Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Here is another hon. Member who is still in denial. We believe that the financial settlement is fair and manageable, and that it need not have an impact on the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets. We are giving the police and local authorities the powers they need to respond to the problem, and, unlike the Labour party, which failed to deal with it in so many ways, we are committed to taking action to provide relief for our communities.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Given that the proposed criminal protection injunctions will weaken the sanctions available to the courts to punish and deter those engaging in antisocial behaviour, is it not clear that, at least in this instance, the “soft on crime” Liberal Democrat voice is being heard loud and clear in the Home Office?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady is wrong on that point, and I remind her of what the victims commissioner, Louise Casey—the antisocial behaviour tsar under the previous Government—said when we launched our consultation on the new antisocial behaviour powers:

“I am heartened by the announcement of the new proposals today that put tough enforcement action against perpetrators at the centre.”

The hon. Lady might not see or recognise it, but that is the case.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause addresses the point about the local setting of licensing fees that was debated in the Public Bill Committee. I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) to the Opposition Front Bench. She will recall the discussions that we had on this point in Committee. I welcome other Members who sat on the Committee, and other hon. Members who are present.

In my response to the consultation on the Bill, I said that we intended

“to enable licensing authorities to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery”.

Since then, as I confirmed in Committee, I have been working with colleagues across Government to ensure that we achieve that aim in a way that is fair to all sides. I know that fee payers will be concerned about a change that is likely to see fee income rise overall. However, the fact is that licensing fees have not been increased, even for inflation, since the Licensing Act 2003 came into force in 2005.

The new clause does not represent a change of principle. The current fees are supposed to cover the legitimate costs of licensing authorities in discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. However, there has been widespread agreement for some time that they do not achieve that. The previous Government recognised the problem, and promised an independent review of their proposed fees as early as 2004. The independent panel published its report, known as the Elton report, in December 2006. The recommendations included an increase in fees, but no action was taken. Therefore, the question for this Government is not whether the situation needs to be addressed, but how best to address it.

We could set the fees centrally again, which would have the advantage of providing consistency for fee payers. However, I have chosen to move to set fees locally because I consider that it may be difficult to achieve a close approximation to full cost recovery with nationally set fees. Different areas do not have the same costs, and it is unavoidable that a blanket fee level would leave some councils with a deficit or provide an excessive income to others. No system is ideal, but as a matter of principle, council tax payers in areas with higher costs should not subsidise the administration of the licensing regime, and fee payers in lower-cost areas should not fund wider council activities.

Fee payers should be reassured that locally set fees will not mean that licensing authorities can set whatever fees they like. First, they will only set the level of the fee. They will not be permitted to design new fees or their own fee structure; nor will they be able to use licensing fees as an income stream. The only basis on which they will be able to set fees is to recover their costs in discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. I will issue guidance to local authorities on the setting of fees, including statutory guidance under section 182 of the 2003 Act. To ensure that costs are kept to appropriate levels, that will include guidance on the principles of good regulation, including risk-based and targeted inspection.

To provide further reassurance to fee payers, there will be a nationally set cap on fee levels. Under the new clause, that is provided for by the ability of the Secretary of State to apply constraints to the licensing authority’s ability to set fees. I intend that the level of the cap will be set in regulations after consultation. The consultation will contain a detailed impact assessment of the proposal.

In short, this measure is an important step towards ensuring that the Licensing Act 2003 works as it was intended to work, with fees fully funding licensing authorities’ administration of the Act.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

As the Minister pointed out, we debated this issue in the Public Bill Committee on the basis of an Opposition amendment. I am pleased, because he has obviously listened carefully to the arguments that we made. The Opposition were clearly championing the localism agenda, which I know is close to the heart of the coalition Government, so I am pleased that they have decided, at this late stage, to bring forward an amendment of their own on the issue.

We have heard from local government that since 2005, when the regulations of the Licensing Act 2003 were implemented, the licensing system has cost council tax payers more than £100 million more than was anticipated because of the centrally set fee structure. As the Minister said, that structure does not allowing licensing authorities to set cost-neutral local charges.

As the Minister pointed out, the Government had indicated that they were considering giving licensing authorities the power to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery. I am sure that there has been considerable interdepartmental wrangling on this issue, and that that is why the new clause has been brought forward rather late in the day on Report. A number of trade organisations, the Local Government Association and others were concerned to see the original clause in the Bill, so no doubt they will be pleased to see this new clause. However, I wish to raise a number issues with the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

This has been a useful debate, and I welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind comments and thank him for his support and participation in Committee—and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson).

Obviously, new clause 1 relates to the general setting of licensing fees and the administration of the Licensing Act 2003 locally, rather than to the late-night levy. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon has just raised, and perhaps we will debate the late-night levy in further detail when we debate another group of amendments in this part of our consideration of the Bill.

The late-night levy is a discretionary arrangement, so local authorities can decide whether one is appropriate in their area. The Government have indicated that there could be exemptions for establishments that make arrangements under schemes such as Best Bar None. Further detail will come forward in regulations and guidance, as I indicated in Committee, which I hope my hon. Friend accepts.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned in an intervention the business improvement district in Broad street, Birmingham, which I have had the pleasure to visit. I saw how that partnership-type approach of drawing together the relevant licensed premises and other businesses to provide funds to look after and manage the area. A sad and tragic occurrence led to the establishment of that business improvement district, but it is a good example of how partnership working involving the police, the local authority, licensed premises and other businesses can work.

The Government do not seek to prescribe one specific model of partnership or how partnerships operate, or to say how a local authority should approach its management of licensing-related issues. Those things can be done in various ways, including through a business improvement district, a late-night levy, an early morning restriction order or voluntary arrangements such as community alcohol projects. I went to see the St Neots project when that started, and it is now being rolled forward. We support many such consensual voluntary arrangements whereby various parts of business work with local councils to come up with innovative, practical solutions to address problems on the ground.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and others highlighted a number of specific points in relation to new clause 1. As she said, the previous Government tasked the independent fees review panel with consideration of the deficit between the costs and income of licensing authorities. In 2006, it estimated that a 7% increase in fee income was necessary for full cost recovery. Obviously, important points were made in the course of that review and, as I indicated, it was first and foremost in our considerations in introducing the new clause. The Government did not suddenly alight on the new clause at the last moment. Indeed, the original consultation document, which we published last summer, clearly refers to fees. In addition, full cost recovery was very much part and parcel of the consultation, to which we are therefore responding.

We will issue statutory guidance under section 182 of the 2003 Act on the application of good regulation, including risk assessment and targeted inspection, to which licensing authorities must have regard. That will be important as a further framework to the structure of the new arrangements.

Hon. Members mentioned burdens on business. We are obviously cognisant of statements in the recent Budget and the intention to introduce a moratorium to exempt micro and start-up businesses from new domestic regulation. There will be exemptions from the moratorium, and we will obviously need to consider the new licensing legislation, including locally set fees, within that framework. However, I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that there is a clear need to address the gap highlighted in the Elton report. It does not seem right for local authorities effectively to subsidise the processing and activities of the 2003 Act when dealing with licensing arrangements, and I shall say more about that.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister therefore confirm that the one-in, one-out principle will not apply in relation to the Bill, which certainly places a range of regulatory burdens on business?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady actually made that point in Committee. The Government take one-in, one-out seriously. Regulatory burden was considered closely and carefully during the approvals that led up to the Bill, as part of our broader consideration of the wider arrangements concerning burdens on business. We want to strip away things that are not needed, bureaucratic and unnecessary, but we will come to that in due course when we consider the next group of amendments, which relate to alcohol disorder zones, which clearly have not worked, because no one has taken them up. We obviously consider the new clause to be an important step towards getting the right balance.

The hon. Lady mentioned periodically reviewing the maximum fee level. That is certainly something that we will do. As I said in my opening comments, we also intend to consult properly on the details of the proposals, so that we can take on board the different opinions. There will, therefore, be an opportunity for a number of these matters to be considered further. The hon. Lady asked about the time scale for that. We anticipate that the necessary regulations will be laid in October 2012 to allow that detailed consultation to take place. That is the time scale we are working to in the laying of the relevant regulations. She also asked about guidance. There will be guidance on how locally set fees will operate and on how to set the fees. It is important that there is transparency on how this is undertaken—in many ways, that reflects the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon—and clarity on how the fees will be set locally.

