| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with care. Before he concludes, perhaps he would care to comment on the problem that we have been considering--that the loss of a licence is essentially the nuclear option and that a system of graduated penalties may well be preferable. He referred to someone stepping towards losing a licence. However, there could be other steps, such as fines and other sanctions that legislation currently does not allow. Such a system might provide a greater incentive for licensees to keep control of their employees and to ensure that they obey the law.
Mr. Collins: I am very interested in the Minister's comments on that point. It was a constructive and helpful intervention, which suggests some useful ways forward. I was also intrigued by his description of the loss of a licence as the nuclear option. There should be options that are more likely to be used. If the fear is that the loss of a licence is regarded by the courts as such a nuclear option that it is not often used, we should have a graduated system. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the problem with the nuclear option is that it is not often used. There should be some circumstances in which the option is used. Nevertheless, he is offering a constructive way forward.
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend may wish to comment on another aspect of the matter, which is whether justices, before granting a licence, should not be questioning potential licensees carefully on their exact understanding of the law and on whether they will undertake their obligations sensibly. Perhaps they would also undertake some of the courses available from the British Institute of Innkeeping, and, of course, adopt the Portman Group code of practice.
Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend, characteristically, offers constructive proposals. Perhaps we should begin to consider the notion--I am not saying that we should move all the way down this road--that an application for and the granting of a licence to sell alcohol is treated as seriously as an application for and the granting of a driving licence. Such a licence may have at least as much to do with the preservation of life as a driving licence, and the introduction of written tests and more complicated procedures has made it more difficult to obtain one of those. My hon. Friend was right to refer to the guidelines set out by the Portman Group. Anything that can be done to make licence holders understand and follow those guidelines is worth doing.
Mr. Boswell: In the light of that thought and the Minister's helpful intervention, would it not be worth considering temporary withdrawal of licences, as happens when driving licences are confiscated for finite periods?
Mr. Collins: We should seek, both in Committee Bill and from the Government more generally, the widest menu of options for the courts so that they may express displeasure and condemnation of actions taken either by employees of licence holders or by licence holders themselves. People should believe that the courts will act when something happens. That principle is the genesis of the Bill--the hon. Member for Pudsey introduced it because of the clear injustice that occurred when the courts could not act.
We need to give the courts the widest possible range of measures for application to different circumstances. However, we must make it clear that we want to tackle the general problem, which has recently grown. We want to turn back the tide before the problem increases yet further and before the majority of young people experience these difficulties, which is likely to happen soon on present trends.
Often, when we discuss complex and many-sided problems--in this case we have discussed parental responsibility, corporate responsibility and the roles both of teenagers who sell and buy alcohol--we may feel that the problem is simply too difficult and that nothing can be done. We may even feel that action would make the problem worse. Today, however, we have begun to identify steps that, if they will not solve the problem, will begin to improve the position.
Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley):
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and others who have spoken today. As one who is not a frequent participant in Friday debates, I can only assume that I have heard the usual process of discursive debate and unanimity.
Mr. Leslie:
Perhaps I should pay more attention in future.
One of today's most telling phrases came from the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who said that, in his 30 years in the House, he had not heard a more admirable presentation of a private Member's Bill than that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). I, too, support the proposals made by my constituency neighbour. I am a sponsor of the Bill, although I would be happy to withdraw in favour of any Conservative Member if that would help it to proceed. As a sponsor, I am keen to see the Bill come into force because it is extremely well framed. My hon. Friend's argument is focused and sharp, and the Bill has won unanimity by the nature of its design. We must ask how to improve licensing laws.
I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). He has just left the Chamber, and that will allow me to mention an incident without incurring opprobrium. I recall that he once had bandages on the middle fingers of his right hand as a result of drink. I read that he had broken his fingers by hitting a drinks
machine and, although it was a coffee machine, we may feel that mixing with drink has not been to his advantage. It was useful to hear his views.
In many ways, the Bill offers common-sense change. We often talk about common sense, but legislation does not always match that talk. The House can help the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to fulfil their duty to prosecute when the spirit of legislation implies a need for it. However, unforeseen loopholes can prevent prosecution, and it is our duty--especially in the private Member's legislative process--to improve matters. The public expects that of us, and we should scrutinise legislation thoroughly, but also revisit it later to close loopholes and maintain the original spirit of the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has advanced a modernising proposal that considers the changing nature of supermarket and chain store retailing of alcohol. We must try to raise public confidence in the licensing laws. Silly loopholes exist in several areas of the law, and this is one area in which good drafting and a consideration of the changing circumstances of retailing can help.
My hon. Friend has done us a service by defining his proposal tightly. He has not changed the wider general licensing laws, but has taken a one-step approach. The Bill is significant. I have not spoken to the constituents involved in the tragic case of David Knowles, but I have read reports on it and am happy to support my hon. Friend's proposal. By not altering the burden of evidence, and by not significantly changing the defences for people who may be prosecuted under the licensing laws, he has left the gist of the law intact while focusing on the loophole.
The CPS needs to be able to make prosecutions with confidence. If there is any doubt that a case will have a successful outcome, the CPS is reluctant to prosecute it. If we, as legislators, are indirectly responsible for that, by not closing loopholes, we have a duty to deal with the matter.
We need to give the CPS greater confidence in its ability to prosecute cases. The public expect that. My constituents are often bamboozled when they read of cases that seem to be open and shut, but which, in the nitty-gritty of their prosecution, are dropped for technical reasons. We need to frame legislation that is more in line with public expectations.
We must deter licensees and retailers from selling alcohol to minors. We should send a strong message that no loophole will provide an excuse for breaking the spirit of the law. We must ensure that all our licensing laws are properly enforced; a blind eye is turned on far too many occasions. There must be stronger incentives for licensees and retailers to train their staff properly.
Licensees have a responsibility to protect from alcohol abuse those young people who come into their stores, but they also have duties to wider society, which must be reinforced. Licensees must stop young people from purchasing alcohol because of the myriad consequences that can occur. We have heard that the most tragic events can take place in some circumstances.
Alcohol abuse by young people manifests itself in society in many ways, such as vandalism. It has the potential to lead to other forms of drug abuse. Licensees have a duty to themselves to ensure that the spirit of the law is fulfilled. We should support the Bill so as to ensure that there can be no excuse for them not to fulfil their duties.
Some wider issues have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made some important points about the dangers of high-volume consumption. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) suggested that we should try to encourage young people to avoid bingeing. When young people reach a certain age, they want to experiment with drinking--they have a candy-shop mentality. We shall probably never be able to stop that, but we need to consider ways of removing the instant temptation to consume large amounts of alcohol.
Some interesting points were made about internet retailing of alcohol. I do not know whether there are regulations as to the use of credit cards, although the age limit for obtaining them is fairly high. However, as only the number of the card is needed for internet purchases, I suspect that credit cards are frequently used. A postal service would be most attractive for people wanting to buy alcohol. I hope that the Government will consider that matter.
We need to discourage teenage alcohol abuse. We have discussed alcopops and the pros and cons of banning them. However, the best way to deter consumption of alcohol is to ensure that its availability is restricted. We must enforce our legislation and tighten up loopholes so that we prevent the sale of alcohol to young people at the sharp end. That is the best way to proceed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |