Sitting of 9 June 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day

  Licensing (Young Persons) Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 May], That the Bill be now read a Third time.
  Question again proposed.
  9.34 am
  Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): 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?
  Madam Speaker: 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.
  9.35 am
  Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey): 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
  540
  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

  541
  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.
  Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): 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?
  Mr. Truswell: 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.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): 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.]
  Mr. Truswell: 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
  542
  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.
  9.46 am
  Mr. David Maclean: 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

  543
  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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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,
  544
  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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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.

  545
  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.
  546
  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—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be careful not to stray too far beyond the tight limits of the Third Reading.
  Mr. Maclean: 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?

  547
  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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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.
  Mr. Heald: 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?
  Mr. Maclean: 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.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is letting the Minister off far too lightly. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree
  548
  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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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

  549
  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.
  Mr. Forth: 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?
  Mr. Maclean: 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
  550
  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

  551
  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.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: 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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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
  552
  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.
  10.28 am
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: 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.
  10.31 am
  Mr. Edward Leigh: 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
  554
  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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Mr. Leigh: 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

  555
  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.
  556
  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

  557
  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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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.
  Mr. Leigh: 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.
  558
  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.
  10.55 am
  Maria Eagle: 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.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend got her Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.
  Maria Eagle: 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

  559
  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—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: 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.
  Maria Eagle: 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
  560
  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.
  11.5 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: 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

  561
  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.
  562
  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.

  563
  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
  564
  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?
  Mr. Maclean: 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.
  Mr. Forth: 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

  565
  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.
  11.25 am
  Ms Chris McCafferty: 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.
  566
  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.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: 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?
  Ms McCafferty: 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

  567
  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
  568
  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.
  11.39 am
  Mr. Andrew Miller: 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

  569
  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.
  Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): 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?
  Mr. Miller: 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
  570
  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.
  11.48 am
  Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): 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

  571
  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?
  572
  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.
  12.1 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): 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.
  574
  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.
  Mr. Leigh: 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

  575
  appears to be 18, the employee will be let off, as the Bill makes no requirement for that person to exercise due diligence.
  Mr. O'Brien: 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.
  Mr. Leigh: 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.
  Mr. O'Brien: 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.
  Mr. Leigh: Will the Minister give way on that point, which is so important?
  Mr. O'Brien: I give way once more.
  Mr. Leigh: We have now clarified the matter. "Due diligence" would apply to the employer, not the employee. That is my point.
  Mr. O'Brien: In terms of the strict wording of the Bill, the answer is yes. However, in terms of individual
  576
  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.

  577
  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
  578
  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.
  Mr. Miller: 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.
  Mr. O'Brien: 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.
  Mr. Heald: 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?
  Mr. O'Brien: 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

  579
  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.
  Mr. Heald rose
  Mr. O'Brien: 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.
  Mr. Heald: 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.
  Mr. O'Brien: 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
  580
  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.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  WARM HOMES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended in the Standing Committee, read.
  To be considered on Friday 21 July.

Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Clause 1

  REGULATIONS IMPOSING A DUTY ON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS
  12.32 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: 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".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): 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.'.
  Mr. Chaytor: 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
  582
  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.
  Mr. Damian Green: 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?
  Mr. Chaytor: 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.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislchurst): 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
  584
  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.
  Mr. Chaytor: 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?
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Mr. Chaytor: 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?
  Mr. Forth: 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

  585
  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.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: 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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  586
  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.
  Mr. Chaytor: 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?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: 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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  1 pm
  Mr. Forth: 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

  587
  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.
  Mr. David Maclean: 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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  588
  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.
  Maria Eagle: 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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Maria Eagle: 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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.

  589
  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.
  Mr. Dismore: 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?
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: 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?
  Mr. Forth: 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,
  590
  given their concern about environmental matters, recycling may—I say "may" very deliberately—be a good thing.
  Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: Yes, but I would like to conclude.
  Mr. Maclean: 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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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.
  Mr. Forth: 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.
  1.15 pm
  Maria Eagle: 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

  591
  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.
  Dr. Whitehead: 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.
  Maria Eagle: 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
  592
  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.
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  Maria Eagle: 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.
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: 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".
  Maria Eagle: 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.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Maria Eagle: 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.
  Mr. Chaytor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps I can help her by quoting extracts

  593
  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—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: 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.
  Maria Eagle: 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
  594
  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.

  595
  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?
  Dr. Whitehead: 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.
  Maria Eagle: 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
  596
  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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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.
  Maria Eagle: 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.
  Dr. Whitehead: Stewardship?
  Maria Eagle: "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.
  Mr. James Gray: 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?
  Maria Eagle: My goodness! I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman as well. Yes, the wording is a

  597
  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.
  Mr. Green: 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.
  1.45 pm
  Maria Eagle: 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.
  Mr. Tom Brake: 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.
  Mr. Green: 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.
  Mr. Brake: 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.
  Mr. Green: None in London.
  Mr. Brake: None in London, apparently. I am not sure what difference the location of the local authorities makes to collection.
  Mr. Gray: 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—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard quite enough on that riveting diversion. We must come back to newsprint and recycling.
  Mr. Brake: 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.
  Mr. Dismore: 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

  599
  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.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Gordon—compromise?
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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?
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  Dr. Whitehead: 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
  600
  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?
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  Maria Eagle: 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?
  Mr. Dismore: 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

  601
  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.
  Mr. Brake: Would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the Minister were to outline today what that timetable was?
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  Mr. Green: 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.
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  Maria Eagle: I assure my hon. Friend that that is not a problem for me, because I oppose amendment No. 26.
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  2 pm
  Dr. Whitehead: 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.
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  Mr. Chaytor: 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?
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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.
  Mr. Dismore: In that case, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston.
  Maria Eagle: 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—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: 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.
  Mr. Dismore: 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

  603
  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,
  604
  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.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: 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?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Perhaps we could bring the trade unions into the category

  605
  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.
  Maria Eagle: The council is Liberal Democrat controlled.
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. Green: 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—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I discourage continuance of that particular line. We have had Sutton, Liverpool and Sedgefield. The debate is about newsprint.
  Mr. Dismore: 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.
  606
  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.
  Mr. Maclean: 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.

  607
  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.
  Mr. Brake: 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?
  Mr. Maclean: 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?
  608
  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.

  609
  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.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 July.

Remaining Private Members Bills

  MEDICAL TREATMENT (PREVENTION OF EUTHANASIA) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 April] on consideration of Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee.
  A new clause—Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions—
  ".—No prosecution under this Act shall be brought without the prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."—[Mr. Dismore.]
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 July.

  HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (OFFENCES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a second time on Friday 21 July.

  FOOD LABELLING BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 21 July.

  MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 21 July.

  RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES AND NURSING HOMES (MEDICAL RECORDS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 21 July.

  LICENSING (CANNABIS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 21 July.

  MARINE WILDLIFE PROTECTION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 21 July.

  CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COMMISSIONER BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Not moved.

  PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: 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.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 21 July.

PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL
  POLICE BILL
    PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR BILL

      URBAN REGENERATION AND COUNTRYSIDE PROTECTION BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
      CENSUS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Monday next.

      CORPORATE HOMICIDE BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 21 July.

      ZOO LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 21 July.

      ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

      HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (AMENDMENT) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 21 July.

Low-income Pensioners (Tax)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
2.33 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Chair for granting me this important debate. I am also grateful to those of my constituents who provided me with a great deal of information from their experiences with the Inland Revenue to assist me in preparing for the debate. Finally, I am grateful to the low income tax reform group of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which has done much work on the subject, in particular the study published in December 1998 and entitled "Older people on low incomes: the case for a friendlier tax system." That study represents a manifesto for change which I hope the Government will make their own.
Why should we debate the issue today? I am sure that, in the constituencies of all right hon. and hon. Members, even the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), pensioners on low incomes will be concerned about their state. There are 1.8 million pensioners on net incomes of below 50 per cent. of average household income. In other words, they are very poor. Fifty-seven per cent. of pensioners have incomes in the lowest four deciles. A significantly high percentage of people on low incomes are retired. When we consider the problems of those on low incomes, we must bear in mind that pensioners are greatly affected by them.
Should we worry about pensioners in the tax system? Ministers may say that more than two thirds of those aged 65 or more are not liable for income tax. However, a third of pensioners are liable for income tax. That amounts to nearly 3 million people. Even those pensioners who are not liable for income tax may have many dealings with the tax authorities under the current system. One reason why the debate is important, therefore, is that many pensioners are affected by the income tax system.
Why should tax administration issues that affect pensioners be a priority for the Inland Revenue? When one considers the system's impact, it becomes apparent that many pensioners experience practical difficulties in dealing with their tax affairs. That is not surprising. Pensioners are no longer in the workplace, so there is no administration department to help them through the pay-as-you-earn system. Many cannot afford professional advice, and many cannot access the free advice that the Inland Revenue provides. Disabled pensioners may not be able to get to a tax office; if they are deaf, they may not be able to use the telephone service. Many do not know about the free services that are available, as they may not have seen the existing literature.
The practical difficulties that pensioners face are compounded by the fact that they may deal with multiple agencies, including the Department of Social Security and local authorities. Pensioners may be hit especially hard by life events. Let us imagine the plight of a widow whose husband had looked after their tax affairs in the past. Suddenly, at a late stage in her life, she is expected to fill in tax forms of which she has no previous experience. One can think of many examples of life events that make pensioners vulnerable.
Pensioners face extra complexities in the tax regime. Many arise from facets of the regime that have been introduced to help pensioners and give them better

613
incomes. For example, the age-related allowances and higher personal allowances that pensioners receive are tapered and clawed back on higher incomes. That causes significant complexities. The way in which the married couples allowance works is more complicated for pensioners.
Post-retirement income sources are also more complicated. Many are outside the PAYE system. Pensioners may have a variety of income sources from a variety of savings. The current system does not gather the data from those different sources especially effectively. More mistakes are made and the codings are more complicated.
The age group that we are considering is growing. One in five people are over 60; by 2010, that number will have increased to one in four; and, by 2025, it will have increased to one in three. The problems caused by the complexities that I outlined will therefore increase.
Why has not the problem been tackled until now? First, we might cynically say that the sums involved are relatively small. The Inland Revenue and previous Governments have paid little attention to the amounts involved and the overall issue. The Inland Revenue has established customer groups for people and companies that owe the tax man a lot of money, but not for those who owe little or nothing. Perhaps that is understandable, but in an age when more customer-focused methods are, I hope, being considered, that ideology must change.
Another practical reason why this issue has not be considered is the staffing cuts that the Inland Revenue has faced, especially under the previous Government. There are reasons why the matter has not been addressed, but it is time to do so, as is made clear in the Chartered Institute of Taxation report.
I could illustrate with a litany of examples, many of which are very emotive, the problems that many pensioners face with current Inland Revenue practices for administering the tax system. Pensioners have written to the institute to tell it about their disabilities, the fact that they have been widowed, the many problems involved in their lives as pensioners and how dealing with tax forms has been made difficult. However, I shall not do so, on condition that the Paymaster General gives me a nod of assurance. I should like her to assure me that she will re-read the report. For the record, she has shown that she has a copy of the report with her. I should like her to assure me that she will study it a second time so that I need not cite the examples.
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)indicated assent.
Mr. Davey: The Paymaster General nods. I want to focus on what we can do to tackle the many problems.
The solution that I propose is that the Inland Revenue should establish a pensioner unit and make pensioners a priority customer group in the way that the Department of Social Security has set up the pensioners directorate. It should ensure that a senior Revenue official, either at board level or just below it, is appointed as an older taxpayer customer service director. That proposal comes directly from the study to which I referred.
614
Why am I worried about the bureaucratic reform of those systems? I advocate not a policy proposal, but what some might call a rebadging of an Inland Revenue unit. That is important because if we are to tackle the root cause we must change the culture in the Inland Revenue. We must ensure that people are responsible for thinking about the issue on a daily basis. We must also ensure not only that the existing problems, which are cited in the report, faced by today's pensioners are tackled, but that we change the whole system so that there are people in the Inland Revenue who can deal with difficulties that may occur in five years, which we may not have encountered before. We need a champion in the Inland Revenue to create a dynamic for change and ensure that it treats older people better.
The Government should do that not only for the reasons in the report, but because they have introduced their better government for older people programme. To promote that programme, the Prime Minister said:
For too long the interests of older people have not been a high enough priority for government. I want that to change. People are living longer, and enjoying many years of active life after retirement. We need to plan for this. But we must also make sure that excellent services are there for those who need them, especially the very old or frail.
He was right; the problem is that his lead has not been taken up properly by the Inland Revenue.
In a letter to John Andrews, who has led the group, the director of the personal tax division, who has been terribly helpful to the Chartered Institute of Taxation in many other ways, wrote that a key aim is
to raise our customer service standards across the board rather than to focus available resources on any particular group. Older people should see the benefit of general improvements which we are able to make.
Given that the Government have a programme called better government for older people, that statement from the Inland Revenue is not good enough. It should consider older people as a particular group and focus available resources on them. They should be a priority.
The other reason why the Government should create such a group is that it will not cost them very much money. The group could carry out research for, and give advice to, Ministers on how to improve the system, provide advice, support and training to local tax offices and link in with other Departments.
My second proposal is that the Government should promote volunteering. People could volunteer to help elderly taxpayers with their tax returns. The state will never be able to tackle that problem alone. Tax systems are inevitably complex. The costs involved in providing better customer service are high. The Inland Revenue should think about how the private and voluntary sectors could do more.
I am advocating a publicly supported national tax volunteer scheme. The idea has been developed by TaxAid and supported by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and other professional and charitable bodies. It has been borrowed from the USA, Canada and Australia. Canada has a community volunteer income tax programme, and the United States has a volunteer income tax assistance scheme. The idea has already been supported by the Government: the Inland Revenue and the Home Office's active community unit have discussed how they can help.

615
In the first instance, what is needed is cash—about £100,000—to help support the pilots proposed by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. Then the idea needs commitment and political endorsement. I hope that the Minister will give that. The head office of the Inland Revenue needs to support it, to ensure that local offices help. It needs to help to train the volunteers that will come forward, and to provide materials.
I believe that the benefits of such a volunteer scheme would be huge. The elderly would be helped, tax compliance would increase, people's perception of the tax authorities would improve, and the Government's administration costs would be reduced. Furthermore, international experience has shown that the take-up of welfare benefits when provided through tax credits has been much greater when volunteer help has been available to pensioners and to low-income groups. The Government have gone down that route with the working families tax credit, and they propose to introduce a pensioner tax credit. If they want to make those important changes work and ensure that the pensioner tax credit has the take-up that they hope, they should introduce a volunteer scheme now so that it would be available when the pensioner tax credit is introduced and take-up would be that much greater. It is therefore in the Government's interests to support such a scheme.
The Government could make some small changes almost immediately, either in this year's Finance Bill or by administrative decree. They could uprate the pensioner age-related tax allowances automatically before the start of the year, so that they could go out in the coding notices. That would reduce the current confusion when those notices are not automatically uprated, and it would reduce administration costs.
I ask the Minister to consider changing the law by a tiny amendment to this year's Finance Bill, so that life assurance companies have to administer retirement annuities through the PAYE system, and the income element of the return from purchased life annuities also has to be administered through PAYE. That would ensure that hundreds of thousands of pensioners would get the correct amount of tax deducted at source, rather than having to overpay, as often happens. It would also reduce the Inland Revenue's administration costs. Many firms administer these saving plans through PAYE, and the cost for the rest to do so would be minimal. The Government could take that small measure very soon.
I should like the Minister to develop her excellent initiative from last July to ensure that even fewer low-income pensioners receive self-assessment forms. It is a matter of reprogramming the Inland Revenue's computers. We could ensure that fewer pensioners have fewer forms to fill in.
2.49 pm
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for the way in which he introduced tie Adjournment debate on the important question of fairness in the tax system not only for pensioners but, I hope he would agree, for all who come into contact with it. I appreciate that he wants to concentrate on pensioners, and I shall do my best to answer all the points that he raised.
616
The hon. Gentleman knows how the tax system works. It treats income from different sources in different ways, according to whether it is investment, savings or capital gain. The treatment of income does not relate to age; it relates to the nature of the income.
The hon. Gentleman's questions have related to complexities in the system. I agree with the director of personnel in the tax division that these are issues not just for pensioners, but for all taxpayers. If we can get it right for all taxpayers, pensioners will benefit.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that many retired people have to deal with the Inland Revenue for the first time, at what can be a traumatic time. Retirement may coincide with widowhood, and with income problems. However, the hon. Gentleman suggested that all pensioners were struggling with the tax system. Let me put the situation into perspective before dealing specifically with his points.
Six out of 10 pensioners do not pay any tax at all, and therefore have virtually no contact with the tax system. The tax of most who do pay it is collected entirely by the pension payer, through the pay-as-you-earn scheme. However, I do not for a moment dispute the point that, at traumatic times in their lives, pensioners do not always receive the service that we would hope from the Inland Revenue, and the Government are trying to deal with the problem.
The hon. Gentleman asked why nothing had yet been done. In fact, quite a lot has been done to bring people into contact with the Revenue, and to make that contact as painless as possible, in particular for pensioners. For instance, we offer face-to-face interviews to help people to complete their forms.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems of deaf people. The same would apply to blind or infirm people. We offer home visits to those who cannot get to one of our offices, but most are equipped with magnifying lenses and induction loops, and all will be so equipped in the next few months. We have also ensured that all our leaflets are printed in large type, and they are available in both audio and braille. Leaflets that are not available to those visiting our offices are available on request.
Research shows that pensioners are the group most satisfied with their contact with the Inland Revenue—indeed, highly satisfied. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should not be complacent, but I urge him to see the position in perspective.
There is, of course, more that we should do. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, we want to minimise the number of people who have to complete self-assessment tax returns. That is why last July I announced changes in the criteria determining who received such returns. As a result, some 200,000 older people were taken out of the system. We are considering whether there are other changes that we can make.
This year, the Inland Revenue is running a taxback campaign to encourage those on low incomes, who do not receive the tax rebates that they should receive on their bank and building society interest, to claim. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that as well. We have worked closely with pensioner organisations. We started the campaign in March, but we will have a high-profile week in October to try to get that message across.
We have looked at rewriting our forms and leaflets, particularly those that are aimed at pensioners. In doing that, we have consulted the low income tax reform group,

617
Help the Aged and Age Concern. We already second to the group—I think that it is a half-time secondment—someone from the Inland Revenue to help to develop its campaigns. I understand that there is a part-time secondment to TaxAid, Obviously, it is in our interests to ensure that people are enabled. They have the information, they know their responsibilities, but they know their rights, too: they do not pay tax when they should not.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned volunteering. I have read the report by the low income tax reform group. I am happy to read it again because it has some interesting points. I welcome the idea that people with the necessary skills and time should volunteer to help in that area. Essentially, it is a good goal because it will help to create the inclusive, cohesive, mutually supportive society that at least he, his party and my party want to be developed.
We are having discussions with the low-income tax reform group. We are keen to participate in the pilot in particular, because that will show us a lot about the types of services that we might need. I understand that the group is making an application to the Home Office for funding under social exclusion—I think that that is the category, although do not hold me to it. We will continue to work closely on that because it will show us what needs to be done.
There are, of course, questions: for example, in what capacity would those people operate? How would we be sure that they had the authority to talk to the Revenue? Would they need to talk to the Revenue, or would they simply be volunteer advice workers? However, those are technical issues that can be sorted out in discussions. The concept is positive. I want to take it forward.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of a special directorate centrally in the Inland Revenue to focus completely on pensioner requirements. Again, to keep it in perspective, we are talking about quite a small group of taxpayers. I cannot say today that we will go away and set that up. What I can say is that we have an overall customer service champion in the Inland Revenue at board level: the deputy chairman of a department that is looking seriously at developing customer services, and how we can ensure that all groups, particularly pensioners, get the service that they need. I have discussed before with that official what we can do for pensioners. I will certainly raise the matter again as a result of today's debate, discussing what is appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman asked me two other specific points. One was with regard to allowances and the coding notices, and pre-announcing those; he is talking about pre-announcing them in November. I will not delay the House on that, because I know that he is knowledgeable about how the coding notices are issued in relation to the Budget and when things are announced, but, again, I recognise that there is an issue there. It is something that I should like to address.
618
Equally, I recognise—as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes announcements in March. It would be a bit odd to send out coding notices that made all sorts of announcements in advance of a March Budget. There are some problems with how that works, but, again, I am looking at that matter.
The hon. Gentleman's last point was on annuities, which concern the financial institutions themselves—the insurance companies—as changes may impose administrative costs on them. We are, however, investigating ways of making progress on that matter. We are also in discussions with the industry on how to simplify the system and make it much more responsive to pensioners.
The hon. Gentleman has raised some important issues. I again assure him that we are very interested in examining the specific issue of volunteering—although we must also, of course, address issues such as who would fund it. I understand that the low income tax reform group is making an application on that matter. We are particularly interested in the group's pilot schemes, which will help us all better to appreciate necessary changes.
We also have a champion who is responsible for customer services, including pensioner care and pensioners' interaction with the tax system.
We also have a continuing review on self-assessment, which will help to ensure that the system's impact on pensioners is minimised. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that changing the self-assessment system is not quite as easy as reprogramming the computer. It is a very large computer, with a very complex programme, and it is not that easy to intervene in its operation. None the less, I accept his general point about trying to remove responsibility for complying with self-assessment from those people.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about coding notices. We are aware of that matter and are examining it. We have not yet found a solution to it, but we are still looking for one.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House on those points, and that hon. Members will feel safe in the knowledge that the Government recognise the real issues that pensioners, in particular, face in dealing with the tax system. We realise that we have a duty to minimise the difficulties that they face, to maximise the benefits that they receive—through, for example, taxback campaigns—and to provide decent literature and a friendly service.
I also hope that the House will be reassured that we are making progress as quickly as we can on all those issues, and that we shall continue to have a very positive and strong working relationship with all hon. Members and with the low income tax reform group—which has made such an important contribution to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what levels of compensation are available to customers of the Royal Mail's Special Delivery service following the termination of the registered post service. [124727]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There are three levels of compensation available with the Special delivery service:

  The service comes with an automatic compensation level of up to £250. For an extra fee of £0.45 compensation of up to £1,000 can be purchased. For an extra fee of £1.35 compensation of up to £2,500 can be purchased. Prices for these services are dependent upon the weight of the item and the level of compensation purchased. A full listing is available on Royal Mail's website, www.royalmail.co.uk.

  Customers are also able to purchase Consequential Loss on top of the compensation service. This covers any additional financial loss that is separate to from the actual market value of the item and is due to delay, loss or damage.

  Limited Liability Partnerships
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of plcs likely to register as limited liability partnerships under his proposed new legislation. [124381]

  Dr. Howells
  No such estimate has been made. For a number of reasons we would be surprised if plcs converted to LLPs. There are no shareholders in an LLP, and no provision for the public listing of an LLP. Shareholders in a plc would have to become LLP members, and would be subject to, for example, the potential "clawback" liability of the new section 214A to be contained in regulations applying the Insolvency Act 1986. Treating LLPs as partnerships for tax will mean that each member will be taxed on their proportionate share of the whole of the LLP's income and capital gains. This would make both the LLP's and the members' tax calculations extremely complicated, with the individual members having to pay that tax through self assessment. Further, if an LLP restricted what the members could draw out because it wanted to retain profit for working capital then taxing each member on their proportionate share of the whole of tin LLP's profit could mean they paid more tax than they had received. This would give the appearance that they were suffering an effective tax rate of over 100 per cent.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the consultation on the good faith provisions of the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill will be completed. [125346]
  386W
  Dr. Howells
  The consultation paper, "Regulatory Default Provisions Governing Relationship Between Members" (URN 00/617) published in February, sought comments on whether it was appropriate to include express statutory provision that members of an LLP owe a duty of good faith to each other. The consultation period closed on 7 April, and the summary of responses (URN 00/865) published in May set out the conclusions reached.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultation he had with the Federation of Small Businesses about the opportunities for small businesses to become limited liability partnerships before the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill was introduced. [125345]

  Dr. Howells
  A representative of the Federation of Small Businesses met my officials in October 1999 and has also been in correspondence with them.

  Departmental Policies
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what ways his Department and its executive agencies deliver services to meet the needs of the public as consumers, with particular reference to families. [124537]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]My Department and its agencies are committed to improving family life through the encouragement of enterprise and creation of wealth, and to enabling more choice for working parents to help them balance their work and family commitments while providing benefits for business. In a speech at the New Ways to Work Conference on 9 May, I announced a Government review of the issues surrounding maternity pay and parental leave.

  My Department aims to benefit the public as consumers by creating strong and competitive markets and by developing a fair and effective legal and regulatory framework for commercial activity. Last year, we published a White Paper, "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" (Cm 4410) which set out a comprehensive strategy to help people get a good deal. We also provide financial support for consumer bodies, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and have set up an award winning consumer gateway (www.consumer.gov.uk) to steer people round the wealth of consumer information on the World Wide Web.

  German Post Office
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the decision of the European Commission to initiate inquiries into the handling of UK mail by the German Post Office, indicating the powers which the Commission possesses; [124764]

  (2) what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Germany about the handling of mail from the UK; and if he will make a statement; [124765]

  (3) if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the decision of the European Court of Justice on the German Post Office's entitlement to make additional

  387W
  charges for re-mailed letters; and what assessment he has made of the impact of this decision on the Post Office. [124766]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]This issue relates to the lack of clarity about what does and what does not constitute ABA re-mail which has led to a number of legal cases within Europe. ABA re-mail is mail sent from Country A to Country B for delivery to Country A. The problems have arisen because the way historically post offices have paid each other has not allowed them to fully recover the costs of delivering incoming mail.

  In this context the British Post Office lodged a complaint with the European Commission in February 1998 into the alleged practice of Deutsche Post AG (DPAG) intercepting some international mail inward into Germany. The European Commission has now announced that it has completed an extensive investigation and in its preliminary assessment has concluded that, subject to any arguments DPAG may put forward in its defence, DPAG's practice abuses its dominant market position and restricts competition. The Commission has issued a Statement of Objections, which is a preliminary procedural document and not a final decision. It opens formal proceedings under EU procedural rules. It lists in detail the allegations against DPAG and includes the Commission's assessment of how DPAG infringes Article 82 of the EC Treaty. DPAG has full rights of defence and when these have been considered the Commission will finally decide whether a prohibition decision is necessary. If, following formal proceedings, the initial view of the Commission is confirmed, DPAG will be ordered to cease this behaviour. DPAG may then appeal the decision of the Commission before the European Courts.

  I welcome the Commission's decision to investigate this case. Any infringement of competition rules or abuse of a dominant position is of concern. We were aware of the Post Office's complaint but have not made direct representations to the Germany Government as we were awaiting the Commission's views.

  The case is one of a number of cases concerning remail. The recent decision of the European Court of Justice on the German Post Office's entitlement to make additional charges for re-mailed letters (in the case of DPAG v. GZS and Citicorp) allowed DPAG to charge bulk mailers the difference between the low rate it receives from the sending countries' postal authorities and the rate it would have received if that mail had been sent domestically within Germany. It did not address the issue of what kinds of items should be regarded as acceptable for ABA re-mail. It is this issue which the current investigation will address.

  Also relevant is the recent rejection of the appeal by DPAG in the International Express Carriers Conference (the IECC) v. Commission against the judgment of the Court of First Instance which annulled the Commission's decision of 6 April 1995 that interceptions of commercial ABA re-mail did not constitute an abuse within the meaning of Article 86 (now 82) of the EC Treaty. The rejection of the appeal does not mean that Deutsche Post, or other European Post Offices, are entitled to intercept commercial physical ABA re-mail. Equally there is no ruling that it may do so. I hope the current investigation will clarify matters.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reply to the letter of 2 February from the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire regarding a constituent, Mr. Kelbie. [124997]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]I replied to the right hon. Member yesterday.

  Car Pricing
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect the Competition Commission recommendation on car pricing would have on the independent car retailers. [124898]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 June 20001]The recommendations should bring about greater competition in the supply and retailing of new cars. This should mean lower prices, increased sales and increased consumer confidence. Both consumers and the car industry will benefit.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further response he will make to the Competition Commission's report on the Supply of New Motor Cars in the UK. [125759]

  Mr. Byers
  I intend to publish a draft of the Order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 on Monday 12 June. Under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 I will allow a 30 day period for consultation. This will help to ensure that the Order is workable for the industry and effective for consumers.

  I note that prices for new cars have come down recently. I welcome this response by manufacturers and dealers. The Order is an important part of this process.

  Science Base
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to reinforce the science base in the North West. [125755]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today set up a new group which will examine ways of boosting economic development in the North West by capitalising on the region's scientific and industrial strengths. The North West Science and Daresbury Development Group will also make proposals on the role that the Daresbury Laboratory in Cheshire can play in this process. The Group will report to me by 29 December 2000.

DEFENCE

  Queen Victoria School
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Queen Victoria School for the Financial Year 2000–01. [125756]
  389W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Chief Executive of Queen Victoria School has been set the following Key Targets for 2000–01:

  1. To maintain the staying on rate at school for S4 to S5 at a minimum of 4 per cent. above the Scottish national average for the current year.1

  2. To maintain the percentage of pupils obtaining at least five Credit awards at Standard Grade at 2 per cent. above the Scottish average.1

  3. To maintain a percentage of the presentations at Higher Grade achieving A to C at least equal to the Scottish average.1

  4. To achieve a pupil per capital cost of not more than £15,500 by March 2001. The 1999–2000 target was £17,415.

  5. To generate income to the school of at least £245,000.

  1 All Queen Victoria School statistics to be based on the school's results over the last three years, compared with the national average for the current year, those statistics being as published in the Scottish Executive Official Statistics.

  War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received calling for extension of the War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme. [125757]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following a recent approach by The Royal British Legion, I have agreed to an extension of the War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme for a further two years, until 31 March 2003. The Government greatly appreciate the excellent work of The Royal British Legion who administer this subsidised scheme on our behalf and which, to date, has enabled more than 4,000 widows to visit their husband's grave in many parts of the world.

  ECHR (Cyprus)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the European Convention on Human Rights is applied to the sovereign bases in Cyprus. [124402]

  Mr. Spellar
  The European Convention on Human Rights is not extended to the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 2000,Official Report, columns 219–20W, on young offenders institutions, at which installations the eight self-inflicted deaths in 1999 took place; and what were the (a) ages and (b) gender of the residents concerned. [123978]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The information requested is given in the table.

  Self-inflicted deaths in Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institutions: 1999

  Sex

  Age

  Aylesbury

  Male

  18

  Aylesbury

  Male

  19

  Aylesbury

  Male

  19

  Castington

  Male

  20

  390W

  Self-inflicted deaths in Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institutions: 1999

  Sex

  Age

  Glen Parva

  Male

  19

  Portland

  Male

  20

  Stoke Heath

  Male

  19

  Weatherby

  Male

  17

  Notes:

  1. Establishments have been categorised according to their primary role. However, it should be noted that there are a number of other prisons that hold young offenders (eg male remand centres) which are not included.

  2. Not all self-inflicted deaths conclude with a verdict of suicide.

  Endocrine Disrupters
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received for licences to undertake testing for endocrine disrupters; and if he will indicate in each case the(a) level of funding, (b) length of study, (c) animal species which are to be used and (d) relevant research body. [124786]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No project licences have been issued to undertake regulatory testing of endocrine disrupters as there is currently no formally agreed regulatory test requirement or protocol.

  Licences have been issued to assist in the development and validation of the test systems that might be required to underpin any regulatory testing regime. The work is done almost exclusively on fish.

  Information on sources of funding, research bodies and length of studies are not collated centrally.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors are taken into account by the Chief Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspector when making a cost/benefit assessment under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 before granting a licence to allow experiments on animals. [124789]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that, in determining whether and on what terms to grant a project licence, the Secretary of State must weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the programme specified on the application.

  For the purposes of the cost/benefit assessment, the cost to the animal is considered as the adverse effects of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The benefits must be for humans, animals or the environment and relate to the scientific and/or medical progress likely to result directly from the programme outlined in the application.

  All members of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate apply the cost/benefit assessment set out in detail in the Chief Inspector's paper, including in the Annual Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1997, Chapter 2, Annex 1.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to the Chief Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspector with regard to the safety testing for chemicals used in
  391W
  household products, and the products themselves, where it is not claimed that a product will itself improve the health of man or animals or provide enhanced protection for the environment; and if he will make a statement. [124790]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 5(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 sets out the purposes for which a project licence shall be granted. If a programme of work does not satisfy one or more of those reasons, it will not be authorised.

  National and international regulatory bodies require that products, ingredients and chemicals are tested to ensure that they are safe (for humans, animals and the environment) during manufacture, transport and use, thereby preventing ill-health or abnormality or their effects and providing protection of the natural environment. The product itself does not have to improve the health of man or animals or provide enhanced protection of the natural environment.

  This country has taken, and continues to take, a leading role in Europe in encouraging the use of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used and refine the procedures to minimise pain and suffering.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which secure training centres are unable to accept inmates sentenced to a detention and training order; and if he will make a statement. [125025]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]All three Secure Training Centres (STCs) are able to accommodate children and young people sentenced to Detention and Training Orders (DTOs). Eighteen of the 37 trainees in Medway, 21 of the 40 in Rainsbrook and 17 of the 36 in Hassockfield are serving DTOs.

  Blantyre House
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates HM Inspector of Prisons last inspected HMP Blantyre House; on what date his report was submitted to his Department; and on what date it is expected to be published. [125065]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons carried out a full announced inspection of Blantyre House prison from 21 to 25 January this year. He submitted his report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 21 March. Discussions on factual accuracy as set out in the established protocol are taking place. I expect the report to be published shortly.

  Prostitutes' Cards
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to the consultation exercise entitled New Measures to Control Prostitutes' Cards in Phone Boxes; what action he now proposes to take; and if he will make a statement. [125535]
  392W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We received 60 replies to the consultation exercise. Many respondents did not comment directly on the need for action and just under half (27) specifically stated there was a problem which needed to be tackled. Only four did not feel action should be taken. We therefore conclude we need to take specific action to deal with prostitutes' cards in phone boxes.

  However, it remains the case that this is very much a local problem and action needs to be targeted at the specific areas involved.

  No single straightforward solution emerged from the consultation responses, although there was strong support both for call barring and for a new criminal offence. We accept that action should be taken on both these fronts together.

  On call barring, we are asking the Director-General of Oftel to consider how best to develop an effective scheme in consultation with the industry.

  On the new criminal offence, respondents to the consultation exercise expressed differing views on how an effective new criminal offence could be formulated. They highlighted the need for the new offence to fit coherently into controls and regulatory schemes already in place. I have, therefore, asked my officials to meet local authorities, Oftel, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies to draw up final proposals with a view to legislating when parliamentary time allows.

  In taking this action, we have looked carefully at whether effective measures against prostitutes' cards could lead to an increase in street prostitution, and whether, if so, the cards should be seen as the lesser affront. We raised this issue specifically as part of the consultation. However, the responses as a whole did not suggest this was a major concern. It was noted that street prostitution had not decreased with the advent of carding. Moreover, the number of prostitutes advertising in this way in London was estimated at between 250–400, but the number of cards produced was 13 million per year. Prostitutes outside London and Brighton do not normally have recourse to this particularly offensive form of advertising, although we are aware of small scale use of this form of advertising in a few other areas. We have, therefore, concluded that action against carding is justified and is very unlikely to be counter-productive.

  I have placed a summary of the responses in the Library.

  Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on the expiry of Sir David Ramsbotham's appointment; and if he will make a statement. [125552]

  Mr. Straw
  I am delighted that Her Majesty the Queen has consented to an extension of the appointment of Her Majesty's Chief inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, until July 2001. Sir David has made a great contribution to our shared goal of ensuring that prisoners are held securely in safe, decent and healthy establishments. I am pleased that he will continue in his role beyond the expiry date of his original appointment.
  393W
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, Sir Graham Smith, also retires close to the end of July 2001. Aligning the dates when both posts will be vacant, gives the Government flexibility in considering how best to ensure that the arrangements for inspection of prisons and the probation service best support closer working between the services as well as ensuring that the individual services continue to be inspected rigorously and independently as they have been. I shall be making a further statement to Parliament on this in due course.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what re-appointments and appointments are to be made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [125553]

  Mr. Straw
  Her Majesty the Queen has approved the re-appointment for a further term of the following existing members of the Criminal Cases Review Commission:

  Mr. Barry Capon CBE

  Miss Jill Gort

  Mr. John Knox

  Mr. David Kyle

  Professor Leonard Leigh

  Dr. James MacKeith

  Mr. Edward Weiss

  Her Majesty has also approved the appointment of Mr. David Jessel as a member of the Commission with effect from 1 August.

  Marches and Demonstrations (Kent)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant to the Chief Constable of Kent powers to proscribe marches and demonstrations in public places within the Thanet District, Dover District and Canterbury City Council boundaries between 10 June and 31 October. [125354]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 enables a chief constable to apply to the District Council for an order prohibiting public processions or marches for a period of up to three months, where he reasonably believes that such marches may result in serious public disorder, and that disorder could not be prevented by the imposition of appropriate conditions on the march. The District Council may make such an order with the consent of the Home Secretary. Should an application be received by the Homo Secretary in this case, it will be carefully considered on its merits.

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of drug treatment and testing measures contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. [125325]

  Mr. Boateng
  The current estimates are dependent upon the number of people who will be subject to the drug treatment and testing measures and their deterrence effect. The estimated annual cost for national implementation is in the range of £50 million to £80 million. This includes an estimate of the costs arising from possible increases in the prison population.
  394W
  The initial piloting of these drug testing proposals in three areas will provide further information of the costs.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he commissioned on which he based the plans for the Drug Abstinence Order contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill; and if he will make a statement. [125326]

  Mr. Boateng
  The use of drug testing to deter and monitor drug misuse in the proposed Drug Abstinence order is based on existing evidence from both America and this country. This includes the evaluation of programmes in Oregon showing that drug testing can be useful in supervising offenders in the community. The Prison Service's mandatory drug testing programme also demonstrates that testing can have a significant deterrent effect on drug misusers.

  The drug testing proposals, including the Drug Abstinence Order, are to be piloted over two years and the outcomes fully evaluated. These evaluations will provide further material to inform the future use of Drug Abstinence Orders.

  Prisons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have appointed an equal opportunities officer; what percentage of(a) staff and (b) managers have received racial harassment and discrimination training; when targets for the implementation of the Instruction to Prison Governors IG51/1996 will be met; and if will he make a statement. [125327]

  Mr. Boateng
  All prisons directly managed by the Prison Service have an equal opportunities officer.

  The current recorded level of delivered training in racial harassment and discrimination is 9.9 per cent. Records do not differentiate between managers and staff.

  The target set out in instruction to governors 51 of 1996, a copy of which is in the Library, was for all staff to receive racial harassment and discrimination training by July 2000. However, legislation and case law have moved on since the instruction was issued and the training needs to be updated. The development and introduction of new training forms part of the Prison Service's diversity action plan.

  The Prison Service launched the racial equality for staff and prisoners programme (RESPOND) in February 1999. Under this material issued to all establishments, it makes clear that racism will not be tolerated and includes guidance on language and behaviours which could cause offence.

  Police Costs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 241W, on police costs whether information is available on the total additional costs to police forces responsible for policing each of the party conferences last year; and if he will make a statement. [125348]
  395W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total additional qualifying expenditure (extra costs that were related to the police security operation) that was incurred for the Labour Party and Conservative party conferences in 1999 were as follows:

  £

  Labour Party Conference at Bournemouth

  Dorset Police

  1,659,317

  Conservative Party Conference at Blackpool

  Lancashire Constabulary

  891,867

  The special payment I authorised for Dorset Police was limited to £1.6 million and, therefore, the excess (£59,317) was met from within their budget. In the case of the Lancashire Constabulary, I have made a special payment that is equal to their additional costs as they were less than the special grant maximum I had earlier set at £895,000.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to ensure consistency and accurate standards of drug testing conducted by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [125323]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The piloting of the drug testing proposals contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill is due to start in Spring 2001. Planning will include consultation with the Forensic Science Service on the testing arrangements to ensure that the analytical processes are accurate, fully meet industry standards and are subject to rigorous quality assurance programmes. Use will also be made of the considerable experience gained from the well-established Prison Service mandatory drug testing programmes.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in relation to arrest referral schemes and how arrest schemes are to operate in relation to powers to test for drugs at the time of charging of suspects. [125324]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We anticipate that the testing of arrestees charged with the relevant offences will help to identify those who would benefit from participation in arrest referral schemes which are now being developed with a view to providing coverage of all custody suites by April 2002.

  The drug testing proposals are to be piloted over two years from spring 2001. This will include an assessment of how drug testing can be used to maximise the effectiveness of arrest referral schemes.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Audit Commission report entitled, Another Country; what plans he has to make changes to the current arrangements for the dispersal of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [125320]
  396W
  Mrs. Roche
  We welcome the Audit Commission report on the dispersal arrangements. The field work for the report was undertaken between October 1999 and March 2000 and draws its conclusions from the effectiveness of dispersal operations under the voluntary arrangements, before the National Asylum Support Service became operational on 3 April 2000. Many of the conclusions and recommendations made within the report have been implemented, or are being developed, or are under active consideration.

  We will continue to work with regional consortia to ensure that asylum seekers are properly supported while their claims are being considered, and that no one area takes a disproportionate burden.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive replies to his letters of 9 February and 4 May on behalf of his constituent Dr. Nazir. [125194]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 8 June. I apologise to him for the delay.

  Remembrance Sunday
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for this year's ceremony at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. [125551]

  Mr. Straw
  The usual ceremony at the Cenotaph will be held on Remembrance Sunday. The Royal British Legion has made proposals which will allow other relevant groups and individuals who have not in the past taken part in the march past at the conclusion of the official ceremony to do so. I welcome these proposals, which the Royal British Legion are now taking forward. Interested parties will be able to apply through the Royal British Legion.

  Burns Inquiry
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what date was first set for the report of the Burns Inquiry into hunting with dogs to be delivered to him; when he expects to receive it; when it will be published; and if he will make a statement. [125349]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Burns Inquiry was asked to report by late spring. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expects to receive the report from Lord Burns today, and the report to be published next week.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Transmitter Failures (Compensation)
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what compensation arrangements apply to television licence holders who are unable to receive broadcasts as a result of transmitter failures. [124738]
  397W
  Janet Anderson
  The television licence fee is a payment for permission to install or use television to receive television programme services and not for a service provided. There is therefore no entitlement to compensation, nor, while a TV remains installed, to refunds of television licence fees in eases of transmitter failures.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the standard adult charge for visiting the Dome; and what is the average entrance receipt achieved per visitor. [123985]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The gross standard adult charge for entrance to the Dome is £20. The average gross yield entrance receipt per visitor to date, is £14.50.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the attainment of a target for visitor figures for the Millennium Dome will be a factor in deciding to award a bonus to Pierre-Yves Gerbeau. [124394]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 June 2000]The attainment of a target for visitor numbers will be one of a range of measures used in any decision to award a bonus payment to the Chief Executive of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC).

  Designated Museums Challenge Fund
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to extend the period of the Designated Museums Challenge Fund; and if he will make a statement. [125075]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  £15 million his been allocated to the Designation Challenge Fund between 1999 and 2002. Provision beyond that will depend on the outcome of the spending review 2000.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when lie expects the New Millennium Experience Company to publish its next accounts; and what period they will cover. [125030]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) aims to publish its next Annual Report and Accounts at the end of July 2000, to cover the period up to 31 December 1999.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how in my board meetings of the New Millennium Experience Company have taken place since 1 January; when they took place; and which directors were in attendance at each meeting. [125028]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]Since 1 January 2000, the Board of the New Millennium Experience Company has met eight times.

  18 January:
  Present: Robert Ayling; Jennifer Page, Ian Ash; Cllr Len Duvall; Michael Grade; Sir Brian Jenkins; Liam Kane; The hon. Mrs. Sara Morrison; David Quarmby, Ken Robinson; Neil Spence.
  398W
  31 January:
  Present: David Quarmby; Ian Ash; Jennifer Page; Liam Kane; Ken Robinson; Neil Spence.

  24 February:
  Present: Robert Ayling; P-Y Gerbeau; Ian Ash; Sir Alan Cockshaw; Cllr Len Duvall; Sir Brian Jenkins; Liam Kane; The hon. Mrs. Sara Morrison; David Quarmby.

  21 March:
  Present: Robert Ayling; P-Y Gerbeau; Sir Alan Cockshaw; Michael Grade; Sir Brian Jenkins; Liam Kane; The hon. Mrs. Sara Morrison; David Quarmby; Neil Spence.

  18 April:
  Present: Robert Ayling; P-Y Gerbeau; Ian Ash; Sir Alan Cockshaw; Cllr Len Duvall; Sir Brian Jenkins; The hon. Mrs. Sara Morrison; David Quarmby; Neil Spence.

  2 May:
  Present: Robert Ayling; P-Y Gerbeau; Ian Ash; Sir Brian Jenkins; The hon. Mrs. Sara Morrison; David Quarmby; Neil Spence.

  18 May:
  Present: Robert Ayling; P-Y Gerbeau; Ian Ash; Cllr Len Duvall; Michael Grade; Malcolm Hutchinson; Sir Brian Jenkins; The hon. Mrs. Sara Morrison; Neil Spence.

  23 May 2000:
  Present: Robert Ayling; P-Y Gerbeau; Ian Ash; Cllr Len Duvall; Michael Grade; Malcolm Hutchinson; Sir Brian Jenkins; David Quarmby; Neil Spence.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the preferred commercial operator of the proposed visitor centre at Stonehenge has been chosen; and if he will make a statement. [125328]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I anticipate that a statement will be made in the near future.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the rape of eight Christian girls in Pakistan on 7 May. [125143]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of reports that Christian girls were raped on 3 May in Lahore. We strongly deplore this dreadful criminal act. Following the coup of 12 October, General Musharraf gave assurances that the rights of Pakistan's minorities would be respected and that they would be treated as equal citizens. We urge him to fulfil this commitment and ensure that all Pakistan citizens are given the full protection of the law.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the administration in Pakistan to eradicate religious intolerance. [125145]

  Mr. Hain
  We share concerns about the position of religious minorities in Pakistan and have relayed those concerns to the Pakistan authorities. Our High Commission in Islamabad maintains a regular dialogue with Christian and human rights groups and the Pakistani authorities on this issue. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and raise our concerns.

  India
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government on the rise of Hindu militancy in India. [125162]

  Mr. Hain
  During his visit to India in April, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised with the India Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, his concerns over incidents of religious intolerance. I also discussed attacks on religious minorities with my Indian interlocutors during my visit to India last November.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the frequency of attacks against the Christian population of India in each of the last four years. [125144]

  Mr. Hain
  We have been following closely reports of attacks on Christians in India. We have noted with concern an apparent increase in such reports over the past four years. We have raised this issue with Indian authorities on a number of occasions and have urged them to respond to international concern over attacks on Christians. We and our High Commission in New Delhi will continue to monitor this issue.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning attacks on Christians in India. [125164]

  Mr. Hain
  Our High Commission in New Delhi continues to monitor the position of religious minorities in India closely, including reports of attacks on Christians.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support he is giving the Indian Government to reduce Hindu militant attacks on the Christian population of India. [125163]

  Mr. Hain
  We support the Indian authorities in their efforts to ensure that the right to freedom of religion, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, is guaranteed. We have welcomed the Indian Government's assurances that attacks on Christians are fully investigated and action taken against the perpetrators.

TREASURY

  Income Tax
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people aged 65 years and above pay income tax at the(a) basic and (b) higher rate; and how many did so in the financial year 1996–97. [121010]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 382W.

HEALTH

  Taxanes
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from health care professionals regarding the funding of taxanes. [118345]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department receives communications from members of the public from all walks of life representing a wide range of issues. These include some from health care professionals who have shown concerns regarding the funding of taxanes which has led to so called "postcode prescribing".

  We share these concerns and this is the reason why we asked the National Institute of Clinical Guidance (NICE) to review the evidence around the effectiveness of two taxane drugs (Taxol and Taxotere). NICE published guidance on the use of taxanes in advanced ovarian cancer on 5 May and will be publishing guidance on the use of taxanes for advanced breast cancer shortly. We have made an additional 8.9 per cent. cash increase available to health authorities on average this year. This includes the additional £660 million announced in the Budget which will, among other things, enable health authorities to fund positive recommendations from NICE.

  Influenza
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps the Government plans to take to ensure that vulnerable at-risk groups, including elderly people in nursing homes, have rapid access to antiviral treatment and protection in the early stages of influenza outbreaks in their communities; [121962]

  (2) what plans he has to recommend the wider use of antiviral drugs to help control influenza outbreaks; [121961]

  (3) what plans he has to communicate to health professionals and the public information about influenza protection and treatment measures other than vaccination, with particular reference to established antivirals; [121966]

  (4) what steps he is taking to ensure that general practitioners are aware of the extent to which (a) flu antivirals used in other countries and (b) new antivirals being considered by NICE are available, effective and safe; [121960]

  (5) if he will recommend adoption of anti-flu measures as employed by the West Cumberland NHS Trust. [122297]

  Yvette Cooper
  Recommendations on the use of amantadine (an antiviral drug used in the treatment and prevention of influenza A) are given in the United Kingdom Health Departments' publication 'Immunisation against Infectious Disease'. Recommendations on the use of Relenza (one of a new type of antiviral drugs developed for the treatment of influenza) are given in the guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued last year. NICE will be reviewing its advice on the use of antiviral drugs later this year, in time to give further advice for next winter's influenza season. The Department will consider the need for further guidance on the treatment of influenza in the light of this advice.
  401W
  The use of antiviral treatment in an individual outbreak is a matter for the local Consultant in Communicable Disease Control and offering such treatment to healthcare staff is a decision for individual NHS trusts.

  Ectopic Pregnancy Trust
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department is taking to support the work of the Ectopic Pregnancy Trust. [122499]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department provides financial support to the Ectopic Pregnancy Trust through the Section 64 grants scheme. This support comprises core grant funding of £20,000 in 200G–01 and up to a maximum of £20,000 in 2001–02 and £10,000 in 2002–03 to help meet the trust's running costs.

  Kidderminster Hospital
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will intervene to prevent the relocation of medical services provided at Kidderminster Hospital to Worcester Royal Infirmary until the new Worcester hospital is open. [122458]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 16 June 2000]The Secretary of State has approved the proposals in Investing in Excellence for a new hospital and for the reconfiguration of services across the district. The timing of the reconfiguration is a matter for the local trust, with due regard for their responsibility for safety and quality care.

  The lead clinicians at Kidderminster Hospital have agreed to the moves of acute inpatient services to either Worcester or Redditch, in the interests of sub-specialisation and better quality care across the whole of Worcestershire. They have recently become increasingly concerned about the clinical fragility of services in Kidderminster, and the risks involved in coping with winter pressures under these circumstances. The trust proposes that acute inpatient beds currently provided at Kidderminster will be re-provided one-for-one in Worcester or Redditch, and have additional facilities to handle extra demand, including an expanded Accident and Emergency Department, a new minor injuries unit, new Medical Assessment Unit and additional ITU and coronary care beds. The Department has been assured that this work will be complete before the inpatient moves take place.

  Bowel Cancer
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated for bowel cancer in(a) the South and West Devon Health Authority area and (b) Torbay Healthcare Trust since 1990; and what were their survival rates. [122694]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information provided by the South and West Cancer Intelligence Unit on the incidence of colorectal cancer and survival rates in South and West Devon Health Authority is given in the following tables. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. David Hudson, Chairman of South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust, for details of local treatment and survival rates.
  402W

  Three year rolling average colorectal cancer incidence rates—South and West Devon Health Authority residents

  Crude rate

  ASR

  1990–92

  67.4

  44.2

  1991–93

  66.4

  43.8

  1992–94

  68.2

  44.4

  1993–95

  65.9

  41.7

  1994–96

  68.2

  43.4

  1995–97

  68.9

  44.1

  Notes:

  1. Crude rates relate to incident cases per 100,000 population

  2. Age standardised rates (ASR) are based on European Standard Population and allow for a direct comparison between areas

  3. Colorectal Cancer ICD9/10: 153, 154, C 18–C21

  Survival rates—colorectal cancer 1990 to 1994—South and West Devon Health Authority residents

  Percentage

  Survival time

  All registrations proportion surviving

  Treated within six months, proportion surviving

  30 days

  92

  95

  1 year

  69

  75

  2 years

  56

  62

  3 years

  49

  54

  4 years

  44

  48

  5 years

  41

  45

  Notes:

  1. Survival analysis based on registrations made between 1990–94. This allows for full five year follow up period for all patients.

  2. Persons aged over 85 at diagnosis and registrations made from a Death Certificate Only are excluded from the analysis.

  3. Analysis on treated within six months looks only at those persons for whom SW Cancer Intelligence Unit have received information regarding surgery and/or radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy within six months of diagnosis.

  4. Colorectal Cancer ICD9/10: 153, 154, C18–C21.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work is being carried out by his Department to improve the services available to people suffering from ME. [123266]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service provides a considerable number of services to which people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis have access, and such patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties. The CFS/ME working group will produce guidance aimed at improving the quality of this care and treatment.

  Health Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in respect of nursing homes and community-based settings, the Commission for Health Improvement or the Care Standards Commission will have responsibility for policing the standards of care provided to NHS patients in receipt of intermediate care. [122795]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]The Commission for Health Improvement has responsibility for reviewing the quality of healthcare, including intermediate care, provided to National Health Service patients wherever they are treated. The Care Standards
  403W
  Bill, currently before Parliament, will establish the National Care Standards Commission which will be responsible for regulating care homes and nursing homes. The Bill will introduce measures to enable the two bodies to work co-operatively and carry out these responsibilities in an effective way.

  HPV Testing
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the limited competition to select pilot sites for HPV testing this summer. [123379]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are in the process of selecting an advisory committee on human papilloma virus testing, which will also act as a selection board for choosing the pilot sites. We are working with the managers of the National Health Service cervical screening programme to develop a method of short-listing sites.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the membership and role will be of the advisory group that will oversee the commissioning and running of the pilot sites for HPV testing. [123378]

  Yvette Cooper
  The membership of the expert advisory group on the pilot for human papilloma virus testing has not yet been agreed. Prospective members will be approached shortly and will include representatives from colposcopy, cyto-pathology, virology, primary care, epidemiology and consumer groups. When the membership is finalised, details will be posted on the United Kingdom National Screening Committee's website at http://www.nsc.nhs.uk/

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the expert advisory group which will oversee the commissioning and running of the pilot sites for HPV testing. [124329]

  Yvette Cooper
  The membership of the expert advisory group on the pilot for human papilloma virus testing has not yet been agreed. Officials have developed a pilot protocol and identified potential members of the advisory group. Prospective members will be approached shortly and will include representatives from colposcopy, cyto-pathology, virology, primary care, epidemiology and consumer groups. When the membership is finalised, details will be posted on the UK National Screening Committee's website at http://www.nsc.nhs.uk/

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the effects on(a) human and (b) animal health of methyl tertiary butyl ether; and if he will make a statement. [123448]

  Yvette Cooper
  A major review of the potential health effects of oxygenates, including methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), carried out by the Health Effects Institute in 1996 in the United States where levels can be considerably higher than in the United Kingdom at levels of about 10–15 per cent., concluded that "it is unlikely that fuel containing oxygenates would substantially increase the overall health risk from fuel used in motor vehicles".
  404W
  The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) is currently considering the possible effects on human health of the inclusion of MTBE in petrol from the point of view of exposures via air. In its examination of evidence, COMEAP is looking at data on the effects of MTBE on animals. A statement will be produced in due course.

  Sudden Death Syndrome
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to make electrocardiogram community testing programmes more widely available to reduce Sudden Death Syndrome fatalities in young people; [124700]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of electrocardiogram testing in identifying heart problems in young people likely to make them susceptible to Sudden Death Syndrome; [124701]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the causes of Sudden Death Syndrome in young people. [124702]

  Yvette Cooper
  Sudden Adult Death Syndrome is not one single condition but a group of conditions which result in the sudden and unexpected death of apparently healthy young adults.

  Many of the deaths in this syndrome appear to be caused by cardiomyopathies. Our policy is that the relatives of a family with a known high risk of contracting this disease should receive regular cardiovascular examinations. We fully recognise the importance of all patients known to be at cardiac risk being referred for specialist clinical assessment. This examination and testing—perhaps more appropriately referred to as case-finding rather than screening—has been encouraged increasingly in recent years.

  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee (NSC) advises Ministers on all aspects of screening policy. The NSC assesses proposed new screening programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria to ensure that the programme does more good than harm. A recent review of the evidence for cardiomyopathy screening showed that a programme would not yet meet these criteria. However, we will keep this position under review as new evidence emerges.

  In the meantime, the Department is working closely with the medical profession and voluntary organisations with a view to raising awareness and improving the diagnosis and testing of people at risk.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research projects that he has commissioned in the last six months to study the health effects of mobile telephones; indicating in each case(a) level of funding, (b) length of study, (c) whether animals will be used, (d) membership of project team and (e) relevant research body. [124639]

  Yvette Cooper
  No new projects on the health effects of mobile phones have been commissioned by the Department in the last six months. Research into health effects of mobile phones forms part of the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Fields Project to which the Department has been contributing £20,000
  405W
  per year for the last four years. The organising committee for this project draws on expertise from around the world including the United Kingdom. The independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, set up at the instigation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), the former Minister for Public Health, published its findings in May. The recommendations in this report are being taken up in the development of a comprehensive programme of research costing several millions of pounds jointly funded by Government and industry.

  Committee Membership
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the(a) Committee on Safety of Medicines, (b) Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and (c) Medicines Control Agency, indicating which members have registered links with pharmaceutical companies. [124753]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 June 2000]The current list of members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, including interests held in the pharmaceutical industry, was placed in the Library on 9 May. Interests of the members of all Medicines Act Advisory Bodies are published annually in the "Medicines Act 1968 Advisory Bodies—Annual Reports", copies of which are available in the Library. The 1999 report is due to be published in July this year.

  Members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, as at 1 April 2000, who have declared interests in pharmaceutical companies are as follows:
  Professor Lewis D. Ritchie: Single Company PEPS with Glaxo Wellcome and Zeneca; some industry support to his team for clinical trials work;
  Dr. Barbara Bannister: Educational sponsorship by SmithKline Beecham to attend CISTM 6th Conference in June 1999; holds portfolio of shares (managed by asset management company) which includes Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham; some clinical trial work for new drugs;
  Dr. David Goldblatt: Occasional member of expert panels for SmithKline Beecham, Wyeth and Pasteur Merieux; research grants to support his team from Wyeth, SKB, Nava and Pasteur Merieux;
  Professor Roy Anderson: Directorships of Wellcome Trust, Decode, IBHSC; share holdings in Glaxo, Zeneca and SmithKline Beecham;
  Dr. Karl Nicholson: Has acted as 'consultant' for Glaxo;
  Professor Keith Cartwright: industry part-funding of his team to evaluate candidate meningococcal vaccines.

  The Medicines Control Agency is an executive arm of the Department of Health. There are currently over 500 staff, none of whom have registered links with pharmaceutical companies.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the greater Portsmouth area are using the New Deal for Disabled People; and if he will make a statement. [124553]
  406W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Under the first tranche of innovative schemes set up through the New Deal for Disabled People, the greater Portsmouth area fell within the catchment area of the Gateway Partnership. This scheme was funded from October 1998 to January 2000 in order to improve the employability of disabled people within Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The Gateway Partnership accepted 356 people into the scheme and 49 people started work.

  Under the second tranche of innovative schemes, greater Portsmouth falls within the catchment area of the Prince's Trust, which assists disabled people to set up their own businesses within Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and Surrey. By the end of April 2000 the Prince's Trust had accepted 68 people onto the scheme and 12 people had started up self-employment.

  Benefits Agency (Complaints)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints there were against the Benefits Agency in 1999–2000; what was the cost of handling these complaints; how many of these complaints are still outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [124543]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Charlie MacKinnon to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 9 June 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Alexis Cleveland to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many complaints there were against the Benefits Agency in 1999/2000; what was the cost of handling these complaints and how many of these complaints are still outstanding. Due to annual leave I am replying on her behalf.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
  Complaints are received centrally through the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration [PCA], from Ministers and MPs acting on behalf of their constituents, and directly by our operational business units from members of the public, customer representatives and local MPs.
  For the period between 1st April 1999 and 31st March 2000, the Benefits Agency [BA] received 99 statements of complaint from the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office. The BA met all deadlines set by the Ombudsman's office. The question of outstanding Ombudsman complaints is a matter for his office and falls outside BA jurisdiction.
  BA Parliamentary Correspondence Unit received a total of 6155 letters of complaint. At the end of March 2000, there were 454 in total outstanding.
  There were 77,646 complaints received directly by our operational business units for the same period. At the end of March 2000, there were 18096 in total outstanding.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Offices
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what definition he uses of a reasonable distance when determining access to a benefits office. [124669]
  407W
  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Charlie MacKinnon to Caroline Flint, dated 9 June 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Alexis Cleveland to reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the definition of a reasonable distance when determining access to a benefits office. Due to annual leave I am replying on her behalf.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) does not have a definition of a reasonable distance from benefits offices, as we provide access to our benefits and services in various ways which are designed to take account of customers' needs and circumstances. The BA Customer Charter gives details of how customers can get access to benefits, information and services. These include contact by telephone, correspondence, and calling at a benefits office or being visited at home by a visiting officer.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the population lives(a) within one mile of and (b) over three miles from a benefit office in (i) rural and (ii) urban areas. [124521]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Caroline Flint, dated 8 June 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what percentage of the population lives (a) within one mile of and (b) over three miles from a benefit office in (i) rural and (ii) urban areas.
  Unfortunately, neither operational business units nor Analytical Services Division hold the type of data required in order to provide this information.
  I am sorry that I have not been able to be more helpful in this instance.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make a determination on the appeal for Disability Living Allowance by Rachel Scully, of Birkenhead. [124509]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Charlie MacKinnon to Mr. Frank Field, dated 9 June 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Alexis Cleveland to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question about when he will make a determination on the appeal for Disability Living Allowance by Rachel Scully, of Birkenhead. Due to annual leave I am replying on her behalf.
  Rachel's casepapers were forwarded to The Appeals Service (TAS) on 22 May for their continued action. TAS has sent form TAS1 to Mrs. Scully. The form gives Mrs. Scully notes about the appeal and asks her to complete a questionnaire requesting information on how she wishes to proceed with the appeal. Once returned to them Rachel's case will be treated as urgent at all stages and Mrs. Scully will be informed of her hearing date within 6 weeks of TAS receiving the form.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pensions (Payment Methods)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the total annual cost of administering weekly payments in cash for state pensions, including payments to the Post Office and other third parties; [124780]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total annual cost of making payments of pensions to pensioners by ACT; [124781]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners who failed to switch to ACT because of the change from weekly to monthly payment. [124782]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Information on total annual costs of administering payments for State Pensions, including payments to the Post Office and other third parties is collated but not split by method of payment of frequency of payment. The latest total annual cost of administering Retirement Pension for 1998/99 was £314 million.

  Frequency of payment is a big issue for many pensioners and anecdotal evidence suggests that the non-availability of weekly payment by ACT is a potential issue, which may prevent some customers switching from order book to ACT. Unfortunately, information upon which a numerical estimate of the number of these pensioners could be based is not available. This is obviously an issue we are giving consideration to.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the National Insurance Recording system stores the date of birth of individuals linked with their National Insurance number. [125308]

  Mr. Rooker
  Yes, the National Insurance Recording System stores an individual's date of birth, which is linked with the National Insurance Number.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, for each local authority, the total amount saved in benefit expenditure in the most recent year arising from anti-fraud initiatives; if he will express this figure as a percentage of the total expenditure on social security benefits administered by each local authority; and if he will provide an aggregate estimate for Great Britain. [125309]

  Mr. Rooker
  The most effective way of combating benefit fraud is to stop it happening in the first place. That is why, for example, we are taking steps to improve the way local authorities deal with new claims for Housing Benefit (the "Verification Framework") which has been allowed to occur and which is to reduce the scope for fraud and error at the outset. It is therefore not possible to quantify the total amount saved by all the anti-fraud initiatives we are taking to drive fraud out of the system.

  The weekly benefit savings scheme provides a measure of that part of Social Security benefit fraud (including Housing Benefit, Council Tax benefit and Income Support) based on what local authorities have

  409W
  subsequently detected. A weekly benefit saving is the amount of benefit fraudulently in payment multiplied by 32, the average time in weeks that benefit would have been likely to continue in payment if the fraud had gone undetected. A table providing the information requested expressed in terms of weekly benefit savings has been placed in the Library. The data in the table are for 1998–99, the latest year for which comprehensive information is available.

  We have recently announced changes to the weekly benefit savings scheme. The changes mean that authorities which uncover more fraud and prosecute fraudsters can expect to receive greater financial reward than before. We will also give additional reward to those authorities which operate the Verification Framework.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Crisis Management
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of her Department's budget has been allocated to(a) crisis management and (b) crisis prevention in the current financial year; what the figures were five years ago; and if she will make a statement. [113063]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have allocated £61 million for centrally funded conflict and humanitarian assistance in 2000–01. This compares with expenditure of £57 million in the same area in 1997–98 (the earliest year in which comparable figures are available). Chapter 6 of the Departmental Report 2000, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, provides information on the Government's policy and performance in this area.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the application of Tanzania for debt relief. [118038]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Although it is one of the world's poorest countries, over recent years Tanzania has made important progress in introducing structural reforms and stabilising its economy. Despite limited resources, with help from its international partners including Britain, Tanzania, to its credit, has met most of its very substantial external debt obligations. It has now begun to repay domestic debt arrears and is refocusing its budget on poverty reduction. As a result, the Boards of the World bank and the IMF agreed last week to support a comprehensive debt reduction package under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. This be worth about US$3 billion over 20 years from all creditors and will be used by the Government of Tanzania for additional public expenditures on poverty reduction measures. Pending achievement of a number of conditions, including preparation of a comprehensive poverty Reduction Strategy taking account of the views of civil society, interim relief from the IMF and the IDA will begin this month.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 410W
  8 February 2000, Official Report, columns 89–90W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124827]

  Mr. Foulkes
  None of the secondees were appointed for 12 months or less.

  Albania
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made with the weapons for development project in the Gramsh region of Albania; and if she will make a statement. [125014]

  Mr. Foulkes
  A total of 5,812 arms and 137 tonnes of ammunition have been collected in Gramsh District, Albania. Nine of the 12 projects identified by the local community for development have been completed; the remaining three are in progress.

  The success of the pilot project in Gramsh has led to the formation of the Albanian Government's Weapons Collection Commission and the replication of the project by UNDP in two further districts, Elbasan and Diber, to which we have contributed an additional £600,000.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the withdrawal of her Department's emergency and conflict funds for Kosovo. [125000]

  Mr. Foulkes
  As Kosovo enters a new phase, with the bulk of the UK's programme of immediate humanitarian support completed, so our focus, along with the rest of the international community, has switched to longer term reconstruction and development. This year we have already committed £29 million in bilateral support for reconstruction; as part of this we are developing a technical assistance programme of £5 million to support institution and capacity building. In addition, we shall contribute around £39 million as our share of the EC's programme.

  We will continue to monitor the humanitarian situation and will respond accordingly should a new emergency arise. We have committed an additional £8 million for humanitarian mine action this financial year and continue to support the work of the international relief agencies.

  European Community Humanitarian Office
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to improve the performance of ECHO. [121096]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Two major independent evaluations of EU humanitarian aid were carried out in 1998 and 1999. These evaluations gave a positive overall assessment of ECHO's performance, but identified a number of areas for improvement. Last October the Commission produced a Communication in response to the evaluations, which set out an Action Plan to tackle the weaknesses. We broadly support the Commission's proposals, and are engaged in ensuring the Plan is implemented effectively.
  411W
  As part of this process, the Development Council has approved a resolution which will guide and encourage the Commission's actions.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much each heavily indebted poor country has spent on arms exported from the UK in each of the last three years. [118333]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to Part III of the Government's 1997 and 1998 Annual Reports on Strategic Arms Control. Part III lists numbers and values of UK exports of military equipment by country where this information is available. Information on exports of military equipment during 1999 will be included in the 1999 Annual Report which will be published in due course. The hon. Member should also refer to the accompanying text and explanatory note to the table in Part III which details the sources of the information used and the extent of the coverage of that information.

  China
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects currently funded by her Department in China. [124561]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The UK is working with the Government of China to build up a new poverty-focused programme, targeting the inland provinces where the majority of the poor are located. My Department is providing support to health and education; economic reform; and the environment. The programme is expected to increase from £20 million in 2001–01 to £25 million in 2001–02.

  A full list of activities, together with our Country Strategy Paper, will be placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Playgroups
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much his Department has spent in each year since 1997 on the provision of playgroups; how many playgroups have been established; and how many children have used them. [122603]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]The Department will provide £40 million of funding for three-year-old nursery education in the voluntary sector (pre-schools and playgroups) during the financial year 2000–01 and this is estimated to provide 33,000 places. This compares with estimated funding of £16 million during the financial year 1999–2000, or the provision of 17,000 places. Playgroups will also benefit from child care grants and the Working Families Tax credit.

  In addition, we have announced funding of £500,000 for a further scheme to assist pre-schools and playgroups facing financial difficulties, to give them a further breathing space as policy initiatives work through to individual groups, and £250,000 for projects to help pre-schools and playgroups, develop, in partnership with others, as the early education and care places expand.
  412W
  Information on the number of new playgroups which have been established since 1997 is not collected. Annual information on playgroups and other Day Care facilities is published in the Statistical Volume "Children's Day Care Facilities (as at 31 March)" which is available from the Library. The Department plans to publish provisional national estimates about playgroups (as at 31 March 2000) in a Statistical First release in July.

  Around £357 million of Nursery Education Grant has been made available to fund early years places for four-year-olds in the private, voluntary and independent sectors since 1997.

  Furthermore, the Department has provided over £8 million to the Pre-School Learning Alliance (PLA) since 1997 to support its training infrastructure and to help improve the quality and marketing of groups. This includes a grant under Section 64 of the Health and Public Services Act 1968 towards PLA core funding.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for the disposition of assets held by TECs in cases where it is unclear whether all or part of their acquisition costs was derived from public funds. [123977]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]We intend to seek to reach agreement with each TEC on the disposition of all assets, irrespective of how they were funded. Our aim in discussions with TECs will be to ensure that assets continue to benefit local communities and that public resources are safeguarded. We envisage there will be a range of different solutions to reflect different local circumstances.

  Further Education
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of further education colleges were able to give the full recommended Association of Colleges pay award for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [124175]

  Mr. Wicks
  This information is not held by the Department. The Association of Colleges (AoC) conducted a survey of colleges about the pay awards for 1998–99 and found that (based on a 66 per cent. response rate) 77 per cent. of colleges were able to offer their staff the AoC recommended pay award or above.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the funds which are available to local authorities on application, indicating those for which the Torbay Unitary Authority has successfully applied in each of the last two years. [124196]
  413W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out the grants available to Torbay local authorities and its schools through bidding or application.

  Grants subject to application or bidding (Relating to schools)

  £

  Allocation

  1999–2000

  Advanced Skills Teachers (AST): National Programme

  65,000

  National Numeracy Strategy—Key Stage 3

  1.2232,500

  Summer Numeracy Schools

  1.30

  Family Numeracy

  1.40

  National Grid for Learning

  262,500

  Education of Travellers and Displaced Persons

  0

  Protecting Local Authority Music Services

  23,000

  Expanding Local Authority Music Services

  0

  Annual Capital Guidelines

  1,555,075

  New Deal for Schools capital

  1,521,183

  VA capital grant

  44,700

  Class Size: revenue

  252,000

  Class Size: capital

  656,228

  Total

  4,412,186

  2000–01

  Advanced Skills Teachers (AST): National Programme

  73,500

  Special Educational Needs: Inclusion, EBD

  Speech and Language therapy

  50

  National Grid for Learning: Regional Broadband Consortia

  699,015

  Protecting Local Authority Music Services

  7185,000

  Expanding Local Authority Music Services

  7242,000

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  80

  Class Size: revenue

  452,200

  Class Size: capital

  10,000

  Annual Capital Guidelines

  1,658,849

  New Deal for Schools capital

  1,580,178

  VA capital Grant

  558,000

  Total

  4,858,742

  1Some grants subjected to bidding in 1999–2000 were allocated by formula in 2000–01.

  22000–01 formula allocation of £159,479

  32000–01 formula allocation of £33,000

  42000–01 formula allocation of £30,800

  5Allocated £97,043 by formula under SEN grant 18a

  6Allocated £365,229 in addition by formula

  7Total of joint bid with Devon and Plymouth

  8Offered £86,680 but declined to accept

  Note:

  Many additional grants to those above were al located on a formulaic basis and so dit not require bids

  Adult and Further Education Courses
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged over 50 years were enrolled in adult education courses and further education courses during the 1998–99 academic year in(a) England, (b) the North-East Region of England and (c) Bishop Auckland; and what proportion of the relevant population aged over 50 years this represents in each case. [124208]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]It is not possible to provide information for Bishop Auckland as adult education data are not collected centrally at district level and data on further education students are not yet available for 1998–99. Data on the number of people aged 414W
  over 50 years enrolled in LEA maintained adult education provision are not available. The available data for further education students are shown in the table:

  Students in FE sector colleges and external institutions in England, 1998–991

  Students aged 50 and over2 (Thousand)

  Percentage of population

  North-East Region

  27.5

  3.2

  England

  585.7

  3.7

  1Estimated from 1998–99 provisional whole year data for FEFC-funded and non-FEFC-funded students in FE sector colleges and FEFC-funded students in external institutions.

  2Age as at 31 August 1998

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of additional young people who stayed on at school or college in the pilot areas for the education maintenance allowances. [124376]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]We are encouraged by the early findings from the 15 EMA pilot areas, which is why we have decided to extend the pilot to an extra 40 areas from this September. Statistical evidence gathered suggests that participation in the EMA pilot areas has increased by over five percentage points, compared with an increase of three percentage points in the control areas selected, and two percentage points nationally. We do not have information about the actual numbers involved, because the number of young people in each pilot area cohort varies from year to year.

  We are undertaking a detailed evaluation exercise which will, in time, give more detailed information about the impact of the EMA on post-16 participation and achievement.

  Instructors
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 606W, on instructors, where information on basic qualifications or subject taught is held. [124767]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]Governing bodies acting with the consent of the local authority have to assure themselves that staff employed as instructors have appropriate qualifications. Governing bodies and local authorities make their own arrangements for holding information about instructors' qualifications and experience.

  Information on subjects taught is held by schools.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to provide financial incentives to encourage more people to enter teacher training courses in further education colleges. [124691]
  415W
  Mr. Wicks
  From September 2000, all students undertaking a pre-service Postgraduate Certificate of Education (Further Education) course in England, will receive a £6,000 a year training salary—equivalent to £150 a week during term time.

  The payments, in common with those being paid to trainee Primary school teachers, will be trialled for one year.

  School Security
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the total amount spent by schools on security measures in 1999(a) by constituency and (b) by local education authority; [123134]

  (2) how much the Government have awarded to local education authorities in each year since 1995 for schools to (a) implement security reviews and (b) undertake measures to make their premises more secure. [123167]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [pursuant to her reply, 23 May 2000, c. 438W]A column of figures was omitted. The correct response is as follows: My Department does not collect information in the level of detail requested. Expenditure by each local education authority in England supported by the Government's Standards Fund grant for school security, which is allocated directly to authorities, is shown in Table 1 for 1998–99, the latest year for which outturn information is available, along with the total sums available to authorities for 1999–2000.

  Specific grants for school security measures have been made available since 1997–98, following a recommendation from the Government's Working Group on School Security. To date, £94 million has been made available to support a variety of security measures in schools in England, to help make a safer environment for pupils and staff. A breakdown, by year, of this total funding is given in Table 2.

  Table 1: Local education authority (LEA) expenditure on school security measures from Standards Fund 1998–99 (Grant 18) and total sums available to LEAs from Standards Fund 1999–2000 (Grant 23)

  £

  Standards Fund Grant for School Security

  LEA

  1998–99 (Grant 18) Expenditure

  1999–2000 (Grant 23) Total sums available

  Barking

  57,343

  67,912

  Barnet

  98,917

  123,974

  Barnsley

  93,812

  99,074

  Bath & NE Somerset

  71,095

  76,584

  Bedfordshire

  165,727

  193,365

  Bexley

  83,066

  95,562

  Birmingham

  435,551

  475,503

  Blackburn with Darwen

  72,095

  76,108

  Blackpool

  46,787

  49,173

  Bolton

  117,263

  129,117

  Bournemouth

  37,421

  49,310

  Bracknell Forest

  38,056

  41,410

  Bradford

  229,894

  251,207

  Brent

  62,517

  80,000

  Brighton & Hove

  78,242

  79,814

  Bromley

  61,553

  110,681

  Buckinghamshire

  202,143

  226,150

  416W

  Table 1: Local education authority (LEA) expenditure on school security measures from Standards Fund 1998–99 (Grant 18) and total sums available to LEAs from Standards Fund 1999–2000 (Grant 23)

  £

  Standards Fund Grant for School Security

  LEA

  1998–99 (Grant 18) Expenditure

  1999– (Grant 23) Total sums available

  Bury

  80,342

  83,511

  Calderdale

  66,480

  99,723

  Cambridgeshire

  177,651

  226,796

  Camden

  56,116

  61,965

  Cheshire

  307,766

  320,162

  City of Bristol

  156,075

  158,701

  City of London

  744

  755

  Cornwall

  228,506

  233,369

  Coventry

  128,675

  130,077

  Croydon

  106,039

  128,568

  Cumbria

  227,760

  276,406

  Darlington

  46,026

  47,626

  Derby

  88,046

  105,260

  Derbyshire

  323,655

  362,117

  Devon

  279,442

  308,352

  Doncaster

  139,240

  140,176

  Dorset

  148,057

  161,791

  Dudley

  112,803

  126,021

  Durham

  258,120

  262,142

  Ealing

  82,388

  102,194

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  140,287

  145,797

  East Sussex

  177,407

  183,179

  Enfield

  92,180

  107,485

  Essex

  355,976

  558,626

  Gateshead

  88,131

  87,888

  Gloucestershire

  195,656

  268,237

  Greenwich

  85,883

  97,492

  Hackney

  70,910

  71,246

  Halton

  63,538

  65,073

  Hammersmith

  47,113

  50,545

  Hampshire

  461,947

  509,493

  Haringey

  82,116

  88,696

  Harrow

  71,166

  73,399

  Hartlepool

  41,836

  42,866

  Havering

  86,857

  95,774

  Herefordshire

  80,697

  83,373

  Hertfordshire

  431,656

  502,675

  Hillingdon

  58,193

  95,811

  Hounslow

  84,224

  88,858

  Isle of Wight

  56,920

  59,923

  Isle of Scilly

  2,591

  2,682

  Islington

  69,775

  69,828

  Kensington & Chelsea

  28,176

  32,248

  Kent

  440,642

  586,813

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  110,399

  111,794

  Kingston upon Thames

  43,291

  52,693

  Kirklees

  178,478

  183,892

  Knowsley

  77,815

  79,939

  Lambeth

  66,129

  83,868

  Lancashire

  542,965

  571,343

  Leeds

  287,359

  305,986

  Leicester

  118,430

  125,615

  Leicestershire

  245,821

  268,426

  Lewisham

  88,982

  91,684

  Lincolnshire

  239,202

  315,208

  Liverpool

  211,743

  225,448

  Luton

  73,582

  86,632

  Manchester

  197,201

  201,822

  Medway Towns

  97,664

  116,004

  Merton

  55,860

  62,951

  Middlesbrough

  66,065

  65,821

  Milton Keynes

  79,153

  96,887

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  109,499

  113,144

  417W

  Table 1: Local education authority (LEA) expenditure on school security measures from Standards Fund 1998–99 (Grant 18) and total sums available to LEAs from Standards Fund 1999–2000 (Grant 23)

  £

  Standards Fund Grant for School Security

  LEA

  1998–99 (Grant 18) Expenditure

  1999–2000 (Grant 23) Total sums available

  Newham

  92,374

  106,079

  Norfolk

  322,723

  372,730

  North East Lincolnshire

  78,961

  79,773

  North Lincolnshire

  76,228

  76,848

  North Somerset

  75,587

  77,297

  North Tyneside

  85,842

  87,173

  North Yorkshire

  294,636

  305,113

  Northamptonshire

  273,550

  311,142

  Northumberland

  168,630

  173,105

  Nottingham City

  119,138

  121,676

  Nottinghamshire

  325,454

  351,473

  Oldham

  116,562

  117,350

  Oxfordshire

  260,896

  264,799

  Peterborough

  62,385

  78,364

  Plymouth

  105,454

  110,892

  Poole

  38,216

  48,751

  Portsmouth

  64,781

  71,600

  Reading

  34,941

  51,867

  Redbridge

  85,193

  90,502

  Redcar and Cleveland

  69,194

  69,759

  Richmond upon Thames

  50,854

  51,769

  Rochdale

  90,501

  101,311

  Rotherham

  129,465

  130,858

  Rutland

  11,529

  17,059

  Salford

  111,851

  111,682

  Sandwell

  132,632

  141,349

  Sefton

  126,222

  127,603

  Sheffield

  184,912

  197,903

  Shropshire

  128,600

  135,149

  Slough

  36,063

  50,438

  Solihull

  91,229

  93,443

  Somerset

  217,409

  226,794

  South Gloucestershire

  109,027

  110,917

  South Tyneside

  74,491

  74,916

  Southampton

  81,228

  88,369

  Southend-on-Sea

  37,734

  63,508

  Table 2: Total amount made available by Government to local education authorities (LEAs) each year since 1995 to undertake school security measures

  £ million

  Year

  Grant

  Government grant

  LEA contribution

  Total amount

  1997–98

  New Deal for Schools

  6

  —

  6

  1998–98

  Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST)—Grant rate 60 per cent.

  12

  8

  20

  1998–99

  Standards Fund (Grant 18)—Grant rate 75 per cent.

  15

  5

  20

  1999–2000

  Standards Fund (Grant 23)—Grant rate 75 per cent.

  16.5

  5.5

  22

  2000–01

  Standards Fund (Grant 26)—Grant rate 75 per cent.

  16.5

  5.5

  22

  Notes:

  1. GEST and the Standards Fund grants for school security had grant rates. This means Government provide the set grant rate and local education authorities are required to contribute the remainder in order to take up the grant.

  2. In 1997–98 and 1998–99, an additional £2 million per year was made available to schools in the grant-maintained sector via the Funding Agency for Schools.

  3. The Standards Fund school security grant is allocated to local education authorities by formula and can be used on a variety of physical measures and on security related training for staff and governors. Local education authorities are required to devolve at least 70 per cent. of their grant allocation to schools, while being allowed to retain a maximum of 30 per cent. of their allocation to co-ordinate a training programme for staff and governors.
  418W

  Table 1: Local education authority (LEA) expenditure on school security measures from Standards Fund 1998–99 (Grant 18) and total sums available to LEAs from Standards Fund 1999–2000 (Grant 23)

  £

  Standards Fund Grant for School Security

  LEA

  1998–99 (Grant 18) Expenditure

  1999–2000 (Grant 23) Total sums available

  Southwark

  79,363

  95,123

  St. Helens

  79,938

  80,850

  Staffordshire

  371,280

  389,198

  Stockport

  124,564

  126,183

  Stockton-on-Tees

  78,558

  86,720

  Stoke-on-Trent

  112,479

  115,898

  Suffolk

  297,308

  303,128

  Sunderland

  132,781

  133,440

  Surrey

  328,518

  388,752

  Sutton

  48,845

  68,812

  Swindon

  60,578

  83,889

  Tameside

  98,379

  103,915

  Telford & Wrekin

  65,972

  76,335

  Thurrock

  45,912

  59,109

  Torbay

  43,939

  48,315

  Tower Hamlets

  98,230

  102,641

  Trafford

  81,304

  98,062

  Wakefield

  149,619

  151,567

  Walsall

  114,389

  133,751

  Waltham Forest

  82,633

  91,383

  Wandsworth

  57,346

  79,192

  Warrington

  88,164

  89,094

  Warwickshire

  207,700

  230,165

  West Berkshire

  62,404

  73,506

  West Sussex

  283,477

  291,736

  Westminster

  49,379

  50,324

  Wigan

  128,984

  141,052

  Wiltshire

  163,458

  212,012

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  53,829

  57,565

  Wirral

  137,247

  145,166

  Wokingham

  33,422

  66,198

  Wolverhampton

  113,821

  119,013

  Worcestershire

  229,936

  247,714

  York

  71,192

  72,251

  Total

  19,708,368

  21,989,240

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Ministerial Conduct
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the cost to public funds of the publicly-owned property maintained for his private use. [115124]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 5 June 2000,Official Report, columns 50–51W.

  GM Trial Sites
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the GM trial sites at Kempley, Gloucestershire and Preston Wynne, Herefordshire on organic farms in Herefordshire within a six mile radius; and if he will make a statement. [122040]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]Of the particular sites mentioned in the question, fodder beet is being grown near to Preston Wynne. The beet will be carefully managed to prevent it flowering, so no pollen will be produced. The oilseed rape, being grown near Kemply, can only cross-pollinate with sexually compatible crops of the same species flowering at the same time. The separation distances reduce the chances of cross-pollination to less than 1 per cent. Also, organic farms do not tend to grow organic oilseed rape.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research has been conducted by his Department into ways to recover pollen dispersed from field trials of GM plants; and what data his Department has obtained in respect of such research conducted abroad. [124793]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has not conducted any such research and has no data on any such research conducted elsewhere. We would not expect it to be possible to recover pollen dispersal from field trials of GM plants.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statements have been made by the Government about the minimum number of genetically modified crop trials required to fulfil the objectives of the current crop trial programme. [122996]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]In carrying out the Farm Scale Evaluations, the Government are advised by an independent research consortium and Scientific Steering Committee, who oversee the conduct of the trials. The design of the Evaluations is that over a three-year period we should seek a total of 60 to 75 sets of data for each crop.

  At present, the Scientific Steering Committee have advised that 20 to 30 fields annually should be sought for beet, in a roughly equal proportion of fodder to sugar beet.
  420W
  This is because the Evaluations would be investigating a potentially broader range of management practices for beet than for the of her crops.

  The Scientific Steering Committee met on 8 February and set minima of 12 to 15 sites for oilseed rape and maize and around 20 sites for beet, for the programme to begin. They confirmed at their meeting on 10 March that sufficient sites had been identified to ensure that a properly balanced scientific assessment could be made. I announced this year's programme on 17 March and there are currently 49 sites.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to use the provisions of the Biosafety Protocol to restrict imports of crop seeds in order to reduce the risk of contamination with GM seeds. [124152]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The import of GM seeds is already covered by EU legislation. The Cartagena Protocol (Biosafety Protocol) to the Convention on Biological Diversity is not yet in force, and to become so, requires ratification by 50 signatories. The UK signed the Protocol at the earliest opportunity at the 5th Conference of the Parties to the Convention, and by the end of the Conference, a total of 67 countries plus the European Commission had signed. Allowing for the time taken for ratification through national parliaments, the Protocol is unlikely to come into force within less than two years.

  We expect that the EU legislation will be extended as necessary to incorporate the requirements of the Protocol. We and other member states are already looking at ways of reducing risks of contamination with GM seeds using Community legislation.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if any of the current licensed GM crop trials taking place in the UK include procedures to test claims of sterility in the GM varieties concerned. [24159]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Several of the current consents for deliberate release are for GM oilseed rape hybrid systems comprising a male sterile line and a fertility restorer line which, when grown together, form a hybrid seed. It is the hybrid line which would form the seed stock for trials and for commercial production. The GM oilseed rape being grown in the farm scale evaluations is a fertile hybrid formed from crossing the male sterile line Ms8 and fertility restorer line Rf3.

  Construction Industry (Certification Schemes)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (l) what representations he has received on the rationalisation of certification schemes for the construction industry; [124704]

  (2) which construction industry certification schemes his Department is evaluating; [124703]

  (3) what plans he has to rationalise the certification schemes for the construction industry. [124705]
  421W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department is evaluating two pilots of a proposed quality mark s theme for builders and other contractors working in the domestic sector, which have recently started in Birmingham and Somerset. We will use the experience of the pilots to develop a national scheme and to decide how to roll out the scheme nationally.

  During the development of the quality mark, representations were made to avoid duplication with Constructionline, which is the Government's list of approved contractors and consultants for public sector as well as professional private sector clients for non-domestic works. This is why Constructionline is also providing the central services for the quality mark pilots. Further rationalisation would need to take into account the different requirements between domestic and non-domestic sectors and the different levels of expertise and requirements of the clients in the two sectors.

  Departmental Policies
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what ways his Department and executive agencies deliver services to meet the needs of the public as consumers, with particular reference to families. [124531]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Mainly through its executive agencies, my Department provides a range of services direct to the public including services to vehicle owners, drivers and operators and those appealing against planning decisions. We seek to ensure these services are responsive to the needs of the consumer, for example by carrying out customer surveys, by publishing the standards of service that users can expect to receive and, in some cases, by extending opening hours to suit customer preferences. We are also gradually extending electronic availability of services to enable users to access them when they wish.

  Although none of our services is targeted specifically at families, we seek to ensure that those with families can access them conveniently.

  Holyhead
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what volume of(a) freight and (b) passenger traffic passed through the port of Holyhead in each of the last 10 years. [124725]

  Mr. Hill
  Information on freight and passengers passing through the port of Holyhead is as follows:

  Port traffic at Holyhead—1990 to 1999

  Thousand

  Year

  Freight (Tonnes)

  Passengers

  1990

  1,247

  1,622

  1991

  908

  1,744

  1992

  919

  1,783

  1993

  1,017

  2,111

  1994

  1,052

  2,125

  1995

  2,307

  2,125

  1996

  2,541

  2,489

  422W

  Port traffic at Holyhead—1990 to 1999

  Thousand

  Year

  Freight (Tonnes)

  Passengers

  1997

  2,951

  12,457

  1998

  3,407

  1.22,776

  1999

  3,4402

  —

  1Because of changes in procedures for recording passenger data, the 1997 and 1998 passenger figures do not include cruise passengers. Holyhead, however does not have regular cruise passenger calls so this is unlikely to have had an impact on the figures presented.

  2Provisional

  Source:

  DETR

  Rail Track Safety Company
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2000,Official Report, column 88W, on the Railtrack Safety Company, what the timetable will be for the consultation by the rail regulators on the creation of a safety company; and how passengers will be consulted before decisions are taken. [124774]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Commission published a consultative document on 19 May seeking views on proposed changes to the safety regime for the railway industry. The deadline for comments is 24 July 2000. The Office of the Rail Regulator will issue shortly a separate consultative document about changes to Railtrack's Licence.

