Standing Committee D
Thursday 15 May 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Clause 143
Allowing children into licensed premises
8.55 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I beg to move amendment No. 445, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 447, in
clause 143, page 77, line 36, leave out '14' and insert '18'.
Amendment No. 448, in
Amendment No. 446, in
clause 143, page 77, line 40, leave out 'nightclubs;'.
Amendment No. 449, in
Mr. Moss: Good morning, Mr. Benton, and welcome once again to our Committee, which is now in its last stages; I shall make no comment on that.
Amendments Nos. 445, 446, which is consequential to 445, and 449 can be taken in sequence. Notwithstanding the Government's stated intention in an earlier debate to delete clause 143, we want to debate the amendments on the basis of putting forward the arguments that we think should be taken on board before that fairly drastic action is taken.
The clause was inserted in the other place—by a fairly substantial vote, if my memory serves me correctly. The Lords put in an age limit of 14 for children who must be accompanied by adults in licensed premises. We have considered that. Through amendment No. 445, we are attempting to ensure that the protection of children from harm goes a stage further and that children under 14 are not permitted to enter nightclubs, with or without an adult. Amendment No. 449 is consequential on that and would allow a fairly severe penalty to be imposed where that is allowed to happen. A big distinction can be made between minors going into pubs and clubs, particularly if supervised by adults, and going to nightclubs.
Column Number: 558
Amendment No. 447 takes a different line and would change the age limit from 14 to 18. The police advisers who are helping us with the Bill suggested that to us. I shall come to the gist of their powerful arguments later. The simple change from 14 to 18 would allow us to set a particular limit clearly. That would put the onus and responsibility on the licensee, who, when applying for their licence, would have to give a positive reason why they wanted children under 18 to be present.
As the group of clauses stands, licensees could be put under pressure to make their premises as unrestricted as possible to compete in the marketplace with other local establishments, irrespective of whether the licensees feel comfortable with that or even believe that it is right in principle. Surely that promotes the availability of an environment that can, and will in some cases, put children in danger. All licensed premises seem to be caught in the same net, from pubs to off-licences, supermarkets, and possibly nightclubs, including lap-dancing nightclubs. Presumably, it is okay under the Bill for unaccompanied children drinking Coke to play bar billiards in a room adjoining the lap-dancing stage far away from the bar. Mixed and contradictory, not to say confused, messages are coming from the Government. On the one hand, clause 148 makes it a criminal offence for a person under the age of 18 to consume alcohol on licensed premises, the fine for such action being that of level 3, which is £1,000. That is a huge fine to impose. On the other hand, the Bill seems to encourage allowing children of any age into pubs and clubs and saying, ''Come and share the ambience and savour the atmosphere, but don't dare even think about consuming half a pint of bitter. You will be immediately criminalised.''
Is that any different from encouraging young people to visit cannabis cafés and saying to them, ''Soak up the atmosphere, enjoy the social scene, but don't you dare be tempted.''
Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham): Passive smoking.
Mr. Moss: Yes, secondary smoking would come into it.
Let us remember that we are dealing with liberalising the licensing hours to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Are the Government not placing an invidious burden on licensees who have to decide whether their premises are suitable or unsuitable for children? The guidance notes make clear the responsibility of licensees. Paragraph 4.25 states:
''Nothing in a statement of licensing policy should limit the access of children to such premises unless it is necessary for the prevention of harm to children.''
To prohibit the access of unaccompanied children, licensees are obliged—almost forced—to admit that their premises are so inadequate or unsuitable that they cannot guarantee the prevention of harm to children. They are really saying, ''I don't want children in my pub because that is the way I can prevent them from coming to any harm.'' Who will admit that?
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Given the morass of legislation that deals with children entering licensed premises, will the
Column Number: 559
hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the onus is entirely on the licensee to prevent a child from doing so? Is he saying that that should continue?
Mr. Moss: No, I am not saying that the present situation should continue. I acknowledge what the Minister means by its inadequacy. It is unclear and can be interpreted in different ways. We support the Government trying to put into legislation something that is more clear cut and practical. I am not sure that they have yet got that right. I do not deny that the issue is complex.
The licensee has been given the responsibility of saying why his premises are unsuitable. He is not likely to admit that. What signals would that send out to the licensing authority or councils of the licensing committee? We are in serious danger of giving blanket approval for allowing young children unrestricted access to licensed premises by default. What sort of law promotes the negative at the expense of the positive?
The other major contradiction is that the Government are trying to reduce alcohol consumption, especially among young people, while they are actively encouraging a policy under the Bill that enables young people to have easier access to licensed premises. The proposals do not have the unqualified support of those involved with children and young people. I refer to a letter from the Children's Society, which was sent when such matters were discussed in the other place. It states:
''In relation to this amendment, we do think that it is important to stress the fact that creating child-friendly and family-friendly environments requires a commitment to ensuring that there are benefits to be gained for children—not simply relying on the idea that children's presence will have a positive effect on adults. Children may become intimidated by the environment and behaviour around them and in the absence of a parent or carer there arise many questions about how the licensee can and should respond to them. For example, what should be the pub licensee's response to an upset unaccompanied eight year-old turning up in a bar at 11 pm asking to be served a soft drink? By what means might a licensee appropriately seek to remove a child from their premises, and should they just leave them outside? What, if any, is the licensee's responsibility if he or she notices a group of young teenage girls on the receiving end of seduction attempts by older men on their premises? There are many wider questions of children's interests, care and development that are not addressed by a licensing policy which presumes in favour of children's unrestricted access, and relies on licensees' discretion.''
The prevention of harm to children should be predicated on more than the good will, good intentions or competence of a licensee, who may not be personally present at critical times, when that responsibility may fall on the shoulders of the designated premises supervisor. As I said, clause 143 was a new clause voted through in the other place. I alluded to the sizeable majority. The voting was 184 votes for the amendment and only 111 against—a majority of 73 votes out of a total of 295 cast. That was far from an insignificant majority in the circumstances.
The police have lobbied us to have the limit raised from 14 years of age to 18 to increase the default position. They share our view that setting any age limit under 18 runs the risk of giving the wrong impression,
Column Number: 560
particularly to young people. We have only to look at the evidence that has come to light since the talk about cannabis. Many young people living on housing estates in parts of London believe that cannabis is now legal. If we liberalise the licensing laws too far, they will quickly presume that it is all right for them to drink at an early age and to go into those premises. The presumption should be that unaccompanied access is not allowed unless the licensee specifies the conditions under which he could control access. If we are trying to make pubs children friendly places, we must ensure that access is controlled and under the aegis of adults, preferably their family, in what we want to promote as ''family friendly'' environments.
To remove the clause as the Government propose will remove any constraints on the system. Such is the opposition in the other place that the Government could face another defeat if they go ahead with their proposals. In discussions with the Opposition in the other place, there was strong feeling on that issue, which was raised in Committee and on Third Reading. The Government must be cautious and tread carefully in an attempt to satisfy the needs of the other place and those people who are speaking strongly in favour of the change, and to take on board what the police are saying.
The police are saying firmly to us that there should be discretion, that 18 years of age should be the default position and that if the Government intend to allow children below that age to enter, licensees must say clearly and unequivocally how they would deal with that situation and control it and fulfil the requirements that we endorse of prevention of harm to children. We accept that it is a complicated issue, but to leave it open ended as the Government propose would not fulfil the requirements that society will demand when it hears that there is a deal on restricted access in many cases. Those who deal with children's issues are not happy about that either.
|
