Clause 29
Policing and Crime Bill
9:15 am
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
Clause 29 creates a new offence of persistently possessing alcohol in a public place without a “reasonable excuse” where the person is under the age of 18. Amendments 35 and 86, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, are designed to test the scope, application and purpose of the new offence, and how enforceable it is likely to be.
It would be helpful to get a clear understanding of what the Government mean by the concept of “reasonable excuse”. The Minister will remember that I asked one of the police officers giving evidence to us what he understood by that concept. Obviously, it may apply in other circumstances: the most obvious might be the possession of a knife in a public place without a reasonable excuse. The concept is understood there. However, the situation dealt with by the clause is different, and some clarification of the scope and intention of those words would be helpful in understanding the Government’s approach.
Equally, we must ensure that the clause, if enacted, is enforceable, robust and clearly understood by police officers, prosecution authorities and the community as a whole. It seems to have been based on the concept of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, so that an offence is committed unless there is a justifiable reason for having the item on one’s person. In some ways, that requirement for a defence is understandable in the context of offensive weapons. To take knives as an example, a chef travelling between work and home might have to take the tools of the trade with him, and that might be a reasonable excuse. I understand the concept; but it would be interesting to know what the Minister would consider a reasonable excuse under the clause.
I understand and appreciate the problems that many communities have with some teenagers drinking in public places and leaving bottles strewn all over the place. Parks and play areas spring to my mind, given the situations that I have had to deal with. Leading on from that, there is potential for antisocial behaviour and crime to result from excessive alcohol consumption. The question is whether the concept of reasonable excuse will in those circumstances deal with the issue as the Government think it will.
At the moment the law on the consumption of alcohol by children is that it is illegal to give an alcoholic drink to a child under five, except under medical supervision in an emergency. However, the law is not prescriptive on consumption per se for children over five. The Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 provides the police with a power to require the surrender of intoxicating liquor, and the Licensing Act 2003 places restrictions banning sales of alcohol to anyone under 18, while at the same time permitting the consumption of alcohol on licensed premises by 16 and 17-year-olds if they are consuming food and are with an adult.
The Government’s “Youth Alcohol Action Plan” notes:
“The current law allows anyone over the age of 5 to consume alcohol and in practice this is a matter for parents to decide.”
The starting point under the clause is that possession of alcohol and therefore, by extension, the consumption of alcohol in a public place, by someone under 18, will potentially trigger liability if repeated, unless a reasonable excuse can be provided. Therefore—it would be perverse if this were not the case—notwithstanding that it has not to my knowledge otherwise been an offence, the consumption of alcohol by someone under 18 cannot be considered to be a reasonable excuse per se, should it happen in a public space. If I have misunderstood the clause I am sure that the Minister will return to that point.
It seems to me that by extension consumption goes with possession, because obviously a person must possess alcohol in the first place to consume it; one follows the other. Following that logic, if a 16 or 17-year-old was in a park with their parents having some food, and that was repeated on three occasions, they would potentially be committing an offence, although if the same actions took place on licensed premises they would not constitute an offence. The point that I am trying to understand comes back again to what would be considered a reasonable excuse. Would it be a reasonable excuse to apply the argument about what happens in licensed premises, in contrast to what might happen in a public space?