Violent Crime Reduction Bill

My Lords, there is no doubt that alcohol has a major impact on health, when there are 25,000 admissions a year to accident and emergency departments, and on crime, when 50,000 violent offences are the result of people drinking too much. Alcohol-related crime costs the UK an estimated £7.3 billion a year in policing and in costs to criminal justice and public services. The drinks industry has made some voluntary strides through the Portman Group. Strides have been taken in the on-trade through voluntary action and reducing happy hours, and in the off-trade and supermarkets through the British Retail Consortium’s Retail Alcohol Standards Group and through the BRC and Wine and Spirit Trade Association guidance on the responsible retailing of alcohol. I accept that voluntary action by the best players is not always enough. There are, therefore, aspects of this Bill that are worthy of consideration. There is the concept of a levy to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of policing Friday and Saturday nights in particular in our city centres, which is worthy of exploration. However, I have significant doubts about that and wonder whether the same ends could not be achieved by voluntary means. There are many areas where there is a significant lack of clarity in Part 1 of the Bill, and that is causing great concern in the retail drinks industry. Guidance on the Bill has not yet been published, and I understand the Minister to say that, although the affirmative resolution procedure would be used for the regulations, that would not be the case for the guidance. It is not yet clear who will be affected by the alcohol disorder zones. Will nightclubs be exempt? Will all licensees in an ADZ be held responsible in the same way? What will the money actually be spent on? What impact will the ADZs have on residents? Why should all licensed businesses be swept into the net of an ADZ? Why do we need a Home Office Bill of this kind when, under the effectively brand-new Licensing Act 2003, licensing conditions can already be imposed on irresponsible businesses? Even businesses such as convenience stores, which sell only a tiny amount of alcohol, will be swept into these ADZs. Why, when there is little evidence that they contribute to crime in an area, should businesses such as retail off-licences be liable for the charge within an ADZ on exactly the same basis as major drinking premises? Even the Home Office, in its Drinking Responsibly document, has admitted that the link is ““tenuous””. Will the levy pay for additional services only and, if so, what is envisaged? Otherwise, will this not turn out to be rather a nice little earner for local authorities? Will local authorities actually ever lift the ADZ designation once it is imposed, particularly if there is money attached to it? Why should businesses ever join a voluntary scheme if there is compulsion through an ADZ? Why is the test under which a local authority can set up an ADZ so low? As I understand it, the test is ““nuisance””, rather than strong evidence of alcohol-related disorder, which I believe was the test previously proposed. Moreover, there appears to be no appeal against the imposition of an ADZ. In those circumstances, I end up with some considerable scepticism about ADZs, and I look for clarification from the Minister. In other respects, however, the Bill has been criticised for not being fundamental enough. Alcohol Concern has rightly criticised the Bill for not challenging what it describes as the underlying drinking culture that fuels so much anti-social behaviour. From what the Minister said in her introduction, she may be filling a gap in that respect through some of the schemes that she mentioned will be included. The Bill fails to provide genuine support for those who want to change the way they drink. Alcohol Concern, which I commend, is calling for arrest referral schemes for problem drinkers who come through the criminal justice system. That is the kind of programme where, when people are bailed for an alcohol-related crime, they are required to attend counselling sessions designed to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. What exactly do the Government suggest in that respect? Will they include the ability to refer for that kind of treatment under the Bill? Finally, Alcohol Concern also makes the extremely valid point that there are provisions in existing laws that are not yet being properly enforced. Its view is that enforcement of existing legislation on drunk and disorderly behaviour, for instance, has dropped sharply over the past 10 years. It questions the value of new powers in the Bill if those powers contained in previous legislation are not enforced. There is a common theme here. Do we really need these new powers if the existing ones are not being used properly? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and a convincing argument to reinforce the reasons why Part 1 of the Bill is necessary.