Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Definitely. Clearly, if such a scheme works in Scotland, it can be emulated south of the border and in Wales and introduced as best practice. I hope there will be a dialogue on the subject. On knives, I do not know whether raising the legal age for buying a knife will be a great step forward. We shall have to wait and see. What causes me greatest concern is the various provisions concerning drunkenness. I am the first to admit that there is a problem; I would be foolish to deny it. We know that in 2002–03 44 per cent. of violent offences were committed by people who were drunk. However, we are still shy of examining the causes. I have said many times before and I will say again that drinks companies market alcopops to youngsters. Youngsters enjoy themselves, and why not? They drink the stuff and within a short time get terribly drunk. The problems follow from there. That is not the responsible sale of alcohol. I do not believe that it is right to leave the Portman Group in charge of operations in that regard. At some point some form of legislation will be needed. I do not want to prevent youngsters enjoying themselves, but the vast majority of young people in our town centres are probably far more drunk than they want to be, because alcopops are so easy to drink. I note that the Bill deals with another hobbyhorse of mine—the existing offence of selling alcohol to a person who is drunk, and an increase in the fine. Good. Let us hope that from now on the provision will be enforced, which has not been the case up till now. Let us consider the existing provisions on drunkenness. It is an offence to be drunk and disorderly. Dispersal orders were provided for under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced antisocial behaviour orders. Community or suspended sentences may have an exclusion requirement among their conditions. If all those were properly used, would we need a drink banning order? We often speak about legislating when there is not strictly a need for it. No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I pose the question whether there is a need for further legislation. If we are to ratchet up the penalties for public drunkenness, there must be a real need for it. We should not find a need simply because we are not enforcing the existing law. I am sure there is a need for alcohol disorder zones, but I hope the provision will not be used as a blunt instrument. The British Beer and Pub Association is extremely concerned—it would be, wouldn’t it—about the provision. I believe that the ““polluter pays”” principle is fine, but many responsible licensees will be tarred with the same brush as those who are not. I am not sure that that is acceptable. There is an argument that there are already plenty of laws in place to achieve the desired aim. The problem may be that there are not enough police officers out on the streets. We heard earlier that police were called from one place to another on a Friday or Saturday night. Maybe the answer is more policemen on the streets. I would be wary of declaring a city centre to be an alcohol disorder zone, thereby blackening the reputation of that city centre in toto and tarring responsible businesses with the same brush. The Association of Chief Police Officers is worried and stated in its evidence that the zones may well be a problem because of the links between longer drinking hours and yob behaviour, the cost to the taxpayer and the fact that more officers would spend time in court rather than crime-fighting. ACPO also says that the zones will"““allow the police and local authorities to take action against pubs and clubs whose customers cause problems after closing time.””" That is fine. However, the ACPO document makes it clear"““that the police have serious doubts about whether the proposals will prove effective. ACPO is concerned that the proposed zones will be routinely challenged through the courts at considerable cost to the public sector, in terms of time and money.””" ACPO goes on to warn:"““Defending our position in the courts diverts our resources away from where they should be and does little in the meantime to reduce crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour””." The Local Government Association welcomes the opportunity to consider the provision and points out that it deals with a sensitive matter. I hope it will be used sensitively, with the caveats that I have mentioned. I was not in favour of the introduction of ASBOs, because I thought that they were a blunt instrument, but, to the Government’s credit, they are working in some areas. ASBOs are most effective when stages 1, 2 and 3 of the process are used in partnership, and north Wales is a beacon of good practice in that regard. The fact that fewer ASBOs are used in north Wales does not mean that North Wales police has failed. North Wales police has succeeded because such matters are being dealt with at stages 1, 2 and 3 rather than at stage 5, which involves applying for an ASBO. I hope that that sensitive, thinking attitude is adopted on alcohol zones, too. The Local Government Association has raised the concern that the name should be changed to ““alcohol management zone””, which would be more salubrious and less offensive to the good people who live and work within a particular zone. Zones are necessary, but the requirement for them would decrease if we were able to secure more police on the streets. The Home Affairs Committee has considerable reservations about the zones. Although it accepts in principle that clubs and pubs should contribute more to the cost of disorder, it is concerned about proposals in the Bill that may be difficult to operate. Those proposals rest on the premise that individual licensed premises must be at fault for surrounding disorder, which cannot be right. As I have said, the matter must be dealt with sensitively. There is room for dispersal orders, provided that they are used sensitively, but Liberty is concerned that the police will be both judge and jury in their own court, which might have unfortunate consequences for a person who is effectively banned without any real recourse to the law. The existing offences relating to public order and drunkenness are adequate to deal with those matters. The Bill introduces an offence that may not be necessary, but if it is necessary, I hope that it is employed rarely, sensitively and properly. I have nothing but faith in the police, but it is always dangerous to put a police officer in a position in which they make a judgment whether a certain course of action is right or wrong. Parts of the Bill commend themselves to the House, but large parts of it would be—to use a parliamentary word—otiose, if we used the existing legislation and spent more on putting more police officers on the street.