Violent Crime Reduction Bill

As I said earlier, we entirely respect the spirit behind the amendment because, like all noble Lords, we regard the issue of the protection of children from harm as one of the highest priority. However, we would want to reflect on what the amendment fails to recognise, which is that new Sections 147A and 147B add to a raft of measures that the Government have already established and which aim to reduce sales of alcohol to children. As such, the enforcement of these new provisions could not sensibly be assessed in isolation from the other measures. I will quickly spell out what those measures are. The Licensing Act 2003 came fully into force on 24 November last year. Since then, the law on such sales has changed. For the first time, sales of alcohol to children under 18 anywhere—not just on licensed premises—were made unlawful. For the first time, sales made in private clubs and on pleasure boats became unlawful. Penalties for offences of selling to children have been toughened with fines increased from a maximum of £1,000 to £5,000. Personal licences may now be declared forfeit by the court on conviction for the first offence and not only after a second conviction as it used to be. For the first time, children under 16 may not be present anywhere on premises which are used primarily or exclusively for sales of alcohol for consumption there unless accompanied by an adult. Premises licences and club premises certificates may be reviewed by the local licensing authority at the request of the police or trading standards officers where evidence of persistent illegality exists. That can lead to revocation and suspension of the licence. Just yesterday, I was talking to a licensee who happens to be an old friend of mine. He said that he thought we had valuably tightened up and strengthened legislation and licensees are now taking it much more seriously than they did before. That is an important element of this. In 2004, to promote easier enforcement, the Government also expanded the use of fixed penalty notices for offences relating to sales of alcohol to children. We have also restricted the defence of due diligence so that it is more difficult to evade conviction for selling to children unless proper proof of age has been requested and seen. The alcohol harm reduction strategy has also prompted the introduction of a new standards and principles document, which was launched by the alcohol retail industry last year. This presses all retailers to adopt stricter challenges for young people to produce proof of age when attempting to buy alcohol. Schemes include ““No ID, No Sale””, ““Challenge 21”” and the PASS accreditation scheme for proof of age cards. Clause 21, which we shall discuss shortly, also introduces the concept of closure notices which have effect when the offences of persistently selling alcohol to children are dictated. The Committee will perhaps appreciate that new Sections 147A and 147B must be seen in this wider context. The new sections contribute to our attempts to combat unlawful sales to children, but they would not be isolated measures. It would therefore be difficult to unpick the impact of these sections on levels of unlawful sales, as it would be difficult to assess the other elements individually. We are adding to this already significant list of measures. First, the Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaign last summer revealed that, in almost 50 per cent of test purchasing operations against premises thought to be selling alcohol to children, sales to a child took place. This included not just small shops and pubs but major supermarket chains. The campaign conducted between last November and the new year showed a marked improvement, with successful test purchasing operations falling below 20 per cent. However, that remains a wholly unacceptable level of illegal trading and it cannot be tolerated. I think that the noble Lord’s main concern is that we should review the impact of these measures. I certainly agree with the sense of that, and it is exactly what we shall do. We are already committed to monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Licensing Act 2003, of which the new sections will form a part, but those reviews must look across the board and not at isolated elements of the package. The Department of Health annually produces statistics that show the number of children aged 11 to 15 who are consuming alcohol, how much they are consuming and where they are obtaining that alcohol. The Home Office produces regular and up-to-date statistics showing the number of convictions for selling alcohol to children and the number of fixed penalty notices issued. The amendment is worth while in stimulating a debate, but it proposes a narrower assessment of the overall drive to curb underage sales. I give the assurance that we are watching this issue carefully and reviewing it as part of our evaluation process. I do not think that an annual report on the issue would be of benefit, and the noble Baroness would not expect me to say anything else, although some annual reports are of value. Frequently, we need a timeframe within which to look at how legislation operates, but on this occasion it would be inappropriate and too narrow in its remit. Having said all that, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment that was originally tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.