Violent Crime Reduction Bill

My Lords, I welcome the Bill, as I am sure the overwhelming majority of the British public will also. It is mainly about alcohol misuse and its links with crime and disorder. Regrettably, they affect many people in this country these days. It is on those topics that I wish to speak. The links are well documented. Prior to the publication of the Government’s alcohol harm reduction strategy in 2004, the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit’s research in 2003 estimated that alcohol-related harm costs about £20 billion a year, of which alcohol-related crime costs the UK £7.3 billion in policing, prevention services, processing offenders through the criminal justice system and, of course, the human costs incurred by the victims of crime. Given that nearly half of violent crime is fuelled by alcohol and that more than half of the public perceive violent crime to be on the increase, the time is right for the Government to redouble their efforts to tackle this nation’s problem with the drinking culture, and the crime and disorder that accompany it so often. I particularly welcome the proposed introduction of alcohol disorder zones. They will enable local authorities to hold the drinks trade to account for the impact of their business on individuals and the community as a whole. Although I acknowledge that parts of the industry are concerned that responsible businesses may be punished for their neighbours’ unscrupulous behaviour, the growth of a large number of licensed premises in some areas contributes to creating many intoxicated people, all of whom are slightly more rowdy and jubilant and more likely to react aggressively than they would be if sober. Antisocial behaviour is far more likely in these circumstances than in others, as I am sure we have all seen in our town centres of an evening. The Bill gives licensees the opportunity to try to solve these problems by joint participation. I think that that is the right way forward initially. However, if this ideal basis fails, surely it is appropriate and necessary to give local authorities the powers to improve the situation for the benefit of the whole community. I firmly believe that, if we are not careful, there may be repeated attacks on them of the kind we had on ASBOs. Although some people strongly opposed them when they first came in, and have continued to oppose them in some instances, they have worked well in the main, and they have been welcomed in many communities, particularly those that have suffered violence and disorder. I am sorry about the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, for whom I have a particular affection. I have a close connection with him in that he confirmed me in my 40s, in Battersea and Wandsworth. Had he still been there, I would have invited him to join me in some of the canvassing and other work that I do in that area and to see how ASBOs have been welcomed by people who continue to have difficulties, particularly with drunken people in the streets and in their neighbourhoods. I believe that the kind of people who have those problems will welcome alcohol disorder zones. They are an improvement on focusing simply on individual premises, as happens at present. There will also need to be a continuing and broader look at the role of the drinks trade and how it can play an even bigger part in changing the drinking culture in this country. Perhaps the Minister could say what is happening in this respect following the introduction of the alcohol harm-reduction strategy. For example, has any progress been made with the drinks trade on labelling, which it could act on without a great deal of effort on its part, and certainly at minimum cost? Do the Government plan to review their alcohol harm-reduction strategy and, if so, when are we likely to see it? Again, I welcome the Bill’s focus on individuals’ responsibility for their own unacceptable behaviour when drunk. A firm stance on this issue is crucial, and drinking banning orders and the recent Home Office campaign to crack down on drunk and disorderly conduct will go some way towards improving the situation. However, simply focusing on punishing those who are drunk and disorderly is not enough; making a commitment to supporting people to change their relationship with alcohol is equally, if not more, important. That is where I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. It is estimated that 1.1 million people in England are dependent on alcohol, and there is little point in banning them from entering premises where they can purchase their drug of choice without offering them support to try to stop drinking. It is of great concern to all of us that, of the 70,000-plus prisoners currently in gaol in the UK, it is estimated that more than 40,000 are hazardous alcohol users, almost half of whom have severe alcohol problems. I hope that we can all agree that punishing people for behaving in a certain way, without trying to help them stop behaving in that way, cannot be a long-term solution. However, there are solutions, as Alcohol Concern has advised your Lordships recently in a briefing. Dudley borough arrest referral scheme is one of those solutions. It is a partnership between the police and their local alcohol treatment service. When people are arrested for alcohol-related offences, their custody officers can refer them to Aquarius, the local treatment service. They attend two one-hour sessions, where their use of alcohol is assessed. They are supported in action planning to prevent or reduce the likelihood of reoffending due to alcohol. That is a good, joined-up approach, a proactive approach, and a proven successful approach. The Bill’s firm stance on tackling alcohol-related crime is welcome. But the provision of support and treatment is still not on the scale that we are looking for, although I was pleased to hear that there will be amendments in Committee following the debate in the other place. To that end, I will table an amendment in Committee about arrest referral schemes. I will urge the Government to consider adopting more positive steps to help people to change their relationship with alcohol, which will be along the lines I have just described. On enforcement, the Bill contains many strong new measures, but I must voice my concerns about whether those measures will be put into practice on the ground. As mentioned, legal measures are already available to tackle alcohol misuse, the key example being that it is illegal to sell alcohol to children and to people who are already drunk. But how widely are those laws enforced? In 2003, there were just 616 prosecutions for selling alcohol to children, and a mere eight for selling alcohol to people who were drunk. I know that greater efforts have been made recently, but it is important that the Bill does not become just more legislation to be underenforced or not enforced at all. For that reason, I will table an additional amendment to allow this House to discuss mechanisms for monitoring the enforcement of this Bill’s measures to reduce sales of alcohol to under-age drinkers and to assess their impact annually. I welcome the Bill and the fact that the Government have made the link between alcohol and crime and are well and truly acting on it. However, with 23,000 incidents of alcohol-related violence every week, and with an average of 13 under-18 year-olds admitted to hospital each day as a result of having drunk too much, we need to get the strategy absolutely right. We have to be sure that these measures will be enforced and that genuine help will be offered to people who want and are willing to change how they drink. I look forward to Committee and to discussing these issues in greater detail.