Clause 2 - Orders on an application to magistrates' court
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
12:45 pm
Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)
The Minister will note that amendments Nos. 12 and 170 are essentially probing amendments, as they allow the Committee to discuss two separate ages. Clause 2 states that an application can be made to the court if certain conditions are satisfied, including that the individual is ''16 or over''. Amendment No. 12 would insert 18 in place of 16. More important, amendment No. 170 would insert 15. That is because I wish to draw the attention of the Committee, and possibly a wider audience, to the enormous problem of drinking among young teenagers—those aged 13, 14 and 15. By amending the provision, a drinking banning order could be applied for against individuals who are 15 rather than 16.
The background is set out in the interim analytical report of the Prime Minister's strategy unit's alcohol harm reduction project. That is an important report—all reports from strategy units in Downing street are important—about young people's drinking. It reveals that British teenagers, along with those in Ireland and Denmark—I do not know why those two countries are linked—are among the heaviest teenage drinkers in Europe. They are more likely to drink, to get drunk and to report problems associated with drinking than their counterparts in other European countries. Here's the rub, and here is the reference to a 15-year-old. The report says that more than one third of 15-year-olds in the United Kingdom report having been drunk at age 13 or earlier. That is true of no more than one in 10 French and Italian children.
If we are to believe that report, and I see no reason why we should not, drunkenness is becoming, if not the norm, certainly a regular feature of life for very young teenagers. That not only implies but almost establishes that drunkenness among 14 and 15-year-olds is a problem. Who is to wonder? I say that because when young persons go to licensed premises—I think principally of on-licence premises—they have to take ID with them. I happen to know that it is extremely easy to fake one's ID. Such is the world of computers that fake IDs are prevalent.
I couple that with the fact that, perhaps owing to diet or the way in which they dress, many people aged 14 or 16 can and do pass for 18 when seen at licensed premises. Both women and men, for obvious reasons, have apparently become considerably more mature physically in the past few years, thus making identifying that age group a real problem. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether there is a parallel proceeding in the Bill for juveniles, to cover persons appearing in the youth court. When the disposals are made in the youth court for young persons, plainly the incidence of alcohol behind the crime for which the young person is appearing is extremely relevant. I note that the age given here is 16 or over. My understanding—I will be corrected if I am wrong—is that a 16-year-old appears before a youth court rather than a magistrates court, but for the purposes of this section of the Bill, magistrates court should include youth courts.
The purpose of the amendment is to stimulate an important, but not over-long, debate on where the problem starts in relation to young people and drink. Is it, as the Prime Minister's strategy unit believes, at age 12 to 14, or is it later? If the appalling binge drinking does start as early as is suggested—I repeat, more than one third of 15-year-olds in the UK report having been drunk at age 13 or earlier in stark contrast to our continental friends and neighbours—is there not a case, and if so does the Government want to advance it, for extending drinking banning orders to a different age group?
I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I intend them simply as probing amendments, because I want the Minister to explain the exact meaning of subsections (8) and (9). I think that they are to do with the normal provisions about disclosure of the names of young persons in court, and the directions normally made about protecting their names. If the provisions are to do with naming young people in court for publicity purposes, will the Minister expand on that?