A question was asked about what the assessment for setting fees locally will include and what full cost recovery will encapsulate. The new clause makes it clear that the costs that a licensing authority may recover in its fees include those of other responsible authorities and other relevant parts of the licensing authority. That means that marginal costs that relate to duties arising from the Licensing Act can be included. However, policing costs would not be included. In other words, we are looking at the administration of the Act by the relevant local authority. That is how the new clause has been framed. Obviously, however, further consideration of the details can take place as part of the consultation as we move towards introducing the regulations that will sit behind this provision. That also applies to the necessary guidance that will help to inform the framing of the arrangements. Obviously, fees must not represent a blank cheque for local authorities, and fee payers need to be reassured of that. As I have said, a maximum level for each fee will be set in regulations. We will consult formally on the level before we introduce it, and will take evidence from a variety of authorities and fee payers to ascertain the satisfactory maximum sum for each fee.

I hope that I have addressed hon. Members’ comments made during the debate. I also hope that all hon. Members will recognise that this is a sensible proposal, that we have listened to representations made from different quarters and that this provision will deal with the shortfall for local authorities. We are introducing the measure in a considered way, recognising the pressures on local authorities and businesses, and we believe that it is appropriate. We consulted on the new clause last August, and I hope that hon. Members will be minded to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Alcohol disorder zones: repeal

‘Sections 15 to 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (alcohol disorder zones) are repealed.’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

It would be fair to say that it probably was not the biggest selling point of the policy to have that tag attached to a local area. It was probably, therefore, one of the disincentives. However, the problem had more to do with the levels of bureaucracy, including the impact of making some of the extremely challenging calculations necessary. I do not think that any local authority has felt brave enough to come forward. The Government are committed, therefore, to reducing the burden. The tools and powers available to local authorities must be simple to adopt and proportionate to the problem. Early morning restriction orders, for example, will, by stopping the sale of alcohol, be a simple way for local authorities to tackle specific problems at specific times and on specific days. That is something that we recognise and have taken forward in the Bill. We have sought to apply a more flexible approach through early morning restriction orders.

The late-night levy will be an optional power for local authorities to raise a contribution to the large policing costs incurred in the late-night economy, as well as supporting costs of local authorities in managing the late-night economy. The levy has been specifically designed to be simple for licensing authorities to adopt. We considered the repeal of alcohol disorder zones in our public consultation last year. The responses overwhelmingly supported repeal. Local authorities and the police spoke of the evidential burden, while businesses identified the policy as ineffective. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that alcohol disorder zones should no longer be on the statute book. I therefore ask that the new clause be incorporated in the Bill so that we can finally put this failed policy to rest.

[Diana Johnson]

Clearly, the new clause is a housekeeping matter for the Government in tidying up licensing legislation. I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on the need for simplicity and a proportionate response to alcohol problems late at night. However, I do not think that the blanket approach being adopted under the late-night levy is proportionate. I would caution the Minister. Let us consider a large area of the country such as the East Riding of Yorkshire. If the local authority was minded to apply a late-night levy to the whole of the East Riding, small country pubs with no problems would have to pay the levy as well as places in more built-up areas, such as Bridlington, that do have problems late at night. The Government’s approach through the late-night levy might almost be described as the son of the alcohol disorder zones.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the club that people end up in will sometimes not be where they start consuming alcohol? In fact, they might not even have a drink there, but that can be where the problem occurs.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, when it comes to licensing, one disappointing aspect of the Bill is the failure to deal with pre-loading and the low cost of alcohol in supermarkets. This Bill would have been an opportunity for the Government to legislate to deal with those issues, and there is concern that they seem to have missed it.

I am concerned that businesses that already contribute to voluntary arrangements—they include Pubwatch and Best Bar None, to which hon. Members have referred—may feel penalised if they are then asked to make contributions to the late-night levy as well. There is also concern that because the provision will affect only licensed premises that sell alcohol, it will not deal with, say, problems with late-night takeaways. If the Minister is minded to do so, it would be worth considering whether the late-night licence should include all parts of the late-night economy. That would seem to be the fairest way of dealing with the issue.

[Dr Huppert]

I am delighted to support new clause 2. It would remove sections 15 to 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which were totally ineffective and did not work. I suggest that those provisions were also slightly tokenistic. Indeed, the previous Government fell into the trap of doing a lot of things that were token demonstrations. It is an easy trap to fall into, and I do not think that doing things for tokenistic reasons was unique to the last Government. I hope that this Government will learn the lesson of not doing things because they look good, but will continue to make great efforts to ensure that whoever forms the next Government will not have the same things to say about us.

One of the lessons learned about why those provisions were ineffective is set out in clause 125(4), which deals with the late-night levy requirement. That lesson, which has just been discussed, is how we draw the boundaries of an area. We cannot take the model of the past, which involved drawing boundaries very roughly. Therefore, the Minister decided that an area must be an entire council area, as has been said, although that causes problems in Cornwall, which is a large council area. Perhaps we should learn a slightly different lesson, which is that although we should not have complete flexibility of boundaries, we could have some flexibility. Perhaps the rule should be that we can combine entire ward areas, which would avoid the problems of the provisions that we are getting rid of, but make their replacement work a little better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

It has been interesting to listen to the practical experiences of the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). Given his practical business experience, what does the hon. Member for North Swindon think about the possibility of having a late-night levy and an early morning restriction order operating at the same time?

[Justin Tomlinson]

There would be obvious challenges. For example, if a local authority decided to charge any venue open after midnight a late-night levy but made it close at 12.15, that would not give it an opportunity to generate enough additional income to pay for the late-night levy. My proposal would be to bring the local authority, the police and the late-night venues together to discuss the matter. No venue will openly say that it wants to pay a late-night levy, because it adds an extra cost to its bottom line, but if that money were seen to be spent on improving the safety and enjoyment of the vast majority of people, allowing them to get home safely and quickly after a night out, they would be more likely to go out again and spend money.

I am trying to strike a balance between being proactively supportive of people going out and enjoying themselves and considering those who have to deal with the minority who cause problems. To ensure that this works, I would make it compulsory for those responsible for running venues—the managers, the keyholders, the licence holders—to sit round the table with the local authority, the licensing people and the police. This practice can encompass schemes such as Best Bar None and Pubwatch, and approaches that bar troublemakers from all the venues in an area if they cause trouble in just one. In that way, the vast majority who go out to enjoy themselves on Friday and Saturday nights will have their experience enhanced, and the industry will benefit because its perception and reputation will be greatly improved.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I think I made it clear in Committee that in those circumstances we would allow people to change their licence conditions to avoid the levy. Temporary event notices for specific issues would be considered under the TENs regime.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister confirm that if a pub or venue operates just once in a year for which the late-night licence after midnight or 1 am applies, it will be subject to a late-night levy? Will the Government consider allowing, say, five or 10 opportunities for a pub to open during the year before the late-night levy kicks in?

[James Brokenshire]

Again, I think I said in Committee that we would want to look at such issues in the detail of the regulations. There are some specific points, as I said in Committee, that it would be appropriate to examine further. As part of that, we would want to give flexibility to encapsulate the schemes we have debated this afternoon—the Best Bar None and other voluntary schemes—so that some credit could be applied. I stress that the provisions are intended to be flexible, but if it became clear that the levy was not effective, at that stage—once implementation has taken place and an appropriate period had elapsed—it would be appropriate, as with any measure, to review it. We believe, however, that the provisions already have the required flexibility and are workable, and that they will not have the same bureaucratic problems as alcohol disorder zones. We believe that they are an important means of aiding the management and control of the late-night economy, many areas of which have been badly affected by the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, without necessarily taking account of the consequences that have occurred.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

On the venue-specific point, if there are problems, a review of licensed premises can be conducted. That is also why we included provisions to strengthen the enforcement of the laws against under-age sales.

Can problems with pre-loading, post-loading and so forth be pinned down to one specific area or not? We think that setting the levy on a time basis is fair and equitable, involving the provision of funding for local authorities to look at taxi marshals and manage the late-night economy in its broadest sense. By narrowing it down, the provision might start to lose some of the intent behind it, which is to help the police and local authorities to manage the late-night economy—if that is what they choose to do. I remind hon. Members that this is a discretionary power for local authorities to determine.

[Diana Johnson]

The Minister has made it clear again that this is a discretionary power that local authorities can exercise, but he has also made it clear that there were no alcohol disorder zones, so I wonder how many local authorities he expects to apply the late-night levy. That knowledge will help us to gauge its success in the future.

[James Brokenshire]

Strangely enough, this Government do not believe in central targets. The hon. Lady tempts me down that path, but I have to say that I have no specific target. I refer her to the regulatory impact assessment, which she will have read assiduously, as it sets out the level of fees forecast. The regulatory impact assessment sought to examine possible options and estimate what might be recovered by the late-night levy. Rather than count up the number of local authorities, however, I point her to that assessment. We hope it will be successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes some powerful points, which bring us neatly back to the subject of alcohol disorder zones. I do not think that they met the tests that my hon. Friend has just identified. For that reason, we think it right to end a policy that sadly became an alcohol disarray zone, given the challenges that stood in the way of its being brought to fruition. We believe that there is merit in providing local authorities and the police with funds enabling them to manage the late-night economy; we believe that the right way in which to do that is through the late-night levy; and we believe that it is time to end the ADZ episode, which has clearly been a failure.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.



New Clause 3

General duties of licensing authorities

‘(1) The Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 4 (General duties of licensing authorities) insert—

(a) protecting and improving public health.”.’.—(Diana Johnson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Licensing Act 2003 sets out the four licensing objectives that must currently be taken into account when a local authority carries out its licensing functions: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. The new clause would introduce a fifth objective: to protect and improve public health. We tabled it to deal with three key issues. First, there is the fact that public health is far more prominent and talked about than ever before. Secondly, there is the role of primary care trusts and, in future, local authorities, which is relevant to clause 104. Thirdly, there is the current position in Scotland.

Let me explain first why we think the issue of public health is so important. As an Opposition spokesman, the Secretary of State for Health made clear his strong commitment to it. So committed was he that he planned to rename the Department of Health “the Department of Public Health” if the Conservatives came to power. Obviously that has not happened, but the Secretary of State is very busy with his Health and Social Care Bill, and we know that he is trying to rename the NHS “the HS”—to get rid of the “national”.

The widespread view is that there is a proper role for Government in the promotion of good public health. We know from the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill that one of the few budgets that will be ring-fenced in future is the public health money that will pass from the PCTs to local authorities in 2013. However, the Government have experienced big problems in their approach to public health. This month we have seen the fall-out from their stance on self-regulation by the drinks industry through the responsibility deal. A number of health groups have walked away from the discussions and the agreement, including the British Heart Foundation.

Don Shenker, the chief executive of Alcohol Concern, made clear his view that the Government’s approach to public health will not work. He said that the responsibility deal was

“the worst possible deal for everyone who wants to see alcohol harm reduced”,

and that it had no sanctions to impose if the industry failed to fulfil its pledges. He described those pledges as “half-hearted”,

and that the

“government has clearly shown that when it comes to public health its first priority is to side with big business and protect private profit.”

Let us consider what has already been said about this issue, and the action that the Government have taken so far. Yesterday the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) presented a ten-minute rule Bill to restrict the marketing of alcohol to children and young people. She made a telling point in expressing concern about the fact that the Government were putting the fox in charge of the chickens. They have, for instance, set their face against the idea of making personal, social and health education compulsory. That would have provided an excellent opportunity for young people to be taught about the effects of alcohol and the long-term health consequences of drinking too much.

In January, the Minister set out the coalition Government’s plans in relation to minimum pricing. He said that they wanted alcohol to be sold at the level of duty plus VAT. Many people, including representatives of many health organisations, have pointed out that that will have little effect on the price of alcohol in supermarkets, many of which will continue to sell alcohol that is cheaper than bottled water. It also contradicts the view of Liam Donaldson, the former chief medical officer, that there should be a minimum price of 50p per unit.

[Dr Huppert]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me, given that I am a new Member, by reminding me what the minimum price was under the last Government.

[Diana Johnson]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, because he pays close attention to these issues, there has been a continuing debate for some time about the need to reach a conclusion that everyone considers appropriate. The problem with the announcement from the coalition Government is that it is causing most people to think that it will have no effect at all.

I know that the hon. Gentleman sets great store by academic research and evidence. According to research carried out by Sheffield university, pricing measures will only be significantly effective from around the 40p per unit mark. It is feared that the coalition Government’s preferred level will be not 40p but much lower, and that they have missed the opportunity to make significant strides in dealing with the problem of alcohol abuse.

As I pointed out during a previous debate, the Bill contains no provisions dealing with minimum pricing, and I think most people would consider that a great shame. We were looking forward to legislation shortly after the announcement in January. The Government are clearly in some disarray when it comes to public health and alcohol, but the new clause offers them a real opportunity to reassert their commitment to improving public health and dealing with some of the public health problems associated with alcohol. We believe that we are helping them to achieve what I am sure all Members agree is the very proper aim of ensuring that alcohol-related problems are dealt with properly by the House. Therefore, if the Government were to add in health and this further objective in respect of licensing, it would show that they are serious about the problem of public health, and it would also deal with the problems they have faced since taking office last May.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Lady. She said that she felt public health had been ignored for a long time, but she made a slight mistake by highlighting that. That is why I am delighted that my colleagues in the Department of Health are taking this matter seriously in their approach to Public Health England, which is giving proper attention to public health. It is a shame that the hon. Lady made those comments because we have had a reasonable debate and she unfortunately decided to make more partisan attacks during that contribution. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of how we reached this point on the accident and emergency issues and of all the pressures that are brought to bear on our health service and on the police. The vibrant café culture had been promised and written up as part of the reforms introduced by the Licensing Act 2003, but it failed to materialise. That is why we are taking steps in this Bill to address licensing issues.

I agree with the hon. Lady that public health issues are involved here and that there is merit in making health a material consideration in the 2003 Act. The Government stated that in their response to the “Rebalancing the Licensing Act” consultation, which contained a specific consultation point on the matter, and we committed to considering the best way to take this issue forward. However, my view is that the issue requires further consideration, alongside wider Government work, to address the harm alcohol causes to health.

It is important to highlight the fact that the Bill has sought to bring certain changes into effect, such as enabling primary care trusts, as health bodies, to make representations. Health bodies have a clear interest in the existing 2003 Act objectives of “public safety” and “crime reduction”, as illustrated in: alcohol-related accident and emergency attendances; ambulance journeys following road traffic accidents and other accidents; glassing and other injuries; alcohol poisoning cases and so on. That directly relates to how those health bodies are able to make representations under the Bill. Drunken accidents and injuries comprise a high proportion of accident and emergency attendances—the estimate is up to 70% on Saturday nights. When added to ambulance costs, they cost the NHS about £1.1 billion a year, so this is a legitimate focus for licensing.

[Diana Johnson]

Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that we get the best possible policy on alcohol and public health—we all have an interest in doing that—but can the Minister explain to me what he expects the PCT to provide on an individual licence application? A lot of bureaucracy will be involved if the individual licence application has to involve accident and emergency statistics. Are they what he expects the PCT to provide?

[James Brokenshire]

In some areas, NHS organisations already share anonymised A and E data with the police. Such intelligence can highlight where violent incidents occur and any hot-spot premises, thus supporting police representations at licensing hearings and wider law enforcement. Making local health bodies responsible authorities will encourage the effective collection and sharing of anonymised A and E data and other robust and targeted evidence for licensing authorities to consider.

The hon. Lady specifically asked how the role of local authorities will be managed in the context of Public Health England. She will be well aware that licensing authorities become responsible authorities under the Bill and are therefore able, in essence, to make their own representations. Obviously, different functions are carried out by different parts of the local authority, as happens in planning. The licensing committee is able to consider applications and relevant legislative issues, so there is a broad read-across in how a local authority is able not only to make representations but to determine things. A local licensing panel will have an almost quasi-judicial role in that situation, as does a planning authority.

I want to return to some of the hon. Lady’s other points.

--- Later in debate ---

On pricing, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), we have announced that we intend to ban below-cost sales, setting at the level of duty plus VAT. That is an important first step in setting out a framework that we can evaluate and work from, so I see it as an important first step in dealing with the impact of alcohol prices on public health and on crime and disorder. These are complex issues, which is why it is important to do things in a measured way.

