Clause 135 - Exposing alcohol for unauthorised sale
Licensing Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 395, in
clause 135, page 74, line 16, leave out 'exposes' and insert 'offers'.
Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 443, in
clause 135, page 74, line 25, leave out 'either destroyed or'.
No. 444, in
clause 136, page 74, line 39, leave out 'either destroyed or'.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I shall be brief. As I read clause 135, I was perplexed as to why the reference to selling alcohol in retail situations was defined as exposing for sale rather than offering for sale or supplying in the case of clubs. Amendment No. 395 is probing; I want the Government to explain why they have chosen the word ''exposes'', and to explain its relevance to what we have been discussing. Is it lifted from existing legislation, or is the word defined elsewhere in the Bill? It is a new term, so it would be helpful to have it defined.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
This is a jolly good amendment, because if alcohol is sold covertly—I think that the expression is ''under the counter''—it would not be exposed and therefore would not be subject to the clause. While we are about it, I take it that the sale of alcohol by mail order and other such means, although the alcohol may not be on the premises from which it is sold, is covered by the Bill.
Dr. Howells indicated assent.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
The Minister nods. Are the premises for which the premises licence is required those at which the mail order is received, or are they the premises on which the alcohol is kept and from which it is dispatched? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will go into that matter a little further. If the alcohol were sold over the internet, in which case the order would not have been received on a particular premises, which premises would be relevant? I asked those questions simply to build on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
My other amendments simply question whether the words ''either destroyed or'' under subsection (4) are redundant. If something that has been forfeited may be dealt with
''in such other manner as the court may order'',
it seems that that includes the action of destroying. Why has the Minister seen fit to specify ''destroyed'' in this and the subsequent clause?
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
The clause makes it an offence to expose alcohol for sale by retail—as defined under clause 189—when the sale would not take place under and in accordance with a premises licence, a club premises certificate or a temporary event notice that satisfies the conditions under clause 96.
Exposing alcohol for sale was the point in the supply chain deliberately chosen when the Bill was drafted. It is the point in the chain when alcohol is first made available to the consumer. It is right that the enforcement of the licensing regime should take effect at the earliest point, so that the likelihood of unauthorised sales is avoided to the greatest extent possible.
Moving to a later point in the supply chain involving an express offer of alcohol would weaken the enforcement of the regime. We consider that it is enough for the simple exposure of alcohol for sale to constitute an offence when the sale of that alcohol would be unauthorised. That reflects the offence provisions under the Licensing Act 1964 and the intention that an offence can be committed when no sale or attempted sale is, in fact, made.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked what would happen if the alcohol were hidden under the counter. How, then, could it be ''exposed''? Well, that is a legal expression. If the alcohol were under the counter and no one knew that it existed, it never would be sold. I understand what the hon. Gentleman means, but that is not what exposing something for sale means in law.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The Minister has just given me an inkling of why I tried to change the wording through the amendment. Presumably, sale by retail of alcohol would require a willing buyer as much as a willing seller. If alcohol were simply exposed, but the willing buyer did not know that it was for sale—which they would if it were on offer for sale—I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, I am not sure that I yet understand how we can define exposure if it is not obvious to a willing buyer that alcohol is there to be purchased. Perhaps he can help Opposition Members by citing some examples from existing legislation.
Mr. Turner rose—
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Can the Minister give some examples of what is meant by exposure?
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I can deal with that. Under-the-counter sales, the other offences, include keeping alcohol on premises for unauthorised sale. Clause 136 refers to that. It deals with alcohol held covertly under the counter. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to internet sales. They are covered under clause 136(1), which states:
''A person commits an offence if he has in his possession or under his control alcohol which he intends to sell by retail'',
and that includes over the internet.
Clauses 135 and 136, the latter of which creates the offence of keeping alcohol on the premises for unauthorised sale or supply, both provide that following a conviction, the courts may order the forfeiture of the alcohol and its container, and its
destruction, or for it to be dealt with otherwise, as the court orders. I think that it was the hon. Gentleman, too, who asked why we have the word 'destruction' in there—
It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [1 and 3 April 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Amendment negatived.
The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.
Clauses 135 to 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock till Thursday 15 May at five minutes to Nine o'clock.