| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I do know the answer, but I was enjoying watching the hon. Gentleman squirm a little.
Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether I might invite the Minister to elucidate, because the answer is directly relevant to whether we would want to support amendment No. 53.
Mr. O'Brien: We are covered by the criminal law. We are privileged in respect of what we say, and not so much in respect of what we do. If the hon. Gentleman were to commit a crime here, I am afraid that he could be prosecuted--although I am sure that he would not do such a thing.
Mr. Fabricant: That is helpful and suggests that my concerns about amendment No. 53 may be unfounded--it may not create a precedent. However, I rather suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may want to make a counter-point.
Mr. Heald: Page 74 of "Erskine May" says that there was a resolution in 1626
- that the privilege of this House is that no peer of Parliament--
- sitting the Parliament, is to be imprisoned or restrained without sentence or order of the House, unless it be for treason or felony, or for refusing to give surety of the peace.
Mr. Fabricant: That would seem to be in direct conflict with the advice that we have just received from the Minister. We need to take time to determine whether we can be prosecuted--not that I am advocating that anyone in the House should commit a crime. Regardless of whether we are protected from the criminal law, nobody would wish to commit a crime or to set a bad example in the House of Commons.
Mr. Maclean: Will my hon. Friend reflect on this point? If it is appropriate for the Palace of Westminster and the House to set an example, surely we can do that with our own simple code of rules and procedures, without having to incorporate every jot and tittle of the criminal law, which is designed to prevent unscrupulous people from exploiting loopholes.
We have a host of rules, such as no smoking in the Corridor behind the Speaker's Chair. I hope that a rule will shortly be introduced banning the use of mobile phones in the Pugin Room. We have a whole range of rules of etiquette and procedure that rightly do not apply to people outside, and we can discipline ourselves internally. If we want to set an example by not selling or handing alcohol to youngsters, we can do that through our internal rules in all the relevant bars.
Mr. Fabricant: That is an interesting point, but are those rules not similar to byelaws? Are not they additional laws rather than replacements for those that exist outside? I suspect that they are additional, so my right hon. Friend's point, powerful though it is, may not be entirely relevant in this case.
Mr. Gardiner: I agree that regulations on such things as mobile phones would be part of the rules of any institution, club or group in the country, but all such groups are covered by the laws governing the sale of alcohol, and would be covered by this Bill. However, the peculiarities of the House mean that its catering and refreshment services are not governed by the licensing laws. Amendment No. 53 would simply ensure that the Bill would apply to the House as much as to the rest of the country.
Mr. Fabricant: What the hon. Gentleman says is right, from the point of view of the law. However, the House is the second oldest Parliament in the world, after Iceland's Althing, and we must not risk throwing away its traditions and independence. The ratchet effect evident in the reform of the House of Lords means that, once made, a change is difficult to reverse.
It is interesting that the Bill as drafted did not contain the provision proposed in amendment No. 53. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) deliberately chose not to include the House of Commons in the provisions of his Bill. The hon. Gentleman is well known to have a great sense of historic tradition, and to understand that the House's value lies in its freedom and independence. Hon. Members can legislate here without fear of outside intervention.
Mr. Truswell: To clarify that point, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I left untouched most of the existing legislation. I touched only those parts that I had to in order to close the loophole that I had identified.
Mr. Fabricant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
The hon. Member for Brent, North said that the Bill would affect the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons. I have the great privilege to serve on the House of Commons Catering Committee, which was mentioned earlier. I hope that hon. Members do not expect me to pass on complaints to members of staff, but the
hours worked by both Houses of Parliament set this organisation apart. The laws that govern organisations outside the House cannot apply here, although I repeat that there is no wish to be hypocritical: we must not make laws that we subsequently ignore.I do not agree with amendment No. 53, and consider that it would not be wise to accept it. The hon. Member for Pudsey is right: effective law is simple and addresses the point. Overall, the Bill does just that. The hon. Gentleman has explained why he has introduced it, and both he and the family of his constituent will have the sympathy of the whole House. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman has the admiration of the House for introducing the Bill, but its proposals must be kept simple. Amendment No. 53 merely complicates matters, and it should be rejected. However, I wish the Bill as a whole well, and hope that it receives a fair passage this morning.
Maria Eagle: Before I speak to the amendments in my name, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), the promoter of the Bill. I listened carefully when he told the House why the Bill is drafted so narrowly. I understand that approach completely, as I attempted to promote a Bill last year and know the restrictions and difficulties that can be encountered. I have no intention of diverting my hon. Friend from the purpose that he set out so clearly. The amendments in my name are probing amendments that will allow one or two points to be made, but I shall not press them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) promoted a Bill similar to this last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey won a higher place in the ballot than did my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley last year. Her Bill managed to get a short Second Reading, but it did not get the time that has been devoted to this Bill. My short but intense experience of these matters leaves me with no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will have been helped by the process that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley went through last year. We should not forget her when we pass out congratulations on this Bill.
Mr. Truswell: I should like to clarify one matter. I introduced a Bill to try to close the loophole highlighted by the tragic death of David Knowles a year before my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) introduced her Bill. Moreover, my hon. Friend's Bill went considerably further than this Bill, and would have been more contentious.
Maria Eagle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was forgetting his ten-minute Bill on this subject.
Mr. Truswell: I also had a Presentation Bill on this subject.
Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend has put in even more effort than I realised, over a sustained period of time. I am sure that the parents of his constituent will be grateful to him for the effort that he has put in, and we all wish the Bill well.
The debate has made it very clear that it is much more complicated to change the licensing laws than is generally realised. That is one reason why I want to emphasise that
I shall not press the amendments in my name, but I shall take this opportunity to explain why I decided to table them.Amendment No. 5 would insert the word "knowingly" in clause 1, thus making express knowledge a requirement of the selling offence. Licensing laws fail because they are so complex, and because it is difficult to bring prosecutions under them. The amendments probe the extent of the offence and how easily the prosecuting authorities can prove that a licensee or purchaser has committed an offence.
Some of the amendments that I wish to speak to in the first group relate to amendments in the second group. I make no complaint about the grouping of the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that it is difficult to group amendments in a way that always puts together the ones that should be together. However, I will have to make some further points when we reach the second group of amendments.
The amendments in the first group appear to be contradictory. Some appear to make the offence harder to prove, while others appear to make it easier to prove. Would express knowledge in the selling offence help or hinder in terms of getting more prosecutions? Would having an absolute offence, with defences, make it easier for prosecutions to be successful, or would having an absolute offence and no defence, while requiring express knowledge, make it easier? My amendments explore what the licensee should be required to know for a prosecution to go ahead. One of the important issues is how easy it is to prosecute and how successful prosecutions are.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |