On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was announced on the radio this morning that the inquiry chaired by Lord Burns, on which the Government have spent £1 million, will be delivered to the Home Secretary this morning. Despite the fact that the Home Secretary has not yet seen the inquiry, it was announced on the radio, last night and this morning, that he would make a statement to the House on Monday to announce the banning of fox hunting. Have you had notice of such a statement, Madam Speaker, and is it in order for the Home Secretary to make such an announcement on the radio before it has been announced to the House?

I was not aware of what was announced on the radio this morning—I had one or two other things to do. If the Home Secretary wants to make a statement, he will no doubt inform me at the usual time on Monday morning.

As I was saying when I was cut me off in my prime on 12 May, I am delighted that Members on both sides of the House have given my Bill such a fair wind. Indeed, I must congratulate the many Members who have been abundantly generous at times with the amount of wind that they have given it.

The fact that the Bill has acted as a vehicle for a much wider debate on the shortcomings of licensing legislation has given it even greater value. I did not mean my introductory remarks to sound churlish in any way—the measure has been properly served. However, there were times when I was reminded of a comment made by one of your distant predecessors, Madam Speaker. When Queen Elizabeth I asked what had passed in the House recently, the Speaker replied:

If it please your Majesty, six weeks.

I suspect that we all know what he meant—I certainly know how he felt.

It is said that good wine improves with age. I am not sure whether a good Bill improves with verbiage, so I shall not take up much of the House's time in continuing my Third Reading comments. I had already completed most of my remarks, but I repeat my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and to Andrew Cunningham of the Home Office.

However, it has been intimated to me that one or two hon. Members, although they are largely sympathetic to my Bill, still feel that I should expand some of the broader arguments in its support, so I shall do so. I think it is perfectly proper that hon. Members should have mentioned that to me before today's debate.

I suspect that most hon. Members are already aware of the background, but I shall summarise it briefly. In March 1997, my 14-year-old constituent, David Knowles, was walking home from school with a group of friends. They decided to stop off at an off-licence in the centre of Pudsey. At the request of his friends, David agreed to purchase alcohol and did so on two occasions within five minutes. The friends then set off for home. On the way, having drunk three cans of lager, David, quite inexplicably—apart from the effects of the alcohol that he had consumed—decided to run across a busy part of the Leeds ring road, the Stanningly bypass. As he did so, he was knocked down, and he died from his injuries shortly afterwards.

The police were quick to attend the scene and to take statements from witnesses. As a result, they went to the off-licence in the centre of Pudsey—the Drinks Cabin, owned and run by Thresher, a national chain—and interviewed staff. They also seized security videos that showed that David had been served alcohol on two occasions within five minutes.

On the basis of the police report, the Crown Prosecution Service launched a prosecution against the two members of staff who had sold David the alcohol. The case went before the magistrates and was adjourned twice. On the third occasion, the CPS, having discovered the enormous loophole in the law that my Bill addresses, decided that it must withdraw the prosecution. Those hon. Members who are students of the Bill and who attended most of the debates on it will know that the loophole means that people who are not directly employed by the person whose name appears on the licence are immune under the law.

The people who sold alcohol to David were employed not by their manager—the person whose name appeared on the licence—but by a national company, Thresher. They were thus immune from prosecution under the Licensing Act 1964. That is clearly an anomaly; it is an enormous loophole. Not only does it exercise me and everyone who hears about it, but it obviously came as a tremendous shock to the parents, family and neighbours of David Knowles, who learned that the small amount of justice that they believed that they could pursue through the courts would be denied them.

John Knowles—David's father—came to my surgery in November 1997 to tell me about the loophole. Like so many people, when I first heard about it, I did not believe it. Had John Knowles not come armed with a three-page letter from the CPS, describing the loophole, I should have taken a great deal of convincing. Anyone who was asked the question, "Is it an offence to sell alcohol to someone aged under 18?" would immediately and unequivocally say, "Yes, of course it must be; we all know that to be true." However, it is not true, and my Bill closes that loophole. I hope that the circumstances of the case and the discussions that we have had over the past few months will convince everyone in the House of the need to pass my Bill to close that loophole.

Apart from the central theme of the Bill, which is to close the loophole, will the hon. Gentleman touch on the issue of proxy purchasing that was raised by several Conservative Members on Second Reading? The Bill has been improved by the acceptance of an amendment. Will the hon. Gentleman put that amendment into context?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which I was shortly about to discuss. It is tempting not only to consider the immediate point that prompted one to examine the licensing laws, but to start to move out like the ripples caused by a stone thrown into a pond and to consider other issues. Clearly, one of the immediate issues was proxy purchasing.

It was tempting to consider several other issues. Indeed, on Second Reading and on Report, hon. Members succumbed to the temptation to consider many other matters. We had lengthy, informed and lucid debates on them. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have taken much of that discussion on board. He and his colleagues in the Home Office will consider several of the points made when the Government eventually bring a much broader licensing Bill to the House.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), let me say that it was clear on Second Reading that Members were keen to address the issue of proxy purchasing. Following that debate, I felt sufficiently emboldened to take to Committee an amendment to cover that point. I am pleased that the Committee and the House have raised no objections to my Bill, but I have always been aware of the strictures from both sides of the House and from right hon. and hon. Members that to try to do too much with a private Member's Bill is a recipe for disaster. I have always been cautious and tried to focus my Bill in a way that avoided a lack of consensus. I hope that I have succeeded in doing that.

Proxy purchasing is an important issue. It has emerged in my constituency at the very off-licence from which David Knowles purchased the alcohol on that fateful evening.

Proxy purchasing, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, and entrapment, as I call it, appears in the White Paper. It is a controversial matter and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on deciding to proceed with his Bill without it. I know that we shall return to the issue, but I wish to flag up one point. Protecting the rights of the young person used in the proxy purchasing or entrapment is the most important issue. [Interruption.]

I hear the comments from my hon. Friends. I am sure that it was just a slip of the tongue when the right hon. Gentleman used the term "proxy purchasing". "Test purchasing" is the term used to describe the process that he described as "entrapment". However, he makes a valid point. I know from past experience that it is an extremely controversial issue, so I accordingly omitted reference to it from my Bill.

I do not want to spend much longer considering the issues. I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. Some of them were not involved in our previous debates and they want to bring their knowledge and expertise to bear. If the House will forgive me, I shall bring my comments to a conclusion.

I believe that this is a good private Member's Bill. It has grown organically from the grass roots of my constituency, but it could have emanated from any constituency, It has been nurtured by excellent and well intentioned discussion in the House and, thankfully, has so far escaped any grafting or—dare I say it—genetic modification. As a largely ingenuous Back Bencher, it has been a privilege and an education for me to have been in charge of the Bill and to hear the many excellent and lucid contributions from hon. Members—I genuinely mean that.

My Bill, if passed, will serve a number of purposes. It will close the loophole highlighted by the David Knowles case; it will close the increasingly worrying loophole associated with proxy purchasing; it will equalise before the law all those who work in licensed premises irrespective of who employs them; and it will send a message to the people of this country that the House takes seriously the issue of young people abusing alcohol and the responsibilities of those who sell alcohol. To me, my constituents and, in particular, the family of David Knowles, it will serve as a memorial to him and the lessons to be learned from his tragic death. I therefore hope that the House will now give it a fair and speedy passage to another place.

It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). He has skilfully piloted the Bill through all its previous stages and is now rightly receiving the credit and acclamation from both sides for getting it to Third Reading. It will shortly pass to the other place, where I am certain that there will be equal praise for the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that there will be no need to amend the Bill there, because it is now in pretty good shape.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his persistence. In the private Member's Bill system, we put our names into a ballot and, if we are unlucky enough, we are drawn in the top 20. We then have to search around for something to do. We are inundated from all sides with suggestions for Bills and some hon. Members are accused of merely taking a handout Bill and of doing the Government's work for them. I would not necessarily lay that charge against any hon. Member, but we know that it is certainly not true in this case. On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman can consider himself lucky to have come high in the ballot, because he has been able to proceed with an issue that is close to his heart and that he had attempted to tackle before.

It is appropriate that someone on the Conservative Benches pays tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his persistence and for raising the issue of the tragic death of David Knowles. His previous Bill would have added the word "agent" to the definition of "servant", but Home Office Ministers rightly pointed out that that would not totally solve the problem. The proposal would create other anomalies and would have come up against obstacles. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman rightly did not proceed with a faulty Bill.

There is a lesson in that. It is unfair to say that this Bill is a considerable improvement, but it is as good as we can get it until someone spots a new loophole next year or at a later date. We all like to say that we have a perfect Bill and that the legislation will last a century, but something new that we have not spotted always comes along. In previous debates, we referred to internet sales. If internet sales undermine a provision in the Bill, someone will come along with an amendment to try to improve it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in this case, we know the future with much greater certainty than he suggested? The White Paper covers this and many other issues. It not only makes explicit reference to this Bill, but outlines an ambitious programme for the reform of the licensing laws generally. We know what will happen in the future.

My right hon. Friend is correct. He is as assiduous as ever and, no doubt, has read "Time for reform: proposals for the modernisation of our licensing laws", which is interesting and tangential to matters that we may consider on Third Reading, especially offences and penalties.

I shall conclude my congratulations to the hon. Member for Pudsey by saying that his Bill is a model of how legislation should pass through the House. There was a tragic case in his constituency involving his 14-year-old constituent David Knowles. In March 1997, David went into a Thresher off-licence in Pudsey and purchased alcopops for friends. He returned to the off-licence within five minutes and purchased four cans of lager for himself. He was regarded as a serious boy but, when the group reached the Stanningly bypass on the Leeds inner ring road, he apparently called out, "Let's run," and ran on to the dual carriageway, where he was hit by a vehicle. He died shortly afterwards from the massive injuries that he sustained.

The tragedy was a double one because, as the hon. Gentleman told us, although there was video footage of the sales, the Crown Prosecution Service was forced to drop the case against the staff who served David because the 1964 Act allows only the licence holder or his employees to be prosecuted. Thresher's staff were employed by a national company, not by the individual licence holder, who was their manager. The hon. Gentleman was deeply concerned when David's parents told him about that loophole, and introduced his first licensing Bill, which attempted to incorporate the term "agent" into the 1964 Act. He realised that that was not sufficient or satisfactory, but he did not give up. Indeed, I believe that one of his colleagues tried to introduce a licensing Bill in the last session.

I was one of those who were concerned about that Bill because, for a private Member's Bill, it went too far by introducing the issue of test purchasing. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) intended to refer to that because, like me, he is concerned about the matter. Indeed, it was put to me when I was a Home Office Minister and I was anxious about it. I do not like the smell of it or the idea that the police or a local authority's trading standards officers could use a young person as an agent provocateur. I know that that is done for cigarettes, but that does not necessarily make it right for the authorities to send a young person into a shop to buy alcohol and then say, "Aha, we've got you."

As a Minister, my view was that I would accept that approach as soon as we had introduced a national identity card system, which would enable shopkeepers to ask the young people to show an ID card. Shopkeepers would be negligent if they failed to do that or sold alcohol knowingly to young people, and would fail the test in the Bill. I would happily accept test purchasing if I believed that we had a good ID card system.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting my earlier error, and am grateful to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) for his indulgence when I made it.

I am not yet persuaded to go as far as my right hon. Friend on the issue. I do not want to get into that argument and merely wish to flag it up. My concern has always been for the protection and rights of the young person, and how far and whether there would be proper protection for young people in the process described by my right hon. Friend, even if there were ID cards. I will need to be satisfied on that if the Government are to take the matter forward, as they indicate they will do in their White Paper.

My right hon. Friend is right. We are on Third Reading and discussing what is in the Bill, so we cannot get into the details of things that are not in it. However, it includes provisions on proxy purchasing. Test purchasing and proxy purchasing are not the same in principle, but my right hon. Friend rightly refers to the White Paper "Time for reform".

I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is in order for me to say that the hon. Member for Pudsey is right not to have included test purchasing, because that involves significant issues of principle. We should wait for the Home Office to consider legislation and for the Government then to introduce a Bill so that the issue can be explored in Government time and receive attention in a Standing Committee. If the White Paper is to mean anything, legislation will inevitably follow, so the issue can he addressed.

The Bill is quite large and the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on sensibly undertaking consolidation of the law in it. Simply making amendments to the 1964 Act would further complicate that already complicated Act. The hon. Gentleman has rightly built amendments into his Bill by revising or rewriting provisions of the 1964 Act, making section 169 sensible and comprehensible to those studying it.

There are about eight or nine new offences in the Bill. It will be an offence for anyone in licensed premises to sell alcohol to a person under 18 if they suspect that they are under age. It will be an offence for anyone who has the authority to prevent the sale to allow someone to sell alcohol to a person under 18. It will be an offence for a person under 18 to attempt to buy alcohol in licensed premises.

It will be an offence for an adult to buy or attempt to buy alcohol for consumption by someone under 18: that is the proxy purchase that the hon. Gentleman has added to the Bill, thereby plugging another loophole. It is an offence for someone under 18 to consume alcohol in a bar and for anyone who has the authority to prevent such consumption to allow an under-18-year-old to consume alcohol in a bar. It is an offence for someone who works in licensed premises to deliver alcohol off premises to someone under 18, except when the under-18-year-old works in such premises in a capacity involving the delivery of alcohol. Finally, it is an offence for someone to send an under-18-year-old to obtain alcohol from licensed premises for consumption off the premises.

The Bill is therefore fairly comprehensive. Of course, not all the items that I have just listed are completely new concepts. Some are in the 1964 Act, and some appeared as amendments a few years ago. I shall touch on a few points worthy of special mention on which the Government may wish to reflect when, in future, they introduce legislation on the matter.

Who should be criminally responsible when alcohol is sold to someone under 18? The Bill makes that an offence for the person who buys the alcohol and the person selling it, whether that is the licensee, servant or agent. On Report, I asked whether a greater moral offence is not committed by the person buying the alcohol, and suggested that we should not put the bulk of the obligation on the licensee or the person undertaking the sale. The seller faces a heavy financial penalty and, ultimately, could lose the right to sell alcohol.

If young people are accompanied by their parents or guardians, they do not seem to suffer any penalties. That is not the fault of the Bill, but of the 1964 Act and the legislation that my colleagues and I introduced in government. We did not address the matter. If under-18-year-olds go to a supermarket or pub with their parents and buy or consume alcohol illegally, the person selling them the alcohol is liable, as is the young person, but there is no obligation on the parents. The sale of beer, porter or cider is an exception to that, but it holds true for young people who go into a pub and knock back vodka with their parents. The Government must address that when considering responses to the White Paper.

When considering all the offences in what will replace section 169, we should examine the circumstances in which someone can plead a defence. On Report, we had interesting discussions about defences in the Bill, especially in new section 169A(2). That subsection states:

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence … where he is charged by reason of his own act, to prove that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen.

We debated at length whether the word "knowingly" should be inserted. We were rightly convinced—it was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) with her legal knowledge who convinced us—not to put back the word "knowingly". The Minister also argued against that, but we found the hon. Lady especially persuasive in her argument that since "knowingly" was deleted in 1996 or 1997, the number of prosecutions had risen. Nevertheless, it is valid to consider the circumstances in which a person should be able to plead a defence and, related to that, the degree of knowledge required for one person to be liable for the acts or omissions of others. Subsection (3) states:

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section, where he is charged by reason of the act or default of some other person, to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under that subsection.

What will the person have to prove by way of due diligence? I hope that the Minister will outline that—not at length, of course, but briefly. I know that it is dangerous for Ministers to comment on what might be a defence in hypothetical circumstances, but if one of the bar staff sells alcohol to someone under 18 and the owner of the bar is charged, what will he have to prove under subsection (3) in order to have a defence of due diligence?

I assume that the bar owner will have to show that he has given some training to his bar staff. He may have to show that he has a system to identify under-18-year-olds, and that he has told all his bar staff, "Ask for an ID card, passport or proof of age, or, if you think they look like children, sling 'em out." The owner will have to prove that he has taken steps to safeguard himself.

The best system of all would be an identity card system, in which the pub owner, licensee or whoever is working in the off-licence has a system to make sure that all staff go through a certain procedure if there is the slightest suspicion that anyone is under 18. I hope that that would be a satisfactory defence.

That leads to a crucial point relevant to several clauses. What identification measures will be put in place to underpin the Bill? The Portman Group's proof-of-age scheme has been in operation since 1990. What are the details of the new youth card being developed by the Department for Education and Employment? Is it intended to replace the Portman proof-of-age card? It would be helpful for the Minister to give some information about that before we come to the Third Reading vote, as it relates to the defences in section 169—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be careful not to stray too far beyond the tight limits of the Third Reading.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I said that the matter related to the defences in new section 169A(2) and (3), where it is a defence for a person selling alcohol

to prove that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen.

If the bar owner, licensee, servant, agent and so on can prove that, the Bill states that it is a defence. Similarly, in subsection (3), it is a defence to show that he used due diligence.

I hope that I will not be straying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that, in those circumstances, ID cards come into their own, and so may passports, as proof of age. We are dealing with a Bill that specifies an age—18. There are parts where the age of 16 is relevant. All the offences in section 169A are triggered by selling alcohol to people who are under 18. In those circumstances, the House is entitled to ask how licensees and pub owners are to avoid committing a crime. They do not want to be prosecuted, so how do they tell a 17-year-old from a 19-year-old?

As we always used to say, one is old when one thinks that policemen look young. It may be a sign of my increasing age that young people seem to look more sophisticated and older than I have ever known them in my time. They look older than they are, and that seems especially true of young women. I hope that that is not regarded as a sexist remark.

May I save my right hon. Friend before he gets too far involved in young women? Does he agree that he is dealing with one aspect of the Bill that could cause anxiety? Perhaps the Minister will help us later. In new sections 169A(2) and (3) and 169B, the phrases

no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen

and

to prove that he exercised all due diligence

touch on precisely the point that my right hon. Friend is making. He was straying on to delicate territory, but it is increasingly difficult for an employee or someone else involved in the sale of alcohol effectively, properly, reasonably and diligently to tell exactly what age the person trying to buy alcohol is.

My right hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful for his help before I made politically incorrect comments. The House would accept that young people these days look a little older and more sophisticated than we used to look when we were their age a few years ago. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend has always looked this age: he was issued, not born.

Pub owners, licensees, and others who sell alcohol say that proof of age is a major problem. That is why so many of them have gone down the route of the Portman scheme and other proof-of-age schemes, the details of which I have, but I shall not stray into them.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Is it his view that it would be necessary for the landlord or the person selling to have asked to see a card in order to show that he had acted with due diligence? Would he be able to mount such a defence if he had not done so?

I should like to hear the Minister's views on that. I hope that it will be possible for him to express them without that being used as a defence in some future case, which would allow a person to get off because the Minister had commented in the House that he did not think that in certain circumstances an offence would have been committed. I know that, in discussing legislation, it is difficult for Ministers to speak about hypothetical cases in the future and what would be the law.

I hope that the Minister will say that it would be highly unusual for the bar owner to be acquitted if he had not taken any steps whatever to try to check the person's age. Due diligence means that one must do something. The argument is about the extent of what one must do to check someone's age. If the bar owner merely says, "I looked at the person and, in my judgment and experience, he was over 18," I do not believe that that would be enough to satisfy a court, particularly if there are other means of verification, such as a proof-of-age scheme.

My right hon. Friend is letting the Minister off far too lightly. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that, as legislation goes through the House and the other place, one of the objectives of the proceedings is to clarify as far as possible the intent of the legislation, in order to help the courts in future cases. If the promoter of the Bill or the Minister is too reticent at this stage, there is a danger that the courts will not have sufficient guidance from the legislature about what was in our minds and what our intent was. A balance must be struck, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not let the Minister off too lightly.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I may have been too sympathetic to the Minister. I was in his position for some time, and I also received defensive notes, which said, "Minister, don't get into hypothetical scenarios." However, my right hon. Friend is right. Doubtless he was about to cite Pepper v. Hart, on which he could expatiate at length.

The Bill is rightly supported by the Home Office, and it is therefore legitimate for the Minister to express a view about some of the elements that might be required to prove a defence of due diligence. All hon. Members are entitled to give an opinion. I suggest that due diligence should constitute more than taking a 10-second look at someone and saying, "You're a bit short," "You're a bit tall," "You look a bit spotty or freckly; you must be a kid." That is not good enough. I shall now probably receive letters from the spotty disadvantaged, accusing me of various biases and abuses.

The pub owners, the licensees and those who sell alcohol are greatly worried about identification procedures—rightly so. Most do not want to sell alcohol to those who are under 18 or kids. They are also terrified of being prosecuted, incurring a level 3 fine and losing their licence. They therefore want to get it right. The Bill provides for two more opportunities for prosecution and losing their licences through proxy purchasing and allowing for many more staff to be caught in the net of improperly selling alcohol to under-18s.

If those who sell alcohol are to have a defence, the Government must suggest the steps they should take. We may not need legislation; the Minister's pronouncements, circulated through the licensing trade, may act as a catalyst for the Portman Group scheme or the Department for Education and Employment scheme or others. If the Government tell those who sell alcohol, "In order to satisfy the provision for due diligence, you'd better check everyone who might conceivably be under 18; you'd better back a voluntary identity card scheme or you'll be done in court," it would be a huge incentive for the schemes to take off.

I regret that the Government dropped the excellent proposal by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and me to introduce a national identity card scheme. However, if we are not to have such a scheme, we need to give more impetus to the voluntary proof-of-age scheme. I hope that the Minister will respond in as much detail as possible without stepping on the Lord Chancellor's toes.

The Bill makes selling alcohol to minors an offence only if the seller works on the premises, in a paid or unpaid capacity. I asked earlier whether the offence should be wider so that it covered anyone in a position of authority over the minor, such as parents. Should they be prosecuted for allowing a minor to consume alcohol in a licensed bar? The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who preceded the Minister in the Home Office, alluded to that in his contribution to the Committee that considered the 1998 Licensing (Amendment) Bill.

It could be argued that placing sole responsibility on the person who makes the sale rather than the licensee might result in licensees becoming less vigilant or less anxious to ensure that staff are properly trained. We are delighted that the Bill plugs the loophole concerning the licensee's servant or agent. Anyone who works on the premises—managers or junior sales assistants; in supermarkets, off-licences or bars—is caught. However, is there a danger that the licensee, whose name is above the door, might become less vigilant and think, "Well, my staff will be done, not necessarily me."? It is a small point, but we need to know what measures will be put in place to ensure that licensees do not shirk their proper management responsibilities. The Minister may answer that they can also be prosecuted and can lose their licences. Perhaps his answer will lie in the new White Paper and the extra penalties that it includes.

What guidance will be given to the courts about the level of fines that will be imposed in specific circumstances? For example, it could be argued that, when a licensee commits an offence, he should be subject to a more severe financial penalty than an employee, because of his greater responsibility and ability to pay. I considered the point on Report. I am not sure whether an amendment was selected; if not, we shall not pursue the point. Proposed new section 169H states:

A person guilty of an offence under section 169A, 169B, 169C, 169E, 169F or 169G of this Act shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

That is £1,000, if I remember correctly. Level 5 is £5,000; level 4 is £2,500; level 3 must, therefore, be £1,000.

I believe in flexibility in fines and penalties, and that the courts should be given maximum freedom. However, the Bill sends out a signal that all the offences in proposed new sections 169A, 169B, 169C, 169E, 169F and 169G are equally grave. I do not believe that that is necessarily the case. Perhaps the licensee should suffer a higher penalty than ordinary staff or workers. Perhaps Lord Sainsbury should suffer a greater penalty than the checkout girls and boys in Sainsburys on Victoria street if they sell alcohol improperly. We are considering a principle, although we cannot explore it in detail today.

Perhaps I am pre-empting one of my right hon. Friend's points, but the distinction is between not only the licensee and an employee or agent of the licensee, but also—for example, under proposed new section 169C—the person who attempts to make the purchase. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an important difference between someone at one end of the offence—in this case, the person who attempts to make the illegal purchase—and the person who, inadvertently or not, allows him to do so?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. If I imposed my moral scale of guilt on alcohol consumption by those aged under 18, the adult who deliberately procures alcohol for consumption by under-18s deserves the highest penalty and should be top of the list. The under-age person who buys alcohol should get the next highest penalty. Two levels of penalty should apply to the licensee: if he sells it deliberately, is negligent and could not care less, he should receive a high penalty; if he has taken steps, albeit inadequate, which do not satisfy the requirements of due diligence, he should receive a lesser penalty. At the bottom of the heap should be the sales checkout person in the shop or supermarket. Those people are least to blame.

Sales checkout people have so many other obligations in the rush of selling goods. That is apparent in any of the little supermarkets around Westminster—for example, Sainsburys in Victoria street, Tesco in Warwick way and so on. I shall not list all the shops that I occasionally visit to get a few bits and pieces to keep body and soul together in London. However, there is a frantic rush at the checkout.

Throughout our proceedings, we have talked about off-licences, which might not be busy on occasions. Sometimes there are only two or three people in there at a time, and perhaps the staff have the time to look at the customers, make sure that they are the right age and ask for proof of identity. Perhaps bar owners should be more on the ball because they face the problem all the time and know the penalties. No one has told our 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 supermarket checkout people their obligations in sufficient detail. They have a million things to do simultaneously: checking credit cards, asking about vouchers, cash-back and all the other claptrap associated with getting through a supermarket checkout. To expect them to deal with proof-of-age schemes and to make judgments on age is a heavy responsibility. However, to return to my remarks, which are directly relevant to proposed new section 169H, those youngsters on the checkout tills will be liable to the same penalties as the licensee, the person who buys the alcohol and adults who are involved in proxy purchasing on behalf of others deliberately and with malice aforethought.

Today is not the day to try to change those penalties—we considered them briefly on Report—and I do not suggest that they should be changed in the other place. If the House of Lords makes any adjustment to the Bill, I suspect that it may not be passed, given the dreadful bottleneck and the legislative shambles into which the Government have got the Houses of Parliament. We must let the Bill leave the House intact and I hope that it will pass the other place intact, otherwise it will not reach the statute book.

As the Government receive advice on the White Paper from all their consultees, I hope that they will consider the penalties, not just broadly—whether £1,000 is enough—but the categories of people to which they should apply. While I am discussing penalties, we need to consider another point. Proposed new section 169H(2) states:

Where the holder of a justices' licence is convicted of any of the offences referred to in subjection (1) and the licence is held in respect of the licensed premises in relation to which the offence was committed, the court may order that he shall forfeit the licence if … he already has one or more convictions of an offence under section 169 …

Local licensing justices will have the power to revoke a licence. Does the Minister envisage any role whatever for the licensing justices in future, given the proposals in the White Paper? I know that he cannot prejudge the outcome of the consultation and that the White Paper makes it clear that all licensing will be the responsibility of local authorities. I can also understand the tidiness in the Government's mind: local authorities will be totally responsible for licensing all premises—the building as well as the licensee—under the White Paper. The licensing justices will not be involved in licensing decisions.

As I understand the White Paper, if offences are committed, the police will have a new power to close down premises instantly for 24 hours, after which appeals can be made. However, it seems that those appeals will be to the local authority. Clearly, if the proposals in the White Paper go ahead, a lengthy new licensing Act would be necessary to deal with a range of matters and section 169H would need to be repealed. Even if the White Paper were implemented lock, stock and bairel—perhaps an appropriate term—does the Minister envisage that licensing justices will have any future role in convictions for offences? Magistrates may have to decide whether to convict.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should not go further down that route or encourage the Minister to respond. We are not debating the White Paper; we must restrict discussion to the Bill.

Precisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Naturally, I follow your guidance immediately. Therefore, I return to new section 169H(2) on justices taking away the licences of those who are convicted. As that section stands, it could fly in the face of other legislation that the Government may introduce following the White Paper. I hope that you agree that it is in order to ask the Minister whether he envisages that the powers under section 169H will remain, so that magistrates can convict people and recommend that a licence should be taken away, or whether they, in addition to local authorities, will still have the power to revoke licences?

Proxy purchase has been mentioned today. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Pudsey did not include test purchasing in the Bill. Legislation on proxy purchasing is legitimate and valid; it is sensible to include and widen such provision, as was done in Scotland four years ago. Lord Forsyth was responsible for plugging that loophole in Scotland—he was passionate about it in certain discussions in government, and I congratulate him—and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on doing the same in English legislation.

The Bill that will leave the House is in pretty good shape and will plug loopholes that concern hon. Members on both sides of the House—it is a textbook case of good private Members' legislation. I say that in no sense of sycophancy or facetiousness. I am one of those who block legislation in the House if I think that it has not been properly debated, but my record in objecting to Bills is as nothing compared to the Government's. No doubt at 2.30 we shall see them wickedly destroy the aspirations of 30 hon. Members from both sides of the House.

The Bill is a good example of legislating rather than reacting, as we all did with the dangerous dogs legislation. After the tragic case of David Knowles, it would be easy to say, as the House often does, "It must never happen again; give us legislation." Who would stop a Bill of merit that tried to do the right thing to prevent a tragedy from happening again? If we had not carefully considered the hon. Gentleman's first Bill, it might have been nodded through at 2.30, and we would have had to return to it a year later because it had not been debated properly.

The hon. Gentleman has had to wait two and a half or three years to get decent legislation on to the statute book. I hope that there have been no other tragic cases since that of David Knowles, but we can never guarantee that as parliamentarians. No matter what we do as we try to rush through legislation, there will inevitably be other victims because of someone's negligence, human folly or bad judgment. As one who did not support his previous Bill, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and wish this Bill well. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members who have also played a vital role in ensuring that the Bill is good shape.

I shall be extremely brief because there are matters to be discussed later that, although they may not be more important, are more contentious. The Bill is excellent and has wide support in the House; there are no problems with it. We all congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on steering it so far. I shall say a few words to send it on its way and to draw in other issues.

We all know that alcohol consumption among the young is a serious problem in Britain. The figures from Alcohol Concern show that such consumption is much higher in Britain than in other countries, in contrast to average consumption, which is rather lower. Consumption in Britain is increasing, although it is decreasing in other countries, and rising consumption among the young is causing the problem. European statistics and those from Alcohol Concern show that countries with strict controls on the licensing, sale and consumption of alcohol have lower levels of consumption, especially among the young, and that consumption tends to be higher in those countries that are more relaxed, such as Britain. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill, which will close an important loophole.

Other hon. Members have touched on some wider issues, and I address my next remarks to my hon. Friend the Minister. The Government are to present their national alcohol strategy, and I ask my hon. Friend to urge his colleagues in the Department of Health to do so as soon as possible to take account of the wider problems of alcohol consumption in Britain, and to ensure that the strategy dovetails nicely with the changes in licensing that my hon. Friend is discussing in his White Paper.

There is a serious health risk in alcohol consumption. It is frightening that in the past 15 years deaths from cirrhosis of the liver in Britain have risen threefold. We want to stop that trend. The Bill will go some way to reducing those figures in later years, as young people who are now drinking too much benefit from tighter control on the sale of alcohol and learn from a general atmosphere and culture of concern about and awareness of the dangers of alcohol consumption.

I add my support to the Bill, and I hope that it goes through within the next few minutes.

I warmly welcome the Bill and wish it godspeed. This is a textbook example of how a private Member should operate in the House of Commons. I have sat through the proceedings on numerous private Member's Bills, and many of them are handout Bills from the Government—there is nothing wrong with that in principle, but one should ask whether the Government should introduce their own Bills—or Members ask for too much. They tilt at windmills and raise issues of enormous national concern, which would be better dealt with in wider Government Bills.

This is just the sort of Bill that the private Member's Bill procedure was designed to deal with, and I strongly feel that we should give it a fair passage. I say that not just as a Member of Parliament but as a concerned and worried parent whose children are embarking on their teenage years. I am sure that the Bill will become law, and that it will make a difference. There is no doubt that, had it not been for the efforts of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) in pursuing this case on behalf of his constituent, the Bill would never have got this far. Therefore, I warmly congratulate him.

At present, unacceptable loopholes in our licensing laws enable people who sell alcohol to children—our own children—to hide behind a legal sleight of hand. With the passing of the Bill, the vendors of drinks will have at least a firm guide in law, even if they have no moral principles of their own, and will be forced to accept their social responsibilities. Parents cannot be everywhere. They rely on the people who run licensed premises. I cannot believe that all those people are irresponsible and want to sell drink to young people, but I can believe that some of them are irresponsible. If they are caught out not doing their job properly, the present law allows them to escape their responsibilities. That is why we must deal with this matter.

Unless the Bill is passed, we will be left with the present ancient, complex and inconsistent licensing laws. We have only to consider the small number of prosecutions and successful convictions to realise the problem. As at June 1998, there were no less than 111,600 licensed premises and 45,500 off-licence premises. In 1998, 310 persons were prosecuted for selling intoxicating liquor to persons under 18. Of those 310 prosecutions, only 157 in the entire country resulted in a successful conviction. That is 157 convictions from a total number of licences in force of 157,000. Those figures are from the "Liquor Licensing England and Wales" Home Office statistical bulletin.

I wonder whether I am alone in finding those figures unbelievable, when we all know that drinking among under-age people is so common and so much a part of youth culture, especially in the light of the frightening increases in youth crime, teenage pregnancy and other problems involved with drinking. The figures show that there is no doubt that relatively easy access to alcohol is a key contributor to the problems.

The legal sleight of hand that, as a father, I find unacceptable is demonstrated by the case that brought matters to a head. We all know the case, but for my constituents who may not be aware of it I should explain that a poor young 14-year-old—he was only 14, not 17—was out for the day with his friends having played soccer, and was able under the present law to go into a shop not once but twice, first to buy alcopops and then several pints of lager. That is incredible. He was far too young and could not control himself; he ran across the road and, tragically, was killed.

My constituents would find it unbelievable that that young man was sold alcohol twice. There is no doubt about that as there is clear videotape evidence. Presumably, there was no doubt about the fact that he was only 14 and under age. Unless the Bill is passed, people such as those who sold him alcohol cannot be prosecuted. My constituents, who will not have been aware of the existing law, will find that extraordinary. It must also be galling to the Crown Prosecution Service that it was unable to bring a successful prosecution.

The legal sleight of hand that enables such people to escape their responsibilities depends on section 169(1) of the Licensing Act 1964, which makes it an offence for a licensee or his servant to sell alcohol to a person under 18 in licensed premises. That presents a problem as to the exact definition of the term "servant." It fails to reflect the fact that staff in off-licences, which are the most important source of alcohol for youths, are often employed by a national company and not by the individual licence holder. The result is that an assistant in an off-licence cannot be considered a servant of the licence holder.

I say that for the benefit of the people who are not aware of the present law. Although common sense would suggest that employees of a chain of off-licences or pubs should be held responsible for their failure of social responsibility, unfortunately the law does not recognise that fact. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Pudsey has been thorough in drawing up a replacement for section 169(1). If the Bill is passed, the law will recognise what common sense already tells us.

My interpretation of the Bill is that it reflects much more the fact that off-licences are by far the greatest suppliers of alcohol to under-age drinkers. According to Home Office figures, in 1995 about 35 per cent. of people obtained their alcohol off licensed premises. Although that proportion dipped to about 20 per cent. in 1998, that is still the largest source.

What happened to David in this tragic case was extreme, but the effect of the lesser problems of vandalism, petty theft, under-age sex and intimidation of ordinary citizens by alcoholically emboldened youngsters will be reduced by the Bill. Therefore, it is a significant and good Bill.

My hon. Friend is an eminent lawyer. When he considers proposed new section 169A and the phrases to which our right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred—"no reason to suspect" and "exercise all due diligence"—is he confident that even this measure, which has the widespread support of the House, will go quite as far as he suggests in dealing with the problem? As a non-lawyer, I wonder how far it will be possible to mount effective prosecutions, given the wording of the Bill. I would like to hear my hon. Friend's view, knowing his experience of the law.

I shall come back to that point. I do not want to be carried away by my strong feelings about the case that I have cited, or by my support for the Bill. I do not pretend that it will solve all the problems. Proposed new section 169A is central. Because of its drafting, we may not make as much progress in solving the problems as we would like.

Paper 3 in the crime reduction series produced by the police and crime reduction unit, which I have obtained from the Library, outlines the findings of various studies on youth crime and alcohol. A Manchester study found that youngsters who drank regularly were 25 per cent. more likely to have a criminal record than those who did not. In Scotland, 63 per cent. of young offenders in one institution were intoxicated at the time of their offences, as were 80 per cent. of offenders found guilty of breaches of the peace, and 88 per cent. of those found guilty of causing criminal damage. In 1996, the Audit Commission expressed concern about the fact that children not at school were more likely to consume alcohol than those at school. It estimated that 65 per cent. of school-age offenders were excluded from school.

All that demonstrates the severe problem posed to society by the fact that it is too easy for young people to obtain alcohol from off-licences. However, the easy supply of alcohol to youngsters is only one aspect of the problem. Others include the current state of youth culture, and where the money comes from to buy the drink. There is the question of parental responsibility, and the way in which parents introduce the topic of alcohol to young children. I know that we are not here to discuss such problems, but the Bill has wide ramifications, and unless we deal with them we will always come up against the legalisms rightly identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). People will evade their responsibilities.

Clause 1 reintroduces the fear factor, which is the only sure-fire way of making organisations that exist to make a profit—which is fair enough—look beyond their narrow self-interest and think of the communities of which they are a part. We all believe that our morality prevents us from committing a crime, but we must be pragmatic, and accept that it is fear that makes us less inclined to break or bend the law. The reason why speed limits are broken so often is the relatively slight chance of being caught, and the prospect of only a small fine if one is caught.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) mentioned the level of fines referred to in proposed new section 169H. I, too, wonder whether it provides a sufficient incentive for chains of off-licences and pubs to put the law before profit and increase pressure on their staff to be more proactive in stopping under-age drinking. Is £1,000 enough? I fear, given the accumulated revenue of the larger chains of pubs and off-licences, it may not prove to be the kind of deterrent that the hon. Member for Pudsey wants.

We should remember that before the Sunday trading laws were liberalised—I voted against that, which I know will not please my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but I make no apology—the larger retailers were frequently fined to prevent them from breaking the law. Unfortunately, the penalty was insufficient to deter them, because the benefits of trade far outweighed the potential losses resulting from prosecution. About 60 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds drink. That must constitute considerable revenue potential for larger chains of licensees, although I do not have the figures to support my assumption.

Potential penalties may need to be harsher than those currently proposed in the Bill, because if the Bill is to reduce youngsters' access to alcohol, licensees must be proactive, and make the effort to question youths. As I have said, it is fear that will make them do so. Youths will not make the effort on our behalf. Children will appear older than they are because of their dress and attitudes. Is it seriously contended, given the level of trade and the hustle and bustle of the large supermarket or off-licence to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border referred, that a potential fine of only £1,000 will make a great difference?

Proposed new section 169A(2) states:

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section, where he is charged by reason of his own act, to prove that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen.

All I can say, from my own experience and reports, is that—although I do not want to pour cold water on the efforts of the hon. Member for Pudsey—I fear that it will be relatively easy for a defending solicitor to prove that his client had no reason to suspect that the person was under 18.

I do not know what the solution is, and I am not sure how the Bill could have been tightened up. Certainly, we would like it to insist that when there is any doubt about a young person's age—and, in the case of that 14-year-old, there must surely have been some doubt—the licensee or his staff should ask for some form of identification.

I realise that, given the current debate about identity cards, the hon. Gentleman could not put such a provision in the Bill, but he must recognise that it will be relatively easy for a defending solicitor to convince magistrates that he had no reason to suspect. Perhaps some sort of case law will develop. Perhaps lay magistrates, who are valuable in this regard, will create a case law or history in their localities, which will convince those running off-licences that magistrates take a tough view. The magistrates will need to be convinced that the licensee made real efforts to find out the young person's age.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was right to ask his question. I wish that I could come up with a form of words that would dramatically improve the Bill, but I fear that I cannot.

Proposed new section 169G states:

A person shall be guilty of an offence if he knowingly sends a person under eighteen for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor sold or to be sold in licensed premises for consumption off the premises.

That is designed to stop parents sending their children to buy drink, which is fine. It brings us to the whole business of proxy and test purchasing.

I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that, if we are to have any chance of convincing licensees that they will be caught, we must allow test purchases. We must create legislation; this is where the Government come in.

I appreciate that it may not have been possible for the hon. Member for Pudsey, for all sorts of good reasons—not least, presumably, the worry about the reception that he might receive here this morning—to include a clause allowing test purchases, but I have no difficulty with the idea. Where society faces such an appalling problem with under-age drinking, I have no problem with the police using young people to test out shops. Word will soon get around. That would make a dramatic difference to the attitude of the people who run those shops.

Therefore, I disagree with my right hon. Friend. I know that he is a great believer in civil liberties—and so am I, but I am not sure that that would be an enormous infringement of civil liberties. Someone should be allowed to go in to a shop to make a test purchase.

Surely my hon. Friend accepts that if the police or trading standards officers pick someone who is 16 but looks 18 or 19, and send that person into a shop, the shopkeeper will rightly rely on his or her judgment that the person is over age and sell the alcohol. In the absence of a national ID card, there is no official means of proof, but the shopkeeper will be prosecuted and found guilty. That is using someone as an agent provocateur. It would be acceptable if the person looked their age, but there is a danger that people who are younger than they look will be used as the agents.

I am not sure that it will be strictly a case of agents provocateurs. As I understand it, an agent provocateur is someone who is used by the authorities deliberately to encourage a potential committer of a crime to indulge in a form of behaviour that he would otherwise not have indulged in. That is why we are all against the concept of agents provocateurs. Test purchasing is different, but I accept what my right hon. Friend is saying. There may be injustices.

A 16-year-old who looks 18 may go into an off-licence. The licensee or member of his staff may sell that person alcohol and be prosecuted. I agree that that is an injustice in a sense, but does not my right hon. Friend see that we are not talking about sending people to prison? We are talking about a fine of £1,000. We are talking about large chains, and we are trying to create an attitude within the businesses that they must be careful and cannot be casual about this matter. They cannot come to the instant thought, "Little Johnny looks so high." They must go out of their way, be proactive and ask questions. If they do not, they might be hauled before the beak.

Unless there are test purchases, I do not think that that will happen. Although I understand where my right hon. Friends are coming from, I think that they are making a mistake. I hope that, although it was not possible to bring in test purchases through the Bill, we will bring them in through other legislation. The problem with the way in which proposed new section 169G is framed is that it will definitely stop the police from doing any sort of test purchases. That worries me. We must come back to that.

A couple of other points worry me about proposed new section 169A. One is how a vendor can prove that he had no reason to suspect that a person was under 18. I am worried. Can the Minister respond to the point? How can the vendor prove that? How can the prosecution prove that the vendor suspected that the person was under 18? There is a real problem with the provision. I do not think that we can shuffle over it in the way that perhaps I have tried to do, saying that I cannot think of anything better. It is important that the Minister, when he deals with proposed new section 169A, tells us how he thinks he—or rather, the courts—will obtain a prosecution.

In any event, taken as a whole, it is a worthy Bill and a credit to the resolve of the hon. Member for Pudsey. It is a fitting monument to a young boy who lost his life because of a lack of social responsibility and a loophole in our law. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

I am grateful for an opportunity to speak on Third Reading. It is a debate that I have followed closely. I am also grateful to have a chance to respond in part to one or two points that have been made by Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who said much that I agreed with. I cannot always say that in the House, but on this occasion I am glad to be able to do so.

I echo very briefly, but with great sincerity, the tributes that have been paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), who has found a way through the nightmare of private Member's Bill procedure better than some of us have managed on other subjects.

My hon. Friend got her Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.

Not through private Member's Bill procedure.

The persistence and good sense of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey in realising that consensus is important on these occasions should pay dividends shortly, when the Bill goes to the other place, not to be seen here again, I hope. I commend him warmly for his efforts.

Alcohol consumption by young people is a serious problem throughout the country. The Library research paper gives a brief indication of the size of the problem. Department of Health statistics show that, in 1996, 27 per cent. of pupils aged 11 to 15—that is, well under age—had had an alcoholic drink in the past week and more than half of 15-year-olds had had one. I do not intend to regale the House with reams of statistics. That one statistic is enough to indicate to all hon. Members the seriousness of the problem.

I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough about the breadth of the social implications involved. It is not just a problem for the young people who partake of alcoholic drinks; the problem goes wider than that and affects whole swathes of society. Particular parts of my constituency of Liverpool, Garston have an on-going problem, much of which can be traced back to under-age drinking.

The problem affects not just the young people whose health is put at risk and whose futures are potentially blighted by drinking alcohol in quantity at too young an age, but entire estates, streets and particular parts of many hon. Members' constituencies. Groups of young people drinking out of doors leads to other problems of nuisance, crime and fear of crime in many estates. It has been an increasing problem in my constituency, not just in the area in which one might think that it would be a problem. The problem can develop in poor and better-off parts of the constituency, affecting not only those who partake, but a wider swathe of society.

In the three years since I started holding surgeries as a local Member of Parliament, it has been an increasing problem. From anecdotal evidence in Liverpool, my impression is that the problem is increasing, rather than decreasing. That reflects the fact that the law as it stands is not capable of dealing with it, partly because of the loopholes that have been identified by my hon. Friend—which the Bill will, I hope, take steps to close—but also because of the wider confusion in the law. I am glad that the Government have noticed that confusion and that their White Paper "Time for reform: proposals for the modernisation of our licensing laws" takes steps to address it. I hope that there will be further legislation as soon as possible, once the consultation has been completed and the Government are able to make recommendations.

I base my views on the issue not only on the evidence of my own surgeries, although that has been extensive, but on my conversations with other people who take an interest in and are concerned about it, such as Merseyside police, the Magistrates Clerks Association and other, local organisations.

I should like to quote briefly from some research that has been done in one part of my constituency—Speke, Garston—but emphasise that the research has been done there because of the operation of a local single regeneration budget partnership that is concerned with trying to regenerate the area, not because there is a particular problem in Speke. I cite that part of my constituency only because good information on the issue has been collected there, not because the situation is worse there than anywhere else.

Speke, Garston comprises about one third of my constituency, and 35 per cent. of the population are under 25. Of known offenders, 26 per cent. are under 18. Compared with the average across Liverpool, crime is higher in Speke. There is an average of 19.9 crimes per 100 residents, compared with 14.6—

Order. I am listening very carefully to the hon. Lady's speech, and I have no doubt that she will soon be relating her remarks to the Bill's contents, which are what we are debating.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to set in the context of my constituency the difficulties that the Bill seeks to deal with. I shall, however, move swiftly on to speak more specifically to the Bill.

A survey was conducted in Speke, Garston, and people described incidents of alcohol drinking among young people as ruinous to the Speke community. They said that alcohol was cheap, effective, locally available and much cheaper to obtain than other drugs. They also said that under-age drinking was widespread.

When I talked to police, they made it clear that, in their experience, the biggest supply problem is centred on off-licences. National statistics, too, make it clear that young people obtain their alcohol at off-licences. Therefore, the concern is very much centred on local off-licences. Similarly, the problems caused by groups of youths, and the proxy-purchase issue, centre very much on local off-licences.

Merseyside police, who deal with these issues, believe that the root cause of the problem is not necessarily irresponsible licensees. They believe, in fact, that many licensees do their very best to ensure that they do not sell to under-age people. They also believe that proxy purchase is a particular problem and that, because of the legislative loophole, licensees can do nothing to prevent it. Given the comments of police and my own constituency experience, I believe that proxy purchase is a key problem in that part of the constituency.

I therefore very much welcome the fact that, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey was bold enough to reinstate the proxy-purchase provisions that the legislation in the previous Session contained, but that were—understandably, as he was trying to build consensus on the Bill—removed. I very much welcome their return to the Bill, where they belong.

Test purchasing was pioneered in Liverpool, by Liverpool trading standards officers, whom I commend for their work on the issue. In 1988, Liverpool first started performing cigarette test purchases. Liverpool trading standards officers have also test purchased fireworks. They cannot, however, test purchase alcohol, as it is an offence to send an under-age person into an off-licence to make such a purchase. The law prevents them from conducting those tests.

I should add that, in 1988, when cigarette test purchasing was first adopted, every kid who was sent into a shop to buy cigarettes was able to buy them; 100 per cent. of shops sold under-age people cigarettes. Last year, with a much larger number of shops being tested, the figure had dropped to 5 per cent. Similarly, the percentage of shops selling fireworks to under-age people has dropped from 50 per cent, in 1986, to 5 per cent. today. Test purchasing works, and it should be allowed to work in helping to stop under-age drinking. I hope that the Government will take that fact into account.

I do not want to detain the House any longer, as I realise that hon. Members want to debate other matters on the Order Paper. I simply reiterate my support for the Bill, and tell my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey that he has done a good job. I wish his Bill well. I am sure that it will be sent to the other place, and hope that it will soon be enacted.

It was no less a person than Sir Winston Churchill, who, on 16 March 1931, in a Select Committee, said:

I am not very anxious to help private Members' Bills. I have seen a great many of them brought forward, and in most cases it was a very good thing that they did not pass. I think there ought to be a very effective procedure for making it difficult for all sorts of happy thoughts to be carried on to the Statute Book.

I could not agree more with Sir Winston Churchill. That statement sums up better than I could ever do the proper attitude to private Members' Bills, and one that I, in my modest way, try faithfully to follow. I am comforted that it was Sir Winston who set that inspirational route for me—and, I hope, for others—in demonstrating what a private Member's Bill should be.

I want immediately to join other hon. Members who have paid tribute to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) for having the perspicacity, self-discipline and self-restraint to carry forward the task he has set himself in the way that he has done, not only in limiting the scope of his Bill—I believe that private Members' Bills properly should be limited and focused—but in ensuring that it does not involve intrusions on civil rights or large expenditure of taxpayers' money. Those are the types of criteria that I personally apply to private Members' Bills, which should also be able to command the confidence of the House at every stage, to enable hon. Members to see the contribution that they will make. This Bill fits all those criteria admirably, which is why I sense that, very shortly, the House will give it a Third Reading. That would certainly be my wish.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman—it has been touched on, but I want to repeat it—for his persistence. Following the tragic incident involving his constituent, which we have heard about today—I extend my condolences to David Knowles's family—the hon. Gentleman was not put off, introduced his Bill again and again, and sensed what legislation would be passed by the House. He has now arrived at the position that he is in today, and it is an enormous tribute to his persistence and perspicacity. I hope that other hon. Members will consider it as a textbook operation for a private Member's Bill.

I should like to mention in passing—I do not think that the matter received a proper outing when I mentioned it before, so I shall have another go at it; I thought that it was rather funny, although not many people did at the time—the fact that, in the Bill's long title, I spotted the statement:

Make provision in connection with the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor in cases …

I was told by the hon. Member for Pudsey that he was satisfied that that wording would not in any way inhibit the Bill's effectiveness. I hope that that is so, and that the lawyers among us—not least my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), to say nothing of the Minister himself—will not want to get too picky about that wording. However, it struck me as slightly infelicitous, and I hope will not hinder the Bill's effectiveness.

This debate is our last chance to be satisfied about the Bill. My right. hon. and hon. Friends and Labour Members, in paying tribute to the Bill, have also highlighted some potential difficulties. Very shortly, the Minister—with his expertise and the advice that he has had, and from the position that he is in—will have the opportunity finally to satisfy the House that the Bill will do what we want it to do. I should like, therefore, to take a very short time to flag up one or two of the matters in the Bill about which concern has been expressed at various stages in its passage. The first was raised in a remarkable contribution by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 12 May. He said that

it is clear that the clause, with its use of the phrase "in licensed premises" is not sufficient to deal with all situations in which alcoholic beverages can be sold from licensed premises to minors. Therefore, the amendment, by inserting the words "or from" into the clause, would reinforce the interdiction against the sale of alcohol from the curtilage of a licensed premise.

The hon. Gentleman's tour de force contribution summed up the difficulty felt by a lot of hon. Members concerning the use of the words "in licensed premises".

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said on the same day:

There is obviously quite a bit of concern in the House on the question of internet sales and the use of credit cards.

Again, that matter arose repeatedly on Report in the context of Members' anxiety that there was the possibility that the Bill was being restricted by its use of the words "in licensed premises".

In fairness, the Minister—as courteous and diligent as ever—has told the House:

The law permits sales on credit by off-licences. Sales on credit are prohibited only when alcohol is sold for immediate consumption on licensed premises. Credit cards cannot lawfully be held by anyone under 18 years old.

That is crucial to the Bill. He then said that debit cards can be obtained by minors, adding:

As we have said in the licensing White Paper, there is no evidence that youngsters are using purchase by mail order, telephone or internet to obtain alcohol—at the moment.—[Official Report, 12 May 2000; Vol. 349. c. 1121–70.]

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire had asked the Minister about possible research on the subject and the Minister had revealed that a research budget had been allocated. It is relevant for us to press this matter.

I will accept from the Minister, with a little reluctance, that because he believes that there is no evidence of a significant use or abuse of purchasing through the internet or credit and debit cards by minors, that is not something that need concern us at this stage and that the use of the words "in licensed premises" need not prove to be a weakness in the Bill, as we would fear.

I accept that for the time being, but I would like the Minister to say one more time that he believes that it will not weaken the effectiveness of the Bill, and that he and the Home Office will look carefully at the matter in the White Paper and in the research budgets to satisfy themselves that, if a problem arises, it will be dealt with promptly in the legislation that the Government will propose following the White Paper.

We have touched this morning on the key phrases in the Bill. For example, proposed new section 169A says:

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section, where he is charged by reason of his own act, to prove that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen.

Proposed new section 169A(3) states that it is a defence for a person charged

to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), with his legal expertise, reinforced my doubts on this part of the Bill. As always, we are in difficult territory here, as we must strike a balance between civil rights and a proper, reasonable defence being allowed to people whose innocence must always be assumed until proven otherwise; I hope that that will always remain the case, European depredations notwithstanding. Here I wonder whether the balance is right.

The Minister should have something to say, given the two hats that he wears—first, as a legal expert in his own right, and secondly, as a Home Office Minister. We must be satisfied that he believes that prosecutions can be mounted effectively within the terms of the Bill, and that the balance has been correctly struck between the proper rights of individuals in our legal and judicial systems on the one hand and our desire to make the law effective in this area on the other.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), as always, is in her place for these debates and is following the matter with the interest that she has shown from the start. She has done the House a great service today in bringing her legal expertise to bear. We have been fortunate in having a plethora of legal experts at all stages of the Bill, which has been particularly apposite. I cannot say that I am always enthralled to be surrounded by lawyers but, on this occasion, it has been helpful. On 12 May, the hon. Lady said:

To include "knowingly" in the selling offence restores the position that applied before 1988. The Licensing Act 1988 removes "knowingly" from the selling offence. The House should consider whether the legislation was successful in its aim to make it easier to prosecute. Including "knowingly" requires express knowledge by the licensee. It is quite a hard test to meet. —[Official Report. 12 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 1150.]

She said later that she believed that there had been a problem historically of a fall in the number of prosecutions mounted, as a result of the changes made in the law in the past. This focuses attention on the word "knowingly" and its context in the Bill, and whether that will have the effect of making prosecutions more easy to mount arid to succeed, or less. Again, I look to the Minister to confirm that he is satisfied that the word "knowingly" in this context will not be an impediment to the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire—acute and on the ball as ever—said on 12 May:

Might the answer to that question be found in a contractual interpretation of the relationship, if there is one, between the person selling and the person permitting the sale of intoxicating liquor to a person under 18? Would it not be wrong to say that the latter is guilty of an offence, just because there is an employer-employee contractual relationship? Surely, the mischief only occurs if it is done "knowingly"?—[Official Report, 12 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 1157.]

My hon. Friend was being helpful, and later the Minister referred to that with approval and suggested that that might be the answer to the conundrum of "knowingly".

We need the maximum reassurance that possible areas of difficulty are not as problematic as some of us felt, and that matters can be readily resolved. Exactly the same applies to proposed new section 169C(3), which states:

A person shall be guilty of an offence if he buys or attempts to buy intoxicating liquor for consumption in a bar in licensed premises by a person under eighteen.

I was worried at the time that the use of the term "in a bar" was unduly restrictive. The Minister—being helpful again—said that

a bar is an area designated by the licensing justices in granting the licence. It is therefore specified in the licence.

I accept that explanation, of course. That makes it important that those who grant the licences and make the specifications in them are careful to ensure that they cover all the possible definitions of "in a bar", to ensure that all the premises are adequately covered. We live in a world in which the development of the licensed trade has been rapid and exciting, with theme bars and licensed premises with gardens and roof terraces. What about the cases in which people take their drinks outside on to the pavement outside the licensed premises and enjoy their pint of beer on a warm summer's day in a convivial group? Is that a problem? The Minister has been helpful and explained that the term "in a bar" need not be as restrictive as I had feared and that it was a matter for specification by the licensing authorities. Is he satisfied that the answer he gave then covers that eventuality?

My right hon. Friend may find that that eventuality is covered by an Act introduced in the previous Parliament by our colleague, Dr. Robert Spink, who received incredible help from a thoughtful Home Office Minister of State. After suitable parliamentary debate, that measure reached the statute book, and it deals with most of those problems.

Our admiration for that helpful Minister is unstinting and we remember him with great fondness. We have explanations for most of the problems that were identified, although I have raised some additional questions for the Minister. However, we should not be under the illusion that the Bill means that nobody under 18 can enjoy an alcoholic beverage, because proposed new section 169D provides exceptions for persons under 18 but over the age of 16. The promoter of the Bill explained the position in an earlier speech, but—intriguingly—exceptions apply to beer, porter and cider, and also to the purchase

for consumption at a meal in a part of the licensed premises which is not a bar and is usually set apart for the service of meals.

The Bill allows a degree of flexibility, which I do not criticise, but we should be aware of it.

I have some doubts whether we are likely to have effective prosecutions under proposed new section 169F. It is probable that prosecutions will he possible in the case of a direct relationship between the person doing the purchasing, the receipt of the goods and the person doing the selling. However, will that happen in the case of a person who

knowingly delivers to a person under eighteen?

What about the case of a person who

knowingly allows any person to deliver to a person under eighteen?

That is very indirect. We are now talking about the second and third person. A later clause applies the provision to a person who has

authority to prevent the delivery.

I flag that issue up, because I have considerable doubts about whether it is likely that it will be easy for a successful prosecution to be mounted under that provision. The intention is obviously to spread the net as wide as possible, but my lingering doubt is that prosecutions will be difficult because they would involve activities at second or third remove.

I apologise for getting the issue of test purchasing wrong earlier in the day, but I am still unhappy about one aspect of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) expressed their support for it, but I fear for the welfare and wellbeing of the young person used in the exercise. Before I acquiesce in the use of test purchasing, which is strongly hinted at in the White Paper, I wish to be satisfied that adequate protections will be provided to young people used to make test purchases, be that parental consent or other involvement of an adult or guardian. My fear is that the police or authorities will, with good intentions, persuade a young person to perform an act that could have an adverse effect on that young person. I accept the comment by the hon. Member for Garston that test purchasing has been performed for a long time and is very successful, but I would like to know more about the effects on the young people involved.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned proposed new section 169H, but I wish to add that the Bill mentions various participants in the acts in question—such as the person making the purchase, the licensee, the agents or employees, paid or unpaid—with various ramifications and, therefore, we should have more than one level of fine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey on doing a great service to his constituents and more widely in sponsoring this Bill. I wish it well and it will have my support on Third Reading.

Not surprisingly, I have a strong feeling of déjà vu in speaking in this debate. To be able to sponsor a private Member's Bill is a privilege and I was grateful for the opportunity to present a similar Bill last year. I regarded the measures it contained as urgent and necessary. My Bill followed a ten-minute Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), and I pay tribute to his consistent efforts in raising awareness of licensing issues in relation to children and young persons, which are now being addressed in his Bill.

The Bill will create new barriers to children gaining access to alcohol. It has the backing of the Portman Group, which represents the alcohol industry, and it proposes several measures, including closing a legal loophole that allows the courts to distinguish between the liability of the licensee and his or her employees by providing that anyone who makes a sale to a minor is liable to prosecution. The Bill will also create a new offence of proxy purchasing if someone over the age of 18 purchases alcohol for a minor—which is already a long-standing offence in Scotland.

I, too, became aware of the legal loophole through the death of David Knowles from the neighbouring constituency of Pudsey. He was bright boy in the top six at school for maths, and his ambition was to be a bank manager. His father described David as a serious young man who had acted completely out of character. He said that David might have got away with looking 15 in a bad light, but was obviously under age. David's father has said that if alcohol is sold to children, it is obvious to every right-thinking person that they could do damage to themselves, to others and to property. However, there is nothing to stop people selling alcohol to children, either out of carelessness or just to make a profit.

As we have heard this morning, even though the police seized video footage showing that David was served twice in the same off-licence, the prosecution of the staff collapsed because the licence holder did not directly employ them. That has exposed a large gap in the law that allows people who sell alcohol to young people to escape prosecution where, as is increasingly common in bigger chains, they are employed by a parent company, not by the licensee or the manager. Thousands of staff in off-licences and supermarkets can sell alcohol to children without fear of prosecution because of that loophole.

David's parents were distraught when they realised that no one could be brought to justice for selling their son the alcohol that led directly to his death. The Bill will close that loophole. It provides that anyone who makes a sale to a minor is liable to prosecution.

To tackle the problem of young people of 18 who buy alcohol legitimately and then pass it on to friends, the Bill creates a new offence that makes it unlawful for someone to buy alcohol in shops and off licences on behalf of a young person. It will also penalise passing adults who are prevailed on to make purchases for young people. An equivalent provision has existed in Scottish law since 1976. The proposed provision is intended to target adults who, whether they are known to the child or are strangers, will agree, often outside or close to a licensed premises, to buy alcohol to be passed on immediately to a child in the street.

A survey carried out by Professor Howard Parker of Manchester university in 1996 found that, of a representative sample of 13 to 16-year-olds in greater Manchester, 25 per cent. purchased alcohol for themselves, but that 53 per cent. obtained alcohol by asking older friends to buy it for them, and that 26 per cent. obtained alcohol by asking strangers to buy it for them. Of that latter group, there was a prevalence of girls, and of 13 to 14-year-olds. The dangers inherent in such vulnerable young girls approaching strangers for favours must be immediately obvious to hon. Members.

I am following the hon. Lady's speech with interest. What will the Bill do to prevent the nuisance and mischief that she has just described?

The Bill will make proxy purchase an offence. That will ensure that adults think very carefully before they allow themselves to be prevailed on by minors to buy alcohol on their behalf in off-licences, stores and supermarkets.

A number of benefits will follow from making proxy purchase an offence. It will clearly act as a deterrent to those who knowingly purchase alcohol on behalf of people under 18—as long as effective penalties are in place and the law is shown to be enforced. The low rates of prosecution in Scotland mean that many people there do not take the proxy purchase law very seriously. That should not deter support for the principle of the offence, but rather it should convince the Government and the responsible authorities that the offence must be backed up with adequate enforcement.

Secondly, it will lead to reductions in the levels of under-age misuse, provided that the legislation is accompanied by effective public education campaigning. That should aim to increase the awareness of the existence of the offence of proxy purchase, and to influence public attitudes, so that the purchase of alcohol on behalf of under-18s is regarded as morally and socially unacceptable, just as drink-driving is now considered to be morally reprehensible.

The Bill also complements the provisions of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, which was introduced by the former Conservative Member Dr. Robert Spink as a private Member's Bill under the previous Government. Ironically, however, it was finally enacted by this Government. That Act gives police the power to confiscate alcohol from under-18s who are consuming it—or are thought likely to do so—in public.

The Health Education Authority estimates that there are about 190,000 11 to 15-year-olds who regularly drink the equivalent of seven pints a week. It is clear that the figures relating to convictions for under-age purchase of alcohol and sale to minors do not reflect the true extent of the problem. In 1995, only 269 people were found guilty or were cautioned for selling alcohol to under-18s, and 351 people under the age of 18 were found guilty or were cautioned for buying or trying to buy alcohol.

I believe that the introduction of test purchasing would give greater impetus to one or more of the identity schemes currently in existence. In my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) a total of 2,360 Portman Group cards have been issued to over-18s. I understand that between 5,000 and 10,000 cards a month are issued nationally. I believe that retailers will be much more likely routinely to ask young people to prove their age if they know that they can be subject to test purchasing. I am pleased that the Government are looking at that very carefully.

The vast majority of those who make and sell alcoholic drinks in the UK welcome the provisions of this Bill. Indeed, the call for test purchasing and for an offence of proxy purchase has been supported repeatedly by organisations related to the trade and the industry. The members of the Portman Group are the nine leading drinks manufacturers in the UK, and their work is generally supported throughout the industry and the licensed trade as a whole. Last year, the group submitted a paper in response to the consultation by the Department of Health on alcohol strategy. It called for all the legislative changes proposed in the Bill, and made the point that the measure would complement the progress made in the industry towards tackling alcohol abuse.

There is a great deal of evidence that alcohol sales to minors lead to unsupervised drinking and alcohol abuse that reaches down even to primary school level. Along with many hon. Members and health professionals, I am extremely concerned about the potential adverse effect on physically immature children who often drink well beyond levels recommended for adults.

In my view, under-age drinking is a very serious social problem and people are understandably and justifiably worried about it. I have had many complaints from constituents about the problems caused by the minority of youngsters who get into trouble because of drink. I have campaigned previously about how some drinks—the so-called alcopops—seem to target young people deliberately.

Alcopops are not the only drinks illegally obtained by youngsters, but they represent a very worrying trend. Many are especially dangerous because their strength is masked by fruit or other flavours. That breaks down awareness of the alcohol content and children's traditional taste threshold. Equally worrying is the fact that many such drinks are fashion items, packaged and marketed in a way that is attractive to teenagers and even to younger children.

Education about alcohol is already a specific and statutory requirement for schools as part of the national curriculum, but it is as much the responsibility of parents and carers as it is of teachers and youth workers to ensure that young people who drink under their supervision consume alcohol in safe quantities.

Dr. Lynne Friedli, the Health Education Authority's alcohol programme manager, has said:

Drinking is such a central part of our social life today that parents may sometimes underestimate the harm it can do. While they are understandably worried about illegal drugs, it is important to realise the range of problems that alcohol can cause their children.

The main problem is that in some areas it is too easy for children to get hold of alcohol. Urgent action is needed.

The measures in this Bill will give the police and the courts real powers to stamp out the problem, and especially to tackle the minority of irresponsible retailers and adults who either deliberately flout the law, or simply turn a blind eye to under-age sales. The measures represent a great improvement in the range of measures that are available to tackle under-age alcohol misuse.

I pay tribute to the liquor and retail industries for their readiness to address the social problems arising from the products that they sell and for their support for the Bill. However, there must be no let-up in the fight against under-age drinking and the misery that it causes.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey on introducing this Bill and on having the tenacity to see it through this far. I commend the Bill to the House.

As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I worked extensively with the previous Member of Parliament representing Pudsey, Sir Giles Shaw. In his latter years in Parliament, he did a tremendous amount, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to work on a consensual basis in the House. It gives me great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), who has approached this Bill in the same way. Perhaps it is something in the water in Pudsey that encourages people to think in a consensual way in trying to get important measures through the House.

From what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said, it is clear, even without the scientific survey to which she referred, that the physical evidence of under-age drinking and the circumstances that cause disruption, particularly to elderly people, is there for all to see. We must take a responsible view as a society to bring that under control.

Having been brought up in a Mediterranean country, I am certainly not opposed to young people drinking, but it must be in a responsible way. Having access to alcohol in an unsupervised way is irresponsible and leads to huge risks. Close to my office there is a lovely bowling green, which is regularly scattered with empty beer cans. It is clear from the evidence that the drinkers are youngsters who are substantially under age and cause disruption to the older, more mature people using the facilities. So this Bill is very important.

The right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to internet sales. "Booze.com" is not yet a reality, although I suspect that it may become one in the future, and the right hon. Gentlemen were quite right to mention it. However, there are important issues that the Government must get to grips with. Class A drugs are available on the internet, and there must therefore be a risk that illicit sales of alcohol will start to be made on the internet in the near future.

The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that, from his office, he could see people drinking and leaving their beer cans around, and that it was clear that a number of the drinkers were under age. As a matter of interest, did the hon. Gentleman ever ring up the police to report this?

Yes, I did and yes, they came and yes, there is work going on with the bowling club and the local authority. It has been a positive result from the use of CCTV in my constituency.

We need to look at the intermediate technologies that are being widely used by supermarkets. There is a problem in that a number of supermarkets are, quite legitimately, developing sophisticated businesses based on call centre technology, that enable people to go back to the sort of circumstances that used to exist. I wonder whether, as his first entrepreneurial activity, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst worked as a delivery boy for the local greengrocer. It strikes me as the sort of activity that he would have undertaken in his youth. Of course, the world has turned full circle, and such direct deliveries, without the customer having to interface with the shopkeeper, is coming back. I think that it is an extremely good thing, especially for people living in rural communities.

In that context, will my hon. Friend the Minister say whether, under proposed subsection 169F(1), it is his understanding that a person who works in licensed premises would be the delivery person for those premises? That would mean that two categories of persons would be involved—a direct employee of the licensed premises and an agent. If someone collects goods from licensed premises that he then delivers to the customer, it seems reasonable for the courts to say that he is a direct employee of the licensed premises and therefore has responsibilities under this measure. There seems to be a potential loophole in this loophole-closing Bill if the "booze.com" kind of business develops. I do not think that that will become widespread and prevalent in the next few years, because bulky goods do not make for such attractive business propositions in this area, so there is time to consider it. However, it must be considered.

There can also be a problem when the delivery mechanism is an agent of the supplier of the goods. We have discussed intellectual property and the role of internet service providers. Clearly, we are not talking about that in this context, but we are talking about companies such as Parcelforce or the Post Office acting as an agent for the supplier. We do not want such companies to be held responsible for actions of which they are not the cause. However, Post Office legislation provides that, if it is brought to the attention of the agent that there is a risk that it is in breach of the law, it should take reasonable steps to rectify the matter.

These areas will need to be considered in the longer term. In the short term, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would cover the question of interpretation.

This may be a small Bill, but it is of great significance to all our constituents. I endorse the points made by Opposition Members. I hope that the Bill receives a speedy passage in the other place and that it goes on to the statute book in the very near future. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey on his tenacity in driving his Bill through the House, and I wish it well.

I start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) that, although this is a small measure in terms of paper, it is none the less important, because it goes to the heart of one of the most concerning aspects of our modern society—the dangers to young people.

The House will have been impressed by the comments of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty), who clearly showed concern and emotion over the Knowles case. I found it particularly poignant when she said that David Knowles had wanted to be a bank manager. Across the country there are young people with hopes, dreams and aspirations. There are so many opportunities in life—he may not have ended up as a bank manager, but he could have lived a happy, rewarding life in which he achieved things and felt that he had been successful. Yet, because he came across a danger in society, he did not have the opportunity to do that.

Earlier this week, I went to Manchester to launch the Junior 2000 Crucial Crew project—set up by the Manchester crime prevention panel to explain the dangers of modern life to young people. It is a fantastic project. One of the aspects covered is substance and alcohol abuse. Many people volunteer to take part in such projects, but we in Parliament have a special duty to do our part in setting up a legal framework to address the problems.

On behalf of the Opposition, I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading and I continue to do so. It closes the loophole that was so damaging in the Knowles case. Obviously, I extend again the tributes paid by many right hon. and hon. Members to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell).

On Second Reading, a range of issues designed to test whether the Bill could go further were introduced. My hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) all raised the issue of proxy purchasing, whereby an adult is persuaded to enter licensed premises to buy alcohol for someone who is under age.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden pointed out that it is an established practice. Everything that we have heard in today's debate—from the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) and for Calder Valley and Opposition Members—confirms that point. It is thus especially welcome that, in Committee, the hon. Member for Pudsey was prepared to table an amendment that makes it an offence to buy or to attempt to buy alcohol on behalf of a person who is under 18. We welcome that.

Today, however, several right hon. and hon. Members have made the point that the amendment may not go far enough. When the Spink Bill became law, it meant that, if an adult purchased alcohol on behalf of a young person, when that person came out of the licensed premises and handed the alcohol to the young person, it would have been possible for the police to confiscate the alcohol. However, the measure did not make it an offence to arrange for an adult to go to licensed premises and purchase the alcohol. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, it might be worth considering whether it would be possible to make an offence from the point of view of the young person. If young people know that it is not an offence to persuade an adult to do that, perhaps there is not enough constraint on them.

I hope that the Minister will consider the point made by my right hon. Friend. Is there some way of tightening up on the young person who is consuming alcohol in a public place, or who is arranging for a proxy purchase? Will the Minister confirm that the points made in the debate will be considered as responses to the White Paper? Will they be taken into account when draft legislation is considered?

Among the tributes paid to the hon. Member for Pudsey was that he had focused his Bill. He has stuck to issues that he knows command the support of the whole House. That is the correct approach to a private Member's Bill. Indeed, how could I possibly deny that, when I am told that no less a man than Winston Churchill approved of that approach? That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) tells us, and I am sure that he is right.

There are several issues that the Minister should attempt to deal with, given his own knowledge and experience, to which is no doubt added the benefit of advice from his civil servants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border asked how the defence would be mounted. How would the licensee or the worker prove that they had been duly diligent? It was asked whether it would be necessary for the licensee or the worker to have asked to see proof of identification in order to satisfy a court that due diligence had been exercised.

That point was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, so it is incumbent on the Minister to explain how the defence would work. In his view, what practical measures would licensees and workers have to take?

A point was made about the scale of penalties. Is it right that the licensee should receive the same penalty as, for example, the regular worker at a supermarket checkout? Should there be a higher maximum for a person who holds a more responsible position in the chain of command? I am sure that the Minister will want to touch on that in his remarks.

The Minister was asked whether proposed new section 169H would be likely to be repealed as a result of the White Paper. Obviously, he will not be able to tell us his final conclusion on that matter, but perhaps he could give us a picture of current thinking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred to the way in which the prosecution would approach such cases. Is enough effort being put into mounting prosecutions in these circumstances, or are such cases seen as difficult to prosecute and not given full attention? Are prosecutions effective? When a prosecution is mounted, is it likely to succeed? What are the figures? Are prosecutions generally successful or is there a substantial proportion of acquittals?

The wider social problems were mentioned—such as the fact that football hooliganism and other forms of vandalism are fuelled by drink. Does the Minister have a view as to ways in which the law needs to be further tightened up?

The hon. Member for Garston asked for test purchasing and explained the concerns in her constituency. There are doubts as to the civil liberties aspects of test purchasing and the effect on young people. What is the Government's current thinking on that matter? From the White Paper, one has the impression that the Government support test purchasing, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised a number of points that have formed a theme in our deliberations on the Bill. Does the use of the words "in licensed premises" as the point of sale in the offence affect internet sales? One would think that it does. Is the Minister satisfied that there are no substantial internet sales at present? Credit cards are available to under-18s and a small number of under-18-year-olds hold debit cards. Is the Minister satisfied with that situation or does he think that research should be carried out? On Second Reading, I asked whether he would be prepared to initiate such research and I note that his hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is also concerned about that matter. It would be helpful to know whether the words "in licensed premises" do not include internet sales—I assume that they do not. Now that the Minister has had time over the past two months to ponder the matter, does he think that research is needed?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wanted to know whether it will be an offence to purchase alcohol for someone under 18 if that person drinks it outside the premises. It seems to me that it will not be an offence, and I understand that there would be difficulties for pub gardens and similar areas if it were. Does the Minister think that the provisions in the Spink Bill, which is now the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, cover such cases?

We heard in the debate much about the speed at which the operators of tills in supermarkets have to work. Is the Minister satisfied that, in that environment, proper protection is in place? Is it possible in such circumstances to ask for identification? Does he need to consult the supermarkets about how they operate their tills and about their staffing levels, so that we can ensure that proper time is given to the important process of checking identification?

The amendments on proxy purchasing raised the concern that parents who buy alcohol for a family meal at which a child might responsibly be introduced to alcohol might be caught by the Bill's provisions. In Committee, the Minister reassured us that the wording used would not bring such parents into the offence, and that the provision would apply only if the purchase was made on behalf of a young person. Will he confirm that, so that there is no doubt?

The Portman Group, Alcohol Concern and the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association have all welcomed the Bill. We continue our support for it. David Knowles died in a tragic way and his family will no doubt still find that the most traumatic experience. However, as the hon. Member for Pudsey said, the passing of the Bill may give them some comfort as a memorial to David Knowles. We express our condolences to the family and we hope that the Bill will protect young people so that they can fulfil their hopes and aspirations without falling into the dangers that have been described in this debate.

I welcome this further opportunity to join both sides of the House in commending the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) to introduce this Bill, and his skilful piloting of it through the House. He has built on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) and others, who also deserve credit for this measure. I am grateful to both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate, which have always been sensible and well thought out. Indeed, throughout the discussions on the Bill, the comments made have been considered, careful and of value.

The Government share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey about the unlawful sale of alcohol to young people. Once again, I am happy to reiterate our strong support for the Bill. The White Paper "Time for reform", which was published on 10 April, showed that we consider the protection of children to be one of the primary purposes of licensing law. The importance of the Bill should not be underestimated.

Because the Government are poised to embark on major reforms of licensing arrangements, it might well be asked, "Do we need this Bill now?" We do, because the process of consulting on the main licensing Bill will take time. My hon. Friend has given us an opportunity to take prompt action on an urgent issue and to change the existing law now. We are grateful to him for that. It will mean that those who evade prosecution for selling to minors and for irresponsibly buying alcohol on behalf of children will be dealt with more effectively without the delay that there could otherwise have been. The two to three years before we have major reform is a period in which children and their families might have suffered unnecessarily if it were not for the Bill. He has given us an opportunity to avoid that prospect.

We agree that our licensing laws are out of date and dreadfully old fashioned. My hon. Friend's Bill focuses on the use of the term "servant". Parliament, at one time, believed that "master and servant" would cover all employees responsible for selling alcohol and thought that the term provided sufficient protection for the general public and for children. Modern case law has stood Parliament's intention on its head. The words have now come to be used only as a means of evading prosecution. We can and should put that right.

My hon. Friend set out the circumstances that led to the tragic death of David Knowles. The case highlighted the problem of those employed by national chains of off-licences. However, there are other problems with the outdated wording. The term "servant" in the existing law does not include an agent who acts on behalf of the licensee, but who is not an employee. For example, the wife or husband of a licence holder working in an off-licence in an unpaid capacity may be immune from prosecution for selling to under-age children. Similarly, a brother or other family member serving in the shop could escape prosecution. In 1996, the conviction of the husband of a licensee for selling alcohol to a 14-year-old was quashed in the divisional court because there was no evidence of a master-servant relationship. Hon. Members will be aware that many high street off-licences are run by families, so it would be wrong if a licensee could evade prosecution by putting responsibility into the hands of his or her spouse. The Bill will address that further loophole.

I take this opportunity to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey for the amendment that he moved in Committee, which gives the Bill the extra teeth that it needs. It is a sad indictment of our society that there are adults willing to act as the agents of youngsters to enable them to get hold of alcohol. The new offence is another measure to help us to fight the problems of under-age drinking.

The reforms proposed by my hon. Friend are sensible and fair. Hon. Members will note that under the Bill, the offences of selling to minors and buying on their behalf cannot be committed if the adults involved have been genuinely duped about a child's age. In Committee, I explained that the courts should rule on the extent to which adults had behaved reasonably in seeking to establish the child's age and whether they had been deceived.

There must be evidence of age to support a conviction, but evidence about whether the defendant had been reasonably deceived, as opposed to turning a blind eye, would have to be produced by the prosecution. Indeed, the defence may well want to produce such evidence, which, if necessary, may involve producing the child in court. I understand that that has become a common means of establishing either a defence or the case for the prosecution, and is usually the heart of the matter when a not-guilty plea has been entered. Producing the child has the great merit of solid reliance on common sense. If, after seeing the child, the court is of the opinion that the defendant must have turned a blind eye to the child's age, it may well decide to convict.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) asked about the steps that an employer could take to show a defence under proposed new section 169A(2). He suggested that an employer could show that he had trained his staff and that they had clear orders not to sell to people under 18. He also suggested that the employer could demonstrate that he had shown due diligence in minimising the chances of an under-age person being served. All those things would be material facts for the court to consider. However, deciding what is sufficient is a matter for the court.

Requesting a card would be a material factor which a court could weigh in the balance. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the employer actually had to do something or whether he could be passive. That depends: it may be clear that the person is under 18—or, more likely, it may be clear that he is over 18. If the right hon. Gentleman appeared in an off-licence, he would not expect the licensee to have to do something to establish that he was of an age at which he could buy alcohol.

May I question the Minister more closely on his interpretation of subsections (2) and (3) of proposed new section 169A? Subsection (3) refers to due diligence and deals with someone who is charged as a result of his employee's fault. It is therefore clear that the employer has to exercise due diligence, perhaps in the way in which he trains his staff. However, subsection (2) makes no requirement of the employee who sells the alcohol to exercise due diligence. Have I got that wrong? I am worried by what the Minister has said, because if the child is produced in court and the court decides that he appears to be 18, the employee will be let off, as the Bill makes no requirement for that person to exercise due diligence.

I shall examine the clause with care, but my understanding is that the employee and the employer would both be required to be diligent. Let me advance my argument, and I shall let the hon. Gentleman come back if he wishes.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border about due diligence, where a reasonable person would have doubts about the age of the person trying to buy alcohol, a request for information about age or for a card would become material factors in addressing the question whether due diligence was exercised. It is essentially a matter for the court to decide whether the licensee and his staff had behaved reasonably.

Under proposed new section 169A(3), it is for the defendant to prove that he exercised all due diligence. Once the evidence of the purchase has been produced and there is clear proof that the purchase was made, the defendant must prove that he exercised due diligence. The prosecution has the burden of proof in terms of the usual criminal responsibilities. The prosecution does not have to prove that the licensee did not exercise due diligence. It is for the licensee to prove that he did.

I am grateful to the Minister. I know that it is difficult to answer legalistic but vital points. Proposed new section 169A(3) states:

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section, where he is charged by reason of the act or default of some other person, to prove that he exercised all due diligence ߪ

That is fine. It is clear. However, the phrase "due diligence" applies where the person employs someone else. I do not see that it applies to the person who actually made the sale, under subsection (2). That is what worries me.

I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point with care. It is my understanding that the Bill would cover that. I shall take advice and respond in due course—[Interruption.] I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has provided me with the answers with due speed and due diligence.

Proposed new section 169A(2) refers to the person who is selling, and subsection (3) applies to the employer. The aim is that both would be required to show that they had no reason to suspect that the person who bought the alcohol was under 18. The employee would have to show that, and the employer would have an obligation to show that he had exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence. That is the approach that would be taken.

Will the Minister give way on that point, which is so important?

I give way once more.

We have now clarified the matter. "Due diligence" would apply to the employer, not the employee. That is my point.

In terms of the strict wording of the Bill, the answer is yes. However, in terms of individual behaviour, the employee at the counter, serving a person who comes in and presents cash and appears to be under age, would have to show what we might in general parlance call "due diligence". In other words, he would have to prove that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under age. The phrase "due diligence" is not used in subsection (2), as it is in subsection (3), but the effect is much the same, although the employee and employer would show due diligence in different ways.

The employee would have to say, "May I have your card? May I make sure that you are of an age to purchase alcohol?", whereas the employer would not be in a position to make a direct request of the potential purchaser. He must show, in the ways that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border suggested or in other ways, that he has been diligent in telling his staff to exercise reasonable care—and perhaps diligence.

In Committee, I undertook to consult the Magistrates Association to make sure that it had no concerns about the defences that we have discussed and their operation in relation to under-age sales and proxy purchase. The association stressed that magistrates are used to determining such matters, and will take the view that they can deal with the provisions. Indeed, they welcome the Bill, which has the full support of the Magistrates Association. The association welcomes the closing of a loophole that has caused magistrates anxiety, and the decision to tackle the problem of proxy purchase. I am therefore confident that the available defences will work effectively in the interests of justice.

The simple message for retailers and off-licence staff who are anxious about the new offences and the operation of the defences is that if they do not know the age of the person standing in the shop, they should not sell to them. Most cases will be as simple as that. If customers appear to be under 18, staff should not sell to them.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border referred to the role of magistrates in the transfer of specific responsibilities to local authorities, which the White Paper mentions. He drew our attention especially to proposed new section 169H, and asked whether justices would be able to impose penalties. Even after the reforms have been undertaken, justices will impose penalties, including revocation of the licence, under our scheme. The Bill may be able to stand through the review, although I suspect that we may want to consolidate it. However, we may continue with the current wording. Magistrates will therefore retain a substantial role, but under our proposals, local authorities will be primarily responsible for the administrative process of issuing or varying licences.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border raised another matter that worries me. He mentioned checkout staff in supermarkets, and pointed out that they often work under great pressure and that there are sometimes queues. I am also worried that some of the checkout staff are under 18. We need to convey a clear message that under-18s must be supervised, and have someone in authority over them, when they sell alcohol to anyone. I advise supermarkets and their managements that if they allow anyone under 18 to sell alcohol without sufficient supervision, and without someone who can authorise a particular sale, they risk prosecution. We may need to revert to that and clarify it in the review of the White Paper.

It is an offence for a person under 18 to sell alcohol to anyone. A checkout person who is under 18 may therefore be committing an offence. That may also apply to the licensee, who commits an offence if he knowingly allows a checkout girl or boy under 18 to sell in the licensed premises. The licensee may therefore be vulnerable. Supervision and authority are necessary to ensure that the sale is properly carried out with due diligence in the context that we are considering. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border raised an important issue on supermarkets, which I shall consider carefully during the licensing review that we are undertaking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) asked about the national alcohol strategy. We intend to bring it forward reasonably shortly, and it will dovetail well with our proposals in the White Paper. I am especially grateful to him for raising concerns not only about under-age drinking generally, but about the impact that drinking, under age or otherwise, can have on health.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) asked whether the level 3 fine—£1,000—is a sufficient deterrent to large companies, such as Thresher. We have taken the view that we shall take the approach outlined in the Bill. However, the question that he asks is pertinent, and in the overall review of licensing that we are undertaking, I should like to consider in greater detail the impact of such fines on large companies.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to the way in which the words "in licensed premises" limit the nature of the offences. He raised the issue of internet sales and the purchase of alcohol using debit or credit cards. We are examining that issue in the context of the White Paper. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) also referred to it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who is far better versed in the internet and computers than I am.

There is currently little evidence that under-age people use the internet extensively to purchase alcohol. Under-age drinkers tend to seek instant gratification from alcohol purchases. Of course, a delay is involved in getting alcohol through internet sales, and therefore there is apparently little such use of the internet. However, if we are to be successful in preventing access to purchases from off-licences under the Bill, we must be vigilant so that the internet does not present a problem in future.

I assure all hon. Members who have raised that issue that we are conscious of it. If I remember rightly, I referred to it in the White Paper, and during previous debates on the Bill I have certainly told the House that we shall consider it in the overall context of licensing—but it is a complex matter. We do not want unnecessary or heavy-handed regulation; we need to ensure that we are vigilant in ending opportunities for under-age drinking where we can do so.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst also referred to the word "knowingly" in section 169. I am satisfied that we have got the wording right, as far as we can. In my experience, no Bill is immune from the ingenuity of lawyers in reinterpreting it, but my advice is that we have done the best we can, and we must proceed on that basis. The right hon. Gentleman asked about people who drink alcohol on pavements outside bars. That matter was amply dealt with by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who, from his own experience, told us that it had been addressed.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough set out—I thought very well—the case for test purchasing. I agree with him that it involves creating an attitude of mind among those who sell alcohol, so that they know how to approach the business. I understand the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. He is worried about the impact on test purchasers if they are under 18. We shall have to debate that issue fully another day. I do not wish to say much more about it, except that the Government's view is that test purchasing is necessary, but I shall seek reassurance about its likely impact on the under-age test purchasers that the authorities could use in such exercises.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked about the delivery boy or girl who does not work in the off-licence but is, in effect, an agent. That is a difficult area, which we must examine in the context of the White Paper. He asked how the Bill would operate. That depends to some extent on whether the person who makes the delivery is acting with the authority of the licensee. A prosecution may be against the licensee who authorised the delivery without exercising due diligence as to how it was carried out. If the alcohol was handed over by an agent to a person under 18, the person who had authorised that delivery might be liable, but that would be a matter for the courts.

The issue must be reviewed in our examination of how internet sales operate. If there were a growth of internet sales, businesses such as "booze.com" would probably get agents or other companies and their employees to make the deliveries. We must be careful about how the law is enforced.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to distinguish between the employee and the agent of the off-licence or supermarket? In advancing the development of electronic sales, we must not put unreasonable pressure on intermediaries. The responsibility must be held by the seller.

My hon. Friend is right that the onus should primarily be on the seller, who should exercise due diligence to ensure that the alcohol does not find its way into the wrong hands by means of his agents. We will want to take that approach.

Will there be an opportunity to see how the Bill operates with regard to off-licences, and the impact on internet sales, before the proposed licensing Bill comes before the House? I think the Minister said that the Bill will change the law two or three years ahead of the likely date at which the licensing Bill will become law. Is that right? Will there be a gap of a year or 18 months in which we can see how this Bill operates before the licensing Bill comes before the House?

There will inevitably be a gap. I hope that this Bill will become law fairly shortly, that there will be a period during which we can assess how it operates, and that we will then be able to consider the issues that arise from that and from the White Paper. Consultation on the White Paper is taking place. When parliamentary time allows, we will consider introducing legislation. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire knows from his own experience of government that those issues, and the timing, will have to be discussed in government.

rose

I am afraid that I cannot give much more information about the timing. The hon. Gentleman will also know from his experience of government that it is likely to be a year at the earliest before we produce any legislation. We will want to allow some time for the phasing in, and there will be transitional provisions for the adoption of the administrative changes that the White Paper proposes. We will need a reasonable lead-in period. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wants to pin me down on the timing, but I am unable to assist him, except to say that consultation is taking place, and there will be an opportunity for the operation of this Bill, if it is made law as I expect it will be, to be considered in the context of that consultation. We will introduce legislation in due course.

All we need to know, is that there is no proposal to make the major reform of licensing, in the form of the licensing Bill, in the autumn. If that does not happen, we shall have time to see how the internet sales go.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised the subject of proposed new section 169F, which deals with knowingly delivering rather than selling. He asked whether it was likely that we would secure any convictions. I see no reason why we should not—if, indeed, that is where we experience a major problem. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the provision is more indirect, but I can conceive of circumstances in which the section would be used—albeit, I hope, with decreasing frequency as we reduce the amount of offending. For all of us, that must be the hope.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border raised the issue of proof-of-age cards. The Department for Education and Employment is considering whether the youth card planned for those remaining in higher education can include a photograph and date of birth. We are awaiting the findings of the working party. The card is not intended to be a replacement for the Portman card as such. There are a number of cards, many of which do enormously valuable jobs. There is, for instance, a citizen card. We strongly support those initiatives, many of which have come from the industry.

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred to the fuelling of hooliganism by alcohol. That is a serious issue, which is being considered in the broad context of criminal law enforcement, and also in the context of the licensing review. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we should make a young person who seeks to obtain a proxy purchase liable. I would want to consider that in the context of the White Paper licensing review. I shall also bear in mind the issues raised by other hon. Members about the overall review of licensing law.

The Bill deserves the support of every Member, and I do not hesitate to give it our full backing.

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 5, leave out—

'shall within one year of the passing of this Act'

and insert "may".

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 11, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—

'and such environmental groups as he considers appropriate.'.

No. 25, in page 2, line 3, after "regulations", insert—

'including newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations.'.

In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I am happy to move an amendment that he has promoted diligently during the last few months.

The amendments have important functions. Amendment No. 26 would simply remove the Secretary of State's statutory duty to implement the Bill's requirements, and make it a power. The Bill had its origins in discussions some three years ago, and appeared on the Order Paper last year. Throughout the intervening period, there has been lively discussion between the Government and representatives of the newspaper industry—both newspaper publishers and manufacturers of newsprint—about the potential for increasing the recycled content.

The industry's view has been that it could do more to increase recycled content. Both manufacturers and publishers have been aware of the huge and growing problem arising out of the nation's steady year-on-year consumption of newspapers, the increase in newspaper production, the increase in the size, volume and weight of the average newspaper and the lamentable failure of the previous Government to establish proper recycling schemes. Therefore, as each year goes by, we have been putting more and more newsprint into landfill.

Nevertheless, rather than be subject to legislation, the industry would prefer to have reached voluntary agreement. For a considerable time, negotiations have taken place on that voluntary agreement. I am delighted to say that, thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister, such an agreement has been reached. That explains the logic of amendment No. 26, which will take away the statutory duty and introduce an enabling power.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 25 serve a related purpose. They would widen the consultation that would follow the making of regulations, ensuring that there was consultation not only with the industry—the purpose of amendment No. 25—but with environmental groups, the purpose of amendment No. 11.

In his unavoidable absence, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, who has diligently and tenaciously pursued the Bill throughout the parliamentary Session; to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), who has published a Bill with a related purpose; and to the Minister and his officials in the Department for the determination with which they have advocated the causes supported by the Bill and for the fact that they have finally secured the voluntary agreement with the industry.

The Bill's origins owe much to the work of Friends of the Earth, which has identified the importance of increasing our recycling targets. For the past three years, it has tenaciously supported the Bill in Parliament.

The issue is what happens if, by any chance, the voluntary agreement reached with the industry, which extends to targets for recycled content, but not for collection, does not succeed and is not implemented—there is scope in the agreement for a review at the end of 2001. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that, in the event—we hope that it is unlikely—that the voluntary agreement fails, the Government will be prepared to legislate.

Given that the voluntary agreement extends to recycled content, but does not contain targets for collection and recycling, I hope that the Minister will be able, in the light of the publication of the Government's waste strategy just two weeks ago, to reaffirm their commitment to fund properly the development of local authority recycling schemes.

It is now generally understood that the United Kingdom lags woefully behind other western European countries in terms of the proportion of household waste that is recycled. We know that we are many years behind and that there is much to be done. We know, too, that recycling schemes cannot be established without appropriate initial investment. Local authorities are the only organisations that are well placed to establish such schemes. It would therefore be extremely valuable if the Government could assure us that there will be adequate funding to meet their targets on increased recycling, particularly of newspapers and magazines.

I also hope that the Minister will assure us that, if the voluntary agreement proceeds, newspaper proprietors will label the recycled content of their newspapers. I think that some newspapers provide a general figure on the amount of British newsprint that is recycled, but that information is not terribly helpful. Consumers, and those who are concerned about the growing volume of waste that we are producing in Britain, need to know how much recycled material is used in individual newspapers.

It is perfectly possible to calculate that content in newspapers. Newsprint manufacturers know the precise figure, and newspaper publishers know precisely from whom they buy their newsprint. There is, therefore, no reason whatever why that information cannot be printed on the front page of all British newspapers and magazines. The information would give consumers the power, if they wish to use it, to choose between equivalent newspapers on the basis of recycled newsprint content.

I am not suggesting that those who are concerned about recycling will automatically switch their allegiance to The Daily Telegraph, for example, if it were to start using 100 per cent. recycled content. Nevertheless, hon. Members will appreciate the general point about consumer choice—which, on this issue, can be exercised only if that information is available.

The hon. Gentleman is treating an important point in a slightly frivolous way, as there is a serious issue underlying it. He will be aware that there are limits to the amount of recycled material that can used in the manufacture of various types of paper. Recycled paper generally cannot be used in the production of the higher-quality paper that is usually used in magazines. Additionally, is he seriously suggesting that anyone would decide to read a newspaper rather than a magazine on the basis of recycled content, bearing in mind that it is inherently more likely that a higher proportion of recycled paper will be used in the graphic-quality paper used in newspapers than in the glossy paper used in magazines?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am not suggesting that people will change their reading habits by choosing to read newspapers rather than magazines, but saying that—as it is already perfectly possible 10 produce 100 per cent. recycled newsprint—consumers have the right to know newspaper publishers' policy on recycled content and commitment to reducing waste. Magazine readers have the same right. As a far greater number of magazines than newspapers is on the market, consumers might decide to exercise their choice quite forcefully in that sector. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes the important point that publications are constrained in the amount of recycled content that they can use.

I hope that the House will agree to accept the amendments.

I preface my remarks on my amendment No. 25 by saying that I have long been sceptical about the concept of recycling. Far too many people reach for it as an easy answer to problems real or imagined. I say that because, many years ago, in one of my previous ministerial manifestations, I had a glancing responsibility for it. That experience persuaded me that, very often, the effort. energy, fuel and pollution involved in the recycling exercise far exceeds any gains that may be achieved from it. I would do better to expand on those remarks on Third Reading, but outline them now only to set in context my subsequent remarks.

12.45 pm

Amendment No. 25 is finely targeted. We are discussing the possibility of the Secretary of State making regulations, which will be the cutting edge of this measure. I hope that the Bill does not reach the statute book, but my objective is to make it as practicable as possible if it does.

The regulations will contain the Secretary of State's provisions

regarding the calculation of average minimum proportions for the purposes of subsection (3) … and monitoring and enforcement of the requirements, including the setting of any penalties that may be imposed for non-compliance.

That is the core of the Bill. We are talking about a cascade of activities, starting with the crucial calculation of the average minimum proportions. We then move on to talk about the monitoring and enforcement thereof, and then—even more importantly—penalties.

I have grave doubts about the mandatory and compulsory way in which the Bill is drafted. I understand and welcome the background, which is that the Government and industry have sought to reach voluntary arrangements. I applaud that. Because of my scepticism about recycling as a concept, I am even more dubious about putting in statute arbitrary figures and limits in an area where inevitably changes will occur over time.

Anyone with a connection with recycling—not least in terms of newsprint—will be well aware that, over the years, the availability of newsprint has moved from glut to famine, often in extreme forms. The viability of measures involving recycling and reclamation will vary in their practicability from time to time.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is the purpose of the other provision in the Bill? The Bill is concerned not only with the recycled content—which would depend on the capacity of the industry to manufacture sufficient newsprint with that level of recycled content—but with targets for recycled collection. Does he agree that, once the mechanism for collection is in place, it will deal with the question of glut and famine in terms of the availability of material?

No, I do not think that that will deal with it, although it may be a contributory factor. The mere act of systematic collection will not in itself deal comprehensively with the problem. We are talking about a complex relationship between different levels of production of different items, geographical distribution, patterns of consumption and availability. Of necessity, this is a complicated series of relationships.

Unless we are prepared to go much further than we have hitherto in terms of mandatory requirements, bureaucracy and inspection at the point of consumption, use and availability for recycling, we cannot say that the materials for recycling will be readily available, even if collection is much better.

Hon. Members often point to other countries and say that they do things better in Canada, Germany or Scandinavia, for example. I am always slightly reluctant readily to accept that if something happens in another country and in a different context, it is appropriate for this country.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely what is deficient about the British in that respect? How is it that the Canadians, Scandinavians and Germans, whose reading habits, social structures and economies are similar to ours, can establish effective recycling schemes, but we cannot?

I can give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer. I have the pleasure of having working with me in my office a charming mature student from Canada. I took her the other day to see my constituency of Bromley as I fulfilled a constituency engagement. As well as remarking on the extraordinary attractiveness of Bromley and the sophistication of its inhabitants—not to mention the suitability of its Member of Parliament to its electorate—she said, as we passed from Bromley to Westminster, that the amount of litter that she observed on the streets of London. was a shock to her. That must be a familiar comment to many right hon. and hon. Members.

It is a matter of great regret to me that we as a nation are much more prone to litter our streets and parks than most other countries in western Europe and north America. We can speculate about the reasons for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I suspect that you would take a dim view of that. However, as I said to the young lady who made that telling observation, I suspect that a large part of the answer is that, in the upbringing of our children, by parents or in the educational process, we lay almost no emphasis on the litter phenomenon, whereas they do in north America.

It happens that my dear wife is an American and—very proudly—a British citizen. She was brought up in the United States and has spent time on the continent, and she has often told me that she is surprised by the lack of attention that we as a nation pay to the whole concept of litter. That is one reason why I have doubts about whether the kind of self-discipline, at individual, family and community levels, that we see in other countries and cultures can be expected here. Perhaps we can develop that in the future—indeed, the implication of what I am saying is that we should do so—but simply to assume that we can readily graft on to our environment and circumstances provisions such as those contained in the Bill and expect the same results, is not a compelling argument.

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the problem of the end product—the waste—but the other side of the coin is the creation of the paper that becomes waste. Perhaps I can help him with some information about Scandinavian forestry practices, including, for example, the creation of man-made forests, which completely change the ecosystem. Clear-cutting is a destructive technique that can demolish entire habitats, and huge tracts of peat land and forested wetlands are drained to create land on which to grow those forests. That is the mirror image of the waste problem that he has identified. The problem could also be addressed in this country by much better recycling facilities, as promoted by the Bill.

That may be so. I do not wish to dispute what the hon. Gentleman says, because his research is, as ever, impeccable and all-embracing. However, my point is that the process of recycling is itself often a polluting one and is certainly a high user of energy. Too little attention is paid to that point, because it is all too readily assumed by the proponents of recycling that it must be good, partly for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out. My reservations are that insufficient attention is paid to the real difficulties caused by the collection and distribution process, which will contribute to traffic congestion, atmospheric pollution and the consumption of fossil fuels, which are all inimical to the environment. Those factors have to be added to the equation, and that is why I am not a fan of recycling. I remain to be convinced of its benefits.

My amendment would interpose a further element into the bland provision in the Bill, which simply states:

Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representing such persons as in his opinion will be affected by the regulations.

That is the usual rather bland statement that appears in measures such as this. The amendment would insert the words

including newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations.

I want to ensure that part of the process that the Bill initiates will be guaranteed to include the people who know most about the industry and the distribution and collection process. They should be brought into the process at an early stage, so that we can be as satisfied as possible that the measure will work effectively. It is no good theorising about the matter, and producing fancy targets in the belief that recycling works. They may make us feel better, but what happens if they are nonsense and cannot be met?

My aim is to ensure that, if the dreadful mechanism in the Bill is cranked into activity, it is at least practical and achievable. It must not be based on the fancy notions of well-meaning environmentalists—hence the amendment.

The amendment is sensible, as I said earlier, but does it not undermine the right hon. Gentleman's argument when we realise that the pressure for more recycling in the United Kingdom and for the introduction of a system to even out the gluts and famines in the supply of recycled newspaper has been most forcefully applied by the industry to which he refers? The Paper Federation of Great Britain has argued powerfully for such a system for years.

The right hon. Gentleman wants to rubbish the idea of targets, but the voluntary agreement between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the newspaper publishers establishes targets that are entirely in line with the targets included in the Bill. Does that not mean that the hon. Gentleman's attempt to create the impression that the industry opposes the policies contained in the Bill is erroneous?

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I suggest to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) that he should try to train himself to make short interventions rather than mini-speeches.

The hon. Gentleman's intervention was helpful, as it made clear why the Bill is unnecessary. I welcome the successful voluntary arrangements that are in place, but do they not render the Bill otiose? In addition, such arrangements are flexible, but spurious and arbitrary figures in Bills are notoriously inflexible. Targets in legislation lock in a process that could be damaging—either because they cannot be achieved, or because they cannot be changed quickly to accommodate changes in circumstances.

Does the amendment deal with the fact that many suppliers and publishers are multinational, cross-border companies? Their approach may suit their home countries, but not the United Kingdom.

In the context of the European home or village—whatever enthusiasts choose to call it these days—that may not be such a bad thing. I will come back to that in a moment, if I may. However, I have not yet finished with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor).

I find it encouraging that the industry has wanted to take these sort of measures for some time. I would expect the people in it to do these things because of self-interest, because of being responsible members of the business and wider community and in order to present a good image to their customers. For all those reasons, therefore, I do not see the point of having statutes—certainty not statutes of this kind—if there is such a willingness on the part of the industry. That is why I believe that what the hon. Gentleman said undermines the need for the Bill rather than the opposite.

The industry is keen to move as rapidly as is possible and sensible to having a greater recycled content, but it is worried about the targets. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the International Institute for Environment and Development has expressed its worries about increasing the recycled content? A principal worry is that some of the countries from which the newsprint will come—Sweden, Norway, other Scandinavian countries and Canada—have very little recycled content because of their low population density. Therefore, newspaper suppliers here would be incapable of getting a huge amount of recycled material from those principal supply countries.

My right hon. Friend makes a practical point, which ties in with the point of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). On reflection, perhaps my amendment is not as comprehensive as it should have been in that it rather misses out the international dimension. However, my wording does not preclude the consultation with—crucially—newsprint suppliers, for example. It does not mention them explicitly, but it does not preclude them. Therefore, I should have thought that a reasonable interpretation of the wording of amendment No. 25 might cover the point that my right hon. Friend made.

Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the response of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to my earlier intervention, let me say that many of those countries are not in the European Union. While the European Union may have some control, as Norway and Canada are not members, the relationship may be a little less tight.

I can only say that they are very fortunate in still being free, sovereign countries. Canada is usually given as an example of good practice, even though it does not have the claimed benefits of membership of the European Union. Perhaps that tells its own story. Norway would probably come into the same category. The hon. Gentleman and I could have a private discussion about whether being in or out of the European Union is of more benefit, but I will not embarrass him of myself by doing it too publicly.

We have already identified the fact that newsprint suppliers, as referred to in the amendment, will play a crucial role, and that that should have an international dimension. The same applies to newspaper publishers, which, by their very nature, are increasingly international organisations. Therefore, one would expect them to have a view of these matters going beyond the narrow confines of the United Kingdom, the European Union and even the European continent. I hope that, with regard to my amendment, we can look with some confidence to the Bill including a much more international outlook to the process of consultation and decision making than would have been the case hitherto.

The focus changes for retailers and consumer organisations, because they will have a different view. The comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North are relevant here. We are looking down two ends of a telescope: the large, powerful interests of newsprint and publishing organisations are at one end, but at the other end—the more difficult end, as far as this is concerned—are the retailers and the final consumer. I concede that there are considerable difficulties—which have been confronted in different ways, whether in Canada, Germany or other countries—in finding the best way, without undue compulsion or bureaucratic intervention, of encouraging the final consumer, aided perhaps by the retailers at a local community level, to reclaim or recapture the material after its final use, and then to do with it whatever is deemed to be appropriate.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to retailers and consumer organisations. I noted his criticism that the existing provision was woolly. Is he satisfied that his use of the words "retailers and consumer organisations" in the amendment pins down the matter sufficiently? Surely that would include retailers and consumer organisations that do not deal with newsprint, and might have another agenda on wider recycling.

I accept what the hon. Lady says—it may or may not be a bad thing. If we narrow the point too closely, we are in danger of missing some vital elements. For example, it is striking that, recently, large supermarkets have begun to make significant sales of newspapers. A few years ago, one would not have expected to find a newspaper or magazine on sale in a large supermarket, but that is now becoming normal. I pass no judgment on the matter; I merely remark that it is happening. Because of changes in the marketplace, those organisations have a relevance in the process that they would not have had a few years ago.

That neatly illustrates the more general point that we should not try to be too detailed and focused in such cases. There is a danger that, because of the rapid way in which change occurs—in the consumer market, the retail market, in products and so on—the Bill's well meaning but rather useless attempt could soon be out of date and worthless. In many ways, the measure is too detailed.

I am interested in the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about supermarkets—of course, that is true. Does he accept that perhaps supermarkets would have more to fear from enforced legislative recycling in other aspects of their business—of which newspapers are just a small part? When consulted, they might be incentivised not to be as positive as they would be if the arrangement were voluntary.

Yes, that risk is inevitable. Throughout the process, we must be mindful that, if one is too heavy handed and intrusive about such matters—albeit in a well meaning way—one could be counter-productive. My instinct is that an organisation such as a large supermarket would be more likely to participate in the recycling and reclamation process, generally defined, than would a small, traditional, corner-shop newsagent. We do not want to provide either the large or the small operators with disincentives to participate in the process.

For that reason, my use of the word "retailers" seeks to encompass the largest and the smallest. It would be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State as to how that was done. It would not be difficult. Many well known and well established organisations speak legitimately for the varying interests of the large to the small retailer. One could probably deal individually with Tesco, Sainsbury and so on, but one would have to deal with associations that represented newsagents and tobacconists.

I am slightly concerned about the right hon. Gentleman's use of the word "organisations" in his amendment. In the context of the amendment, it is not clear whether the word is conjunctive or disjunctive. Is he referring only to consumer organisations, or is he referring to organisations in other contexts-for example, newspaper supplier organisations, newspaper publisher organisations and so on? Individual newsprint suppliers might hold different views, while a collective view might be more easily obtainable through an organisational approach. Does his use of the word "organisation" refer only to consumers, or can it be translated for the other groups as well?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I think that the most useful interpretation would be the latter. I do not want in any way to preclude consultation between the Secretary of State and newsprint supplier organisations or newspaper publishing organisations as well as individuals. They must all have a role to play. The hon. Gentleman is right. Organisations will, of necessity, take a different view, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I believe that the Bill points in the wrong direction and is naive and impractical. However, if it were to reach the statute book, we would want it to work in a proper and practical manner. My amendment would make a contribution to that.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the term "consumer organisations" appears to be badly placed in the amendment? The amendment is not clear about whether it refers to consumers in general, consumers of newsprint, consumers of the recycled content of newsprint or to something else entirely. Does he not accept that that presents a problem in terms of having realistic consultation with those organisations?

I do not think so. One of the possible side effects of the mandatory recycling that the Bill seeks to achieve is a considerable increase in the price of products. Nothing in this world comes free, and recycling certainly does not. It is perfectly possible—I would say probable—that, if we followed the inflexible provisions in, and the statutory approach of, the Bill, one of results would be an increase in the final price of products. Someone would have to pay and, in the end, it is always either the consumer or the taxpayer; it cannot be anyone else. For that reason, the wider the scope of the consultation, the better. That would give the Secretary of State a complete view of what people think. He could say to them that, given their concern about environmental matters, recycling may—I say "may" very deliberately—be a good thing.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Yes, but I would like to conclude.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On the very point that recycling may be a good thing, I am sure that, in his studies for the debate, he has read the Greenpeace report "PVC Plastic: A Looming Waste Crisis", which was published on 2 April 1999. Greenpeace says:

For safe and useful materials, recycling is a beneficial activity … However, in the case of toxic materials, it simply perpetuates the toxic production of environmental poisons. Promotion of PVC recycling is a prime example.

If newsprint is produced with chlorine and other such materials, recycling will simply involve recycling the chemicals used in its production.

I do not do Greenpeace. However, in the light of my right hon. Friend's comments, I should perhaps read one of its publications. They are not my usual bedtime reading, I must admit.

My right hon. Friend may wish to expand on that point, but I certainly do not want to get involved in Greenpeace's views. I say that because I want to conclude my remarks.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. Although I generally support his amendment—if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a few words about it—he has failed to include environmental organisations in his list. They may have a legitimate and valid role. I am sure that he would not wish to omit organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

My right hon. Friend is correct, but he will notice that amendment No. 11 in the name of the hon. Member for Hendon refers to "environmental groups". I did not want to steal the hon. Gentleman's thunder; I know how ably he will speak to the amendment. He will answer my right hon. Friend's point.

That is an appropriate point at which to conclude my brief remarks on my limited amendment. I hope to have a subsequent opportunity to range more widely over the Bill and its deficiencies. However, I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 25.

I shall make a few brief remarks about all the amendments in this group, beginning with amendment No. 26. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, however, let me say that hon. Members with an interest in the matter are unlikely to disagree with the idea that recycling is generally a good thing. Like motherhood and apple pie, we all think that it is good.

Before we legislate on the matter, however, it is incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure that the Bills that we enact and which affect our fellow citizens achieve the desired effect. It would be entirely inappropriate for any of us, no matter how much we support recycling, to vote for the Bill at any stage on the basis that it sounds like a good thing. One of the purposes of legislative scrutiny is to ensure that we achieve the desired aims. I notice that the Bill did not have a substantial Second Reading debate—Second Reading only lasted about three seconds on the Floor of the House. It also had a short Committee stage, to which I shall refer later.

Amendment No. 26 was tabled by the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and in his absence was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Had it not been tabled by the Bill's promoter, I would have thought that it was a wrecking amendment, as it would delete from clause 1(1) the words

shall within one year of the passing of this Act

and insert instead the word "may".

A closer look at subsection (1) shows that that is a significant concession, as it would change a requirement made of the Secretary of State, and the time limit within which he is supposed to comply with it. The amendment would throw that out of the window, replacing the requirement with a mere discretionary power with no time limit whatsoever. That is an extraordinary change for the promoter to make in the most important clause of his Bill, which aims to force a public good—general recycling of newsprint—on an industry which one assumes is considered tardy in achieving targets for the desirable public goals that we all support.

We need a little more explanation. I am not trying to get at my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who has obviously stepped into the breach at the last minute in the unavoidable absence of the Bill's promoter, but although I am not too experienced in such matters, there is the slight whiff of a backstairs agreement. One suspects that the Bill's promoter may have had discussions with the Government, the newspaper industry or someone else. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), may be able to tell us whether there have been any such discussions when he responds to the amendments.

It is extraordinary that the Bill's promoter would table an amendment which, if it did not wreck his Bill, would substantially undermine its legislative intent. It is no small matter to change an absolute requirement with a time limit to a discretionary power with no time limit.

Has my hon. Friend taken account of what we hear about the voluntary agreement between the Government and the newspaper industry on the percentages of recycled newsprint that it will be required to use? If what we hear is true, one could certainly read clause 1 as a method of backing up the voluntary agreement if the newspapers failed to keep it.

Later I shall quote remarks made in Committee about the voluntary agreement. I do not often find myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whom I have often heard complaining about legislation going through the House on the nod and without proper scrutiny. It is extraordinary that we as legislators should be invited to send a Brill on its way to the statute book as a backstop for a voluntary agreement that seems to he working. I find that an extraordinary use of legislation, and I am not sure that it is a correct use.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with voluntary agreements is that they can be entered into and broken willy-nilly, because there is no intention of creating a contractual relationship between the parties? A voluntary agreement is simply a piece of paper, which may end up being recycled without making any impact on the problem.

I agree with my hon. Friend that voluntary agreements do not always work. I agree that when the House is pursuing a public good, it may be appropriate for us to consider legislation as back-up for a failed voluntary agreement. However, I find it astonishing that we should consider putting legislation on the statute book before any breakdown of the voluntary agreement.

To back up my arguments, I shall quote from the Official Report the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee. It is extraordinary that we should preclude the outcome of the voluntary agreement and the review that is to take place, and put legislation on the statute book in advance, just in case at some time in the future the agreement breaks down. We must assume, as I do, that the parties to the agreement are all acting in good faith.

If we legislated in that way more generally, our statute book would be even more crowded than it currently is, and we would have no summer recess—and no Christmas, Easter or any other recess, either. The House would be sitting 24 hours a day.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. She argues that the amendment creates a prospective backstop for the voluntary agreement. Does she agree that it does not necessarily even do that, because the Secretary of State only may—or indeed may not—take a particular action? If the aim is to reinforce the voluntary agreement, the amendment should insert the words "shall, in the event of the breakdown of the voluntary agreement".

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I had not groped my way towards it, and I thank him for it. He is right. The present wording—"shall"—imposes an obligation. It is a requirement; there is no discretion. However, the promoter's amendment No. 26 will remove "shall" and replace it with "may". It will also remove any kind of time scale.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

If I may finish the point, I shall of course give way.

It is easy to imagine a future Secretary of State who was not committed to recycling. The Bill would be on the statute book, but the Secretary of State would not have to make regulations—he may or may not do so. What would be the point of that, especially if it had some negative impact on the ability of the parties to the voluntary agreement to get on and implement it?

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who may have the answer.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps I can help her by quoting extracts from the latest version of the agreement. It might have been helpful if I had done that in my opening remarks. I cannot speak entirely on behalf of the promoter, although I understand some of what he is trying to achieve through amendment No. 26.

It is important to put on record that the latest version of the agreement between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the newspaper publishers, dated 18 April 2000, established three targets for recycled content. They are: 60 per cent. by the end of 2001, 65 per cent. by the end of 2003, and 70 per cent. by the end of 2006. If hon. Members consider clause 1—

Order. I have already given the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) advice on what constitutes an intervention, as distinct from a speech. If he hopes to catch my eye, as is his right as the hon. Member who moved the amendment, and wind up at the end of the debate, he must reserve his fire. I cannot have mini-speeches in the middle of the debate.

Doubtless there will be an opportunity to discuss percentages later. However, it is interesting that my hon. Friend has a copy of the voluntary agreement; I do not have a copy. If we, as legislators, are to judge the importance and usefulness of the Bill, it might have been helpful to have a copy of the voluntary agreement. I do not criticise any particular person; I do not know whether the voluntary agreement has been published. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten us.

Amendment No. 26 is an extraordinary amendment for the promoter to table, and I shall refer briefly to some of the comments made in Standing Committee C, which considered the Bill. We must bear in mind the fact that the Bill did not have a substantive Second Reading. We are considering a difficult issue; all hon. Members agree that recycling should be a matter for public policy, and it clearly interests us. However, the Committee stage has been the only opportunity so far in this Session for hon. Members to consider the merits of the legislative approach.

The Committee met on Wednesday 19 April, and the Minister said that the Government were

far from convinced that a legislative approach is right.

He explained that scepticism about such an approach was based on the existence of some issues

outside the control of the newspaper and magazine publishers,

with whom the voluntary agreement has been reached. The first issue is mill capacity. The Minister explained that it was widely accepted that that could have a significant impact on the industry's ability to achieve targets that it agrees voluntarily. The second issue is the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. The Minister will be able to tell us whether it remains the Government's position that they are far from convinced of the merits of a legislative approach.

The Minister also stated:

We have been working with the Newspaper Publishers Association to develop an agreement. Those negotiations are now successfully concluded.

It seems that they were successfully concluded the day before the Bill was considered in Committee. Perhaps it is therefore not fair to suggest that the Bill has served no purpose; it may have acted as a spur to achieving that agreement. The Minister also set out some of the percentages that form part of it, but we may have an opportunity to discuss them later.

The Minister said that there would be a review of the effectiveness of the agreement at the end of 2003. It will ascertain whether the agreement has been implemented in accordance with the views of the parties to it—the industry and the Government—and whether the targets have been achieved. He said that the reviews would take four factors into account:

First, they will take account of the availability of additional reprocessing capacity.

That deals with some issues that are outside the industry's control, but nevertheless have an impact on whether it can achieve the targets to which it has voluntarily agreed. The Minister continued:

Secondly … the growth in consumption of newsprint, which is apparently about 2.5 per cent.—

I suspect that that means 2.5 per cent. per annum. Again, that factor is outside the control of the industry alone. He continued:

Thirdly, the quality of recycled newsprint …—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 19 April 2000; c. 6–7.]

That refers to the fact that newsprint has to contain a certain amount of fibre to be recycled for that purpose. He said that the reviews would consider whether there was any uncompetitive pricing of recycled newsprint by suppliers.

1.30 pm

Clearly, there is wide agreement between the Government and the industry. They have even worked out how to review whether the voluntary agreement that they have concluded is useful in achieving the targets that have been set. That re view will take place at the end of 2003; the Bill could be Ai the statute book this year, but it might never be needed or referred to again. It might sit idly on the statute book and be no use to anyone. I for one wonder, as a legislator, whether it is correct to use the time of the House and its Members to put Bills on to the statute book purely and simply as a backstop in case agreements break down two or three years hence.

I shall consider the two other amendments in the group: amendment No. 11, which was tabled, I think, by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—[Interruption.] I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for that mistake. At the end of clause 1(5), amendment No. 11 would insert the words

and such environmental groups as he considers appropriate.

Hon. Members will recall that clause 1(5) deals with whom the Secretary of State should consult before implementing the targets set out in the Bill.

Amendment No. 25, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and about which he has made some remarks, would include

newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations.

I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman again—twice in a day, which is a unique experience for me. I shall have to find a point of disagreement before the House rises, and I shall think about that when I sit down.

Those amendments are complementary, and I approve of both. if we agree to amendment No. 26, tabled by the promoter, and if the Bill gains the approbation of the House, is sent to the other place and ends up on the statute book, we may as well make it as good as we can. Although it is entirely helpful that clause 1(5) should be expanded, as we have heard, one or two other hon. Members and I are concerned about whether the amendments are sufficiently clear and widely drawn to make them as good as they could be. However, they are compatible in that they could be included in subsection (5) without causing problems, and they would probably improve the Bill.

We could include in subsection (5) lots of newspaper suppliers, publishers organisations, retailers, consumers organisations and consumers of whatever sort—whether consumers of newsprint or even those who simply sell it—as well as every type of environmental group and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. However. I am concerned that the Secretary of State would still be obliged to consult only

such persons as in his opinion will be affected by the regulations.

If a future Secretary of State is of the opinion that not many people will be affected by the regulations, his absolute obligation to consult all these groups can be put to one side. Judicial review through the courts to test the meanings in the Bill would be the only recourse for organisations that would expect to be consulted.

Although we may congratulate ourselves on including in the Bill all the organisations that clearly should be consulted, and will perhaps expand the list later, we are still dependent on a future Secretary of State's opinion. I am not convinced that the amendments will achieve as much as the hon. Members who have tabled them hope. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon may be able to reassure me about that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend has tabled an amendment about environmental groups. By using the phrase "as he considers appropriate", he has fallen into the pattern already in the clause. If a Secretary of State did not consider it appropriate, he might not bother to consult any environmental groups. The present Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult as widely as possible, but what does my hon. Friend mean by environmental groups? Various voluntary groups have an environmental aspect to their remit. Does he just mean Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace—the organisations whose publications the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would never read?

Can my hon. Friend shed any light on her alternative to this proposal? Does she suggest that environmental groups should be named one by one in the Bill? If so, does she accept that that may result in an even greater squabble than she envisages? Groups would vie with each other to be included in the Bill, and if they were not, they would seek judicial review to establish that they should be.

As an ex-lawyer, I would not want to create too much work for lawyers. I know how expensive it can be if people have to go to law. I am not suggesting that it would be preferable to include a list of environmental groups in the Bill. However, a schedule and a regulation-making power would have been a possible mechanism. It would be sensible to define such groups more closely, perhaps in a definition clause or an interpretation clause, which could provide that an environmental group means a group that spends 80 per cent. of its time dealing with environmental issues. I have not thought of a better amendment.

If we are to give the Bill a fair wind, we should tighten it up as much as possible. What concerns me about the term "environmental groups" is that many voluntary groups and charities have other aims. Before I came into the House, I was concerned with housing. Many organisations deal with housing, which involves the environmental concerns of a local area. Is a housing pressure group considered to be an environmental group? Will the phrase be restricted to groups that deal specifically with issues such as recycling or the impact on our environment more generally of not recycling?

Friends of the Earth has had something to do with the Bill and has a long track record of promoting Bills that have an environmental impact. For instance, it is concerned about the use of landfill instead of recycling newspaper. It is clearly an environmental group.

Is the hon. Lady not concerned that the Bill deals purely with recycling? In the context of total life-cycle assessment of newsprint, there may be better options. Recycling is not necessarily the most environmentally friendly way in which to deal with newspapers.

I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman as well as his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. My reputation will be destroyed. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) makes an important point, which I think he made in an earlier intervention. Ultimately, it may well benefit the environment to have better forestry—I cannot think of the right word, but it may be a good idea for us to look after our forests in a more sensible manner.

Stewardship?

"Stewardship" will do. It may be a better idea for us to improve our forestry stewardship than to have enforced levels of recycled content. The short and long titles of the Bill use the word "recycled", and we are all in favour of that: it must be better than burying the material in landfill sites. However, we have not had an opportunity to consider the overall implications of enacting and enforcing the legislation.

Let me offer the hon. Lady the chance of a hat trick in terms of agreeing with Opposition Members.

I am slightly puzzled by what the hon. Lady said about environmental groups. Surely, if these obnoxious regulations are introduced, it is only reasonable for the Secretary of State to consult not only the industry, but environmental groups of all kinds. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Lady is not objecting to consultation with environmental groups, but considers the wording to be too loose?

My goodness! I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman as well. Yes, the wording is a little woolly: that is a gentle way of putting it. I have no objection to consultation in general, although it always involves both a cost and a delay. Usually, the wider the consultation the greater the cost and the delay.

The Bill is relatively draconian. If we pass it, we will be requiring by law people engaged in normal commercial activities to ensure that a certain percentage of their newsprint is recycled, and that a certain percentage of pulp comes from recycled paper. A later group of amendments deals with the percentages. By any standards, that is a fairly draconian requirement, especially given that some elements necessary to achieve the targets are outside the control of those who are expected to achieve them.

There must be an argument for consulting as widely as possible. If the Government did not consult, they could easily be accused of engaging in excessively unpleasant activity, and no Government who regard recycling as a desirable aim and a public good would want to be in such a position. I suspect that that may be why the Government oppose the Bill, although the Minister will doubtless have something to say.

I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way again. She spoke of the unfortunate "woolliness" of the definition as it stands. Has she considered an even worse possibility? She said that the use of recycled content would often be more expensive. Might not financially stronger groups set up their own puppet environmental organisations, which could then lobby hard for increased targets, and stringent application of those targets, in the hope of driving weaker competitors out of business? That would be a particularly serious problem in the newspaper industry, in which diversity is hugely important not just to the industry but to the future of democracy.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Where legislation places requirements on commercial organisations to do certain things, there can be unintended consequences in the cynical world of the market, with commercial organisations trying to do each other down. That is why, overall, I would probably prefer voluntary agreements with reviews. Only if there is no progress at all should the Government consider legislation. However, if the Bill were enacted, there would be an absolute legislative requirement, which is as inflexible an instrument as one could imagine—unless it is too low, in which case what is the point of having it?

Within that context, and given that I probably do not support the Bill's passage overall, my aim is to see how the amendments can improve the Bill and make it a little more flexible. That is the basis on which I agree with extending the consultation as widely as possible in clause 1(5), and why I find it extraordinary that the promoter has tabled amendment No. 26.

Given that I intended to speak only briefly, I have probably said enough. Therefore, I shall simply say that I oppose amendment No. 26, but approve of amendments Nos. 11 and 25.

I hope to save the bacon of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) by giving her something with which she can disagree.

I shall speak briefly in favour of amendment No. 26. I am comfortable with allowing voluntary agreements time to work. If they work, all well and good, but often, as we know, they do not. Consider what is happening in relation to recycling by local authorities. Many local authorities are failing to hit their target. Therefore, I echo a couple of the questions that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked.

First, will the Minister put on record his commitment to legislate if the voluntary agreement is seen to fail? Secondly, will he consider giving local authorities extra assistance to help them to develop their recycling strategies?

Luckily, my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, has the best recycling record in London. I understand that, perhaps even today or next week, the local authority leader will tell the Minister for the Environment how that has been achieved.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the borough of Sutton. I understand that it is the only London borough that collects waste, once every two weeks, rather than once every week, and that that is the subject of much bitter opposition from local residents, who condemn their Liberal Democrat council for doing that.

I am happy to respond to that point. Labour Members may not know that the principal activist behind the wheelie bin campaign is a person called Lady Olga Maitland, who they will agree is not the most unbiased of parties. They may also be interested to know that other local authorities—both Labour and Tory—operate a fortnightly wheelie bin scheme.

None in London.

None in London, apparently. I am not sure what difference the location of the local authorities makes to collection.

I want to clarify exactly what the hon. Gentleman is telling us. Is it that the Conservative candidate who will stand against him at the next general election—

Order. I have heard quite enough on that riveting diversion. We must come back to newsprint and recycling.

I am happy to return to the subject of newsprint. In fact, I had nearly finished.

I have two requests: first, will the Minister put on record his commitment; and, secondly, will he provide assistance to local authorities, so that those that are not meeting their recycling targets can meet them in future, and so that they do not simply fall back on incineration to get rid of waste? That is my great concern.

I shall speak to all three amendments in this group. First, however, I should like to say that I thought that the attack made at the start of her speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)—I am sorry that she has just left the Chamber—on my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was a little unjustified. We all know that, often, when an hon. Member promotes a private Member's Bill, compromises are necessary and discussions are held. Knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle as I do, it would be much out of character for him to be party to a backstairs deal.

Gordon—compromise?

I understand that remark entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Penile is a capable parliamentary campaigner. I certainly do not believe that, in promoting his Bill, he would make any compromise that was not absolutely necessary.

Nevertheless, I have serious reservations about amendment No. 26, particularly in relation to the meaning of the words "shall" and "may". I see that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is in the Chamber. Undoubtedly, he will recall that, in his previous life as a Home Office Minister, we had a rather interesting year in the law courts on the precise definition of "may" and "shall". I am pleased to say that I emerged as the victor on that occasion. The basic point is that, in some circumstances, the two words can be interchangeable, but such use can create some uncertainty, which is regrettable in legislation.

The amendment proposes leaving out the words

shall within one year of the passing of this Act

and inserting the word "may". If accepted, however, the amendment would remove from the legislation a time scale and provide Ministers with a wide discretion. I certainly concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that the amendment could create severe problems by watering down the Bill so much that it has no effect whatever.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Minister were to accept use of the word "may"—thereby making all the targets meaningless—the Bill would at least be consistent with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, in which the Minister made exactly the same change, to make that Bill absolutely meaningless? Would not the change promote consistency?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but I suspect that the occupant of the Chair might question whether I should pursue it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston said, the issue comes down to whether, in legislating, it is the House's job to become involved in trying to police voluntary agreements. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) made the valid point that, if we take that route, the Minister should make it clear that the Government will legislate if the voluntary agreement does not succeed.

Is my hon. Friend saying that the House should never make such provision in passing legislation, or that we should not make it in the specific case of this Bill? If he is opposed to making it on principle, may I remind him of how we have dealt with other Bills, including the recent Access to Justice Act 1999—in which he favoured including a section urging the Law Society to change the activities of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, including the possibility of legislation if change were not made?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify my views, which are based very much on the idea of horses for courses. The background to the Bill involves negotiation, discussion and a voluntary agreement, which we all hope will work. The background to the Access to Justice Act was rather different, as we were trying to drag the Law Society kicking and screaming into the 20th century—never mind the 21st century—in how it deals with complaints. As my hon. Friend will know, although I am a solicitor myself, I took a rather strong view on the Law Society's opinions on the matter. I think that, in such circumstances, it is justifiable to use permissive powers in legislation as a stick with which to beat people, to make them do what needs to be done.

The Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill presents the opposite scenario, as it has been used as a carrot to encourage people to conclude a voluntary agreement. In this case, do we need a stick, because we have already achieved the objective? It is horses for courses and, in the nature of this private Member's Bill, it is the wrong way to go. In those circumstances, I would have grave doubts about whether we need the Bill as it stands. If the voluntary agreement does not succeed, I hope the Minister will give a commitment to the House—perhaps with a Government Bill—to make it clear to the industry that it is expected to meet its obligations.

The industry has recognised that there is a risk in relation to the voluntary agreement, and is concerned about the capacity of mills. It argues that, unless that capacity is expanded, the voluntary target will result in the import of recycled newsprint which will simply end up in landfill. The newsprint manufacturing industry is therefore seeking financial support from the Government for expanding mill capacity. My hon. Friend the Minister might wish to comment on that.

Another risk of the voluntary basis is that having a recycled newspaper content, as set out in the voluntary agreement, may lead to further imports of recycled paper, rather than to an increase in recycling in the UK. This has been recognised by the newspaper industry, which repeatedly argues that a recycled content target alone will fail. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies—in defence of the voluntary agreement and, presumably, the amendment—he can deal with those concerns.

Given that we all want a strong agreement that will work, does my hon. Friend accept that the amendment has weakened the purpose of the Bill significantly, almost to the degree that it is not worth supporting?

I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. Without a timetable within clause 1—which the amendment would delete—and without a clear indication from the Government at least of a timetable to which they will work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, there is not much of a stick or a carrot in clause 1. There is no indication of a timetable for reviewing or renegotiating the voluntary agreement, or for monitoring progress towards its implementation. To denude clause 1 of the existing wording to a large degree pulls rather too many of the Bill's milk teeth. I would not say canine teeth, because I do not think the Bill had any to start with.

Would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the Minister were to outline today what that timetable was?

That would be a useful response from the Minister, were he prepared to do that. If we are to agree to the removal of those words from the Bill, it is important that we get a clear understanding on the record of how the Government see the voluntary agreement developing in terms of the targets set out in it, the implementation of the targets, the timetable for review and possible renegotiation and the monitoring of progress. Without those—as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston said—the Bill will be less effective and possibly not even worthwhile.

I am slightly puzzled by hon. Members on both sides of the House, who seem to be saying that it is fair enough to take out the timetable and the compulsion from the Bill as long as the Minister gives us an assurance about what the timetable will be. Hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—are firmly facing both ways at once. Either we want a timetable or we do not, and there is one in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) says he is prepared to take it out, but wants the Minister to put it back by way of an assurance to the House. I fail to follow the logic of the argument.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, which is the one with which my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and I have been grappling. I would like the Bill to remain as it presently stands, because we would all know then how the process would develop.

I assure my hon. Friend that that is not a problem for me, because I oppose amendment No. 26.

I also oppose it, so I agree with my hon. Friend. In the event that our views do not prevail, and the view of the promoter of the Bill prevails, second best would be for the Minister and the promoter to put on the record how they see the voluntary agreement developing.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, even if his arguments about amendment No. 26 are correct, it does not affect the whole of the Bill? The voluntary agreement addresses only the content of newsprint, not the labelling of recycled newsprint in newspapers and magazines, although that is the subject of later amendments.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The word "shall" still appears in clause 2, and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and I argue that it should remain in clause 1.

Does my hon. Friend accept that his argument would be invalidated if it were proved that the effect of the voluntary agreement would be to establish the targets on at least the same, and possibly a better, time scale than that in the Bill?

I do not agree, because the problem with voluntary agreements is that they are, by their nature, not contractual. Just because something is written into an agreement, it does not mean that the agreement could not be torn up and recycled itself the very next day. I am concerned about the terms of the voluntary agreement as it stands now between the Government and the industry, and how that agreement will develop in the future. If the Minister will not be under an obligation to produce regulations, as he would be under clause 1 as presently drafted, it is important that the Government make it clear that they favour a certain timetable, with a process to monitor progress, and targets. The Government should also make it clear that if there was any backsliding in implementing the voluntary agreement, they would not hesitate to return to the House—I would hope in Government time—with legislation that contained clause 1 as it stands.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made a valid point and here is a risk that those who favour amendment No. 26 could be said to be facing both ways at once. That is why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that amendment No. 26 should not be accepted. If it is, we would accept as second best some clear assurances from the Government on how they see the position developing. I give way to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border.

I apologise, but I was not attempting to intervene. I was merely poised to stand up to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I thought that the hon. Gentleman was concluding his speech.

In that case, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston.

Given that our analyses appear to coincide, does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill, if amended by amendment No. 26, would not be worth pursuing and it would be sensible to wait—

Order. The hon. Lady is now repeating her earlier intervention. This debate is becoming very repetitive and I shall be moved to invoke Standing Order No. 42 if it continues much more in that vein. We have substantial business still to complete today and if I hear more repetition, I shall invoke the Standing Order.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if I have transgressed, but I was trying to deal with points that have been put to me. I can tell the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that I am just getting into my stride. Having dealt with amendment No. 26, I shall turn to the amendment in my name and that tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). His amendment deals with a similar subject but takes a somewhat different angle.

The debate has touched on consultation. Amendments Nos. 11 and 25 are the two sides of the same coin. My amendment No. 11 approaches the issue from the environmentalist's point of view, while amendment No. 25, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, approaches it from the industry's point of view. It is appropriate that the whole coin should therefore be considered.

Amendment No. 11 has been criticised by several hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston asked why it proposes that only those groups that the Secretary of State considers appropriate should be consulted. I assume that she is not suggesting that the Secretary of State should consult groups considered inappropriate. I think that she answered her own question, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Test in his earlier intervention. My amendment has been called woolly, but it offers the only way to ensure that environmental groups are consulted.

It would not be sensible to set out, in a schedule or elsewhere, a long list of environmental groups. In the Committee considering the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, a Liberal Democrat amendment proposed that a long list of environmental groups should be consulted in respect of the work of that new body. Under scrutiny, it turned out that the list was out of date: some organisations had ceased to exist, but others that should have been on the list were omitted.

I am therefore reluctant to include a long list of environmental groups, which my hon. Friend the Member for Test may have suggested merely as a debating point. Such a list would be out of date almost as soon as it was compiled. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston suggested introducing a regulation-making power to adjust the list, but that would take us back to the proposal in amendment No. 11, which is that only appropriate groups should be consulted. Such regulation-making powers could be exercised only if the Secretary of State considered it appropriate to add organisations to the list, or delete them from it. That argument is therefore somewhat circular, and takes us back to the proposal in my amendment.

An interesting criticism centred on the definition of an environmental group in these circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston asked whether housing groups would be included. That is a valid question, and it could be argued that they should be included in the provision, but I think that the House will know which groups we are talking about. Such groups are difficult to describe but, as with elephants, one knows them when one sees them.

Mention has already been made of Friends of the Earth, which has played a constructive role in persuading and cajoling Government and industry to adept the voluntary agreement. I suspect that it will play an important role in monitoring that agreement's progress. Greenpeace has also been mentioned, but many other organisations deserve to be consulted.

For example, Waste Watch is a national charity, and a very focused organisation, promoting practical action on reducing, reusing and recycling waste. In contrast, Friends of the Earth deals with many issues as well as recycling, and would have had something to say about the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, had we debated that. Greenpeace's interests include the nuclear industry as well as recycling.

The hon. Member for Ashford mentioned the powers of some big organisations to "buy out" smaller ones or freeze them out of the market. First, I am not sure whether environmental groups operate in any sort of a market, and secondly, it is inevitable that there will be single-issue pressure groups highly focused on the issue of recycling.

I can imagine that people with bees in their bonnets about newspaper recycling might combine specifically to monitor progress on the voluntary agreement. Not only do pressure groups form to lobby to create new legislation but, once it comes into effect, pressure groups then form to make sure that it is implemented in the way that they wish. There is a strong argument for considering national and international organisations, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, and those at a more local level.

My amendment was criticised as being woolly. I do not think that it is. If a group believes that it should have been consulted, there is always the fallback of judicial review. The amendment would create an expectation of consultation. [Interruption.] Yes, it will mean more work for lawyers. I am a lawyer, although I do not see myself getting a great deal work out of this particular aspect, as I am sure that the Government will ensure that all those who should be consulted will be consulted, as a result of my amendment. Therefore, the risk of judicial review would be extremely small or non-existent. When the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border was at the Home Office, I think that the risk of judicial review was rather higher. Indeed, he was on the receiving end on several occasions.

There is a safeguard through the courts and judicial review if groups believe that they have been unfairly excluded from consultation. Equally, if organisations such as the housing groups mentioned earlier feel that they should have been consulted, when it was clearly inappropriate to do so, they would get short shrift if they applied to the courts for judicial review so as to be incorporated in the consultation process.

I made one or two interventions on the wording of amendment No. 25 during the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I have some concerns, such as whether the word "organisations" could be interpreted conjunctively or disjunctively. I think that the right hon. Gentleman agreed that it would be appropriate for his amendment to be read on the basis that "organisations" meant all the groups identified—newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations. However, I am not sure whether the amendment as drafted achieves that aim. On reflection, the right hon. Gentleman may consider withdrawing his amendment, with a further amendment tabled in another place to correct the problem.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, given the constraints of time. I would ask him to address an omission from the list, notwithstanding the qualification that he has just made. I refer to the trade unions which represent the staff who work with the recycled material. Should they not have been included in the list in the first instance?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Perhaps we could bring the trade unions into the category of environmental groups, because increasingly they take a wider interest beyond simply those of their members. It is a welcome development in the modern trade union movement that it is looking more broadly at some of these issues. There is a risk that they could fall foul of my argument, given in response to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston on the housing pressure groups, in that their interest may be seen as peripheral. It is all well and good consulting the bosses who will issue the orders and directives, but we must also ensure that whatever is decided is practical.

When talking to people such as the local authority workers who collect the recycling bins, I have often found them to have sensible suggestions on how to improve the mechanics. Having said that, I can see an argument against my amendment and that of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in that perhaps we should also have included local authorities in our joint group, if I may put it that way, of organisations that should be consulted. We have not included the local authorities, but there can be little argument that they have to be consulted as they are ultimately in charge of the recycling projects.

In parenthesis, bearing in mind the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, I regret that her local authority is one of the worst recyclers in the country.

The council is Liberal Democrat controlled.

Perhaps if the Liberal Democrats pray in aid Sutton, we can throw the brickbat that Liverpool is not one of the best performing local authorities in such matters.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought up the subject of local authorities. Would he care to reflect on the performance of local authorities in the constituencies of Ministers? At the bottom of an already bad league comes Sedgefield, where recycling is only 1.4 per cent. Does he agree that that is disgraceful—

Order. I discourage continuance of that particular line. We have had Sutton, Liverpool and Sedgefield. The debate is about newsprint.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for coming to my rescue, so that I do not have to answer the intervention made by the hon. Member for Ashford.

The point being made about local authorities in the context of the measure related to consultation. The measure refers to the Secretary of State consulting organisations

representing such persons as in his opinion will be affected by the regulations.

I am not sure whether a local authority is actually an organisation in that context. Given the wording of the provision, there is a strong argument that a local authority is not an organisation but a public body.

The word "organisation" is not defined in the Bill, nor—to develop earlier criticisms of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—is it defined in his amendment either. Perhaps we need a further amendment—an interpretation clause—to say what "organisation" means. In defence of my amendment, "environmental group" is pretty clear, but "organisation" may be a little loose.

One of the other criticisms made of my amendment and that of the right hon. Gentleman is that consultation leads to cost and delay. Of course it does. The question is whether such costs and delays are worth while. It is a little disingenuous both to complain that consultation creates cost and delay and to say that we should give broader consideration to the whole issue of consultation. We need to keep a sense of proportion.

Obviously, delay has bedevilled recycling over the years. One of the criticisms expressed today was the risk of delay should amendment No. 26 be accepted. However, delay caused by dragging one's feet is not the same as delay created by engagement in constructive dialogue. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and me are geared much more towards ensuring that we engage in such dialogue with both sides—the environmentalists and the industry. Through that dialogue, we can develop achievable, realisable and deliverable objectives on recycling. If that costs money, so be it. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds—it is more like the cost of a few cups of tea and some biscuits, and of writing a few papers. That would ensure that the proposal is developed effectively.

For those reasons, the amendments tabled by myself and by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst are worthy of support. I have identified a gap in the amendments as there are other groups and organisations that should be consulted. Perhaps that gap could be plugged in another place, although that is not to argue that our amendments should not be added to at a later date. However, I have grave reservations about amendment No. 26. If that amendment is accepted, I may have some difficulty in supporting the Bill on Third Reading.

Compost, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That has not been mentioned so far in the debate, so I shall not be repetitive if I propose compost as the solution to amendment No. 26. It is part of the key.

To illustrate that fact, I can do no better than quote from the press release issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 25 May, "The Waste Mountain—Waste of money, waste of space". It states that the combined recycling and composting targets set for England and Wales over the next few years are to recycle or compost at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005; at least 30 per cent. by 2010, and at least 33 per cent. by 2015. Throughout the press release, composting is considered to be an alternative to recycling.

I support amendment No. 26, which would delete the words

shall within one year of the passing of this Act.

In principle, I support the insertion of the word "may". I also support amendments Nos. 11 and 25. If the current wording of clause 1 remains, the Bill will focus narrowly on recycling newsprint and newspapers, but that may not be the best overall solution.

In the rest of their waste strategy, the Government talk about recycling or composting. If the Bill is accepted, we shall force newspaper manufacturers, owners and suppliers and those producing newsprint to concentrate on one approach—increasing the recycled content of their material.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may do your bit for recycling; we may all do our bit to recycle newspapers. I tend to think that using newspapers as one could in the old days to wrap up fish and chips may be more environmentally friendly, although we cannot do that now, because the environmental health officers have got at us. I am not making a facetious point. Using newspapers in that way, or for composting, which is referred to in the Government's official documents, may be a more environmentally sensible use of old newspapers than collecting them all, transporting them by lorries to recycling centres, melting them down with chloride, chlorine, other chemicals and goodness knows what else, burning huge amounts of energy to dry them out and then rerolling them and churning them out as part of the recycled content.

That is not just my fanciful idea, although I generally follow the view that the answer lies in the soil—so to speak. It is not just my view that we should not focus on a narrow approach. I have studied the Government's waste management strategy.

The right hon. Gentleman has moved on from the point about composting, but is he aware that no composting takes place within the Palace of Westminster?

It may not take place within the Palace, but we can produce plenty of material that would be suitable—whether shredded or not—to go into organic recycling facilities and compost.

Removing the words that the amendment would delete and inserting the word "may" would provide flexibility, and give a chance for the principle of life-cycle assessment to take effect. Life-cycle assessment is the systematic identification and evaluation of all the environmental benefits and disbenefits that result from a product throughout its life. I do not know whether the Government have carried out any research, and I have not had a chance to study the work of the International Institute for Environment and Development. which has published many papers on the subject. It is concerned by the targets in the Bill, and those targets would be obviated if the amendment were accepted.

Life-cycle assessment enables us to decide what is the most environmentally friendly way to deal with newsprint and newspapers. I hope that the Minister will not skimp on his reply. Labour Members have made many important points, and I do not want him to accept the amendments on the nod. We require detailed answers. Is the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions aware of any organisation that has carried out a proper life-cycle assessment of newsprint and newspapers, so that we can be told what are the best ways to deal with them?

Composting appears throughout the Government's plan. Is it the Department's view that the best thing to do with newspapers is to compost them? Is it best to use them for fibreboard and insulation or to make them into briquettes that can be burnt? People in my constituency do that in a highly inefficient way as part of a work experience scheme. Or is it best to recycle newspapers? We need to know about the part that recycling plays in life-cycle assessment, and its merits compared with other methods of waste control.

Before giving the industry firm targets, and retaining the requirement in clause 2 for the Secretary of State to do that, we must examine waste reduction. Businesses must consider waste reduction options, from the design of a product through to its manufacture, transport, packaging and the way in which it is sold. Paper and cartons used in packaging food and other materials make a major contribution to waste. Developing them as environmentally friendly products would aid considerably the preservation of the environment. Government Members may say that by retaining the wording of clause 1(1) and forcing more newsprint to be recycled, more may be made into cardboard boxes and other material.

I do not object to more recycling of such materials, but recycling is too narrow a term, and we should consider re-use. If the Bill dealt with re-use of newspapers and materials in the widest possible context. I would take a more favourable view of its rather rigid targets and be less sympathetic to the idea of deleting certain words in clause 1 and inserting the word "may". If the amendment were accepted, that would make the Bill consistent with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill and other legislation in which the Government have deliberately got rid of firm targets. The Minister must justify why it is appropriate to keep rigid targets in the Bill, when similar targets, and reference to them, was deleted from the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill. I shall not go further down that route today.

In their strategy document, the Government state they have three principles on recycling and waste—I am glad that they have found three. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that the first principle concerns the best practicable environmental option, and requires those taking waste management decisions to obtain advice from waste management companies and others with relevant expertise, to use the life-cycle assessment tool currently being developed by the Environment Agency, which I have just described, and to involve local communities and take full account of local decisions.

Amendment No. 11 would require the Minister to consult

such environmental groups as he considers appropriate.

Amendment no. 25 would require him to consult

newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations.

Those are all worthy organisations. The amendments may not be phrased properly or correctly, but they share the same principle, which is identical to that in the Government's waste strategy and involves getting advice from waste management companies and others with relevant expertise, and following the life-cycle assessment principle.

The Government's second principle of waste management concerns the waste hierarchy, and is relevant to deleting the words in clause 1. It suggests that reduction is the most effective environmental solution, which makes sense, as producing less material and less waste means that there is less to recycle. When reduction is not possible or practicable, the Government say that re-use should be implemented as the next fall-back. I agree with that. Failing that, one moves on to recycling, including composting. If none of those measures are possible, waste should be disposed of.

Does anyone in the House seriously disagree with that solution? One should reduce waste when one can, and when one cannot, re-use. If that is not possible, one should recycle and compost. If that is not possible, one should dispose of, dump or destroy the waste. The Bill, however, imposes a single solution.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Not moved.

Object. [Interruption.]

May I say to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) that he is trying to do two things in one? He must first move the motion. If an objection is taken, he then offers a date.