| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Pound: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about companies not being the best arbiters, but does he agree that one of the more interesting aspects of the Bill and the background to it is that the Portman Group, comprising producers and suppliers, has acted with great responsibility and is an example of the way in which responsible retailers, wholesalers and producers can anticipate legislation and sometimes respond to a problem more effectively than Parliament can?
Mr. Collins: I entirely agree. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I was going to explore it later in my speech. However, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated my remarks.
We have heard about instances in different parts of the country of the problems that have been identified in the debate. In my constituency, in Kendal, close to my own home, difficulties have arisen in exactly the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Pudsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). Young people congregating either immediately outside or close to a small corner shop, supermarket or off-licence cause disturbance and concern to local residents. That undermines the fabric of society: people in the area feel intimidated, even if they are in their own home, because they look out of their window and see problems occurring outside; and the parents of the young people involved are often profoundly concerned. We must do something to tackle such problems. It may well be that the Bill is not the end of the process, but it is an important starting point.
We must also develop our thinking about vendors and the Bill's implications for them. It has been argued that many of those who sell alcohol are in a similar age group to those who buy it, or feel that they are subject to intimidation. For various reasons, they may feel that they have no choice but to sell alcohol in circumstances that are less than ideal. That is why, although the Bill represents positive and important steps forward, we must think about going further and putting some of the onus and the responsibility under law on the national chains.
When describing the circumstances in which his constituent died, the hon. Member for Pudsey explained that they related to sales from a well-known national retail chain that advertises extensively throughout the country and probably has outlets in almost every constituency. It is
one of the most well-known national brands operating in that sector of the economy. It strikes me that we should seek ways to make that retail chain nationally feel responsible for activities that are not merely isolated cases. I suspect that those activities take place in and around a large number of sites--not only those of the national chain that has been singled out, but those of others as well.
I was discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) the need for corporate responsibility. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ealing, North are right to mention the work of the Portman Group and the many companies in the sector that recognise that there is a problem, want to contribute positively toward solving it and have contributed significant sums of their shareholders' cash to that end. Equally, it is difficult to believe that some of the advertisements on national television and in the national media are not targeted at those who, at the very best, are on the borderline of being legally allowed to consume those products.
In some ways, retailers are not providing an environment in which people feel protected against intimidation. I make that point because, as the hon. Member for Pudsey will know, Alcohol Concern very strongly welcomes the legislation. None the less, it has said that, although it welcomes the way in which the Bill closes the loophole, it is concerned about it taking away
We have heard of cases in which large groups of young people go into retail outlets late at night, with perhaps only one female employee on the counter, who--although there may be CCTV--feels intimidated. Although companies already have an incentive to provide some form of protection for their staff and stock, as the consequences of allowing their properties to be robbed would be very damaging to them, it would be desirable if we could work in partnership--I do not suggest that it should be done purely by means of the stick--with some of those national retail chains in recognising that they all have an interest in a strong, healthy society. They need to operate within such a society as much as we wish to live within one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
indicated assent.
Mr. Collins:
I see the Minister nodding. I should very much welcome anything that he may be able to say on the subject in his reply. Although at least some of the issues that we have heard about in the debate are addressed directly in the legislation, I also invite the hon. Member for Pudsey to think and reflect on the point if--as I very much hope--the Bill proceeds to Committee.
Proposed new section 169H(2) would clarify the law by providing:
The hon. Member for Pudsey was right to say that it is an offence to permit something to happen if one could and should have stopped it. For example, perhaps the genuine holder of the licence is not present and cannot be held directly liable--in the sense of "I was around and could have stopped it"--but he or she may be liable in the broader sense that he or she did not provide guidelines that made it sufficiently clear that, if there was any doubt, the onus on their employee was not to sell alcohol.
Mr. Truswell:
I am very grateful for those comments. To clarify the position, the law currently puts the onus on the licence holder. In David Knowles's case--I make no apologies for referring back to it--the licence holder was investigated and interviewed by investigating officers to determine whether she could demonstrate that she had given such training and raised her employees' awareness of the law. My understanding is that she had not been on the premises, but that the investigating officers still wished to reassure themselves that she had done all that she could do to achieve the aims that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If she had not been able to demonstrate that, I am sure that a report would have gone to the CPS and that she would have found herself in the dock.
Mr. Collins:
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the circumstances and more of the background of the case. His comments were helpful and illustrative. I am sure that he and I would agree that it is important that the compulsion, or at least the incentive, on the licence holder should be as strong as possible. As we know, one of the most important ways in which such compulsion could bear on licence holders is through the fear that they might lose their licence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, we should ensure that the Bill strengthens rather than weakens licence holders' feeling that, if anyone associated with one of their premises is convicted of one of the offences--although they will not necessarily lose their licence--it will contribute to a process in which they may well lose their licence. Such a process would help to ensure that there are very clear incentives for people to behave.
"an important incentive for employing companies to ensure their employees are clear about their legal responsibilities and the consequences for neglecting them."
It goes on to say:
"However, by making employees liable to prosecution, it is important that employing companies do not themselves avoid prosecution where they have not made legal responsibilities clear to their employees or provided them with adequate, relevant training."
I accept what the hon. Member for Pudsey said. He has sought to base what he is doing--very narrowly, but quite properly and correctly--on closing a loophole in the 1964 Act. However, I hope that we will hear from the Minister whether he is prepared to contemplate examining provisions that would have the practical effect of giving some of the national retail chains a very direct incentive to provide that form of training and employment guidance. Perhaps we should even go beyond that.
"Where the holder of a justices' licence is convicted of any of the offences"--
that are listed elsewhere--
"and the licence is held in respect of licensed premises in relation to which the offence was committed, the court may order that he shall forfeit the licence if--
To paraphrase the provision, one might say that it is a "two strikes and you're out" principle. The provision, however, applies directly only if it is the holder of the justices' licence who is found guilty of the offence.
(a) he has one or more offences of that or any other offence . . .
(b) he already has one or more convictions of an offence under section 169 of this Act."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |