Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat)

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?

See this speech in context