Booze ban splits council as single vote brings new laws a step closer

Or is it an unnecessary and draconian measure, with little or no public support, which gives too much power to the police?

These questions concentrated the minds of Scottish Borders Council last week when it was agreed - by just a single vote and after a lively hour-long debate - that proscriptive byelaws should be introduced.

The laws, which will apply in Jedburgh, Hawick, Newtown, Coldingham and Eyemouth as well as Galashiels town centre, will now be drafted in collaboration with the Scottish Government which will ultimately be required to confirm them.

The legislation – to “prohibit the consumption of alcohol in designated public places” - will be advertised in the press and the public will be given four weeks to respond.

If objections are received, a local public enquiry will be held. The cost of this statutory process – just over £5,000 – will be borne by the council.

The byelaws, if and when enacted, will not be enforced on the principal day of each town’s common riding or local summer festival; nor will they be enforced from 6pm on December 31 to 6am on January 1.

As revealed in these columns last week, a report by Brian Frater, SBC’s head of regulatory services, claimed there was public support for the new laws in the selected towns.

His assessment was based on a consultation exercise, launched eight months ago, to which only four of the region’s 67 community councils responded.

Indeed, just 132 submissions were received from across the Borders, with around 55% backing the byelaws.

Mr Frater admitted the level of engagement was “disappointing”, but stressed that the police, Scottish Ambulance Service and NHS Borders favoured the legislation.

The only support for byelaws in Galashiels came from the police who cited “known evidence of street drinking particularly en route to and migrating between licensed premises” and claimed this would increase with the introduction of the railway and the town’s new transport interchange.

In Jedburgh, too, no community backing for the new laws was expressed, but the police highlighted “an issue” with street drinking associated with sittings of the sheriff court.

No responses were received on behalf of Selkirk, Earlston, Lauder, Innerleithen or Peebles and Kelso’s community council was “dead against” the byelaws. These towns are thus excluded from the new measures.

At last week’s full council meeting the argument against the byelaws was led by leader David Parker (Ind).

“Fewer than 75 people across our region claim to be in favour of these laws and that extremely poor response does not give us a mandate to proceed,” said Councillor Parker. “The evidence to take this forward with any confidence is just not there and, if we go to the next stage, I envisage many objections. The case has not been made and, in my view, no further action should be taken.” Earlier, Chief Inspector Kenny Simpson said the laws would be “one more piece in the jigsaw” in the fight against alcohol-related crimes including violence and public disorder for which there was a clear correlation.

“The police consider this a preventative tool, not a sledgehammer to crack a nut,” said CI Simpson. “I can give an assurance we will police this by consent and not be over-zealous.

“It will only become an offence if people do not desist from drinking in these public places when asked to do so.” Dr Eric Baijal, the region’s director of public health, said anything which helped change society’s relationship with alcohol – and lessen the impact on health and social work services – was to be welcomed. He noted that Borders was the only region in Scotland not to have such byelaws.

Councillor Catriona Bhatia (Lib Dem), SBC’s depute leader with responsibility for health, said no-one was disputing the need for society to have an improved relationship with alcohol.

“But is this really the best way of achieving that?” she asked. “The police already have powers to act in cases of underage drinking or if an offence is being committed by someone who has consumed alcohol. This looks like a solution looking for a problem.

“There is no evidence to support the byelaws either from the current downward trend in crime statistics or the abject response to the consultation.

“To allow police to make a discretionary judgment to intervene and remove alcohol from someone on the basis that it 'might’ lead to an offence is against the principle of innocent till proven guilty.

“However, the biggest contradiction is that the two times in the year when excessive consumption of alcohol is most likely to lead to an offence - festival days and Hogmanay - are specifically excluded from the byelaw proposal.” Other councillors lined up to support the byelaws.

Willie Archibald (SNP), chairman of the licensing board, said: “This had not been dreamt up by the police but has widespread support, even from the local licensed trade.

“Civil liberties are not an issue here. The real issue is what we read about every week in the court pages of our local papers – of families whose lives are torn apart by the ravages of alcohol.” Councillor Stuart Marshall (Ind), who is chairman of Hawick Common Riding Committee said: “The police surely deserve our support in something that may go some way to address the scourge of anti-social behaviour in Hawick.” Opposition leader Councillor Michelle Ballantyne (Con), who runs a drug and alcohol counselling service for young people, told the meeting: “Many of these youngsters would have welcomed such an intervention from the police before they committed an offence. This is about establishing a model of behaviour and sending the message that consuming alcohol in public places is not something to aspire to.

“In any case, the cost of introducing these byelaws is nothing compared to the cost of sending people to a young offenders’ institution.” Mr Parker’s long-time ally Michael Cook (Ind) described his leader’s stance as “balderdash”.

“I have the letters from the community councils of Eyemouth and Coldingham who, after widespread discussion, have concluded that louts drinking in public are to the great detriment of their communities and visitors,” said Councillor Cook. “Community councils have a statutory duty to represent the views of their communities and this council has a duty to listen.

“Our decision today is merely a stepping stone to statutory consultation…let us not deny people the opportunity to have their say.” Galashiels councillor Bill Herd also backed the byelaws, recounting a recent incident outside his home when an inebriated youth placed a can of alcohol on top of Mr Herd’s car and proceeded to urinate on the vehicle.

“Apart from the health issues associated with alcohol, surely we cannot allow our constituents, young and old, to witness such disgusting acts,” he added.

And Councillor Gavin Logan (Con) said the case for a byelaw in Galashiels was strengthened by the railway.

“We all hope that more tourists will come to the Borders…the last thing we want them to witness as they step off the train is public drinking.” The debate closed with two pleas for no action.

Councillor Stuart Bell (SNP), executive member for economic development, said that only 0.1% of the Borders public had responded to the consultation.

“On that basis, we cannot possibly make a decision about what communities should be included or excluded in new legislation,” he added.

And Galashiels councillor Bill White (Ind) felt the low consultation response reflected the lack of support for byelaws.

“In the last 15 years I can recall seeing only three instances, outwith the Gala Day, of people drinking outside in Galashiels town centre, yet it is being portrayed as the wild west,” said Mr White.

“The suggestion that seeing someone drinking outside will lead others into alcohol abuse is ludicrous. The police already have powers if an offence is committed and that should be enough.” On a division, the council voted 14-13 to proceed with the byelaws. Attempts to have Galashiels and Jedburgh removed from the new legislation were defeated by 12-8 and 11-9 respectively.