contributing towards the cost of disorder, but I have to say that I do not like the word ““contribute”” and I am worried that local authorities will be too timid. They have to operate in relation to the conditions of nuisance, annoyance and disorder, which are highly subjective. The explanatory notes say that authorities will be"““likely to cover the costs of initiatives to tackle the problem over and above the normal level of public services””." I would like to see the right to charge in force whenever extra police are needed and I do not want a ““contribution”” or a ““likely”” recovery, but a definite one—and at a 100 per cent. level. That is what happens when specials are employed at football matches at Crystal Palace, for example, so why cannot these retail outlets pay for the costs of extra police in places such as Croydon town centre? I foresee rows if extra police are used but there are no alcohol disorder zones. There may be no problems, but if extra police are used, the retailers must pay. On the banning orders for persistent offenders, I am not convinced, frankly, that they will make much difference. I am glad that the Government have dropped the ““three strikes and you’re out”” policy. Powers already exist in respect of the ASBO legislation, but if someone is banned from an area, all they will do, frankly, is go to Brighton—though I wish Brighton well, of course! The Bill gives the impression of action being taken, but so did the Licensing Act 2003. We are not talking about incremental legislation in which measures are progressively building up. It looks like it is just another stab or another go at trying to solve the problem. The Government’s main difficulty is that they have raised expectations, but will the Bill make a difference? Frankly, the jury is out, but I wish them well in their objectives.