| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his most important Bill. Does he agree that another group of people feel vulnerable when faced with these drunken louts? I refer to women travelling alone on trains. I have felt intimidated by bunches of raucous young people boarding the train, swilling their drink and throwing it across the floor. I hope that police powers will extend to trains.
Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Police powers will extend to public transport. In south-east Essex, people using public transport have suffered precisely the problem that my hon. Friend highlights.
Some people say that we should use the model byelaw which has been taken up by about 40 councils, which prohibits the consumption of alcohol in public by anyone of any age. I am sorry to say that that law would be inappropriate in seaside areas such as Eastbourne. In any event, the problem is specifically associated with under-age drinking in public. Those who are over the age of 18 can drink in pubs, and hon. Members will be delighted to hear that I am not planning to legislate against that.
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1169
Lloyd Girling of Burkhill is one of many who have written to me in support of the measure. His letter states:
On 17 December 1996, commenting in The Daily Telegraph on schoolboys and girls indulging in drinking binges, Sergeant Geoff Elms of Cleveland police said:
My final example, and one of the most important, takes me to Dorset. In promoting the Bill, I have been particularly influenced by Weymouth police's excellent and pioneering initiative, which is supported by the Dorset Evening Echo and is known as the "Do you know where your children are?" campaign. It was initiated by Sergeant Bernie Macey, whom I congratulate, and has been successful and well received, locally and nationally. The Home Secretary, who helped last year to launch the Bill for me, visited the campaign and gives it his support.
Of the 139 children who were apprehended last year, only eight came to the police's attention on a second occasion. That tells us something. It shows clearly that, after their parents had been informed, they dealt with the situation. That shows that parents do care and will act to control their children--or, at least, most do--and I welcome that fact. That is why it is right that the Bill should include the provision for police to take names and addresses of under-age drinkers and to report the matter directly to a youngster's parents. That brings me to the Bill's provisions.
The Bill gives police the power to confiscate alcohol or a drink that appears to be alcohol, where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person is under the age of 18, and is in a public place or a place to which he has unlawfully gained access. Police would therefore be able to use the power if a group of youngsters were trespassing on private property such as school grounds, empty derelict property or any place to which the public or any section of the public had access at the material time, on payment or otherwise, either by way of right, or by virtue of express or implied permission.
The police will also have the power to confiscate alcohol from people who are aged 18 or over in such a place, if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has made alcohol available to someone in his company who is under the age of 18 or is likely to do so.
The Bill also gives the police the power to require the person in possession of the alcohol to state his name and address. That person's refusal either to surrender the alcohol or to provide the police with his name and address
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1170
The Bill applies to England and Wales but not to Scotland, where a similar measure is included in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, or Northern Ireland, although we are considering that matter carefully. It may be appropriate to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland, which could be achieved by an amendment in Committee or in another place.
Before the Bill was drawn up, the Home Office consulted interested parties on the measures. They included the police, health organisations and interest groups, the licensed trade and local councils. As one might expect, the proposals received widespread support, including from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation, the British Medical Association and Alcohol Concern, which do such good work. Local councils came out heavily in favour of proposals. It was interesting to note that the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations and the Society of Independent Brewers made no objections.
Practical difficulties that the Bill will impose on the police are not now, I trust, a cause for great concern. For many years, the police and society have had to deal with the difficulty of judging whether someone is 18. It has not caused any overriding problem. In any event, in mixed age groups where alcohol might be shared, all that alcohol will be liable to be confiscated.
Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West):
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, my life has been based on being somewhat vertically challenged. I have no doubt that, in any such mixed group, until I was about the age of 25, if not later, I would have been regarded by the police as probably under 18. Is he sure that, in those circumstances, we wish to introduce a power to enable the police to judge purely by external appearance whether they should remove private property from someone?
Dr. Spink:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to go further into this problem. Of course, I would advise him to take up the Portman Group's "proof of age" identity card scheme for young persons over the age of 18. I personally want an identity card system, either voluntary or otherwise, which would be a good measure.
In any event, the police we are talking about are generally police on the street. They know who their youngsters are. They meet them and come across them regularly. They know who is abusing alcohol and who is getting up to a little mischief here and there. They are sensible and streetwise, not unwise and sitting behind desks. They have their ways and means of deciding how old someone is. If they make a mistake, it errs on the safe side. It prevents that youngster--perhaps my hon. Friend--from drinking alcohol when the policeman has gone, getting into trouble and ending up with a criminal record, which would have barred my hon. Friend from coming to this place.
The fact that the Bill does not give the power of search on the street is a great strength. It is right not to give the police such a power in these circumstances, because it could cause unseemly confrontations if youngsters decided, as they sometimes might, to act up in front of
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1171
Those questions are important, but the benefits offered by the Bill far outweigh the slight practical difficulties. The Portman Group, which represents the drinks industry, said:
In the seven years since it was introduced, the card has been issued to about 250,000 people over the age of 18. I congratulate the Portman Group on that scheme, and I hope that ways can be found to promote its more widespread use. One way would be to consider the example given by licensing authorities in Glasgow, which makes it compulsory for retailers who want a licence to take up the scheme. That has been successful. There has been a 600 per cent. increase in the scheme's take-up by young persons. All licensing authorities should consider doing that, although, if they did, the Portman Group might be looking for sources of funding to finance it. No doubt we will hear from it about that.
We need more street policing. I have yet to see a replacement for the bobby on the beat. My Bill will help to make him more effective. We need to support and promote parental control, and my Bill will help to achieve that as well. Those are active, interventionist measures, but there are other passive measures that society could and should take.
"The relationship between alcohol misuse in young people and crime is well documented and although the cost to the nation is considerable, the cost, however, to young people themselves, their families and their communities is incalculable."
Those are wise words. Mr. Girling goes on to speak about the negative impact of under-age drinking on the fabric of our society, and states that children as young as 11 are involved. I have a surprise for him. Children even younger than 11 are involved. The House must act now to protect those young children by supporting the Bill.
"The girls tended to be about 14 and just hanging around darkened corners they are making themselves vulnerable.
Nine years old, and this little boy was legally drinking alcohol in public. Clearly we must now act to stop such nonsense.
The fact that they are drinking means they will not be fully in control and therefore at even greater risk.
In one instance we found nearly 80 youngsters in a school field drinking. The youngest boy we came across was just nine."
"Abuse of alcohol by under-18s can lead to problems at home and school and to threatening behaviour in public. It can also lead to health problems for young people.
The Portman Group's particular concern, expressed to me, was to stress that no single measure would, like a panacea, remove all alcohol abuse problems in society. Of course I and all of us here accept that. It is simply common sense. Crime, alcohol abuse and other problems associated with youths must be tackled in a variety of ways. For instance, we need more closed circuit television and better controls at the point of sale of alcohol. The Portman Group's "proof of age" identity card scheme has helped in that respect. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) will consider it.
But whilst the law bans the sale of alcohol to under-18s, there is clearly a minority that misuses it, often with distressing results."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |