Policing and Crime Bill

Clause 30 introduces a new offence of persistently possessing alcohol in a public place for under-18s. Amendment 107, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would effectively render this clause unworkable, which I believe would be wrong. All of us understand the seriousness of heavy drinking—indeed, persistent heavy drinking—by young people. We are coming at it a different way. I should say at the outset that I have listened to the concerns and views expressed by some noble Lords that this offence may unnecessarily criminalise young people. I absolutely agree with those who believe that young people should not enter the criminal justice system unless it is absolutely necessary. However, I also believe that it is very important to have this legislation because while fewer young people are drinking, drinking in public by young people is unfortunately a growing problem that we need to tackle. The need for action is illustrated by a survey, Smoking Drinking and Drug Use Among Young People in England in 2008, which showed that 27 per cent of 11 to 15 year-olds who drink usually do so outside in public places. This represents a 6 per cent increase from 1999. It is also usually the heaviest drinkers who drink in public. More than half of the 11 to 15 year-olds who drink more than 10 units of alcohol a week usually drink outside. That is compelling. Unsupervised drinking by young people in public not only puts them at significant risk of harm—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is well aware of that risk—but all too often can lead to crime, anti-social behaviour and concern and worry for the public at large. The Government are clear that that is completely unacceptable and that it can create significant problems in certain local community areas. Of course, there is no straightforward answer to this. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned the need for an integrated approach, and she is absolutely right about that: there is not a straightforward answer. Drinking by young people must be dealt with through a comprehensive approach that includes education and involves their parents—as was rightly said by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. We have therefore rolled out six alcohol arrest-referral pilot schemes for young people and committed to making personal, social and health education a statutory part of young people’s education. Subject to Parliament’s agreement, alcohol and drug education could become a statutory part of PSHE. This month, we will begin a consultation on revising existing drug and alcohol guidance for schools. In the new year, we will launch a national communications campaign to provide support, advice and information to parents and young people about the risks and harms associated with alcohol. However, although support and advice are key to tackling those issues effectively, we believe that enforcement also has an important role to play. The police already have some powers to deal with young people drinking in public, such as the ability to confiscate alcohol. However, these powers are not sufficient because they lack the flexibility to deal with the different types of public drinking behaviour and they do little to deter repeat drinking. In the youth alcohol action plan, we outlined our new tiered approach for dealing with young people drinking in public. For one-off instances, a young person’s alcohol could be confiscated and their parents may be informed. They could be dispersed from the location or under new provisions in the Bill, where appropriate, a person under 16 could be taken home. For repeat instances, we will encourage the police and local authorities to use acceptable behaviour contracts and parenting contracts. The new offence in the Bill forms the third tier of that approach to deal with the very small minority of young people who are persistently caught drinking in public. Those young people are not being deterred by simply having their alcohol confiscated; they take no notice of any attempted interventions; and they continue to think it is acceptable to drink in public and to cause trouble. This offence is therefore necessary to ensure that the small minority—it is only a small minority—who cause a significant problem for their communities is dealt with. Of course, there are certain circumstances where it may be acceptable for a young person to be in possession of alcohol—for example if it is a necessary part of their work or part of the family groceries. Therefore, the clause allows the police to use their discretion where the young person has a reasonable excuse for possessing alcohol. Nobody wants young people to be unnecessarily criminalised, which is why the offence allows young people "three strikes". That allows those who are not persistent drinkers to have their public drinking nipped in the bud through non-criminal interventions, such as ABCs, but I feel that it is necessary to introduce the new offence so that the minority of persistent drinkers, those who drink in public and are most likely to cause anti-social behaviour or worse, can be dealt with.