I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I am sure he is aware, when we heard evidence in Committee we discussed some other options for deregulation. I do not intend to set out our deregulatory programme now—I am sure that you would not consider that to be in order, Mr Deputy Speaker—but I feel that the Opposition have the right, and indeed the duty, to comment on the fact that the entire contribution the Bill will make in savings is estimated to be £10 million over 10 years. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would consider that to be a radical benefit.
New clause 5 and new schedule 1 insert a new part in the Licensing Act 2003 to introduce a new procedure for authorising the sale of alcohol where that sale is part of a community event, as we have heard. The Opposition absolutely believe that it is right to remove unnecessary regulatory and legislative burdens from individuals, civil society, business and public sector organisations, including the Women’s Institute and other organisations to which the Minister referred.
Although we do not oppose the proposal, we have some concerns about which we are seeking assurances from the Minister. In Committee we discussed temporary event notices, the sale of chocolate liqueurs and other minor changes to licensing. Indeed, when we had a short debate on what constitutes a low level of alcohol consumption, I had a flashback to our debate on how many Mars bars’ worth of liqueurs it would take to intoxicate a child. At no stage did the Minister present at the time indicate that the Government were considering introducing what I think—I am sure the Minister will agree—is a large change to a complex licensing regime at this stage.
Introducing changes in that manner has become something of a hallmark of this Government. However, I understand that the Bill was written in draft about a year ago and that long before that Ministers were looking for proposals to put in it, so will the Minister explain why this proposal has been tabled at the last minute? The result is that interested parties have not had the opportunity to scrutinise it. Why the rush? The regime has been in place for 11 years, and although we support the aims of the amendment, we do not feel that the manner of its introduction is warranted. It is not the way to make changes to a complex licensing regime.
Will the Minister assure the House that any secondary regulations that are brought forward as a consequence of these changes will not be introduced in that way? Will he tell the House what consultation was undertaken with licensing authorities, in particular, and whether they support the change? How much time, if any, were they given to respond to it? I note that the Minister spoke of consultation following the consultation on the alcohol strategy, but the Local Government Association was certainly surprised by the inclusion of these proposals in this manner.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) criticised the Government’s overall approach to alcohol. The Minister thought he was criticising the Government’s alcohol strategy, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is very difficult to discern an alcohol strategy to criticise. It is hard to criticise what does not exist, though it is right to criticise the fact that it does not exist. What kind of strategy introduces changes in this piecemeal manner? There is a document on the Government’s website entitled “Alcohol Strategy”, yet it is anything but a strategy. These seemingly random changes, introduced with very little notice, do not give Labour Members or stakeholders outside the House any confidence that Ministers are working hard towards any kind of specific objective or plan.
2 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) pointed out, there are concerns to be raised about this proposal. We support its aims, but it is hard to judge the likely effects it will have when introduced in a such a disjointed and seemingly impulsive manner. As the LGA said in its briefing, which I am sure the Minister has read:
“Introducing this clause as a standalone item means that it cannot be considered in the context of a potential public health licensing objective, which the LGA strongly believes should be brought forward, and which the Government has said it is still considering. The proposed clause could be said to increase the availability and accessibility of alcohol, contributing to the high levels of alcohol-related health harm that exist.”
If this were part of an overall strategy, we would be able to see how the Government addressed those criticisms. The LGA has also proposed a complete review of licensing. Has the Minister thought about commissioning such a review so that any further changes might be considered in terms of their effect on the wider regime?
Another concern we have, to which the Minister alluded briefly, is the potential cost of this change to local authorities. There is a prescribed fee, but it is not clear whether it will cover the cost to licensing authorities. He spoke of further consultation. Will he give more details on whom he will consult and what will be the remit of the consultation? I am sure he is aware that at present alcohol licensing is a net cost to local authorities of approximately £17 million a year. This is clearly a disincentive to refuse applications, as that may result in costly appeals, or to initiate enforcement action, especially when local authorities are struggling with the Government’s programme of cuts. It is important that the Minister does not load another cost burden on to them. I would therefore appreciate his clarifying the point about cost recovery.
The Minister confirmed that this licence is in addition to temporary event notices. Will he clarify the limit on the total number of days in a calendar year when events can be held under TENs? In Committee, he said that it would be 21 days. Does this proposal affect that in any way?
The Government’s alcohol policy is in complete chaos. Minimum unit pricing was promised, then ditched; we had another U-turn on multi-buy discounts; antisocial behaviour powers have been watered down; the sobriety schemes have seemingly been abandoned; reform of licensing never materialised; and the late-night levy looks set to raise less than 5% of what was promised. The Government blocked Labour’s proposals to make public health a licensing condition when the Bill that became the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 was discussed. The alcohol strategy, such that it is, includes a commitment to look at public health in cumulative assessments that councils undertake, but this does not seem to have been taken forward either. The Government have done nothing on alcohol education or alcohol advertising to kids. The Prime Minister promised
“a real effort to get to grips with the root cause”
of alcohol problems, with a strategy that attacked alcohol harms from “every angle”. The Minister spoke of looking to achieve a balance. Will he give greater clarity on the context in which this measure contributes to that balance?
I see no evidence of any kind of strategy on alcohol whatsoever. This is just another random licensing measure thrown into this Bill at the last minute without proper consultation, as we have heard from the interested parties. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to work with licensing authorities on the secondary regulations and to reassure the House that councils will not be harmed or hammered by the fees involved. In expectation of those assurances, we will not oppose these measures.