Don’t let Councils ignore evidence

The Herald reports:

The bill, which is likely to be debated by Parliament next month, has two measures: ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship for broadcast sports, and block appeals of councils’ local alcohol policies.

Swarbrick said she felt they were two uncontroversial proposals which were strongly backed by evidence. They would give councils more control over alcohol availability in their areas and prevent young people from being exposed to the “normalisation and glamorisation” of drinking. …

Within Labour, MPs have expressed support for the proposal to prevent councils from facing constant, endless appeals when they try to introduce their own alcohol policies. But there is concern among some of its MPs about the ban on alcohol sponsorship.

Actually I think the worst part of the bill is around the local alcohol policies. The sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 only allows appeals against Local Alcohol Policies if it is “unreasonable”. What this means is that the Council needs some evidence that the restrictions they propose will reduce alcohol harm. This should be pretty simple.

But Council after Council has failed to do this. They think the Act allows them to place whatever restrictions appeal to them, regardless of any evidence that it will reduce harm. And so they pass LAPs, and then get them struck down because they have no evidence to back them up. And as a society we should demand that Councils have evidence before they restrict citizens from being able to do something they want to, such as buy alcohol conveniently.

I’ll give an example, which I have first hand experience of. Some Councils put into their LAPs a policy that supermarkets can’t sell alcohol after 9 pm. They have no idea whether or not that will reduce harm, but they have been persuaded that the more restrictions you have, the better it is.

The supermarkets hire Curia to survey shoppers at a dozen supermarkets who are shopping between 9 pm and 11 pm, who have purchased alcohol as to whether the alcohol is for consumption that night, or later, and why they are shopping at that time. The vast vast majority say they are purchasing it for later consumption, and are merely buying it as part of their weekly shop because that is most convenient for them as they have kids etc.

So the supermarkets have evidence that the LAP will not reduce harm. It merely inconveniences peoples doing their weekly shop. The vast majority of people at a supermarket at 9.30 pm buying alcohol are not halfway through a party and needing to top up their supplies.

So the supermarkets present their evidence, and they wait for the Council to produce their own evidence that their LAP will reduce harm. And the Council doesn’t. It just ignores the evidence, and then has a tizzy fit when the supermarkets appeal.

And what Chloe’s bill does is reward councils for ignoring evidence by making their decisions, no matter how irrational, unappealable.

It is an appalling bill. All Councils have to do is show their LAPs are reasonable. This is not a high barrier.