Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Heald: Will the White Paper be produced before the end of March?

Mr. O'Brien: We expect it to be available before the end of March, but I do not want to give a cast-iron date at this stage. It is well in order and we have merely to sort out some of the detail. It will be published in a matter of weeks, and certainly in less than two months' time.

At the heart of the White Paper intended to modernise our licensing laws will lie the need to build on the work done so far by the strengthening of the law on under-age purchase and consumption. The Bill can be part of the platform on which we build our reforms. Our existing licensing laws are in many ways archaic and unnecessarily complex. They are riddled with red tape and bureaucracy that appear to contribute little to protecting children, preventing crime, ensuring public safety or minimising public nuisance. There can be few parents who understand well--if at all--the laws on under-age purchase and consumption of alcohol.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove drew attention to some key points in the Licensing Act 1964. I agree that it is difficult to understand the rationality of some of the provisions in that Act. Persons under 18 cannot buy a drink anywhere on licensed premises, whether in the bar of a public house or elsewhere. The only exception is people 16 or over who can buy beer, cider or porter for consumption with a meal not served in a bar. Persons under 18 cannot drink in a bar, but those aged five or over can lawfully drink alcohol elsewhere in licensed premises, such as in a family room or a pub garden. Persons aged five or over can drink in a private club, a public place or at home. Persons under 14 are not allowed in the bar of licensed premises during permitted hours unless a

11 Feb 2000 : Column 572

children's certificate is in force. It is an offence to be drunk while in charge of a child under seven. Finally, it is an offence to give a child under five an alcoholic drink anywhere.

The law is complex, and parents and licensees need to understand it. We need a simpler, more rational approach.

Mr. Forth: We may also wish later to discuss references in previous legislation, which may still be in force, to liqueur chocolates. Given what the Minister has just said about young children, we may wish to consider how relevant those provisions continue to be. We might ask whether provisions on the availability and consumption of liqueur chocolates remain relevant.

Mr. O'Brien: I have to confess that the right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I have not delved into. In view of what he has said, I shall certainly find out what the rules are. [Interruption.] It appears that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border may be able to quote the precise clauses involved, and I shall certainly look into them.

On the one hand, we ban sales to minors in very precisely defined places. On the other, purchases by small children are permitted in registered private clubs, on trains, on boats and on planes. Such a confused variety of laws makes no sense in today's world. The law relies too heavily on the good faith of people serving alcohol in clubs, on boats and on trains. That has led to problems, such as boats offering coastal water excursions that allow 14-year-olds the opportunity to dance and to drink alcohol lawfully. We fully intend to deal with such problems, and the White Paper will outline how we propose to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley argued persuasively that we need to restore confidence in licensing law. The Government can and will seek to reform and modernise complex arrangements, and our starting point for new licensing laws will be the protection of the young and vulnerable in our society. We need a fundamental rethink of those issues; that is what the Government have been doing.

Since the early 19th century, the basic principles governing licensing law have not changed significantly. Although alcohol consumption in this country had by that time been falling for more than 50 years, in the mid-19th century the Temperance Society pressed for tighter restrictions. In some places, hours were reduced and punishments increased. Victorian reformers addressed the question whether children should be drinking; for the first time, the fundamental issue of protecting the young was placed at the heart of our licensing laws.

In 1872, it was made illegal to sell spirits on licensed premises to children aged under 16. In 1886, sales of any alcoholic drink for consumption on licensed premises were made illegal if the children were under 13. For the sake of context, it is important to remember that at that time a girl of 12 and a boy of 13 could lawfully marry--so much for Victorian values.

In 1901, the sale of alcohol to children under 14 was banned, with some exceptions. The present age limit of 18 years was introduced in 1923, as was the law permitting 16 and 17-year-olds to buy beer, porter, cider or perry with a meal. Several emergency statutes were introduced, which further restricted the hours for the sale of alcohol.

11 Feb 2000 : Column 573

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South asked about lowering the age at which alcohol could be purchased. We do not take the view that there should be a lowering of the present age of 18. There are several reasons for that. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is possible to portray much inconsistency in the statutory setting of age limits associated with certain activities.

However, there is a well-established practice of placing age limits on the purchase of certain goods, both for the protection of children and to protect others from the immature or uncontrolled use of dangerous items. For example, alcohol, fireworks, solvents and certain videos and computer games all share an age limit of 18 for purchase. Knives, unsealed razor blades, axes, national lottery tickets and cigarettes all share the lower age limit of 16 for purchase.

It is, therefore, by no means unusual for Parliament to assess the degree of risk involved for children and to impose an appropriate age limit on purchase. The issue is not consistency, but risk. In addition, we believe that we have reflected widespread public concern by putting a strong focus on the need to reduce youth crime. There is no doubt that there is a strong association between crime and alcohol consumption.

No representations have been made to the Government by the hospitality or leisure industry for a reduction in the age limit. There is no pressure for change that we can detect. In recent years, we have reacted to public concerns over alcopops. I have already referred to the battle over marketing to youngsters. We consider that any change in our position on the age limit for drinking by young people would be taken as a green light for the industry to return to targeting them in its marketing strategies. We do not want that.

Our policy will be reflected in the forthcoming White Paper--it is to maintain the age of 18 for the legal purchase and consumption of alcohol. Alcohol in the hands of young and immature people is bad news. Too early an exposure to alcohol can produce the worst possible consequences, as shown by the case of David Knowles.

The Bill points us to an example of the archaic nature of our alcohol laws in the words "licensee and their servants", and to the problems those words have caused for those seeking to prosecute irresponsible and criminal retailers in today's world. The era of master and servant has gone. The courts have ruled that the term "servant" does not include those who are not directly employed by the licensee. As has been explained, those employed by a chain of retailers are exempted from the provisions of the 1964 Act.

It is unacceptable that the words of an Act which Parliament intended to protect young people now serve the irresponsible and the criminal as an immunity from prosecution. No retailer who sells to children should be able to evade prosecution.

The impact of that loophole is tragically illustrated by the outline of the case of David Knowles. The Bill deals with the issue by making it an offence for anyone--regardless of the precise nature of their employment status--to sell alcohol to someone under 18. Correspondingly, anyone in a position of authority, whether or not they are the holder of the licence, will commit an offence if they allow someone to make such a sale. In both cases there are appropriate defences. It will

11 Feb 2000 : Column 574

be a defence for anyone making a sale to establish that they had no reason to think that the buyer was under 18, and it will be a defence for someone who allows that sale to prove that they exercised due diligence in seeking to establish the age.

Prosecution is important under licensing law not merely because an offender faces the possibility of a fine. By rendering himself or herself liable to prosecution, the licensee puts his or her licence at risk. We want to ensure that we put in place a new mechanism which has the ability to enforce these laws more effectively.

In exchanges with a number of hon. Members, I have said that we have in mind, as part of our review, a graduated range of sanctions--warnings, tough fines, reduced trading hours, temporary closures or suspension of a licence and, of course, revocation of that licence--as possible penalties if someone were to breach licensing laws by selling to children under age. We believe that that would lead to more effective enforcement and would better protect young people. That is our aim, and it is certainly the aim of the Bill.

The off-licence is an important part of our high streets. Most alcohol is bought not for consumption in pubs, clubs and bars but for consumption at home. We intend to ensure that our law in respect of off-licences and supermarkets is brought up to date and modernised.

Several other points were raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), with her expertise on licensing law, said that large retailers should be under the same regime as small businesses. I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said that Thresher, whose employees escaped prosecution owing to the loophole, had a sense of social responsibility, and I was pleased to hear that that large retailer supports the Bill. It is to its credit that although the circumstances that led to the Bill's introduction arose in its shops, it is prepared to support the Bill.

Several issues were raised about the use of information technology. As part of our review and the preparation of our White Paper, we shall examine the issues of sale through information technology. We shall also consider the issues of education and alcohol and seek to ensure that, in the development of that policy, all the points of substance that were raised during the debate are examined in the course of the preparation of our White Paper.

We all accept that the Bill has limitations. Recent data from research sponsored by the Portman Group suggest that children are obtaining a great deal of cheap alcohol from unlicensed individuals who are peddling smuggled alcohol, for example. That is a cynical trade, with little regard for the consequences for the young or for parents. The Government are stepping up their campaign to defeat the bootleggers.

The Bill must be seen as part of a strategy fought on many fronts. Licensing reform, the prosecution of bootleggers, better education in schools about the perils of alcohol misuse, joint action with the industry and tough penalties for those who put children at risk all have a part to play. The importance of the Bill in closing an unacceptable loophole in the law is therefore of considerable importance in the broader context.

The Government therefore give their full support to the Bill and welcome the move to close the loophole that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has so clearly identified.

11 Feb 2000 : Column 575


Next Section

IndexHome Page