[Diana Johnson]

The Minister announced in January his intention to legislate on minimum pricing. Can he update us on when those measures will come before the House?

[James Brokenshire]

We are considering this matter very carefully so that it is introduced in a less bureaucratic and a straightforward way. We will put further proposals before the House in due course because this is something we are committed to. Having made the announcement, we will be following through on this. It is important to ban below-cost sales and introduce the duty-plus-VAT measure that we announced at the start of the year. The Government are committed to following through on that.

The Government have already made provision in the Bill to make primary care trusts and local health bodies responsible authorities. That will ensure that local health bodies can influence licensing determinations by making representations based on local health evidence such as accident and emergency statistics. Those representations will need to be linked to existing licensing objectives to be relevant. Health bodies have a clear interest in the existing Licensing Act objectives, as I have mentioned, so we think it is an important step to recognise their role in that way.

For the reasons I have given, I ask the Opposition not to press the new clause and to allow the Government to examine this issue further and learn from the evidence and experience that is emerging from elsewhere. We can then consider what is the best way of legislating to make public health a material consideration within the licensing process, thereby recognising the points that have been made this afternoon and, equally, that this is a complex area. Doing things effectively and in the right way is the best course of action.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his warm words about looking at public health and alcohol and I hope that we will see some more action on this. On minimum pricing, I am concerned that the announcement was back in January but I think there is genuine willingness to move forward on this. I have set out my concerns that the minimum pricing level that the coalition has announced is not high enough, but if we are going to do this, let us get on and do it. I do not quite understand why there is delay, because the coalition has made its announcement and stated its position. I listened to the Minister’s comments about the time frame, but “in due course” can mean quite a few things in the House of Commons, so I will certainly be looking to see what progress is made, because it is time to get on with this.

It is disappointing that the Bill does not address the issues of pre-loading and the concerns that people are expressing up and down the land about the low cost of alcohol in supermarkets. I am keen to work positively with the coalition on this important issue and I strongly hope that there will be real progress in the coming months. I hope also that the health organisations that have walked away from the responsibility deal negotiations can be brought back in and reassured that there is genuine commitment on the part of the coalition to deal with health and alcohol issues. On the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move amendment 22,  page 87, line 26, leave out ‘authorisations’ and insert

‘premises licences and club premises certificates’.

[James Brokenshire]

These are minor amendments to the late-night levy clauses in part 2 that clarify the effect of the provisions. To avoid possible misinterpretation, the Bill should use consistent terminology. Amendments 22 and 30 intend to achieve that end. Amendments 26 and 27 amend clause 133 merely by making it clear that if licensing authorities amend the categories of premises in their area that benefit from an exemption or reduction in their levy liability for a subsequent year there may already be none as well as one or more premises in those categories for the existing year.

Amendments 28 and 29 remove a drafting error in clause 133 and clarify the basis on which licensing authorities must ensure that any exemption or reduction categories that apply in their areas in a subsequent year accord with the categories prescribed in regulations. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 ensure that local authorities do not suffer a burden in introducing the late-night levy. They do not change the intention underlying the levy, nor do they change the burden on business.

The Bill as it stands allows licensing authorities to deduct the costs that they incur in the “collection, administration or enforcement” of the levy from the levy revenue. However, it has become clear that that phraseology, including the reference to administration, does not include the specific costs of introducing the levy. A licensing authority will need to carry out a number of administrative procedures before collecting the levy. First, it will hold a consultation on the way in which it wishes to operate the levy. That is an important process, and it ensures that the community’s opinions are heard. Following a decision to adopt the levy, the licensing authority will announce its intentions. Some businesses will decide that they do not open long enough in the levy period to make it worth while to pay it. To avoid the levy, those businesses will be able to make a free change to their licence. However, that means that licensing authorities must process the licence variations without recovering costs. Amendments 22, 23, 24 and 25 will ensure that licensing authorities can deduct the costs of those introductory processes from the levy revenue.

I do not want the levy to become a burden on licensing authorities. It has always been my intention that it should be self-funding while raising a significant amount of money for the police and other organs of local government. The amendments ensure that that is the case. Let me reiterate that the amendments will have no further impact on business. We have published indicative levy charges, which will remain the same. To make some simple clarifications and to ensure licensing authorities bear no burden as a result of the late-night levy, I urge the House to accept the amendments.

[Diana Johnson]

May I ask the Minister to clarify a few points? There will be a number of changes to the licensing provisions in the months and years to come, and I should be grateful if he set out his intentions on whether additional support or resources will be provided for local authorities when those new schemes are adopted. For instance, will additional financial resources be made available to assist local authorities with the late-night levy and early morning restriction orders in ensuring that information is provided to businesses? Clear guidance should be issued about what that will mean for businesses.

We have held a number of short debates about the late-night levy and the possibility that operating just one night a year can make a business liable for the levy. Businesses are often busy just trying to operate on a daily basis without having to get to grips with the minutiae of new legislation. Will the Minister set out what the Home Office intends to do to ensure that businesses are fully acquainted with the requirements of the new legislation and exactly what it will mean for them? Costs can be deducted from the late-night levy if someone has participated in the consultation on whether to have a late-night levy. Will that all be set out in a clear and transparent way so that businesses understand exactly why they will have to pay a certain amount? Setting things out in a clear format that is easy to understand will be the key to ensuring that the new licensing provisions operate well. If the other amendments in the group are intended just to tidy up the legislation and make it read more smoothly, my only question is on how the operation of getting information out to businesses would be provided.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Her point on guidance is relevant. As I have indicated, as part of the implementation of the late-night levy it is intended that guidance would be drawn up on the process and that it would deal with some of the detail in regulations on the issues I have already highlighted. [Interruption.] I have only started and already the hon. Lady wants me to give way.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the guidance provided on that basis be statutory guidance, or guidance that can be ignored?

[James Brokenshire]

I am not sure that guidance can be ignored. It is intended to be of assistance in the implementation of the proposals on the late-night levy. The key element that the hon. Lady has highlighted relates to costs and resourcing. We are bringing forward some of these changes to ensure that licensing authorities can take account of the set-up costs relating to the late-night levy, which might otherwise be an issue. We think that it is important to introduce the amendment to ensure that, as with the different examples I have already given, there are no unintended consequences and that, if we are seeking to ensure that costs are properly attributed, that is built into the structure of the late-night levy.

The hon. Lady made a general point on transparency and how costs are to be drawn up. That is a fair point which I take on board, and we will work through that in detail on implementation so that businesses are clear about the calculation and which costs will be brought into effect for the deduction. It is worth saying, however, that it is a deduction and the levy itself is a fixed figure; we are talking simply about what is being deducted and the 70:30 split, with which she will be familiar. In some ways that relates to our previous debate on the general licensing fees and the costs that can be attributed for the maintenance of the Licensing Act. Some of her comments may be addressed in that direction as well.

Clearly, we want to ensure that the late-night levy is a success. We want local authorities to come forward with it. We believe that allowing the set-up costs is an important part of ensuring that the levy operates well and does not have unintended consequences. That will ensure—this reflects some of the comments in the preceding debate—that the levy will be used by local authorities, will be useful and will contribute to managing the late-night economy and dealing with some of the challenges we have heard about this afternoon. That is why we believe that the Bill and its provisions on the late-night levy mark an important step forward in assisting local communities and local authorities to manage the problems of alcohol and the late-night economy. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be minded to support the amendment.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Clause 130

Net amount of levy payments

Amendments made: 23, page 89, line 20, leave out from ‘of’ to ‘may’ in line 22 and insert ‘relevant expenses which’.

Amendment 24, page 89, line 23, leave out third ‘the’ and insert ‘any’.

Amendment 25, page 89, line 28, at end insert—

‘(2A) In subsection (2)(a), “relevant expenses” means expenses incurred by a licensing authority in the administration of the late night levy requirement including, in particular, such expenses incurred in, in connection with or in consequence of—

(a) any decision mentioned in section 134(1);

(b) collection of payments of the late night levy;

(c) enforcement of the late night levy requirement.

(2B) Expenses incurred by a licensing authority which fall within subsection (2A)(a) include, in particular, expenses which it incurs in connection with any application made by virtue of section 134(2)(c).’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 133

Amendment of late night levy requirement

Amendments made: 26, page 90, line 38, leave out ‘different’ and insert ‘any’.

Amendment 27, page 90, line 39, after ‘apply’, insert

‘in addition to any that currently apply, or to cease to apply,’.

Amendment 28, page 91, line 7, leave out 'by virtue of section 132(1)(b) or (iii)'

and insert

‘as the result of a relevant decision’.

Amendment 29, page 91, line 11, at end insert—

‘( ) In subsection (4)(b), “relevant decision” means a decision under—

(a) section 132(1)(b)(ii) or (iii), or

(b) subsection (1)(c) of this section.’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 135

Permitted exemption and reduction categories

Amendment made: 30, page 92, line 41, leave out from ‘all’ to ‘that’ in line 42 and insert

‘holders of relevant late night authorisations in’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 140

Demonstrations in vicinity of Parliament: repeal of SOCPA 2005 provisions

Proposed Directive (Information Systems)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the proposed European directive on attacks against information systems, which we have decided to opt in to.

Hon. Members will not need me to tell them how much we benefit from the services that are now available online. In 15 years, the number of global web users has jumped from 16 million in 1995 to more than 1.7 billion today. About three quarters of all British households now have an internet connection, and last year nearly two thirds of all adults in Britain bought goods or services online.

We want to build on our cultural and economic success in the online world, but with the growth of the internet has come the growth of a new type of crime and a new risk to our national security. We now face a real, ongoing and persistent threat from other states, terrorists and criminals operating online. They are stealing commercial secrets, they are trying to take sensitive Government information and they are defrauding ordinary people.

Cybercrime, often carried out by organised criminals, is now a major and growing threat to all sectors of our economy, and we should be in no doubt: online attacks can have a significant real-world impact, from people's bank accounts being emptied to industrial plants and critical infrastructure being disrupted. The risks from cyberspace are now so great that the national security strategy placed the threat as one of the top tier of risks to our national security.

Recognising the seriousness of the threat, the Government are already investing heavily in cyber-security. Following the strategic defence and security review, we committed £650 million of new investment over the next four years to transform our protective capabilities in cyberspace. Our response is led by Government, but uses the resources and knowledge of the private sector, including those parts of the private sector that own and operate large elements of our digital infrastructure. The programme explicitly depends on building strong relationships with like-minded countries around the globe, because the problem is an international one and online criminals do not respect international borders.

Here in Britain we have long-standing laws against computer misuse, but we need to be able to take action also against cyber-criminals operating overseas; it is therefore clear that we need to work across national boundaries. That means our law enforcement agencies working with their partners overseas to identify suspects, gather evidence and bring criminals to justice. The European Union directive on attacks against information systems supports those aims. The directive builds on an existing 2005 EU framework decision with which Britain was already compliant. It is also consistent with the Council of Europe convention on cybercrime, which Britain is in the final stages of ratifying. Opting in further demonstrates our commitment to internationally co-ordinated action against online threats.

The directive will ensure that there is a basic set of agreed minimum rules in relation to online crimes and penalties across the EU that member states must build into their legislation. It will also ensure that member states respond quickly to requests from other member states for assistance in cybercrime cases. Those measures will benefit Britain and other countries that have active online economies, because it will mean that cyber-criminals will not be able to hide in European countries that do not have as well-developed laws against cybercrime as we do.

The directive also seeks to address the threat from large-scale attacks on information systems by ensuring that member states have adequate legislation to allow the prosecution and punishment of those organising, committing or supporting large-scale attacks. That is not a hypothetical threat: it is a real, existing problem for the British Government and British business. Finally, the directive sensibly takes into account changes in the threat picture since the framework decision was agreed, such as tackling the creation of malicious software and other innovative tools that criminals have invented to commit offences.

It is for all of these reasons that we have decided to opt in to the directive. It fits with our approach of making Britain a tougher place for online criminals to operate in, and it will mean that the reach of our law enforcement agencies extends outside our borders. By opting in now, we do not accept that the draft directive is perfect. We will work to ensure the final text is in Britain's interests and we will seek to negotiate out any proposals we believe are unnecessary.

I pay tribute to the work done by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses. They do much to ensure that European legislation is right for this country. On this specific directive, both Committees agree that there is a case for further EU action in this area.

Cybercrime is a major threat to Britain. The aims of the directive are consistent with the aims of the Government in protecting our country, our economy, our businesses and our citizens from those who seek to misuse the online environment. I commend this statement to the House.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for providing the Opposition with a copy of the statement in advance of the announcement to the House.

I have listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s decision to opt in to the draft directive on attacks against information systems. It is clear that there is a growing threat of large-scale simultaneous attacks against information systems and an increased use by criminals of so-called botnets—networks of computers infected by a virus that can be activated remotely. There is clearly a real terrorist threat, as well. It is right to say that there has to be a robust and consistent approach to this problem, not only across the EU but internationally, and we know that a sensible way forward is to build on the framework decision agreed in 2005.

In a report by the Commission in July 2008, the implementation of the framework decision was found to be relatively good, but a number of new threats had been identified; the draft directive has therefore been produced. The matter was before the European Scrutiny Committee on 3 November 2010, at which time the Government still had not decided whether to opt in to the draft directive. I, too, pay tribute to the hard work that the Committees in both Houses do on behalf of us all.

I welcome the decision, but I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, why has the decision been made now to opt in to the draft directive? After the European Scrutiny Committee had considered the matter, the Minster wrote to the Chair of that Committee stating that a decision on whether to opt in had to be made by 23 December 2010, and promising to let the Committee know the decision at that point. I understand that he then wrote to the Chair of the Committee on 31 January confirming that the UK was opting in to the directive. When was the decision actually made? Was it made before 23 December? If the decision was delayed, why?

In his statement, the Minister said, “By opting in now, we do not accept that the draft directive is perfect. We will work to ensure the final text is in Britain's interests and we will seek to negotiate out any proposals we believe are unnecessary.” Would it not have been more consistent and logical to have opted in to the draft directive much earlier, to ensure that the British government could influence it and have their say? On such a matter, and given that we are building on the already well- established 2005 framework decision, was it not in our interest to have our say early on? Why wait until the end of the process?

Secondly, we understand that there will have to be changes to domestic legislation on issues such as extraterritorial jurisdiction and including all the offences set out in articles 6 and 7. Will the Minister explain the exact changes that will be required, in particular to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and any other legislation? When will the House be asked to deal with those matters?

Thirdly, the directive sets out the need for a national contact point to provide an initial response to urgent requests for information within eight hours. With the transition from the Serious Organised Crime Agency to the National Crime Agency, what ring-fenced funding will be available for the initial response work, and how will the overall cuts to the Home Office budget affect the ability to provide that response?

Fourthly, under article 15, there is a requirement for the collection of statistical information on offences covered by the draft directive, including details of the number of offences reported, the follow-up and the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions each year. Although the Minister has indicated previously that some of those data are already collected, what further resources will be needed to ensure that the full datasets are collected, and who will do that? What additional resources have been allocated for the purpose from the £650 million he mentioned?

Fifthly, what plans does the Minister have for dealing with the increase in penalties to a maximum term of imprisonment of not less than five years? Does he envisage creating a new offence to deal with aggravating factors, or increasing the length of existing sentences?

Finally, may press the Minister on another matter? Although we welcome the announcement of the opt-in to this directive, it is deeply disappointing that the Government have failed to opt in to the draft directive on human trafficking. We ask them to think again.

Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech. I know about his long-standing interest in this particular problem, as well as his concern about wider health matters.

This debate has been interesting. I certainly feel that I have learned a lot about the drinking habits, or not, of a number of hon. and right hon. Members in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) gave an interesting speech about how alcohol is a major issue for his constituency, which is a centre of brewing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is the distinguished Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, talked about the information that he has gleaned from looking at policing and the effect of alcohol. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who is a doughty campaigner for pubs, discussed how we can tackle the problems of alcohol, which we clearly have, and the important community role for pubs. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) talked about her experience in her constituency. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) talked about his experience as a social worker in dealing with clients and about what was happening on the streets of his constituency late at night. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) gave very clear examples of what can be bought for £20, which was fascinating. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) spoke with a great deal of experience and knowledge of the effects of alcohol on health, and her last point about a potential off-trade levy should be considered.

It is clear that, as a country, we have a problem with alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has supplied statistics about the effect of alcohol as it relates to Wales. We need to do something about this issue. Last week, we heard more disturbing statistics about liver disease in young people. The number of young drinkers admitted to hospital with liver problems has risen by more than 50% in the past 10 years.

In government, the Labour party started to address some of the problems relating to alcohol—for example, the Policing and Crime Act 2009 banned irresponsible drinks promotions. We all agree that we need to do more and to go further. From this morning’s debate, it is clear that we need to go further than the coalition Government’s current proposals, announced on 18 January, to ban the below-cost pricing of alcohol. As I understand it, that equates to minimum pricing of approximately 21p a unit for beer and 28p a unit for spirits. Under those plans, the lowest possible price for a can of lager in a supermarket would range from 38p to 78p, depending on its strength. Most drinks would be unaffected by that proposal, as that works out at as little as 47p a pint for lagers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East has pointed out that that means that many soft drinks and mineral waters would still be more expensive than alcohol bought in the supermarket.

The Campaign for Real Ale has pointed out that in banning below-cost prices, the cost of production should be included. That would raise the floor price to 40p per unit, which is almost double the 21p per unit that will be the norm under coalition Government plans. In a quick survey by my office yesterday in the Tesco nearest to Parliament, we found that typical prices were four large 440 ml cans of Stella for £3.30, and four 440 ml cans of Strongbow for £4.25, or two for £7. Clearly, there is an issue with the pricing that will be introduced in the proposals from the Government. Those prices are typical up and down the country. Hon. Members have discussed what is happening in their own constituencies, and I know this from my own constituency in Hull.

We have heard about the proposal from the former chief medical officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, who, in March 2009, proposed a 50p a unit minimum pricing level. That would increase the price of all bottles of wine to at least £4.50 and raise the price of the average six-pack of lager to £6.

A number of concerns have been raised both in this debate and beyond. One concern, as I have just set out, is whether the retail price will make any real difference to influencing the excessive drinking that we have seen in recent years to a move towards greater moderation. There is also the question why responsible drinkers should be penalised by having to pay more, when they are not in any way part of the problem. That is a fair point, which has carried the day in debate for many years. It may be difficult to devise a way of dealing with irresponsible drinking, while leaving those people who just have an occasional glass of wine or pint of beer unaffected.

We need to consider the pricing mechanism, because if we do not do so, we will deny ourselves one of the most potentially useful weapons in reforming destructive behaviour as a result of alcohol. There is much to be gained for the responsible drinker from looking at pricing. Set against higher prices for alcohol, there are costs that can be saved in the areas of policing, cleaning the streets, and repairing vandalism, as well as the benefit to the NHS and the general welfare state. Perhaps the Minister will consider highlighting more clearly the costs incurred by society due to the abuse of alcohol and making the case more strongly for looking at higher prices. Any pricing changes must be seen not only as increasing the Treasury tax take, as the recent VAT change does, but a reform that is firmly for the health of our society and everyone in it.

We have heard much today about how drinking habits have changed over the years. People buy their alcohol cheaply in the supermarket, often in bulk, and consume it at home. That is referred to up north as “getting tanked up”, but I think that the technical word is “pre-loading”. People then go out later in the evening to take advantage of the later licensing hours, and so end up spending less in the pubs and clubs, having spent more with the supermarkets. The hon. Member for Burton has discussed his experience, perhaps when he was slightly younger, of being in a pub or club and having the benefit of that controlled, supervised environment, which means that people can be helped if they have a little too much to drink. That clearly does not happen if one is indulging in excessive drinking at home.

On late night drinking, the Government have introduced the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill and are considering a late night drinking levy, which is about asking pubs, clubs and licensed premises to contribute towards the costs of policing in areas that have late night drinking. While there is an element of the polluter pays, which is an attractive idea, perhaps the Minister will consider again the additional tax that will be charged to many small businesses and the bureaucratic nature of introducing this levy. Perhaps he will comment on that.

I want to discuss building a culture of responsible drinking. There is wide agreement that people need fully to understand the implications of their behaviour, so I hope that the Government will consider bringing back the proposal to introduce personal social and health education into our schools, so that young people in particular fully understand the problems of taking alcohol at an early age—many of them do not understand that. Some schools teach the subject very well, but others do not.

My time is nearly up. The Government have announced the proposal that they wish to take forward, but could the Minister comment on why the Bill, which is currently in Committee, does not include any clear proposals or clauses on this matter? Would he consider bringing forward an amendment to include it, and, finally, would he consider adding a further objective to the licensing conditions and include a health harm objective?

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I also commend the Home Affairs Committee for its work in this and a number of other areas. He refers to a minimum price for alcohol, but we are banning below-cost sales of alcohol, and we have set that cost at VAT plus duty. That is slightly different from a minimum per unit price for alcohol, but it is important to recognise that, in relation to cracking down on problem drinking, we have taken not only that step but a number of other measures of the sort that I set out in my earlier response.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

In reviewing the Licensing Act 2003, is the Secretary of State satisfied that police forces and local authorities throughout the country are using their existing powers as much as they should? Does the late night levy proposal, aimed at reflecting the cost of policing the late-night economy, risk being an additional tax burden on local businesses while the policing that they receive in return still falls as a result of the 20% cuts in police budgets?

[Mrs May]

I refer the hon. Lady to the actions of the Labour Government in introducing alcohol disorder zones. Yes, we are reviewing the Licensing Act 2003 that they brought in, because far from introducing the café-style culture that Tony Blair said it would bring, it did the exact opposite. Sadly, we have yet again seen increases in incidents relating to alcohol, and in admissions to hospital owing to alcohol-related injuries. That is why the coalition Government are taking the steps that are necessary to deal with problem drinking and giving local areas the ability to deal with their licensing problems.

Drugs Policy

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Walker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) on securing the debate. I note his great success in getting his views and comments widely trailed in the media. Despite the fact that it is the Thursday before Christmas and we are on a one-line Whip in the House, the debate this afternoon has had a great deal of attention.

All Members know from our work in our constituencies that drugs cause misery to people and thwart the opportunities and life chances of not only the individual, but family members. They sometimes blight whole communities. However, when looking at drugs in the UK, it is important to remember that we have had some successes. For example, the coalition Government’s strategy refers to the fall of a third in the last decade in young people’s rates of drug use. The importation of cocaine has also been disrupted.

As my right hon. Friend said, there has been a great deal of investment in treatment for people with drug problems. He is a very distinguished Member, with, as he explained, experience as a drugs Minister. It is right that we should all welcome the opportunity for a considered and mature debate on drugs policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) spoke with great passion and knowledge about his experience in European countries. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talked about her interesting experience looking at the RIOTT trials, and about what we can learn from them. She also addressed the matter of tackling inequality when thinking through drugs policy.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East has set out his approach, but it is not one with which the Opposition agree. There have been headlines and a great deal of newspaper copy today, but the topic has been reported in far too simplistic a way to deal with the complexities of the drugs problem we face. The issue is not straightforward; there are many different—and respected—views on the way forward for drugs policy in this country.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Leader of the Opposition, commented today:

“I am all in favour of fresh thinking on drugs. I don’t agree with him”—

referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East—

“on decriminalisation of drugs. I worry about the effects on young people, the message we would be sending out.”

That is an interesting point. We do need to have fresh thinking, and we need to keep the area under constant review.

This debate is timely due to the recent publication of the coalition’s drugs strategy for 2010. We have also had the Second Reading of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill in the House of Commons this week. That includes clauses specific to drugs policy, which I will address later.

The Opposition share the coalition’s broad approach to drugs strategy, building on the pillars of preventing drug-taking, disrupting supply, strengthening enforcement and promoting treatment. There is a lot on which we can agree. However, the strategy marks a departure, from the previous focus on reducing the harm caused by drugs to a focus on recovery as the most effective route out of dependency. We want to look at that further and examine what that would mean.

It is important to note that the Home Secretary, in her foreword to the drugs strategy, states that during consultation the Government looked at the issue of liberalisation and decriminalisation, but decided that that was not the answer—that it fails to recognise the complexity of the problem and gives insufficient regard to the harms that drugs pose.

I want to explore the drugs strategy a little further and test some of its statements against the reality of the current policies being put forward by the coalition Government in areas such as health, education, benefits and criminal justice. The backdrop to the strategy was the announcement of the comprehensive spending review and the budgets that will be available to the pubic sector over the next few years. I focus particularly on the budget allocations to the police, local authorities, the NHS and the education sectors. They all have a very important role to play in drugs policy.

In line with the coalition’s general thinking, the strategy features a move away from a top-down to a local decision-making approach—the localism agenda. I hope the Minister can reassure me and other hon. Members that good practice, which does exist around the country now, will continue to be spread and that we will not see only pockets of good practice, with the rest of the country left to mediocre practices. I hope the Minister can reassure me about that, based on this new local approach.

There are three areas on which I want to comment. There is the issue of reducing demand. We know from research that people from backgrounds in which they face problems, such as homelessness, unemployment or exclusion from school, are more likely to take drugs.

There are policies in the strategy that include a great deal about early intervention and getting to those groups early on to stop them from taking up drugs. There is mention, for instance, of the 4,200 additional health visitors that the coalition Government will have in place by 2015. That is all well and good, but I am concerned about how we are to train those additional health visitors, and also about where the money is to come from for those additional professionals.

The situation is the same with Sure Start. The strategy mentions Sure Start and the coalition Government recognise the important role that Sure Start and children’s centres play. We all know that the funding of the 3,500 that were opened under the previous Labour Government will now go to local authorities and will no longer be ring-fenced. As local authorities are under huge pressures to balance their budgets, I ask the Minister to look carefully at whether the role of Sure Start and children’s centres will be as effective as the strategy sets out, with reduced resources.

There is also mention of the national programmes of support for families with multiple problems. Again, I hope that that money will be protected. Pilots of those programmes are showing very good results. Will the Minister respond by saying how he will secure the resources to ensure that that category of early-intervention project is as effective as it can be?

I want to mention education. All of us recognise how important drugs education is. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East mentioned FRANK, which he was pleased to hear was still going. That is right, and most people accept that the initiative has been a success. However, drugs education has to be more than just a website. We know the important role that schools play in getting messages across to young people. I am concerned about the changes that we are seeing in the education sector—the move to a narrower academic approach in schools, moving away from the Department of Children, Schools and Families’ approach, which was about Every Child Matters and championing the well-being agenda. That seems to have been sidelined within schools with the new approach of the Secretary of State.

Will the Minister reassure me that drugs education will remain an important subject in schools? I was deeply disappointed that at the very end of the previous Parliament, the Conservative party blocked personal social and health education from becoming a statutory, compulsory subject in schools. PSHE is a good vehicle for ensuring that drugs education is present and effective in the educational setting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), a former drugs Minister and schools Minister, made it clear to me that if teachers are expected to provide good drugs education, they need training, resources and the use of external experts to come and talk to children and young people. That all takes resources and I am concerned that those may not be available to schools and head teachers.

I wanted to pick up one other point on education, which is in the section of the strategy dealing with reducing demand, and encouraging young people to stay in education and obtain qualifications to help them get employment. There is one section that deals with educational opportunities and talks about supporting children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay in education. I read that and thought it did not fit well with the coalition Government’s current policy to remove educational maintenance allowances. That has a direct effect on some of the disadvantaged communities, where drugs have been a problem. As a number of hon. Members have already said, the removal of the EMA is a real problem when trying to encourage young people to stay on up to 18.

I move on to restricting the supply of drugs. The strategy is building on the good work over the past few years and relies on a number of factors. One is around good neighbourhood policing, and of course we have seen additional police numbers over the past 13 years. We now face a 20% cut to police budgets. PCSOs, who often provide an effective presence on the streets, will have their numbers cut. Again, I seek reassurance from the Minister about how the strategy will deliver, given that reduction in resources. Under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which had its Second Reading earlier this week, police and crime commissioners are to set out the strategic direction for police forces. When the Bill comes to its Committee stage, we will want to consider the possible conflict between reduced resources and the fact that police and crime commissioners will probably want to play a part, encouraging the police to join them in partnership working. It will be difficult for police commissioners to square that circle of not having the resources needed to provide effective partnership working.

Legal highs are mentioned in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The Minister knows that there is common cause on tackling legal highs, as there have been a number of debates on the subject over the previous few months. There is common cause not only because it is the right thing to do; the previous Government began the journey, and the present Government are continuing on a similar line. What is proposed in the Bill will prevent manufacturers from tweaking compounds to stay ahead of any ban.

The chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs says that the Bill permits a systematic approach, which is to be welcomed. Clause 149 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to introduce temporary class drugs orders to deal with the problem of legal highs. Overall, we support the proposal, but we shall want to examine it further in Committee. The matter was raised in a previous debate, but will the Minister give some indication of the cost of legal highs’ being banned for up to 12 months?

I turn to the question of building recovery in communities, the individual tailored approach set out in the document. Although it is recognised as important, I hope that there will be true recognition of the need for different approaches, and that they will be deemed equally valid. For some people, moving on to methadone and remaining stable and able to function as members of the community may be seen as a positive result, whereas for others being entirely drug free will be the right goal.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He seemed to imply that we did not need to have a range of treatments, although he spoke passionately about the Nelson Trust and the excellent work that it does. The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) spoke about the Burton addiction centre, and told us about Jamie’s view of the situation. However, I believe that we need a plurality of approaches. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach for something as complex as dealing with drug treatment. Martin Barnes, the chief executive of DrugScope, said:

“The aspiration for treatment and recovery is to be applauded, but the challenge will be ensuring that high level ambition is delivered and sustained locally, not least at a time of policy change, uncertainty and spending cuts.”

The massive reorganisation of the NHS means that PCTs will be going and that GPs will hold 80% of the NHS budget. Along with the creation of the national public health service, and local authorities taking on the public health role, the way in which much of the public sector is to operate will be a constantly moving feast. I understand that public health money is to be ring-fenced, but it is unclear exactly how much money local authorities will have for dealing with public health matters in their areas. I believe that directors of public health will commission services locally. The services will be competitively tendered and rewarded, and there will be transparency about the performance of any drug treatments contracted for.

We heard earlier in the debate about payment by results. I hope that we will be able to explore that question further, and to discover how the pilots, which will be created by 2011, will work. We need more detail about how they are to be judged successful. Will it be if people become drug free, or if they are merely stable and able to function on methadone? We need that information.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady raises a point that is crucial to the success of payment by results. The danger is that certain providers will cherry-pick the easy-to-cure addicts, and that the more difficult and complex cases will be abandoned. Does she agree that we need to ensure that providers that deal with the toughest cases should be properly rewarded?

[Diana Johnson]

We will want to look carefully at the pilots and exactly how such problems might be dealt with. There must be an imaginative way of dealing with that matter, but we need more detail. The strategy sets out in broad terms what the Government want to do, but the hon. Gentleman is right.

There is also the question of prisons and the criminal justice system. Reference has been made to the proposals in the Green Paper published by the Secretary of State for Justice. It is worth pointing out again that resources and funding will be required. For the approaches that the majority of Members want to see put in place, the important question is where the money and resources will come from.

We also need to deal with the social issues set out in the strategy, such as the reintegration of former drug addicts so that they can obtain housing and employment. Such matters sit uneasily with some of the proposals made by the coalition Government on housing, housing benefit and changes, and that may cause problems for people returning to work. Those matters, too, need to be considered.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East said, clause 150 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill will remove the requirement for certain appointments to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to have a scientific background. It will remove the requirement set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include those with wide and recent experience of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry and chemistry, and those with experience of the social problems caused by drug abuse. That approach rather undermines the view of the Minister for Universities and Science, who wrote into the ministerial code the principles for respecting independent advice—including scientific advice, obviously and importantly.

The Liberal Democrats seem to be in some difficulty on this question. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised it in an intervention, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has tabled EDM 1148. The problem is that the Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto says that drugs policy should always be based on independent scientific advice, including making the ACMD independent of Government. There will be some discussion in the coalition about how to deal with that, as it seems that that pledge is in danger of bring broken.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and particularly to his answer to the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East on evaluating the success of the drugs strategy, and at what point we can have a further debate to consider whether the strategy has worked.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about both the issue of damping and the contribution to police funding made by the precept. I am afraid that I cannot tell him any more about our plans right now, but we will make an announcement to the House very shortly.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Perhaps I can help the House by quoting what the Minister said on “The World This Weekend” on Sunday 21 November. He said:

“There is no such link”

between police numbers and levels of crime. Let me ask the Minister, however, about a recent quote by the Home Secretary on special constables, as I do not have the opportunity to ask the right hon. Lady. We know that special constables are a valued extra resource for our police service. It has been reported that the Home Secretary said that she is looking to recruit an additional 50,000 specials, but does the Minister seriously believe that part-time volunteers can properly substitute for the core policing work of trained, full-time police officers and police community support officers whose numbers are being so savagely cut?

[Nick Herbert]

I repeat to the hon. Lady that I said that there was no simple link. She may have noticed that the former police chief of Los Angeles and New York was in this country last week. He wrote a number of pieces, which I think the hon. Lady should read. One thing he said was:

“It’s not so much the number of police you have… but what you do with them… You cannot spend your way to a safer community… Successful policing is not only about making the right investments: it’s about leadership and focus.”

I would suggest that Bill Bratton knows rather more about policing than the hon. Lady does. As to special constables, of course they are valuable and of course we would like to recruit more of them. They are not a substitute for what police officers do, but an important supplement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady asks a very important question: the work of the bureau is of considerable significance. Work relating to young people has already moved to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and we are considering where it is most appropriate that the bureau’s work relating to adults should sit in the new policing landscape.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Given the concerns that have been expressed by Sara Payne and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as well as the evidence given by Jim Gamble to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 12 October, will the Secretary of State tell the House what evidence base informed the decision to submerge the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the proposed national crime agency, especially given that previous independent reviews had supported CEOP remaining separate?

[Mrs May]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Opposition Front Bench. We have considered closely the CEOP issue, but there seems to be a misconception out there that it currently has independent status. It does not: it is part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The proposals that we put in the White Paper, which will be coming forward in the Bill with our final decisions, relate to its becoming part of the national crime agency and being able to benefit from the synergies of being part of that agency.

Human Trafficking

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on securing this important debate and on making a strong opening statement about why she secured it. I also congratulate her on her new role on the Front Bench; I wish her every success with it.

The contributions of hon. Members from all parties have clearly shown that there is cross-party support on the issue and that there is a resolve across all parties to tackle it. I pay tribute to all of this morning’s contributions, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on the role she plays in the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults. She considered the issue of runaway children and how that impacts on the matter.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who mentioned important transnational issues, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who, as usual, made a compelling case for why we should sign up to the EU directive on human trafficking. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made a well informed and strong case for why the issue needs to be high up on the agenda. The hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Upper Bann (David Simpson), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) also spoke eloquently.

This is my first opportunity to speak as a member of the shadow Home Affairs team. I was delighted to be given this debate to answer for the Opposition because I am the Member of Parliament for Kingston upon Hull North. One of Hull’s famous sons is William Wilberforce, who played an important part in starting the debate on the slave trade so many years ago, so I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this matter today.

I also pay tribute to Anthony Steen, the former Member of Parliament for Totnes. When he contributed to debates on the issue, he would invariably pay tribute to the previous Government’s role in making sure that the matter was properly addressed. Ministers in the previous Labour Government always paid tribute to Anthony Steen and the role he played in ensuring that the issues of slavery and trafficking were considered fully and properly by the House.

I was interested to hear that it was mooted at one point that Anthony Steen should be the adviser on human trafficking to the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister. I wondered whether Anthony Steen’s advice had been sought on the EU directive and what he might say to the Prime Minister about the Government’s stated positions on the directive. I use the word “positions” because the Government’s positions are very unclear. The Home Secretary has said that signing up to a particular directive had to be in the interests of the UK and, of course, we would all agree with that. However, she went to say that the UK is already achieving much of what is contained in the draft EU directive. A Home Office statement went further and stated that signing up would make very little difference to the way in which the UK tackles the problem and that there would be no operational benefits. On the other hand, the Prime Minister offered to go away and think again about the directive and said that there would be opportunities to opt in at any time.

The Minister’s first job this afternoon is to clear up the confusion. Is the directive in or is it out? If it is a maybe, how much of a maybe is it, and what will swing the argument either way? The Government say that the UK already complies with most of what is required under the draft EU directive but, as we have heard from various hon. Members today, there are key areas with which we do not comply. For example, paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum extends the definition of trafficking and inherent within that is recognition that exploitation takes many forms and that one form of exploitation, such as labour exploitation, often leads to another, such as sexual exploitation.

A clearer definition would help with the following matter. The debate about human trafficking has been dogged by the absence of clear estimates of the numbers involved, and many hon. Members have raised that this morning. In 2003, the Home Office estimated the number of victims to be more than 4,000 but, in 2008-09, the Select Committee on Home Affairs claimed there were more than 5,000. The Association of Chief Police Officers came up with the figure of 2,600 for the number of trafficked victims, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham has expressed strong views about that particular figure.

The absence of a clear estimate of the numbers involved was a concern of the Home Affairs Committee, and the previous Labour Government offered to do some work to get a more reliable figure. I ask the Minister whether that exercise is still under way. Do the Government recognise not only that it would be helpful to have a clear definition, but that, if we knew the numbers involved, that would allow a comparison to be made across the EU ?

Article 14 of the draft directive refers to the protection of children who are victims and calls for judicial authorities to appoint a special representative for child victims. The UK does not comply with that. The hon. Member for Wellingborough raised that issue and if we were to accept the directive and opt in, that would help his position.

Article 9 of the directive concerns extraterritorial jurisdiction. Criminals and victims may be in different countries at the time of the investigation—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned this issue—and article 9 would help British authorities to protect not only their own citizens, but other EU citizens. The position seems to be confused. Do we comply or do we not comply? Even if we reach the bar and do comply, surely the point is to work with other countries—not only to reach the bar but to go beyond it, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough mentioned.

ECPAT—End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes—rightly says

“Without international cooperation the Government will lose the battle with the traffickers. By choosing not to opt in to the directive the Government is failing in its efforts to combat this transnational crime.”

The Government say that they are working to shape the EU directive. We have experience in the United Kingdom of working on projects such as Operation Golf, where we led from the front. Having helped to shape the final document, why would we wish to step back from the directive? Is it because it is European? Is it because there is a hangover from the Lisbon treaty deliberations? Are the Government over-sensitive to criticisms on Conservative websites that they are giving away powers faster than the previous Labour Government? Is it because it would cost money? If that is the case, how much do the Home Office think it will cost? ECPAT says costs would be minimal. Is that true? Has a cost-benefit analysis been done?

The Government are in danger of getting this wrong and of compounding a catalogue of errors of poor judgment. There has been confusion over anonymity for rape victims and over domestic violence protection orders, which were designed to protect victims, not perpetrators. In addition, the multi-agency risk assessment conferences are now under review, as is the use of independent domestic violence advisers. Chillingly, there has also been the fallout that led to the resignation of Jim Gamble as chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, who I understand is giving evidence this morning to the Home Affairs Committee. I want to put on the record the appreciation that I think exists across the House for the invaluable work that he and his team did in protecting children. We support his view that to do its job even more effectively, CEOP needs more, not less independence.

When Sara Payne, Shy Keenan and Fiona Crook say that what has happened is a devastating blow for UK child protection, we ought to listen, because if we do not, the Government will be in danger of throwing away in five months progress that was built up over five years with regard to child victims. The Government need to listen to the concerns rightly raised today about the EU directive on human trafficking. I look forward to hearing the Minister clarify exactly what the Government’s position is on that directive—do we comply or do we not comply?

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

4. When she plans to bring into force existing powers to curb the activities of private sector wheel-clampers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

I announced on 17 August the Government’s intention to ban wheel-clamping and towing on private land.  The ban will be included in the freedom Bill, which is due to be introduced this autumn. Sections 42 and 44 of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which provide for the regulation of the vehicle immobilisation industry by way of business licensing, will be repealed.

[Diana R. Johnson]

In Hull, we know that the previous Government’s legislation would have stopped overcharging by wheel-clamping companies, and it was widely consulted on. Why cannot the hon. Lady introduce that provision while she waits for the legislation to go through Parliament to introduce the changes that she wishes to see?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Because all the previous Government’s legislation, despite their very good intentions, would have been complex and expensive to introduce. When we looked again at the results of the consultation, we decided that precisely because of the abuses that take place, banning was the best option. That will be brought forward this autumn, which is not that long to wait.