 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Policing and Crime Bill |
Policing and Crime Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Andrew Kennon, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 12 February 2009(Morning)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Policing and Crime BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HousePC 20 Angela Chew and David
Chew PC 21 Lynsey
Pitt PC 22 Claire
Redford (and others)
PC 23 Thierry
Schaffauser PC 24
Adrian Nicholas PC 25
Susan Jones PC 26
Michael Smith PC 27
Ken Baker PC 28
George McCoy PC 29
Jan Bassett PC 30
Karl L. Evanson PC 31
Elliot Moss PC 32 Tom
George PC 33 Phil
Hubbard PC 34 Sophia
Mardell PC 35 John
Dockerty PC 36 David
Livermore PC 37
Douglas Fox
PC 38
International Union of Sex Workers
PC 39 GMB
PC 40 May Smith
PC 41 Paula Byrne
PC 42 Victoria Ford
PC 43 Glasyn Gibson
PC 44 Object
PC 45 Claire Howard
PC 46 BPS
PC 47 Better Archway
Forum PC 48 London
Borough of Newham PC
49 CAPE PC 50 Alcohol
Concern PC 51 Rossy
Stansfield PC 52
London Borough of Lambeth
PC 53 POPPY Project
PC 54 British Beer and Pub
Association PC 55
Jenny Pearl PC 56
London Borough of Greenwich
PC
57 Joanna (Part of Leeds Christian Community Trust)
PC 58 London Borough of
Hackney PC 59 Bride
Court Residents Association
PC 60 London
Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
PC 61 Josephine Butler
Society 9
am
The
Chairman: I welcome all hon. Members who have arrived so
far to this sitting of the Committee. It is at the moment a lovely day;
I hope that it remains just like that. Before we begin, it might be for
the benefit of hon. Members if I clarify the arrangements for tabling
amendments in the forthcoming brief recess. To be selectable for the
sitting on Tuesday 24 February, amendments must be tabled by 4.30 pm on
Thursday 19 February. Thereafter, normal deadlines will
apply.
The
Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing
(Mr. Vernon Coaker): On a point of order, Sir
Nicholas. I have been asked by the president of the Association of
Chief Police Officers, Sir Ken Jones, to bring to the attention of all
Committee members a letter that he has sent, which deals with some of
the points raised in respect of ACPO. No doubt Committee members will
have seen that and will read it, but he asked me to point that
out.
The
Chairman: The Minister said what he needed to say before I
had had time to consider whether it was a point of order or not. In
fact, it was not; it was a point of information, but I am sure that the
Chair and members of the Committee are grateful to him. In case I
forget to say this at the end of the sitting, I shall say now that I
hope that all hon. Members have a restful and enjoyable recess with
their
families.
Clause 27Selling
alcohol to
children Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. James
Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I
reciprocate by offering you the best wishes of the Committee for a
restful and recuperative recess next
week. Clause
27 amends section 147A of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to
the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children. That section
states: “A
person is guilty of an offence if...on 3 or more different
occasions within a period of 3 consecutive months alcohol is unlawfully
sold on the same premises to an individual aged under
18”. That
is punishable by a fine of up to £10,000 or, as an alternative
remedy, an immediate closure notice can be sought under section 169A of
the 2003 Act for a period of up to 48
hours. Section
147A was inserted into the 2003 Act by the Violent Crime Reduction Act
2006 and has been in force for only about 18 months. Indeed, the
provision is so new that data on prosecutions will not be available
until this autumn, so we have no real feel for how widely used the
power is before the change proposed in this Bill to reduce the
qualification for persistence from three to two occasions.
The position
is clouded further, as the Association of Convenience Stores notes in
its submission to the Committee. It
states: “There
is no evidence that the current offence is not effective
and”— this
is
interesting— “the
Home Office Toolkit cautions against using this power, suggesting
enforcement authorities should instead pursue a review of the
licence.” I
should be grateful if the Minister clarified whether the toolkit states
what the ACS says, because clearly that is a relevant factor in our
consideration of the clause, which changes a previous provision. If it
does say that, I should be grateful to know why it does and whether, in
the light of the change in the Bill, the Minister is considering a
change in the language in the toolkit, given that it seems to suggest
that enforcement authorities take a different route, a different
option, from the power envisaged under section
147A. As
I said, the provision has been in force for a relatively short time. We
have no specific data on it; we seem to have no prosecution data at the
moment, as it is too new. However, from the frequent discussions that
he has with the police and other law enforcement agencies, can the
Minister say what the experience of using this power has been on the
ground to explain why this change is proposed? The change implies that
the provision is not working in some way, that something has changed or
that the Government believe that a different emphasis is
required. Will
the Minister give some background on the thinking behind this decision?
Given that we are talking about only 18 months, is the change to
section 147A an admission that the Government were wrong in the first
place and that they should have gone for two rather than three
occasions when the power was introduced? This rapid change of heart is
re-emphasised on considering that the change in approach reflected in
the clause was first telegraphed in June last year in the “Youth
Alcohol Action Plan”, just a year after the power was brought
into effect. Will he explain why “persistent” was taken
to mean three occasions when the offence was introduced and what
evidence there is to necessitate the change? If not, will he confirm
that a mistake was made in the Government’s thinking when the
power was
introduced? I
want it to be made clear that this provision will operate equally for
all licensees. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that it is
intended that the provision be applied to small shops and huge
hypermarkets equally. All premises should be treated the same in
triggering the two occasions required for persistence. The Bill makes
that clear but I want to clarify whether the Home Office envisages
giving further guidance or clarification on enforcement. That is an
important point. The provision will put greater pressure on larger
retailers in ensuring that their systems and procedures are in place,
simply because of the volume and nature of their sales. The number of
transactions that go through their tills will mean a large number of
potential under-age sales may be attempted at their premises. It would
be helpful to clarify whether the Home Office, ACPO or any other agency
proposes to issue guidance on enforcement when the provision is
introduced. If so, what does the Minister expect the guidance to
say?
Paul
Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): I agree in principle with the
intention of the clause. Off-trade retailers will always argue that
young people, especially young girls, often look older than they are,
that it is difficult to establish age and that it is unfair to penalise
them for selling by mistake. That argument wears thin these
days. Many
pubs and other on-premises and some off-premises voluntarily run the
effective 21-and-under scheme. That involves clear labelling saying
that people who look under 21 will be asked to prove that they are 18.
Recently, when buying some drinks at a pub in Chesterfield, I was asked
whether my son, who is 20 and in his second year at university, was old
enough. How can anyone object to that? Alcohol is a dangerous
drug. That
point relates to another topic that has been discussed in the Palace of
Westminster this week; alcohol kills far more people than ecstasy. It
causes far more violence on the streets of this country and far more
crime. When out on patrol with police, they say that alcohol is
undoubtedly the No. 1 drug misuse issue that they face. We are
discussing off-premises, but whether in the on-trade or off-trade,
people are selling a dangerous drug, although it is legal and can be
sold under various licences. I therefore welcome the principle of the
clause. I
am sure that every MP in the room today could give an example from
their constituency of premises where the police will say that it is not
just that some under-age people occasionally get to buy alcohol there,
but that the person running the premises is making a lot of money out
of deliberately selling it to under-age kids. We can all name a hotspot
like that, and if local residents complain to the police they say,
“Yes we know, it’s under observation and we are trying to
collect the evidence.” However, the business of getting three
consecutive proofs of selling to under-age children can be an obstacle.
I know that that is why the police favour this move. Can the
Minister confirm whether that is the thinking behind
it? I
very much agree with the principle behind the clause, but how effective
will it be? I asked in a parliamentary question about the effectiveness
of using earlier legislation in this respect. I asked how many
establishments had been prosecuted for selling alcohol to under-age
people. The figures showed an interesting trend. In 2003 there were 616
prosecutions. They rose to 1,084 in 2005 and by 2007 had dropped back
to 693. It would be interesting to get the Minister’s comments
on the reason for that particular trend and what that tells us about
the new legislation and clause 27. Can he say what lessons we are
learning from previous practice, why there was a big increase in
prosecutions and then a big drop. Is the reason behind clause 27 that
we are trying to get around those
problems? Finally,
Alcohol Concern has noted that there is no register of licensees, so if
an individual who loses their licence, or is convicted in this way goes
to another part of the country, to another local authority area, they
will not automatically be picked up. Is there a clear central register
or a provision for establishing one, so that it can be known all around
the country when someone has previous
convictions?
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mr. Alan Campbell): Good morning, Sir
Nicholas. One always deeply regrets, when going
into an establishment where there is a challenge 21 or challenge 25
sign, that one is too old to be challenged. I want to put on record our
support for the challenge 21 initiative and those who have gone further
with challenge 25. It forms an important part of the work of
retailers and publicans and we want to see it extended as far as
possible.
Clause 27
amends the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children from
three strikes, to two strikes within three months. The purpose is to
reduce the number of times that alcohol is illegally sold to children
by increasing the likelihood of being prosecuted if caught selling. A
number of questions have been posed with regard to this. First, the
hon. Member for Hornchurch is right that the prosecution figures for
2008 are not yet available. However, the pattern to which the hon.
Member for Chesterfield referred showed a reduced number of
prosecutions between 2006-07, but an increased number of penalty
notices being issued, reflecting the flexibility that police officers
would have in a circumstance where they might want to use penalty
notices where someone was selling to under-age children. That could
also reflect the purpose of the clause, which is to say that test
purchasing operations can have an effect in areas and retailers can put
right the wrongs that they have been doing. That might be reflected,
but nevertheless, there is still a persistent problem in some areas,
and addressing that is the purpose of the
clause.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 13 February 2009 |