  Heathrow (Runway Capacity)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assurances have been given to the Government by(a) BAA, (b) British Airways and (c) British Midland in the five years prior to the recent submission by British Airways to his Department concerning a third runway that they would not seek additional runway capacity at Heathrow; and if he will make a statement. [124845]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 7 June 2000]Over the last five years, none of the organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend have given assurances to the Government directly that they would not seek additional runway capacity at Heathrow.

  During the public inquiry into BAA's planning application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow, BAA and British Airways made reference to additional runway capacity at Heathrow in their evidence.

  BAA stated that
  it believes that this is a matter entirely for Government, although it is the company's view that the local communities around Heathrow should be given assurances in respect of another runway. BAA would urge the Government to rule out any additional runway at Heathrow, and BAA would support a recommendation by the inquiry Inspector in his report to the Secretary of State that the Government should rule it out. Indeed, BAA invites the Inspector to make such a recommendation.
  423W
  British Airways, as part of their closing submission to the public inquiry, did not advocate a third runway at Heathrow because the proposed fifth terminal did not require it. They stated that
  an additional runway at Heathrow could have the potential to be of national importance, and, in BA's submission, it would therefore be wrong to prejudge the issues involved in the absence of a comprehensive understanding of all the material circumstances prevailing at that time, including Government policy, environmental impacts and the aviation and economic cases for such a development.

  British Midland have made no specific reference to additional runway capacity at Heathrow.

  Welsh Highland Railway
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in the reopening of the Welsh Highland Railway in Gwynedd. [125071]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a matter for the Ffestiniog Railway Company, which as owners of the Welsh Highland Railway are responsible for its reconstruction. However, I understand that the company plan to complete the line as far as Waunfawr shortly and open it to passengers by August this year. The next section as far as Rhyd Ddu, at the foot of Snowdon, is to be built during 2001. The company then hopes to complete the reconstruction of the rest of the line through to Porthmadog by 2005.

  Penalty Clauses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2000,Official Report, column 135W, on penalty clauses, if he will list the payments made by contractors in respect of each of the 17 contracts. [125363]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is not possible within the terms of the contracts to provide specific details of each individual payment.

  Terminal 5, Heathrow
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the report of the public inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport to be published. [124486]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]The public inquiry closed on 17 March 1999 and the Inspector has said that he expects to take up to two years to produce his report. While the Secretary of State recognises the need to bring this matter to an early conclusion, he will need to give the Inspector's report full consideration before its issue.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent information he has given the Inspector at the public inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport concerning revised projected passenger and flight numbers for the next 10 years at Heathrow. [124489]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]None.

  A30 (Noise)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the noise tests on the A30 Honiton to Exeter have been completed; and when he expects to announce the results of the tests. [125173]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency has been working closely with the RTA30 Campaign Group and I am pleased to say that the site work on the noise monitoring has been completed.

  Analysis work is under way and is expected to be completed this month, after which we will make an announcement.

  Airline Route Applications
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when in the last 12 months the Civil Aviation Authority delivered decisions on route applications; and if he will state in each case(a) the route concerned, (b) the competing airlines, (c) the CAA's de vision, (d) his decision on whether to accept the CAA's decision and (e) on those occasions when the CAA decision was rejected by him, to which airline he awarded the route. [125193]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following four route licence applications have been determined by the CAA during the last 12 months:

  Decision 1/99 of 12 October 1999; UK-South Africa (apportionment of scarce bilateral capacity); British Airways and Virgin Atlantic; the CAA decided in favour of Virgin Atlantic; British Airways did not appeal.

  Decision 2/99 of 25 November 1999; London Stansted-Geneva/Zurich; EasyJet and Go; the CAA decided in favour of Go; EasyJet did not appeal.

  Decision 3/99 of 3 December 1999; London-Shanghai (apportionment of scarce bilateral capacity); British Airways and Virgin Atlantic; the CAA decided in favour of Virgin Atlantic; British Airways appealed to the Secretary of State who upheld the CAA's decision.

  Decision 4/99 of 23 December 1999; UK-South Africa(apportionment of scarce bilateral capacity); British Airways and Virgin Atlantic; the CAA decided in favour of Virgin Atlantic; the Secretary of State overturned the decision on appeal and directed the CAA to award the available capacity to British Airways.

  Correspondence
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Solihull dated 15 May concerning Ceramica Trust; and if he will make a statement. [125178]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today written to the hon. Member in response to his letter.

  Transport Safety Review
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Transport Safety Review. [125715]
  425W
  Mr. Hill
  The terms of reference of the Transport Safety Review were announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) in December 1998. Consultation took place last year, and the work of the review has subsequently been taken forward under the chairmanship of this Department. Following the tragic rail crash at Ladbroke Grove on 5 October the Public Inquiry ordered by the Health and Safety Commission and chaired by Lord Cullen is considering rail safety management, culture and regulation. Because it is important that the Inquiry's work is not pre-empted in any way, we have concluded that it would be wrong to take a view on potentially fundamental changes to the organisation of transport safety before the Inquiry is complete. We will then need to consider the advice on the Inquiry report which will be submitted to us by the Health and Safety Commission.

  A report of the outcome of the consultation and the analysis undertaken by the Transport Safety Review has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The report is also being made available to the Ladbroke Grove Inquiry.

  Mobility Centres
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what help the Government are giving to mobility centres which provide support and advice to disabled and older people on driving and personal mobility; and if he will make a statement. [125758]

  Mr. Hill
  We are aware of the enormously valuable contribution of these centres in enabling disabled and older people to obtain impartial professional advice on driving and vehicle choice as well as on a wide range of other aspects of personal mobility.

  In recognition of this work, my Department and the Department of Health have jointly agreed to contribute over £1 million to 11 English members of the Forum of Mobility Centres. Funding will be for an initial period of three years subject to annual review.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will respond to the Biodiversity in the European Union reports by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities. [125864]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Select Committee's reports provide a comprehensive review of the Government's actions to protect biodiversity both nationally and within Europe. Such reports merit a thorough response. This has now been completed and I have today placed a copy (Cmnd 4712) in the Library. It demonstrates how the Government's current initiatives address the Committee's concerns.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Civil Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants,426W
  excluding members of the senior Civil Service, in his Department for 1999–2000; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [121659]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]Since 1996 MAFF has had delegated authority for negotiating pay settlements. For the last pay round, the core MAFF settlement included the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  In 1999 the headline pay settlement was 2.0 per cent. on the paybill. Together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff received performance-related increases with an average cost of 3.92 per cent. The increases were not staged. Information on the 2000 pay settlement is not yet available because negotiations are still ongoing.

  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also responsible for other Executive Agencies with their own negotiating remits. I have asked Chief Executives to respond direct with information on their pay settlements.

  Letter from Peter W. Greig-Smith to Dr. David Clark, dated June 2000:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question regarding the average percentage increase in salaries for 1999–2000. I am replying on behalf of the Centre of Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).
  In 1999 the headline pay settlement for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture was 2.95%. This included 0.5% as the cost on the pay bill of restructuring the pay and grading system. Together with additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4.05%. The increases were not staged.
  There was a separate settlement for the officers of the Research Vessels with a headline pay settlement of 2.45% on the pay bill, which did not include a restructuring element, and performance related pay increases averaging 4.05%. The increases were not staged.

  Letter from Peter W. Greig-Smith to Dr. David Clark, dated 15 May 2000:
  In 1999 the headline pay settlement for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture was 2.95%. This included o.5% as the cost on the pay bill of restructuring the pay and grading system. Together with additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4.05%. The increases were not staged.
  There was a separate settlement for the officers of the Research Vessels with a headline pay settlement of 2.45% on the pay bill, which did not include a restructuring element, and performance related pay increases averaging 4.05%. The increases were not staged.

  Letter from Sarah Nason to Dr. David Clark, dated 31 May 2000:
  The Minister has asked me to respond, in respect of the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA), to your question about the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, in 1999–2000 and to what extent the pay awards were staged.
  FRCA has delegated authority for negotiating pay settlements since the Agency's launch in April 1997. Payment date within the Agency is 1 August each year. The headline pay settlement for 1999/00 was 3.77% on the paybill and together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4.3%. This pay settlement was linked to a major restructuring of the Agency's pay and grading system. The increases were not staged.
  427W
  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Dr. David Clark, dated May 2000:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants for 1999–2000 and to what extent the pay awards were staged.
  Since 1996 CSL has had delegated authority for negotiating pay settlements.
  CSL operates a performance related pay system which links pay awards to job performance. It is therefore not possible to provide a single average figure which is meaningful. For 1999/2000 pay increases for satisfactory performers ranged from 2.0% to 7.0% with a few exceptional performers receiving an additional accelerated pay progression of 6%. For some unsatisfactory performers, no pay increase was received.
  Pay awards were not staged, being paid in full with effect from 1 August 1999.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Dr. David Clark, dated May 2000:
  The Minister has asked me to respond to your question on the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants in 1999–2000. Unfortunately, information on the 1999–2000 pay settlement is not yet available because the negotiations have not been concluded.

  River Fishing
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has reviewed the National River Fishery Survey 1999 prepared by the National Federation of Anglers; and if he will make a statement. [124054]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not received a copy of the survey in question.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the whole-time equivalent numbers of staff at each of the regional service centre locations, and each of the Intervention Board Agency locations, on 1 May. [123898]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of substantive staff on a full-time equivalent basis at each office location on 1 May 2000 was as follows:

  Location

  Number

  MAFF Regional Service Centres

  Anglia (Cambridge)

  217

  East Midlands (Nottingham)

  242

  Northern (Carlisle)

  233

  North East (Northallerton)

  310

  North Mercia (Crewe)

  185

  South East (Reading)

  191

  South Mercia (Worcester)

  208

  South West (Exeter)

  275

  Wessex (Bristol)

  191

  Intervention Board Executive Agency

  Reading

  935

  Newcastle

  280

  Note:

  The Reading figures include out-stationed IB staff located at Wolverhampton, Bristol, Cambridge, Harrogate, Edinburgh and Belfast.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2000,Official Report, column 388W, on fisheries, if the Government intends to grant 1egal title to fishing quota transferred between fishermen. [124408]

  Mr. Morley
  Quotas are allocated to producer organisations and other groups in accordance with rules which are reviewed annually with the fishing industry. Since 1 January 1999 a system of fixed quota allocations, based on catches made during the reference period 1994 to 1996, has operated. The Fisheries Departments in the UK are currently discussing with industry representatives a number of possible modifications to the quota management rules, including arrangements for adjusting the fixed quota allocation units attached to fishing vessel licences to take account of transfers between fishermen. Any proposed changes affecting fixed quota allocations will be subject to further and full consultation with industry.

  Pork and Poultry Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount of pork and poultry meats imported into the United Kingdom during the last 12 months; and if he will give their country of origin. [124672]

  Ms Quin
  The table shows the volume of port and poultry meat imported into the United Kingdom, as recorded by the Overseas Trade Statistics. The imports are shown by country of despatch which is not necessarily the country of origin. The data are subject to a degree of statistical error. The overall level of errors is low, but these errors have a much greater proportional effect on countries with small values or volumes of trade. Therefore care is needed when interpreting the data.

  UK Imports of pork and poultry meat—March 1999 to February 2000

  Tonnes

  Country

  1Pork meat

  1Poultry meat

  Grand total

  Netherlands

  181,888

  110,143

  292,031

  Denmark

  194,663

  13,859

  208,522

  France

  37,693

  80,568

  118,261

  Irish Republic

  53,033

  20,436

  73,469

  Germany

  16,996

  14,974

  31,970

  Belgium

  15,378

  15,101

  30,479

  Italy

  2,342

  9,844

  12,186

  Brazil

  —

  12,144

  12,144

  Spain

  3,616

  7,969

  11,584

  Thailand

  —

  9,383

  9,383

  USA

  3,005

  —

  3,005

  Sweden

  2,642

  2

  2,644

  Poland

  1,192

  437

  1,629

  Chile

  —

  206

  206

  Hungary

  151

  1

  152

  Canada

  125

  —

  125

  Greece

  64

  —

  64

  Portugal

  0

  59

  59

  Russia

  21

  —

  21

  429W

  UK Imports of pork and poultry meat—March 1999 to February 2000

  Tonnes

  Country

  1Pork meat

  1Poultry meat

  Grand total

  Faroe Islands

  —

  18

  18

  Austria

  17

  0

  17

  Israel

  —

  9

  9

  Other

  2

  4

  6

  1Pork meat includes some pig offal, poultry meat includes some poultry offal

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise 1999 and 2000 data are provisional and subject to amendment

  Slaughter Premium Scheme
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of applications under the Slaughter Premium Scheme haw been refused on deadline criteria. [124202]
  430W
  Ms Quin
  A farmer must claim slaughter premium within two months of an animal leaving the holding, but will normally submit claims forms covering several animals at a time. Claims submitted within 25 days after the end of the two-month period are accepted but receive a reduced rate of premium. It is also a requirement that animals are slaughtered within one month of the end of the retention period.

  In England, these requirements have not yet been checked because the computer programme to do this will not be finalised and activated until later this month.

  Holne Moor
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will pay the commoners on Holne Moor, Dartmoor, who are signatories to the Environmentally Sensitive Area Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [124755]

  Mr. Morley
  The Holne Moor commoners should by now have received their ESA payments.