Violent Crime Reduction Bill

My Lords, I rise to deliver a speech which will be welcomed by all in the Chamber—the last speech from the Back Benches. It will not be long but, before I begin, I should declare some interests: I am a consultant to the Co-operative Group; I am the president of the all-party group for the retail trade; and many years ago I was a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. But I speak primarily as a consumer and as a citizen, and I can assure the Minister that everyone who watches television or walks around the streets at night, for one reason or another, is well aware of this topic. I watch programmes that show the police doing a very difficult job in city centres, areas and neighbourhoods. One sees disgraceful behaviour and aggravation towards the police and others and I wish something could be done about it. The Minister will not give a copper-bottomed guarantee that what is required—that is, better behaviour or punishment for those who will not behave—will be brought about by the Bill but, as noble Lords on both sides of the House have said, it is part of the package that the Government launched some years ago. I am, therefore, deeply indebted to her for having spelt out so clearly the part that this legislation will play. The Minister said that alcohol-related violence around pubs and clubs needed a new civic order and that the Government were introducing the Bill so that there were measures available to discourage bad and violent behaviour at night in streets around them, and to raise the quality of the management of premises. Nothing is more sickening to the normal, law-abiding citizen than to see such scenes on television and otherwise, and the Minister and her colleagues are to be congratulated on finding time, in a plethora of other legislation far more important than this—but not of more importance to those who are affected by such behaviour—to give this matter some attention. I certainly wish the Bill well. I have mentioned my contacts with the retail trade over many years. The British Retail Consortium, which speaks on behalf of the retail trade, large and small, has drawn my attention to the fact that the retail trade, and the BRC in particular, was fundamental in setting up the Retail Alcohol Standards Group, the RASG. This is a collaborative group comprising the major retailers, the Association of Convenience Stores, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and other key stakeholders. It was established to ensure a co-ordinated and consistent approach to tackling the problem of underage sales in the off-trade. As a regular consumer in stores large and small, I know that the retail trade is attempting to tackle one source of violence at night—the violence which comes from underage sales. All till staff have been retrained to ensure that they understand that it is company policy to ask for—the Minister will be shocked—identity cards from anyone who appears to be under 21. This has played a significant part in both reminding till staff that they have a role to play and frightening off youngsters who try to get away with purchasing alcohol in this way. My main concern, however, is the part of the Bill which deals with alcohol disorder zones. The generality may appear sound: based on evidence which is gathered by the police and known about by the local authority, a zone is designated. I assume it can be as small, compact and tight as they wish, but it can also be the entire area of the local authority. Once the area is designated, whether it is large or small, the people trading within it have to pay for a licence on certain terms—the Minister can help me, either here or in Committee—in order to trade. But such disturbances do not happen outside supermarkets or even specialist stores—they happen outside pubs, clubs and similar places. Why should those who, if not blameless, carry far less of the blame have to pay or to increase their costs in the same way as some of the units which do? There is a difference between the off-trade and the on-trade. With regard to the on-trade, people go there specifically to buy a bottle of booze. Alcohol makes up only 11 per cent of the sales of large retailers and the retail trade—in other words, 89 per cent of sales go on non-alcoholic products. Why should they carry the burden when they are not contributing anything like as much to it? Will my noble friend, in accepting my congratulations on introducing the Bill, say something about how that matter might be eased? Clause 12(1) allows for charging mechanisms to apply to all holders of premises licences for the sale of alcohol by retail within alcohol disorder zones. Clause 12(7) gives the Secretary of State permission to apply exclusions from the clause by secondary regulations. He is restricted in allowing exclusions only for premises where the sale of alcohol is neither the principal use of the premises nor the main reason for people entering the premises. I wonder whether my noble friend appreciates—as I am sure she does in general—the burdens that are placed on the retail industry in one form or another. Can she give some indication of the width or generosity of the interpretation of Clause 12(7) so that, by and large, retailers for whom alcohol is only a tiny proportion of their sales will receive the necessary exclusion? I conclude, as all my colleagues have, by saying that this measure, like many others, is sorely needed. Along with my noble friend Lord Brooke, I am somewhat puzzled at the low number of prosecutions and of those who are found guilty of disturbing the peace in this way. It is a puzzle to me why the powers that have already been given are not exercised properly. I wish my noble friend and her colleagues well in ensuring that this measure is not only well received but well supported by the police and the local authorities.