Consultation document – ‘Drinking Responsibly’

Report: 5
Date: 11 March 2005
By: Clerk

Summary

This report sets out the proposed response of the Authority to the white paper ‘Drinking Responsibly’.

A. Recommendations

That the Committee consider and endorse the response of the Authority to the consultation document.

B. Supporting information

1. At the end of January 2005, the Home Office, DCMS and ODPM produced the White Paper ‘Drinking Responsibly’ and sought views on it by 28 February. Details were circulated to all members on 4 February and a provisional response has been submitted (copy at Appendix 1). Members are invited to consider and endorse that response. To put the issue in context it is worth noting that binge drinking has a high profile at the moment and that will likely continue in the light of changes that will be brought about by the Licensing Act 2003.

2. Much of the white paper focuses on the role of the drinks industry:

• whether sanctions against irresponsible outlets should be strengthened under proposals for ‘Alcohol Disorder Zones’.
• how additional enforcements costs might be met.
• additional penalties for under-age sales.
• proposals on irresponsible promotions.

but there is also a section which reviews the penalties associated with alcohol related offending.

3. Since the launch of the government’s Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy in March 2004, there have been a number of initiatives dealing with various aspects of the strategy, such as the Tackling Violent Crime Programme and the Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaigns. Whilst many of the proposals in the consultation document have their origins in shortcomings identified or perceived during those initiatives, there is a growing view that some are impractical.

C. Race and equality impact

The Home Office proposals are not supported by any impact analysis but there are no obvious implications for race and diversity. The absence of an impact analysis has been highlighted to the Home Office in the response.

D. Financial implications

None

E. Background papers

• Home Office white paper ‘Drinking Responsibly’.

F. Contact details

Report author: Keith Dickinson, Head of Policing Policy and Partnerships

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Response of the Metropolitan Police Authority to the white paper ‘ Drinking Responsibly’

The Authority welcomes and supports everything that can be done to reduce irresponsible drinking and in particular the harm, disorder and associated violence that it is known to engender. These are not issues for the police alone; the primary mechanism to deal with such problems are Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, where everyone can make a contribution through section 17 Crime and Disorder Act. For example, the fire brigade has a role in relation to the safety of licensed premises and the planning authorities in designing town centres that minimise flashpoints. As a statutory partner in 32 CDRPs, we welcome the opportunity to contribute to this consultation.

It should be made clear that we support fully the overall outcomes sought by the white paper but wish to comment on the general approach that has been adopted and on Alcohol Disorder Zones in particular.

General principles

In considering the issue of drinking responsibly the starting point must be the Licensing Act 2003. When viewed in the context of the social outcome of drinking, it is apparent that the Act makes insufficient provision for the proper management of licensed premises and their clientele. Whilst we recognise that the white paper aims at the provision of new powers and the creation of a tougher enforcement regime, we believe there is a real risk that they will be negated by the weaknesses inherent in the system as it currently stands. For example, the hope for staggered closing times is unlikely to become a reality; commercial pressures will inevitably lead to the licensed premises in their own locality, adopting the same closing time – midnight, 1am, 2am etc – the reality will be deferred rather than staggered closing times.

The problems caused by the combination of cheap drink and late closing bars have been widely reported and graphically illustrated by crowds of youths who have been quick to take full advantage of lax licensing laws whilst on holiday in Mediterranean countries. The problem is exacerbated by the knowledge that self or voluntary regulation does not have a history of success in the UK and there is little indication of the industry giving up its drinks promotions aimed at young people. Regulation of the industry alone, however, is insufficient; under section 17 education authorities and schools have a greater role and responsibility for educating teenagers about alcohol and in promoting a healthy lifestyle.

Alcohol Disorder Zones

The concept of Alcohol Disorder Zones may be flawed in a number of ways.

• If ADZs turn out to be notorious drinking ghettos, places avoided by responsible drinkers but an attraction for troublemakers, then they become part of the problem rather than the solution.
• ADZs are simply a reactive response to alcohol-fuelled problems. A better way forward would be the creation of a preventative framework for joint working between CDRPs and the drinks industry, to solve problems before they reach crisis point.
• The processes and efforts required to evidence and justify an ADZ will be complex. Identifying the specific contribution, of each individual premises, to the general problem in an area will be technically and logistically challenging, and may well be entirely disproportionate in cost terms.
• Even if appropriate evidence can be gathered, important questions remain
  • How will the ADZ be defined?
  • What will happen to licensed premises within the Zone that are properly managed and demonstrably unconnected with any disorder?
  • Will there be any protection against the costly legal challenges that are likely to flow from those who are adversely affected such as the drinks industry, fast food outlets and mini cab offices?

What costs might be recovered?

As mentioned above significant costs are likely to be accrued in the processes of gathering and analysing data, the collection of evidence and subsequent work around prevention and rehabilitation, as well as enforcement. Though much of the outlay will fall to the police service, the cost of work by all the other partners in the CDRP should be fully recouped. The importance of prevention and rehabilitation initiatives should not be underestimated as it cannot be acceptable to tolerate a level of disorder within a Zone, that would not be tolerated beyond it, simply because the drinks industry funds the policing and enforcement of the excesses.

Who should pay the costs?

It is entirely inappropriate that the drinks industry should be subsidised through an increase in the precept or by a diminution of service in other aspects of policing. The Metropolitan Police Authority supports the principle ‘the polluter should pay’. On this basis we are currently reviewing the arrangements for the recovery of the full costs of policing football matches and are working with the football authorities to seek a way forward. By analogy ‘but for’ the drinks industry, the scale of alcohol fuelled problems would not be at their current high levels and on that basis the drinks industry should meet the additional costs of policing any ADZ. Such expenditure should be recouped on the basis of full cost recovery through the approved Special Service Agreement scheme

We wish to re-iterate our support for the dialogue ‘Drinking Responsibly’ has created and hope for the opportunity of seeking to work with the Home Office, DCMS, ODPM and all our other partners to develop effective means of tackling the irresponsible drinking and its consequences which blight many of London’s boroughs.

A final matter that we wish to draw to your attention is the absence of an impact analysis that informs consultees as to the implications of each proposal for race equality. As we must consider this under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act we find this omission surprising and unhelpful.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback