---

11.5 am

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): 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

9 Jun 2000 : Column 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.

9 Jun 2000 : Column 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.

9 Jun 2000 : Column 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 and 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

9 Jun 2000 : Column 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?

---