Orders of the Day — Violent Crime Reduction Bill

House of Commons, 14 November 2005.

New Clause 9 — Power to Search Further Education Students for Weapons

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 8—Power of members of staff to search students etc. for weapons—

'After Section 85A of the Further and Higher Education Act (c. 13) insert— "85AA Power of members of staff to search students etc. for weapons

(1) A member of the staff of a further education college who has reasonable grounds for believing that a student at the college may have with him or in his possession—

(a) an article to which section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) applies (knives and blades etc.), or

(b) an offensive weapon (within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953), may search that student or his possessions for such articles and weapons.

(2) A search under this section may be carried out only where—

(a) the member of the staff and the student are on the premises of the college; or

(b) they are elsewhere and the member of the staff has lawful control or charge of the student.

(3) A person may carry out a search under this section only if—

(a) he is the Principal of the college; or

(b) he has been authorised by the Principal to carry out the search.

(4) A person who carries out a search of a student under this section—

(a) may not require the student to remove any clothing other than outer clothing;

(b) must be of the same sex as the student; and

(c) may carry out the search only in the presence of another person who is aged 18 or over and is also of the same sex as the student.

(5) A student's possessions may not be searched under this section except in his presence and in the presence of a person (in addition to the person carrying out the search) who is aged 18 or over.

(6) If a person who, in the course of a search under this section, finds—

(a) anything which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting falls within subsection (1)(a) or (b), or

(b) any other thing which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is evidence in relation to an offence, he may seize and retain it.

(7) A person who exercises a power under this section may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for exercising that power.

(8) An authorisation for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) may be given either in relation to a particular search or generally in relation to searches under this section or to a particular description of such searches.

(9) In this section—'outer clothing' includes an outer coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat; 'possessions', in relation to a student of a college, includes any goods over which he has or appears to have control.

(10) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any powers exercisable by the member of the staff in question apart from this section and are not to be construed as restricting such powers.".'.

Amendment No. 22, in clause 41, page 41, line 17, leave out

'has reasonable grounds for believing'

and insert 'believes'.

Amendment No. 26, in page 41, line 35, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment No. 27, in page 41, line 41, leave out from 'a' to end of line 42 and insert 'second member of staff'.

Government Amendments Nos. 78 to 81.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I support Government new clause 9 and resist Opposition new clause 8. I shall also convey my position in respect of the other amendments in the group, which I particularly look forward to debating with the hon. Members who tabled them.

On Government new clause 9, we agree entirely that the power to search students and learners for weapons should be extended to further education colleges. We discussed this issue in Committee, when I gave a commitment to consider it further, and I have duly tabled a Government new clause on Report. Given the increasing number of pupils under 16 who are, or will be, attending courses at college under arrangements made by their school as part of their compulsory education, it is of course right that this power be extended to FE colleges. It is essential that there be a level playing field for schools and colleges, and this new clause will remove the anomaly of a person in school perhaps enjoying a higher level of security than his or her counterpart on a similar course at an FE college. I hope that the Opposition are satisfied with the new clause, that it meets all their expectations, and that in the circumstances, they will not feel the need to press their amendment on this issue to a vote.

I am afraid that I am going to resist Amendment No. 22, which would actually reduce protection for a pupil who is searched. Under it, a member of staff would be able to search a pupil simply if they believed that they had an offensive weapon; they would need no grounds, nor any reasonable grounds, for that belief. Requiring reasonable grounds offers a pupil protection against arbitrary searches. That is a normal standard that we adopt in many different circumstances, and we want to keep that safeguard. Removing it could harm pupils' and parents' trust that school staff will act reasonably. On that basis, I ask the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.

I also urge the House to resist Amendment No. 26, which would remove paragraph (a) from clause 41. Removing this paragraph would cause uncertainty to both the pupil and the member of staff, and reduce safeguards for both. The Government are introducing an amendment to replace line 20 on page 42 of the Bill with a definition of which items of outer clothing staff may require a pupil to remove.

I ask the House to enable us to give further consideration to Amendment No. 27, which would change the wording of the provision relating to the additional person who must be present when a pupil's possessions are searched from a

"person . . . who is aged 18 or over"

to a "second member of staff".

Such an amendment would ensure that both adults involved are members of staff, and not, for example, volunteers or parents; however, it does not prevent the presence of such people in addition to the two members of staff. We are prepared to consider this issue further, and in doing so we will want to consider requiring that the second person who must be present at a personal search also be a member of staff. If there is to be this extra safeguard, it is probably more important that it exists during a personal search than during a simple search of possessions. We also want to consider whether equivalent amendments should be made to the provisions relating to FE institutions and attendance centres, to ensure coherence and consistency throughout the Bill. On that basis, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment, but I happily undertake to examine the matter further, and to consider whether we can build in the safeguards that the amendment is designed to introduce.

Government Amendments Nos. 79 and 81 provide a clear definition for the meaning of "outer clothing" in respect of searches conducted at schools and attendance centres. This definition will make it clear to both staff and the person being searched which items of clothing they may be required to remove during a search. We have added shoes and boots to the list, which is an important practical change. The amendments also provide that any item of clothing worn over a shirt or blouse—a jumper or pullover, for example—can be removed. Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 correct a minor drafting error. I look forward to the debate on these amendments and new clauses.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

We begin our deliberations with a discussion on the vexed but important issue of being able to search children to ascertain whether they are carrying weapons upon them. The Government have introduced a new clause. In effect, it extends the right to search to those who are undergoing further or higher education. As for new clauses 9 and 8, my hon. Friends and I will undoubtedly accept that there is sense in what is proposed.

I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 22, 26 and 27, all of which are in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. At the same time, I shall comment on some of the Government amendments.

Amendment No. 22 relates to clause 1 and the issue of whether a member of staff should have reasonable grounds for believing that a pupil may have a weapon with him or her. My amendment would leave out the words "reasonable grounds for believing" and insert "believes". We believe that a fairly tough and vigorous approach should be taken to the entire issue of knives and other weapons being carried by school children. The purpose of inserting "believes" instead of "reasonable grounds for believing" is to strengthen the position of the member of staff concerned before a search takes place, and not to put too great a burden on the teacher. If it is the case that the member of staff has to have reasonable grounds to believe, he or she may be expected to go through some sort of mental gymnastics before concluding that it would be right to search the child—for example, "What grounds do I have? Are they reasonable? Would they be open to challenge later?" We are very used nowadays to children being able to challenge members of staff. I want to put that person in a slightly stronger position so that they could perhaps avoid unnecessary challenges in due course.

The Minister, who is not happy with my amendment, talks about pupil protection and the need to ensure that trust is not damaged. However, we are dealing with a serious problem. In a sense, I want to give members of staff stronger powers to do what they think is right even if, from time to time, the grounds on which they want to search someone may not always be deemed to be reasonable by outsiders.

For example, what is the position of a member of staff when a pupil comes up to them and says, "I think that so and so may be carrying a weapon"? Is that a reasonable ground for a search? What about a member of staff who overhears one pupil talking to another about carrying weapons? Would that amount to a reasonable ground? What about a bulge, for example, where a knife might be kept in a young man's trousers? Would that amount to a reason for a member of staff saying, "I think that there may be a ground for a search. I believe that there may be a knife there. I am going to search." That decision would be reached without having to examine the whole issue of reasonable ground.

The purpose of amendment No. 22 is to strengthen the position of the teacher rather than to weaken it.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I was a teacher, and often taught in circumstances that were somewhat stressed. Removing "reasonable" puts the person who is trying to dissolve the conflict or resolve it at great risk. I do not understand why "reasonable" should be removed from any power that is given to a person in authority. That does not make sense to me as a former teacher.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The other side of the argument is that I do not want to put too great a burden on teachers in terms of always having to justify their actions. We seem to be in a world nowadays where the burden is always on the teacher to justify what he or she is doing rather than on the pupil or the parent. The purpose of my amendment is to toughen up the clause, to strengthen the position of teachers and to help them avoid challenges at a later date by some aggrieved child or by a parent who says, in terms, "Justify this search by proving reasonable grounds. If you don't, I will bring some sort of case against you." I do not want teachers to be put in that position.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

Does my hon. Friend accept that amendment No. 22 is reasonable because a teacher would use the power in the presence of someone else, who is clearly defined? That in itself would be a form of control.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My hon. Friend is right. There are burdens on teachers to ensure that they do the right thing. As he readily says, they cannot do the search alone. There are already duties on a teacher without imposing on them too high a burden.

Amendment No. 26 relates to clothing. We had a serious debate in Standing Committee about the clothing that could be removed during a search. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I recall vividly that while we debated this Bill in one Committee Room, another Home Office Bill, on which I also had to serve, was being debated in another Room. A similar provision on searching through clothing was proposed in the other Bill. One of them—I forget which—mentioned the removal of a hat. The other one did not. I rely on the Minister to remind which it was.

The serious point is that the Minister is trying to reach a position in which a proper—a full and thorough—search is made. As we said in Committee, the search must be realistic, by which we mean fairly full. To take an obvious example, if a child is required to remove only an outer coat, it is possible that a weapon might be concealed further down in their clothing. The Minister has to strike a balance. Her proposal goes further than the position taken in Committee. To that extent, I welcome what she said and thank her for it.

Amendment No. 27 is important. I am grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which she received it. We are, after all, talking about searching and the need for the search to be carried out in the presence of another person. The Opposition agree with that concept, but it occurred to me shortly after proceedings in Committee that there could be serious disadvantages if the Bill were left in its current form, with the search taking place in the presence of another person who is aged 18 or over. That is a wide provision and could involve someone who is not a member of staff and teacher trained, such as a parent or a member of staff in the catering department who has no skills in dealing with pupils. Strictly speaking, it could involve another pupil at the same school. I do not think that the Minister intends the second person involved in the search to be another pupil who happens to be 18 or over.

I thought that that was unsatisfactory and still do. The Minister said that she will look more closely at the matter, perhaps with a view to the Government tabling an amendment that is drafted in the same or similar terms as mine. I do not propose to ask the House to divide on the matter, but I do ask her to consider the position carefully, and I know that she will.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government also need to consider religious dress and that they should be sensitive to those who wear religious dress to school? Given that they have tabled the new clause, which relates to higher education, is not it the case that we now have a new problem of adults who carry religious knives? That is a sign of adulthood in Sikh communities such as mine in Shropshire. It is important that those communities are not offended and that the Government realise that Sikh male adulthood includes carrying ceremonial knives.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who raises the important issue of apparel—for want of a better description—that might be important to someone in relation to their religious beliefs. He is right to say that the House should be sensitive to such issues, which are very important to some members of our community. It is not unknown for members of certain religions to carry small knives, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that I cannot immediately form a decisive view on that issue except to say that it is an offence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to carry a bladed article in a public place. All of us would wish to ensure that the law was properly upheld and enforced in that respect.

The new clause deals with the power to search school pupils for weapons. It is not appropriate for the Government to introduce this clause as a flagship proposal to address the problem of knives in schools. As with so much of the law, it is a question of properly enforcing the existing laws of the land. For example, it is already an offence under section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act for a person to have a bladed article on school premises. Furthermore, under section 139B, a constable already has a power to enter school premises to search them and any person on them for any article to which that section applies. Tens of thousands of schoolchildren are carrying knives on school premises, disguised in their clothing, and it distresses me that the existing law as laid out in section 139 is not properly enforced.

I asked the Minister some weeks ago if she could provide figures for the number of occasions on which a constable has entered school premises to conduct a search of a school pupil. The Minister was not able to tell us how many times that has happened. I asked the Minister in a written question earlier in the year about the current powers of head teachers to search and suspend pupils whom they suspect of carrying a form of weapon. The Minister replied that state and independent school head teachers may search a desk or locker without the pupil's consent, search a bag or jacket with consent or ask the police to do a personal search.

We think that we have a problem with young people carrying knives, but it is now critical and needs to be addressed seriously. A Youth Justice Board survey last year showed that 1 per cent. of pupils aged 11 to 16 have, at some time in the previous year, carried a knife in school for offensive reasons, and 2 per cent. had done so for defensive reasons. I checked with the Library the number of schoolchildren of that age in the state sector, and it is more than 3.5 million. Even if one chooses a smaller number of children, if 1 per cent. of children carry a knife for offensive purposes, it means that more than 20,000 children are carrying knives in schools for offensive purposes. If 2 per cent. do so for so-called defensive purposes, it means that more than 40,000 children aged between 11 and 16 are—according to the Government's figures—carrying knives for defensive reasons. It is a horrible statistic: 60,000 children are carrying knives in our schools, yet what is the prospect of their being charged or prosecuted for that offence under existing law? We need only look at the figures.

Over the last few years, how many of the 60,000 children who, according to the Government's figures, were carrying knives, were charged with and convicted of having a bladed article on school premises? In the past five years, fewer than 100 children were charged with that offence, and of those sentenced only nine received a custodial sentence. That is an astonishing statistic, which means that carrying—

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the amendments are about the powers to stop and search and he has gone on to custodial sentences, which are beyond the scope of the amendments.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am anxious not to stray from the basis of the clause, which relates to search, so I shall come back to the point.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is little point in the Government legislating to provide teachers and members of staff with the authority to search pupils unless there is a result when the search discloses a bladed weapon? No doubt that is what my hon. Friend is pointing out to the Minister.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and also for his contribution in Committee. As he rightly says, there is no point in giving teachers those powers unless there is some result from their being used in practice. That is why I was illustrating that the Government's track record to date is so abysmal. The offence of carrying a knife on school premises already exists, but there is only one chance in 2,500 of a pupil being prosecuted for such an offence under existing law and only one chance in eight that any of those prosecuted will be sent to prison. The situation is terrifying.

It is all very well for the Government to bring forward a so-called flagship policy of searching children for knives and giving head teachers the powers to do so, but the Government should be deeply ashamed of the fact that knife carrying in schools has risen so dramatically over the past few years, causing so much fear to so many people, yet it is under-prosecuted by the authorities. The culture of the blade is indeed with us.

In Committee, I briefly raised with the Minister a particular case relating to search and I want to raise it again today. Some weeks ago, Opposition Members were horrified to read a newspaper report that a council was forced to pay £11,000 to a boy expelled for taking a knife to school. Apparently, the council was ordered to apologise to the teenager and to pay his mother £5,000 compensation for anxiety and uncertainty, plus £6,000 for home tuition for her son. Not surprisingly, teachers reacted with fury. If that is what happens when somebody is expelled from school, it is a very sorry situation.

Carrying a knife in school is a serious matter that should result in prosecution of the child, yet the reality is, as my figures show, that it is simply not happening. To return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) made, it is almost a waste of time giving the Government further powers if they do not use their existing powers properly. My general proposition is that although there are more than 60,000 offences a year of carrying a knife in school, the number actually being taken to court is paltry in the extreme.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

The hon. Gentleman referred to a newspaper article but drew the wrong conclusion. He did not tell us who was the author of the decision. If the power to expel a pupil exists and someone—not the pupil or the Government but, presumably, someone in a judicial position—made a judgment to overturn the initial decision, I do not understand why the blame should lie with the Government who gave those powers or with those who used them.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I lay the example before the House this afternoon so that it can understand that knives in school are a serious problem and to tell the House that I for one—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would take the same view—believe that giving compensation to a mother and son for distress in a case involving the carrying of a knife is a very sorry situation indeed. I accept the point that he makes; but, nevertheless, I want to ask the Minister whether she will be kind enough to comment on that case—she did not do so in Committee—and say how it squares with Government policy. That concludes my remarks on my amendments.

We find no reason to challenge the Government amendments, certainly not those in this grouping. Searches by a second member of staff are an important issue, and I very much hope that—if not today, certainly when the Bill reaches another place—the Government will introduce a suitable amendment to give the duty to a second member of staff. I appreciate what the Minister has said about clothing—she has toughened up that clause—but none of this will count for anything in life unless it is acted on.

I stress that, if we are giving this power to teachers, it is vital that education authorities and teachers get to grips with the problem of the knife culture in school, which is almost out of control, and use, as well as the power to search pupils, the existing criminal law, which is ready to be enforced. It is simply not right that a handful of charges have been brought under the existing law. A much stronger enforcement of current legislation is needed.

I wish the clause good luck, and I wish the teachers who have to enforce it good luck and good fortune in the very difficult task that they have to carry out, but my final wish is that the culture of the blade, which dominates our schools at the moment, can as quickly as possible be stamped out by whatever means are necessary.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I rise to speak to new clause 8, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which hon. Members may notice is not a million miles different from Government new clause 9. I very much welcome the Government's tabling of that clause, because it acknowledges the concern that we expressed about not giving further education colleges an equivalent power, thus sending out a worrying signal that only school pupils need protection and possibly even giving the impression that colleges are a soft touch. More 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education attend further education colleges and sixth form colleges than schools—701,000, compared with 345,000—and 120,000 14 to 16-year-olds choose to study vocational courses at college. So we very much welcome those powers being extended to teachers and head teachers at further education colleges.

On amendment No. 22, tabled by the Conservatives, I find myself in agreement with the Government, as there is more protection and greater safeguard in having reasonable grounds, rather than in simply believing. However, I welcome amendment No. 27 and the Government's response, in which the second person might be a member of staff. That is an intelligent and probably better way forward. The extra clarification about the definition of outer clothing can only be helpful—the more definition, the better.

I shall not extend my remarks interminably, but I wish to comment on the assertion of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that 60,000 children are carrying knives. If that figure is correct, would 60,000 prosecutions really be the answer? I would prefer those children to be searched by their head teachers and staff, because that would be a more personal and connected way of addressing the matter.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the hon. Lady accept that it might take only some token prosecutions before those carrying knives at school learned that there would be a penalty for that? There would thus be no requirement for 60,000 prosecutions.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I totally agree that there should be some prosecutions. The Government are often guilty of not enforcing current legislation. However, I would be totally opposed to installing knife arches to detect knives, because that would cause all children to be treated as though they were criminals. It is right to proceed along the lines of members of staff performing searches, rather than using other methods. However, we must take things forward and some prosecutions must be brought.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

May I respond briefly to the points raised by the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone)?

The hon. Member for Woking spoke to amendment No. 22, which would remove the words

"has reasonable grounds for believing"

from clause 41. I cannot accept the amendment. We are trying to strike the right balance among the rights and responsibilities of students, their parents and teachers. It is proper that staff should have reasonable grounds for their belief. In any event, courts would be likely to understand any belief as being reasonable belief, because that is the way in which they interpret matters. The process must be in line with the European convention on human rights. There is little merit in adopting the lower burden of belief in such circumstances. It is important that the relationship between pupils and teachers be maintained so that we have the maximum possible trust among students and parents.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about ceremonial knives, as did the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I understand that the Department for Education and Employment issued detailed guidance in 1997 on ceremonial knives. I understand that such a knife will not be considered an illegal blade if it is very small and in a sealed covering. There has never been a problem with ceremonial knives. We are addressing a problem of an entirely different character. The guidance has been perfectly satisfactory at dealing with such situations, so I would not want the House to have any impression that we must address a problem involving the carrying of ceremonial knives.

Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)

Are you confident about the question of weapons? A pair of scissors was recently used as a weapon in a school. Children often have access to compasses, dividers and other equipment that can be sharpened and readily used as a weapon. I am worried that we are addressing only the knife culture, while a sharpened blade from a sharpener can be used as a weapon just as easily. Are you confident that all those things can be addressed? Will it be possible to look reasonably for a pair of compasses on someone's person? We need to move forward, so I would like your views.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

Order. The hon. Lady is a new Member. It is not for me to make a judgment on these matters, but for the Minister.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Clearly we are trying to ensure that searches can be carried out so that we can confiscate both knives and bladed weapons from students who unfortunately bring them to school. We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about whether it would be possible to use a sharpened blade from a pencil sharpener as a weapon. There have been dreadful events in recent times—we heard at the weekend about a young girl who was attacked—so we want the Bill to provide schools with powers to search. We will never be able to anticipate all the different weapons that may be used, but we are determined to try to make sure that schools can not just search pupils but confiscate items that could be made or adapted for use in violent situations.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

Before my right hon. Friend leaves the matter of ceremonial dress, will she include the sgian dubh, which is often part of a Scots person's full ceremonial dress?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

As I said, there has never been a problem with ceremonial weapons, and I would not want any hon. Member to think otherwise. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced the offence of having an article with a blade or point in a public place, and it also includes the defence of possessing such an article for religious reasons. We contemplated that provision, and I believe that the guidance is sufficient.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

To pursue that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) talked about the culture of the blade and said that it must be challenged. However, the Minister has not explained how an individual armed with a pair of scissors, a compass or a Stanley knife, which has a short blade, will be dealt with. Those people will quickly learn the new law, and arm themselves with such implements. How will she address that threat?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Having a blade on school premises is an offence, and any other material that could provide evidence of that offence could be seized. If an individual was even contemplating using any other pointed articles, those items could be seized and confiscated as a result of the search. Schools and teachers will have the necessary powers to be able to take potential weapons away from people, which ought to make our school premises significantly safer in future.

The hon. Member for Woking raised the case of someone who was excluded from school. I should put on the record the fact that compensation, as I understand it, was awarded because of the failure to provide alternative education provision rather than anything to do with the seizure of the knife. Schools obviously have powers not just to conduct searches under the legislation but to exclude pupils for violent activity, including the carrying of knives on the premises. We would certainly support teachers and head teachers who take such action to exclude pupils, but the compensation in the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was payable, I believe, for the failure to provide education provision rather than because of the initial decision to exclude. We would not want teachers to shy away from exclusion in such circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of schools and the police working together closely, and I can confirm that police officers are stationed in 400 schools across the country, where they can build extremely good relationships with both teachers and pupils. Police officers who are based full-time in schools have had a significant impact on the likelihood of violent incidents occurring in school. They can often nip problems in the bud, and do excellent educational work with pupils to show them that the carrying of knives and other weapons is not the way to resolve conflict. Basing police officers in schools is therefore an extremely good idea.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

The right hon. Lady is making an excellent case both for Government new clause 9 and for the presence of police officers in schools—an initiative that is working well in my south Essex constituency. Can she explain to the House exactly what happens if, during a search on a pupil, a weapon is not found but other contraband, illegal substances or materials are found?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

If there is evidence of offences that have been committed, the police would take the action that they usually take in those circumstances. We have introduced powers for searches for alcohol and tobacco in the possession of under-age youngsters, as well as for other substances. If the police found illegal substances they would retain them and dispose of them in the normal manner, just as they would for anyone else who had committed an offence. The age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10, and if people are found to have committed criminal offences the police will take appropriate action as a result of the evidence that they find.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister remarked on the number of police present in schools, which we all applaud. However, in what percentage of schools across the country are police present for much of the time? Does she, like the Opposition, think that it is a good idea to try to encourage a much greater take-up of that facility?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Apart from the fact that my maths is not up to it, I do not know the total number of schools so I cannot give a percentage figure now, but I shall endeavour to find the hon. Gentleman some details. We encourage schools to have extremely close relationships with the police service. I find that police officers stationed in schools often build a relationship with pupils that diverts them from becoming involved in crime, antisocial behaviour and other activities that cause problems. Of course we now have 13,000 extra police officers, so there are more to go around our schools than there were a few years ago. With the advent of 24,000 community support officers and the ability to have a neighbourhood police team in every community by 2008, I anticipate even more schools being able to develop a better and more positive relationship with their police services.

In Committee, the hon. Gentleman said that, as well as introducing somewhat punitive measures in relation to searches, confiscation and prosecution, it is important to concentrate on educating our young people in the idea that carrying knives and other weapons is no way to resolve conflict. We must try to give them alternative skills to deal with some of the problems they face at school, so that we can minimise the prospect of the horrendous events that we have seen all too graphically in the past few weeks recurring. The Government support a range of education projects, in particular with the police service, and I hope that the House welcomes that sort of work.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1 — Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Amendment)

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out clauses 1 to 11.

Amendment No. 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, after 'subject's', insert 'knowingly'.

Amendment No. 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, after 'entering', insert

', and attempting to purchase alcohol in or consuming alcohol in,'.

Amendment No. 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 and insert—

'any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purposes of purchasing or consuming alcohol.'.

Amendment No. 28, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

'(5) Before making a drinking banning order, a court may receive a report from an appropriate officer about the proposed subject of the order, which contains information about the subject and, in particular, about whether there is any reason to suspect that he may be—

(a) suffering from substance addiction (including alcohol dependence);

(b) a person falling within section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983; or

(c) suffering from any other recognised physical or mental illness or condition which could either—

(i) affect his ability to restrict his intake of alcohol,

(ii) cause him to engage in criminal conduct while under the influence of alcohol, or

(iii) affect his ability to comply with a drinking banning order.

(6) In subsection (5) above "an appropriate officer" means—

(a) where the proposed subject is aged 18 or over, an officer of the National Offender Management Service, a doctor or a social worker of a local authority social services department;

(b) where the proposed subject is aged under 18, a social worker of a local authority social services department or a member of a youth offending team.

(7) If the court determines that the proposed subject of a drinking banning order may be a person falling within subsection (5)(a) to (c) above, the court shall not make a drinking banning order unless satisfied, on receipt of medical evidence, that—

(a) his ability to understand and comply with the order will not be significantly restricted by reason of his being a person falling within subsection (5)(a) to (c) above; and

(b) compliance with the order, either alone or in combination to any other order or sentence to which he is subject, would not have a deleterious effect on his mental or physical health.'.

Amendment No. 13, in clause 2, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

'(6) For the purposes of this Act, "disorderly" shall mean conduct which would offend a reasonable person but which falls short of a criminal act.'.

Amendment No. 5, in clause 5, page 4, line 26, leave out

'under the influence of alcohol'

and insert 'drunk'.

Amendment No. 6, in clause 5, page 4, line 28, after 'consider', insert

'on any application by the Crown'.

Amendment No. 30, in clause 6, page 5, line 19, leave out subsection (9).

Government amendment No. 42.

Amendment. No. 14, in clause 11, page 9, line 16, at end insert

'"disorderly" means conduct which would offend a reasonable person but which falls short of a criminal act.'.

Government amendments Nos. 43, 44, 82, 83 and 86 to 93.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

We come now to one of the Bill's main purposes, which is to tackle alcohol-related disorder. I should say at the start of my remarks that I hope to divide the House on new clause 1 if the Minister does not accept it. I have some hope that the Minister will accept it, based on her comment a few minutes ago that my amendment No. 22 was one that she was inclined to accept in due course. In my many years in this House only extremely rarely have the Government accepted anything that I have said—perhaps it is a fault in my arguments. However, it is terribly encouraging to start the debate this afternoon with the Minister saying that she approves of what I have said so far in relation to one amendment.

I shall explain new clause 1 and speak to Conservative amendments Nos. 1 to 4, 13, 5, 6 and 14, then say a word or two about Liberal Democrat amendment No. 28. New clause 1 is simple: it would amend the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to enable an antisocial behaviour order made under that Act to be made for a minimum period of three months, rather than two years, as now. Linked with the new clause is amendment No. 1, which would omit clauses 1 to 11.

I make two general propositions in this, the most important debate of the day. The first is that although alcohol-related disorder on our streets is a major problem—not ameliorated by the Government's plans to introduce extended drinking hours, which many people including the police regard as a retrograde step—and one that is getting worse by the day, not enough is being done to address it. The second general proposition is that the existing law is entirely satisfactory when it comes to dealing with alcohol-related disorder. That general theme lies behind new clause 1, which seeks to alter the period of time for which an antisocial behaviour order must be made.

When we discussed antisocial behaviour orders in Standing Committee—I think that it was at the first sitting on 13 October—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) asked the Minister to reflect on the fact that using existing law is often better than creating new laws. Our general proposition was not only that an antisocial behaviour order can do exactly what a drinking banning order purports to do, but that it can do more and that it may be effective. If that is right—we thought that it was and still think that it is—why give the police yet another power in relation to drink?

The Minister seemed to indicate in Committee that antisocial behaviour orders are not applicable to the kind of activity—alcohol-related disorder—covered by the Bill, and when we asked her why, she pointed out two differences. First, she said that an antisocial behaviour order can be imposed on anyone from the age of 10 upwards, whereas a drinking banning order can be imposed only on over-16s. That is not an argument, however, because if we were to use antisocial behaviour orders in drink-banning situations, we would have a wider, better, less-limited power. I illustrate that point by saying that a lot of under-age drinking involves not 16 to 18-year-olds, but 14 and 15-year-olds, so the Minister's argument fails.

The Minister's second point against the use of antisocial behaviour orders was that under current law—the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—the minimum period for an antisocial behaviour order is two years, whereas for a drinking banning order it is two months. That is a statement of the law, but we can cover the point by simply amending the 1998 Act to enable an antisocial behaviour order to be made for a more flexible period of time, which is the result that new clause 1 attempts to achieve.

Earlier, I advanced the proposition that the existing law on alcohol-related disorder in our towns and cities is voluminous.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Is not a further reason why antisocial behaviour orders may not be suitable the amount of evidence required to issue them, as opposed to the evidence required to issue drinking banning orders? The Bill states that someone need only engage in criminal or disorderly behaviour on one occasion for a drinking banning order to be applied for, whereas an antisocial behaviour order requires a longer period of evidence gathering.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not right. Both of those orders must be made by a court upon the production of evidence that satisfies the court that the appropriate order should be made.

A third reason why an antisocial behaviour order could be more appropriate than a drinking banning order is the consequences of a breach. As I understand it, the penalty for a breach of a drink banning order is not the highest. Under clause 10—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—a person who is the subject of a drink banning order is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine: not a fine or imprisonment, but just a fine. The clause imposes a drink banning order and effectively says to the person who is its subject: "Breach this order and the result will be a fine", whereas the breach of an antisocial behaviour order can, and often does, result in a custodial sentence, and rightly so.

Let me illustrate further my proposition that existing law deals with problems of the sort that the Minister is trying to deal with. Some months ago, I asked her what powers courts have to ban defendants from entering licensed premises—because, let us make no mistake about it, that is what the drink banning order purports to do. She replied:

"Under the provisions of the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 a court can make an order prohibiting a person from entering specified licensed premises, following conviction for an offence committed on licensed premises involving violence or threats of violence."

The power already exists. Undoubtedly a great number of orders should have been made under the 1980 Act, but how many have been made? The Minister went on to say that

"antisocial behaviour orders . . . introduced under . . . the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and first used in 1999 can also be used to prohibit certain people from entering certain specific areas or premises."—[Official Report, 12 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 908W.]

If an antisocial behaviour order that carries a custodial sentence in the event of a breach can be used to prevent certain persons from entering certain areas or premises, what does a drink banning order add, if anything, to the existing law?

We suffer from a surfeit of laws. The House of Commons passes law after law, and the trouble is that they pile up and fall into disrepute, and quite often existing legislation that is perfectly fit for purpose is not properly used.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

One of the difficulties that we noted when antisocial behaviour orders were first introduced was the substantial delay before courts started making such orders on a regular basis. Does my hon. Friend think that that might happen with drink banning orders; and if it did, would not that undermine the Government's proper desire to deal with such problems instantly?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My hon. Friend is right. Such situations are becoming increasingly common. As we all know, in their early years antisocial behaviour orders were barely used at all. I remember the then Home Secretary telling the Home Affairs Committee that he thought that thousands would be used in the first year or two, but such is the bureaucratic nightmare involved that only a few hundred were used in that period. The use of antisocial behaviour orders has increased a lot in the past couple of years, and I congratulate the Government and the courts on that. There is always a very slow run-in period before such orders are used to their full effect. It could properly be said that antisocial behaviour orders are now the norm rather than the exception in such cases, and breaches usually result in a custodial sentence. So his parallel point about the drinking banning order, which, according to the Government, we need to cure an immediate problem quickly, is correct. If the antisocial behaviour order is anything to go by, it will be years before the drinking banning orders get under way and are used to their full effect.

What problems do the drinking banning orders purport to attack? The answer is the alcohol-fuelled disorder, to which I referred earlier. No hon. Member doubts that one of the greatest problems that the country faces is binge drinking, especially by young people, both girls and boys. The Prime Minister's strategy unit's alcohol harm reduction project was established a year or two ago. It told us—we knew it already—that British teenagers, along with those in Ireland and Denmark, are among the heaviest teenage drinkers in Europe. They are more likely to drink to get drunk and to report problems that are associated with drinking than their counterparts in other European countries.

There is a telling statistic: more than one third of 15-year-olds in the United Kingdom report having been drunk at the age of 13 or earlier. That is a desperate figure. Given that an antisocial behaviour order can be made against someone as young as 10, the problem of young person's drunkenness could be better addressed through such an order.

Patterns of heavy and binge drinking, which are especially serious in the UK, lead to an increasing toll of premature death and health problems as well as alcohol-related disorder and injuries.One of the most distressing factors is the number of women who drink well above recommended guidelines. That figure has risen by more than half in the past 15 years. Hon. Members will agree that binge drinking by young women is perhaps even more dangerous in health terms than that by young men.

We face big problems and binge drinking is undoubtedly one of them. Come with me, Mr. Speaker, to the streets of some of our towns and cities in the south on a Friday and Saturday evening, and see what happens when people, full of alcohol, are turned out of pubs and clubs at 11 pm or 12 am. It was probably different in our day—I say that as a kindness to all hon. Members—when there was no such thing as spirit chasers. In my experience in the courts, I have encountered many young people who commit alcohol-fuelled crime, who, in between their pints of bitter, have a double vodka or a double spirit shot. That is a relatively new and damaging trend which must be tackled.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

The hon. Gentleman has just said that the most dangerous time is when people are tipped out of pubs at 11 pm and 12 am and gravitate towards the centre of towns. Surely that is an argument for extending the licensing laws and for more flexible licensing laws so that people are chucked out at different times of night?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Government continually argue that the new licensing laws will lead to a continental café culture, whereby everybody comes out of the clubs and behaves beautifully. However, the hon. Gentleman is naive if he believes that extended licensing hours will help. I understand that the Government always support the police and, if the police say something, the Government appear to believe that it must be right. The police have said that they are terribly worried about late drinking hours and the Judges Council has made a statement to the effect that alcohol consumption over a longer period of time—the extended licensing hours—is much more likely to fuel alcohol-related crime. I therefore urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again, given that so many people are against them on permitting alcohol to be drunk round the clock.

The problems of alcohol-related disorder are clearly there for all to see, but there is already a range of offences and orders to cover everything that happens on our streets in relation to drunkenness and drunken crime, and according to the Home Affairs Committee, which is dominated by Labour Members, those powers are grossly underused at present. So what is the point of introducing a new Bill with a complicated new kind of order when the existing law is wholly adequate?

The whole issue is about the proper enforcement of those existing laws, and I shall give the House some examples. If a person is drunk, there is an offence of simple drunk. If they are drunk and disorderly, there is an offence of drunk and disorderly. It is interesting to speculate on the number of people who are prosecuted for being drunk or drunk and disorderly. In truth, the numbers are dropping dramatically, yet there is more drunkenness and disorderliness on our streets. Why, then, have the prosecutions dropped from about 124,000 in 1980 to fewer than 44,000 in 2001? I suspect that the Government would answer that most offences of drunk and disorderly are dealt with by issuing fixed penalty notices. That can sometimes send the wrong signal, however, because some people deserve to appear in court.

When we referred to fixed penalty notices at the Standing Committee's second sitting, I remember the Minister saying:

"From January to August of this year, 86,000 fixed penalty notices were issued across the country".

When I asked her how many had been paid, she replied:

"Something like three quarters: 50 per cent. straight away and 25 per cent. after a little delay".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 October 2005; c. 63.]

I then referred the Minister to a written question that I had put to her Department in June this year. I had asked for the total value of fixed penalty notices handed out by the police in the Greater London area in the past 12 months, and the percentage that remained unrecovered. One would have thought that the Minister's answer to that question would have been the same as the one that she gave in Committee. However, her answer was that the total value of fixed penalty notices issued was not collected centrally. So, in fact, she was able to tell us very little about the effectiveness of fixed penalty notices.

Apart from the offences of drunk and drunk and disorderly, there are the offences of common assault and actual bodily harm, as well as four or five offences under the Public Order Act 1986, ranging from riot right down to using abusive words and behaviour. And so the list goes on. Offence after offence can and should be used by the Government but they are simply not being used at the moment.

Antisocial behaviour orders are the subject of new clause 1, and I believe that changing the time for which they operate from a minimum of two years to three months could fit the bill. I want to ask the Minister some specific questions. Does she accept that an antisocial behaviour order can prohibit persons from entering specific areas or premises? Does she also accept that such an order could prevent a person from entering a licensed premises? She must accept that the answer is yes to both those questions. Will she therefore tell me how many such orders forbidding persons to enter such licensed premises have been made so far by the courts? How many have been breached? How effective have they been? How many people have been sent to prison—as is possible under an ASBO but not under a drink banning order—for such breaches? Will she also confirm that another restriction that can be laid upon an individual is, before trial, to impose bail conditions forbidding a defendant from going into specified premises?

The Minister has said that antisocial behaviour orders are not appropriate for dealing with alcohol-related disorder. May I gently suggest to her that she is completely out of step with the courts, which, I can tell her from my own experience, are using ASBOs to deal with exactly the sort of alcohol-related disorder that we are facing? I repeat the point that they are stronger than drink banning orders, simply because the penalty for breach can be up to five years in prison—I will be corrected if I am wrong—whereas the penalty for breach of this drink banning order is only a fine. That troubles me, because if the breach only results in a fine, our means courts will be flooded with cases of people who have a drink banning order made against them, who breach it, and who do not pay the fine, which is the maximum sanction. That is the reality. If you and I were to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I knew at one point—the percentage of unpaid fines in the Greater London area in a particular year, we would be absolutely astonished at the volume of them.

The question of breach is important. The Minister said, during the Committee's third sitting, I think, on 18 October, that custody is not appropriate if people have merely breached a community penalty. I happen to take a different view, and I wonder where she has been all this time—in fact, in courts up and down the land, breaches of community penalty often result in a custodial sentence, not least for the original offence.

I want to speak briefly to some other important amendments. The purpose of new clause 1 and amendment No. 1 is my fundamental one of saying that the proposed legislation is unnecessary and that the problems addressed can be dealt with fully under existing law. For that reason, I want to press new clause 1 to a vote.

Under clause 1, prohibitions under a drink banning order

"must include such prohibition as the court making it considers necessary, for that purpose, on the subject's entering premises in respect of which there is a premises licence authorising the use of the premises for the sale of alcohol by retail; and . . . club premises".

My amendment No. 2 is a reasonable provision that seeks to insert into the clause the word "knowingly", because as we all know, some premises such as garages are licensed to sell alcohol, and it is entirely possible to enter a garage premises to get petrol unaware that it also holds a licence and sells wine and spirits.

More importantly, amendment No. 3, on which I am considering asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would permit a separate vote, would simply insert into clause 1(3) the words,

", and attempting to purchase alcohol in or consuming alcohol in,"

That gets us round the problem, which we discussed ad nauseam in Committee, whereby supermarkets, under clause 1(3), would be covered by the ban. Let us remember that the court "must" include a prohibition, not "may". People would therefore be banned from going into supermarkets and corner shops. Would people living close to the only village shop or post office , which might sell alcohol, be banned from going into them? What about garages, sports clubs, hotels, restaurants and cinemas? We are talking about premises that by and large are not remotely connected with the fuelling of alcohol-related disorder, but that are licensed premises, and would therefore be caught under the provision prohibiting people who are subject to a drink banning order from entering them.

During the second sitting of the Standing Committee, Conservative Members raised the issue of the premises that would be covered. We all know that the premises that cause the real problem in terms of alcohol-related disorder are pubs that behave irresponsibly. What about the premises that I listed earlier? Would a court ban people—as it appears it would have to—from entering all licensed premises?

Having listened to the argument, the Minister said:

"On 26 October I, the Home Secretary and Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will meet the chief executives of the large supermarket chains, to talk about the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I think that most people accept that they are a problem."

I now ask the Minister to respond fully to my request, and to tell us exactly what happened at that meeting.

The Minister went on to say—this is a critical point—

"We are talking about the behaviour of the individual, and it will be for the courts to decide the appropriate prohibitions of an order. It may say"

—I think that the Minister meant that the court might say—

"that the individual can carry on using the corner shop if it is the only shop for 10 miles—although I doubt that—but he may be banned from buying alcohol there. He could still buy fish fingers, but not alcohol. If he bought alcohol from the garage rather than petrol, he would be in breach of the order and a sanction would follow—and properly so."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,18 October 2005; c. 47–8.]

Let us pause for a moment. Can the Minister tell us where the Bill says that the court has a power to act in any way that it thinks fit in relation to any particular licensed premises, by name or by description? I want her to be absolutely clear about that, and to answer my fundamental question: rather than including the rigmarole about premises with a licence, club premises and so forth, why does she not accept a straightforward amendment to the effect that a drink banning order may impose a prohibition on a person from entering licensed premises for the purpose of purchasing or consuming alcohol?

In fewer words than those used by the Government, my amendment absolutely covers the position. No Member in his right mind wants to stop someone from entering a garage, supermarket or village shop. I can tell the Minister that plenty of people live in areas so rural that the only shop within miles where they can obtain their daily provisions is one with an alcohol licence. There are also plenty of people who rely entirely on their sport to keep them going. They will want to go on visiting sports clubs which have licences. Why not accept an amendment—amendment No. 4—which allows them to do that, but states that the order can prohibit them from buying or attempting to buy alcohol there, or from consuming it? I believe that those arguments are compelling.

Amendment No. 13 brings us to the extraordinary word "disorderly". I want to insert a definition in clause 3. An earlier part of the Bill states that the court must be satisfied

"that the individual has . . . engaged in criminal or disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol".

The word "disorderly" utterly stumps me. It is not defined anywhere in the Bill, so I seek from the Minister some examples of what she means by "disorderly behaviour". Is it disorderly behaviour that is a crime or is it disorderly behaviour that falls short of a crime? I remember challenging a Government Member in Committee on precisely that issue. I asked whether she could provide some examples of disorderly behaviour that did not amount to a crime. In truth, she could not. If my memory serves me correctly, she first provided an example of someone who was plainly drunk and disorderly and subsequently examples of matters that were plainly a criminal offence.

I have talked the issue through with legal colleagues who are utterly stumped by the Government's failure to define disorderly conduct. In an alcohol context, being drunk and disorderly is already a crime. My probing amendment No. 13 asks what is meant by "disorderly", and I would be most grateful for the Minister's clarification.

The greatly respected organisation Justice takes a similar view. It believes that the threshold in clause 2(2) for the imposition of a drinking banning order is too broad. Drinking banning orders, it believes, should surely be aimed at those who

"drunkenly commit acts of violence, criminal damage, threatening behaviour and similar crimes. It is, we believe, uncontroversial"—

and I agree—

"that mere high-spirited behaviour, (which most law-abiding people have indulged in at some time) should not result in a coercive order of this nature and severity."

Where do high spirits come in relation to disorderly behaviour, what is the actual definition of disorderly and is it not already covered by existing criminal offences?

On amendment No. 5, will the Minister define the difference between being under the influence of alcohol and drunk? The Bill purports to permit a drinking banning order to be made against someone who is

"under the influence of alcohol",

rather than drunk. I looked carefully at the legal precedents to see what definitions there were in existing legislation of being under the influence of alcohol compared with being drunk. We all know from our experience in the courts and, more commonly, as watchers rather than anything else, what a policeman would say about someone whom he or she deemed to be drunk. The policeman would say that the person's eyes were bloodshot, his speech slurred, he could not walk straight and so forth, so he was "drunk".

What, then, of being under the influence of alcohol? The closest parallel that I can find is the drink-driving laws, where it is entirely possible to be

"under the influence of alcohol",

but not "drunk". Of course, drink-driving laws are administered through the use of a breathalyser at the roadside and thereafter a taximeter test at the police station. Someone whose breath intake of alcohol exceeds 35 mg or, in blood, 80 mg, is deemed to be under the influence of alcohol. That is the actual charge laid against someone driving a motor vehicle while under that influence, but it does not mean that they are drunk. According to the law, as determined by the breathalyser, they are under the influence of alcohol. Why, then, does clause 2(2) make it a condition for making the order that the individual has engaged in

"disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol"?

Does the Minister mean drunk and, if so, why does she not say so? If she means under the influence of alcohol, will she define exactly what that means?

My amendment No. 6 relates to clause 5, which deals with the imposition of a drinking banning order. It seems sensible to me that the body responsible for imposing such an order should be the Crown who prosecutes the case, rather than the court. Courts often consider making such an order without reference to the Crown or without taking the Crown's views into account. It is more sensible to say that a drinking banning order should be made on an application by the Crown rather than of the court's own volition.

My final amendment in this group, No. 14, tries to be helpful to the Government by inserting in the clause a definition of the word "disorderly". I simply ask the Minister to be kind enough—

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

If memory serves me right, in Committee, when we discussed what constitutes "disorderly" behaviour, the example that was given was six youngsters under the influence of alcohol outside someone's house. The hon. Gentleman says that such people are simply exhibiting high spirits. Would he tell a constituent who complained about such a situation that the youngsters in question were just in high spirits, or that they were being disorderly?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I say now exactly what I said in Committee. Let us consider the example of six 18-year-old youngsters who have been to a 21st birthday party and are under the influence of alcohol. [Interruption.] Let me finish this point. Let us say that there are some high spirits and that—in keeping with the example given in Committee—they were making a bit of a noise running across the road. If it is not a criminal offence, it does not deserve the sort of sanction that this Bill provides for. That is why we have the criminal law, by the way. There are many decent, high-spirited people who behave in ways that do not break the law, and as far as I am concerned, let them do so. The law is the law, and normal high spirits should not—I repeat, not—be punished by a drinking banning order, which is a very punitive measure indeed.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

Is that what the hon. Gentleman would tell his constituents?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Yes, it is. I would tell them that normal high spirits are entirely to be accepted. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that under his Government, normal high spirits should be punished by a punitive order, I disagree with him wholeheartedly.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Two weeks ago, a constituent came to my surgery who is being plagued week in, week out by a group of youngsters consuming large quantities of alcohol. The hon. Gentleman describes such behaviour as high spirits, but my constituent does not, given that she is being woken up at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. Are the Conservatives now happy for law-abiding people such as her to be kept awake all night by "high spirits"?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Oh dear—the hon. Gentleman misses the point altogether. The people keeping that person awake all night are almost certainly drunk and disorderly, and the police—[Interruption.] Forgive me, is the hon. Gentleman saying that those people are not disorderly?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

My constituent is saying that week in, week out, she and her neighbours are being harassed by people who are perhaps not completely drunk according to the hon. Gentleman's argument, but who are clearly causing a nuisance in that neighbourhood. Is he saying that such behaviour is acceptable?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman, who was a valued member of the Committee, is not doing himself justice. If the conduct amounts to a criminal offence, it is a criminal offence. I am in no doubt that he is familiar with sections 4, 4(1)(a) and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, and he will doubtless intervene to tell me whether he believes that they cover the situation about which he is talking. [Interruption.] Does he want to tell me what he thinks about my observation that those sections apply? Yes, he does.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Anyone can be a clever lawyer—there are too many in this place—but the point is that this Government are trying to tackle disorder on estates. Frankly, by referring to such hooligan-style behaviour as "high spirits" the hon. Gentleman shows just how out of touch he is.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman is letting himself down time and again, and I will be doing him a service if I do not give way again. I repeat: the behaviour that he is talking about is a criminal offence, and what we want is proper enforcement of the existing criminal law. We need to distinguish between criminal acts, and high spirits that do not amount to a criminal act. If such behaviour amounts to a criminal act, let those guilty of it be prosecuted; if it does not, there is no point in a harsh sanction.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sort of behaviour that Labour Members are describing sounds very much like antisocial behaviour? If that is so, is not an ASBO the appropriate remedy?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My hon. Friend is right. If the behaviour is not thought by the police to warrant prosecution in a particular case, an ASBO is a relevant application.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

May I also let myself down by asking the hon. Gentleman to clarify the difference between high spirits and disorder? Will he give a practical example of what the difference is?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I shall link drunk and disorder, which is an offence. I have already said that the number of prosecutions is lamentably low for that offence. The hon. Gentleman must understand that there is a difference between something that is not an offence and something that is an offence.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

What is the difference?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

If a person in the street is drunk—I cannot make it much simpler than that—and is then disorderly, that is an offence of being drunk and disorderly. [Interruption.] The line lies where the police and the courts—thank God, we still have the courts—choose to draw it. Genuine high spirits, which do not amount to someone being drunk and disorderly, are not a criminal offence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

Is not a material factor the regularity with which the bad behaviour takes place, which is damaging a community's quality of life? If there are high spirits on one occasion, that is one thing; if there is repeated bad behaviour in a particular area, that should be tackled by the use of ASBOs.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My hon. Friend is right. I cannot make the point to Labour Members more clearly than I have. If there is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 or under any other legislation, it should be prosecuted. If there is no offence, there should be no prosecution. We must never forget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) has said, that there is the availability of the ASBO, which if granted—

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The Opposition were against ASBOs.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman was not, I think, a member of the Committee that considered that Bill, so he is not able to say that. If an ASBO is made and it is breached, that can result in a custodial sentence.

First, the reality is that we have a huge amount of alcohol-related violence, and it is becoming worse by the month under the Government. Secondly, there is no doubt that there is a huge amount of existing law relating to drunken violence that is not being enforced by the police. Thirdly, an ASBO covers the process that the Government want to include in their new Bill. We need only to amend the ASBO legislation to permit orders to be made for a shorter period of three months. In one fell swoop we would overcome the Minister's apparent objection in Committee.

The Minister must understand that the purpose of the orders is to ban people from purchasing, or attempting to purchase, alcohol rather than entering premises that may have a particular licence. I know that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) will be making her comments on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on amendment No. 28. I have much sympathy with that amendment and I hope to be able to respond to her as the debate progresses.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 28 and 30 and comment on other amendments in the group. With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall probably put amendment No. 28 to a vote at the appropriate time.

Amendment No. 28 is an attempt to ensure that a drinking banning order is not applied inappropriately—a point that, to some extent, we discussed in Committee. There are cases where an individual, through a number of conditions, is rendered incapable not just of complying with an order, but of understanding it. In such cases, a person may suffer from substance addiction, including alcohol dependency, or have a mental condition such as Asperger's syndrome or Tourette's syndrome.

The amendment that we tabled in Committee stated that a court "must" have a report on each individual who appears before it. The Minister argued that the paperwork involved would create too heavy a bureaucracy and delays would occur. She said that drinking banning orders were meant to be a quick and effective punishment without being as cumbersome or severe as antisocial behaviour orders, which carry a much longer and more severe penalty.

As suggested by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) in Committee, the amendment now says that courts "may" ask for a medical report so that they can be satisfied that the individual can understand and comply with a drinking banning order. I was persuaded by the Minister's argument about bureaucracy, and she offered to include in the guidance the need to consider asking for a medical report. On reflection, however, I decided that simply to place it in guidance is not enough of a safeguard for an individual who is thus incapacitated. I have modified the amendment to put the measure on the face of the Bill to ensure that all courts and advocates refer to it and recognise its relevance.

Guidance for mental health problems is used to support antisocial behaviour order legislation, but it has not worked. One does not have to look far to find examples of ASBOs being served inappropriately. The British Institute for Brain Injured Children provided me with many examples, one of which in particular stuck in my mind. A 14-year-old boy was given an ASBO that included a curfew. He had to stick to it, but he had a mental age below that of a seven-year-old and could not tell the time. The boy and his family needed help to deal with their problems, and an ASBO was inappropriate in enabling them to receive guidance and support.

With the amendment changed to "may" instead of "must"—I hope that the Minister is in a good mood—the judiciary would be able to avoid using a drinking banning order inappropriately while ensuring that the process was still quick. A doctor or GP should also be able to give their opinion to a court to speed that process further. If drinking banning orders are to work in the way envisaged by the Government, they should be swift procedures, more akin to parents grounding their naughty children. It should be a short punishment that is not meant to last a lifetime but to shock them into realising the error of their ways. We need to be sure that the vulnerable are adequately and properly protected.

Amendment No. 30 returns to the issue of publicising individuals who are subject to a drinking banning order. The Government want to disapply the blanket ban on the publication of names and photographs of defendants under 18. We think that that contravenes the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. That is applied to the criminal law, and we are considering the civil law, but such publication would break with the spirit of the convention. We want to protect young people.

I was surprised by the Minister's view in Committee that it was appropriate to put photos and names in the press. She argued that if I wanted the measure enforced, I should be happy with that, because the more publicity that names and faces received, the more likely it would be that the individual would be recognised going into an area where he should not be. However, it would be far more appropriate to give that information to interested parties, such as licensees, local authorities and police, rather than pillorying those people in the press.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Is it now Liberal Democrat policy not to name and shame individuals? In Durham, some estates are plagued by certain individuals. Is the hon. Lady saying that they should be protected?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

We should comply with the spirit of the UN convention on the rights of the child. Interested parties, such as estate wardens, should be informed because they could work with the police to enforce a drinking banning order. We should not simply name and shame, like in the olden days in the stocks and by pillory. Publicity could also be self-defeating. ASBOs have become a badge of honour for some young people, and drinking banning orders could be prized in the same way. We know that young men can be competitive about how much they drink.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will we see Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflets published to highlight the fact that Liberal Democrats now oppose naming and shaming individuals? How will people on the estates plagued by certain individuals be able to help the police if the individuals cannot be identified? The hon. Lady's proposal is totally unworkable.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I remain convinced that informing interested parties would be more valuable than placing notices in the press, as suggested by the Minister. Publicity might be self-defeating, because the resulting celebrity might encourage youngsters to break their drinking banning orders. It would be far more appropriate to notify only those interested parties who could help the police.

New clause 1 proposes that an ASBO should last for only three months, but that is far too short a term in which to change behaviour—and that has to be the objective of any such order. We need to produce a cultural change. An ASBO lasts two years, but a year would be just right. I would prefer to see far more work being done with those who are served with ASBOs or drinking banning orders. If that happened, the length of the order could be modified according to improvements in behaviour.

We discussed the definition of "disorderly" for some time in Committee. I am not unattracted by the Conservative definition, but it is very vague and did not get any clearer despite all our attempts. The Government are trying to achieve the difficult job of pinning the definition between the criminal and the high-spirited, but I was concerned when the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) said that behaviour that constitutes disorder and should be banned included:

"generally running about, running across roads and shouting to one's friends".

She elucidated further that

"It may be seen as . . . threatening and people are disturbed by it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 October 2005; c. 35.]

Drinking banning orders may cross several fine lines, but we will have to see how they work in practice. I am inclined to give the Government the benefit of the doubt until we see how drinking banning orders work. The terms are ill defined, but I understand that the nuisance created in some cities has now gone beyond the pale and it is that mischief that—[Interruption.] I have always acknowledged that such behaviour has gone too far. I want to see how the Government's plans will tackle it, and I am not convinced that they will achieve their aims without stepping over the line into an authoritarian approach. However, I assume that the matter will be kept under review and that if there is a step too far, we shall retreat—

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

Soft on crime.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

No, Liberal Democrats have a well-balanced view of life and have nothing whatever to be ashamed of. I have always been proud of our position, which is, in the end, common sense.

Given the length of some of the speeches, I shall conclude my remarks. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow us to vote on amendment No. 28.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

I have little sympathy with the Liberal amendment, No. 28. I believe in naming and shaming individuals who indulge in loutish behaviour and damage other people's lives.

I want briefly to support the new clause, the logic of which is clear. There are too many complex laws and we are making too much law. New laws take time to bed in and become effective—if they ever do—so using existing ASBOs is the rational way to deal with the problem and improve the protection we offer communities that suffer from loutish and unacceptable behaviour.

Lowering the height of the hurdle from two years to three months, as the new clause proposes, is the rational way forward. It will make ASBOs more attractive and promote their use, so that the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts are encouraged to implement them to increase protection for residents and people whose quality of life is regularly damaged by bad behaviour and nuisance on our streets.

I support the new clause and hope that the House will accept it on a Division. It is rational and common sense, and we should adopt it.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

We have trawled over some of the ground we covered in Committee, but we now have a clearer idea of the views of all the parties. The purpose of the Bill is to try to ensure that we protect the law-abiding majority of decent people from the kind of behaviour that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) just mentioned.

New clause 1 and amendment No. 1 would reduce the minimum length of an antisocial behaviour order from two years to three months. It would remove all the provisions relating to drinking banning orders, on the basis that the Opposition feel it would be appropriate to use ASBOs rather than drinking banning orders in all circumstances—[Interruption.] I hope to cover every point that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made and to rebut some of the things that he got wrong.

Technically, it would be possible to reduce the length of ASBOs and simply provide conditions tailored to drink issues, where that is the problem behaviour, but that would do no service either to ASBOs or to the proposed new orders. In Committee, I talked about the need for courts to consider making a drinking banning order on a basis that is much more proactive than that for their current consideration of ASBOs.

Antisocial behaviour orders cover the spectrum of antisocial behaviour. The motivations that drive that behaviour will be very varied. Those receiving ASBOs will often have poor educational records, a history of truancy, problems at home, parental issues—a range of different things lead up to their offending behaviour. That is why ASBOs are fairly complex, with a range of prohibitions to try to target the antisocial behaviour. As Members have said, the complex nature of ASBOs meant that they were slow to take off when they were originally proposed in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We have made them simpler, but they remain significant and serious orders. Courts need to be pretty well convinced of the case for making an ASBO; indeed, some of my hon. Friends might say that courts, local authorities and the police are not using the powers to their full extent in many areas, although I am pleased to say that the situation is improving.

ASBOs take time to have an effect, and the community must be protected in the interim, so simply reducing the time limit for ASBOs is not the right remedy to the problem that we face. It is important that we have a fairly simple order—the drinking banning order—that is designed to tackle the problem of binge drinking and the violence that emanates from the people who indulge in it.

Let us not forget that, in other circumstances, binge drinkers can often be fairly responsible citizens who have decent jobs, good wages and normally conduct themselves as decent members of society. They go out and drink far too much in far too short a period. They deliberately go out to get as drunk as they possibly can. They get involved in a fracas about a kebab or which person they will take home for the evening. They get involved in a fight in the taxi queue. They are then suddenly involved in the kind of violence and disorder that no one wants to happen.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

My right hon. Friend is right, and one of the contributory factors is the irresponsible attitude of retailers who have happy hours and buy-one-get-one-free promotions. They have a responsibility as well.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

My hon. Friend is right, which is why we have been working with the industry to try to ensure that we can introduce provisions on happy hours. We have had a dreadful situation in this country. During some happy hours, people are told, "Drink all you can for £10", and I saw a sign saying, "Girls drink free until midnight", which is a recipe for mayhem and bad behaviour—not just among the girls, but more generally, too. That is why I am pleased that several of the big chains have recently decided to outlaw the kind of irresponsible promotions that we have seen in the past, and I expect many more of them to take that action.

There is a significant difference between ASBOs and the orders that are proposed. We are asking the courts to use drinking banning orders much more proactively. Whenever they hear a case in which someone has been involved in violence while under the influence of alcohol, they should consider whether it is appropriate to make a drinking banning order. No great big, convoluted and complicated application is necessary, and the remedy is fairly simple. The whole idea is to try to get people to change their behaviour and to make them realise that going out on Friday and Saturday nights, getting into a completely drunken state where they cannot remember what they have done and getting involved in violence and disorder will simply not be tolerated and the court will make an order to do something about it.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

I understand a great deal of what the Minister is saying, but is not the logic of her remarks that those who deserve a drinking banning order are behaving antisocially? That is why the court wants to mark their behaviour as antisocial. In those circumstances, would it not make more sense to call the behaviour what it is, by using an antisocial behaviour order?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The description "drinking banning order" is very graphic and pretty easily understood. One of the prohibitions that the court must consider is banning people from premises that sell alcohol. The whole idea is for the order to contain prohibitions that tell people that they are not allowed to go to their favourite bars and clubs. That is quite a disincentive to carrying on in a drunken way. People may also be prohibited from going out with their regular group of friends, with whom they go out and create mayhem in communities.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) asked whether the order will become a badge of honour. The prospect of not being able to go out to their favourite pub or club on Saturday nights, perhaps for three months over the summer, can have more impact on young people than many of the other things that we pass in the House. That will help to change behaviour.

Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire)

Does the Minister agree that, rather than introducing drinking banning orders and such measures to tackle the problem of binge drinking, it would make more sense to allow other measures time to work before opening up bars and clubs to 24-hour drinking?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Lady repeats the assertion about 24-hour drinking. I am sure that she knows that a tiny minority of licensed premises will have those extended licences. We will see flexible licensing hours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) said, rather than everyone being tipped out on to the streets at the same time, people will have their exit from pubs and clubs staged, and we hope that they will behave better.

On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) to withdraw the motion. I have been sympathetic to his earlier amendment, but I am afraid that he has run out of luck now. I cannot accept that we should simply have ASBOs, rather than the new drinking banning order, which will be of significant use in dealing with such issues and is welcomed by the police and local authorities.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the penalty for a breach of a drinking banning order would be and whether it could be a custodial sentence. I must correct him for the record. I made it clear in Committee:

"There will . . . be potential for offenders to receive custodial sentences for persistent breaches of the community sentence imposed for breach of a drinking banning order."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 October 2005; c. 91.]

He will know from his extensive experience that the courts will have the power to make a community order as well as to impose a fine. There would be a range of options including curfews, exclusion orders and unpaid work. In Committee, he welcomed the range of options available to courts through community orders because that meant that magistrates could respond more flexibly to the kind of mischief and problems with which we are trying to deal. He was not correct if he thought I said that there could never be a custodial penalty, because clearly there could.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

The Minister advanced the same argument in Committee. She might remember that I asked her a question about the matter. Does she accept that it would be perfectly feasible for people to breach the community penalty that they received for breaching a drinking banning order, yet to be able to continue with the drinking banning order? In other words, they could decide not to drink, even though they would have breached their community penalty. If people can do that, does it not underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that the response to the breach of a drinking banning order should directly be a custodial penalty? Such an option would remain available, would it not?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

No. We have a taken a view on this and do not think that there should be a direct custodial penalty. A community order can be made and if the case returns to the courts after the breach of that order, it will be for them to decide the appropriate penalty. It is perfectly proper for the courts to do that. That will sharpen up the distinction between antisocial behaviour orders and drinking banning orders. I am sure that hon. Members are not in the business of saying that people should go to prison for up to five years if the breach of the order has been to enter the single pub or club from which they have been barred from entering. It is important that penalties are proportionate to the breaches that they address.

The hon. Member for Woking has alleged on several occasions that prosecutions for being drunk and disorderly have decreased dramatically in recent years. In 1997, there were 31,891 such prosecutions and in 2003, there were 31,343. The number of prosecutions has stayed pretty constant. As he knows, some 86,000 fixed penalty notices have been issued for a range of offences, so there are more sanctions against drunk and disorderly behaviour than there were in the past.

The hon. Gentleman repeated a point that he made in Committee about a parliamentary question that he tabled and my response to it. The reason for the discrepancy was the fact that the question related to Greater London and my response in Committee related to national figures. I pointed that out in Committee, so I am surprised that he simply tried to repeat his point today to no good effect.

Opposition amendment No. 4 would change the definition of premises to which prohibitions might apply. The Bill currently provides that a drinking banning order prohibits an individual from doing things described in the order. The prohibitions must include whatever the court considers necessary with regard to the subject entering premises that sell alcohol and club premises. The definitions of the premises are in line with those in the Licensing Act 2003.

We had a general discussion in Committee about the possibility of people being banned from supermarkets or garages. It is unlikely that the courts would want to ban individuals from entering supermarkets unless that proved absolutely necessary due to the circumstances of a specific case.

If the intention were simply to stop a person from obtaining alcohol, that would not be sufficient under the Bill. The Bill gives the courts flexibility. They may impose a whole range of prohibitions, such as not going out with certain groups of people to certain premises, but they must include a prohibition on entering specific licensed premises. People will thus be stopped from entering the bars, pubs and clubs to which they really enjoy going. That is an attempt to change their behaviour, which is an important aspect of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister said that the order must include a prohibition preventing someone from entering certain licensed premises. Can she specifically tell the House whether a drinking banning order can forbid someone from going into a supermarket to buy alcohol, but not simply from going into a supermarket? Can she confirm on the record that that is the case?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Bill, he will see that clause 1(2) states:

"Such an order may impose any prohibition on the subject which is necessary for the purpose of protecting other persons from criminal or disorderly conduct by the subject while he is under the influence of alcohol."

"Any prohibition" may therefore be imposed by the court. Clause 1(3) lists the mandatory requirements of such a prohibition. A supermarket prohibition could therefore be made under clause 1(2), but not under clause 1(3)(a) or (b).

Under amendment No. 28 the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green seeks to reintroduce an earlier amendment that required the court to receive a report on the subject's mental and physical health and substance addictions. We had a long discussion about that Committee, and I accept that the hon. Lady has changed "must" in her earlier amendment to "may". However, local authorities already have a duty under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to assess anyone who may be in need of community care services. If there is any evidence to suggest that someone is suffering from a syndrome or problem that prevents them from understanding the order social services authorities must make sure that they are subject to an assessment, which should run alongside the collection of evidence and an application for an order. I do not want inordinate delay and a bureaucratic system. Drinking banning orders, as we have discussed, are meant to be a short, sharp shock. They enable the court to deal proactively with someone accused of committing an offence under the influence of alcohol. If we include a panoply of provisions to cover the handful of such cases, the courts will be inhibited from using the power to protect the decent, law-abiding majority. We must be aware of vulnerable individuals, but we must not predicate all our legislation on one or two specific cases; otherwise we will undermine its very purpose.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Does the Minister not accept that the judiciary, in its judicious interpretation of the phrase that the court "may" require a report, would apply the provision only to cases where they deemed it necessary to receive a medical report? Such a requirement would therefore not have an adverse effect on the vast number of drinking banning orders that may be imposed.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Lady knows that the courts have discretion when looking at the cases that are brought before them. They must be satisfied that two requirements are met: first, someone must be guilty of offending behaviour; and, secondly, it must be necessary to make the order. The court will consider a range of factors when deciding whether the second requirement has been met. May I advise the hon. Lady that my comments are meant kindly? She has talked a great deal about human rights, which are important. However, we have to achieve a balance of human rights, and respect the human rights of the decent, law-abiding majority whose peaceful existence is threatened when people drink far too much and get out of control, causing the nuisance that happens far too often. Getting that balance right is important, but in this instance she is wrongly seeking to put the rights of the perpetrator above those of decent members of the community.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which were tabled by the Opposition, seek to include a definition of "disorderly" to cover

"conduct which would offend an ordinary person but which falls short of a criminal act."

We had a long discussion about that in Committee. There is no need to define the word "disorderly" in the Bill. It is not defined in relation to the offence of being drunk and disorderly in section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded that it would be a mistake to try to define more closely the current definition of antisocial behaviour. The courts are perfectly aware of behaviour that is disorderly, and of behaviour that results in a criminal act. In Committee, I gave the hon. Member for Woking an example of disorderly behaviour. If a large group of people are marauding through an area, kicking over bins and causing excessive noise, they may not necessarily commit a public order offence, but they are certainly guilty of disorderly behaviour.

The hon. Gentleman talked about high spirits, but in Committee some telling examples were given, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler), who said that "high spirits" was not an accurate description of the problems in her community.

Amendment No. 5 would require that for orders on conviction the court must be satisfied that the individual was drunk, rather than under the influence of alcohol. That would raise the threshold at which a drinking banning order could be obtained and could lead to a wide range of offenders who were under the influence of alcohol escaping the prohibitions imposed by a DBO. I think that it is for the courts to come to a view based on the evidence before them on whether an offender was under the influence of alcohol when they committed an offence. I ask hon. Members to think about the sort of problem that we are trying to tackle. The courts are well placed to determine whether someone was under the influence of alcohol. I direct the House's attention to the second limb of the offence, which is that for an order to be made, it must be necessary to protect the rest of the community. The courts will examine that closely before making an order.

Amendment No. 6 would ensure that a court must consider only applications by the Crown. That would defeat part of our purpose, which is to encourage the proactive use of DBOs. The court would have to wait for the Crown to make an application; it would not be able to consider the matter of its own volition. That would weaken our proposals.

Liberal Democrat amendment No. 30 would reimpose automatic reporting restrictions in proceedings for an order on conviction involving young people. Several hon. Members have said that they consider it useful not to bind the court to automatic reporting restrictions. That does not mean that restrictions cannot apply in specific, narrow cases if they are necessary for the protection of the individual. I happen to believe that if people have gone out, deliberately got drunk, got involved in violent behaviour under the influence of alcohol, and acted in a such a way that the court finds it necessary to make an order to protect the rest of the public, it is extremely hard to make a case for their name and details being kept a secret from the rest of the community, who have been the victims of that behaviour. Far from being a badge of honour, being banned from one's favourite pubs and clubs is likely to be a good incentive to change one's behaviour. In addition, it is important that local people are able to report it to the police if they see the individuals in question in pubs and clubs from which they are banned, so that action can be taken in relation to the breach.

Government amendment No. 43 gives district councils the same right as county councils to make applications for DBOs, which is entirely right and proper. Government amendment No. 42 is merely a small consequential amendment. The other Government amendments are welcome tidying measures. Clause 23 is to be removed because, on reflection, we realised that the DBO provisions make the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 superfluous. We can achieve everything that we want to achieve through the DBO route, which is a much better provision. The 1980 legislation is extremely narrow—it depends on a conviction on the licensed premises themselves.

The DBO is—dare I say to the hon. Member for Woking?—a more modern and appropriate way in which to deal with the mischief we encounter in our communities these days. I ask him and his hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has taken a very legalistic approach to various pieces of our legislation, to think carefully about making sure that legislation is modern, flexible, about changing behaviour and able to cope with the new challenges that we face, rather than cleaving to the traditional interpretation of the law and focusing simply on prosecution. Making available ASBOs and DBOs is about making sure that our criminal justice system is modern, flexible and able to meet the challenges of this day and age.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I confess to being disappointed by the Minister's response. The truth of the matter is that the Government have presided over a massive rise in binge drinking and alcohol-related violence, which they are doing very little to stop. The existing laws are not being enforced, but all the Government want to do is introduce a new flagship policy on the basis that a headline and a new Act will solve all their problems—tell that to the people on the streets who are suffering as a result of alcohol-fuelled violence.

New clause 1 seeks to amend the ASBO legislation to make it more flexible. Why on earth can the Minister not accept that making ASBO legislation more flexible is a good idea? She does not want to accept any arguments from this side of the House, as a result of which I want to put the new clause to the opinion of the House.

New Clause 2 — Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Amendment)

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Offence of having article with blade or point in public place (amendment)—

'(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (6)(b) of section 139 (offence of having article with blade or point in public place), for "two years" substitute "seven years".'.

Government amendment No. 45

Amendment No. 20, in page 26, line 36 [Clause 24], leave out 'section 141A' and insert 'sections 139 and 141A'.

Amendment No. 21, in page 27, line 5 [Clause 25], leave out 'section 141A' and insert 'sections 139 and 141A'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

During the debate, I shall refer to—[Interruption.]

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, please?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Over the years, I have become increasingly used to people walking out, rather than in, when I begin to speak. Today is no exception.

Conservative Members feel strongly about new clause 2 and I hope to test the opinion of the House on it. New clause 7, which the Liberal Democrats tabled, is roughly along the same lines. I hope also to speak briefly about amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

As was said in an earlier debate, knife crime has rocketed in the past eight years. Recent reports show that knife crime in England and Wales has leaped by as much as 90 per cent. in two years in some areas. Figures that were released not long ago under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 show a total of nearly 25,000 knife crimes last year logged by the 30 police forces that supplied figures. The highest rise in knife crime was recorded by Nottinghamshire police. In Nottinghamshire, offences involving blades increased from 338 in 2002 to 650 last year—a rise of 92 per cent. The number of muggings that involve knives has shot up. That worries us all, including the police. The assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, Tony Melville, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers' spokesman on knife crime, stated:

"Lots and lots of people are carrying knives in public places—in many parts of society it now seems to be a credible and normal thing to carry a knife."

I have some experience of our courts sitting judicially. The offence of carrying a bladed article, which is contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, is not only prevalent but increasing. It is a terrifying experience for a complainant or victim to witness somebody in the street taking out a knife. Far too many people carry knives for offensive purposes. Doctors report a marked increase in the number of patients who arrive at accident and emergency with stab wounds. Such crime is not only on the increase but deadly serious and must be stamped out.

I have listened to witnesses who gave evidence in criminal trials and recounted with terror how they felt when someone in the street drew a knife. They suffered nightmares for months afterwards. The amount of knife crime has undoubtedly increased—there is a culture of the blade. Many young people believe it is brave to carry a knife. In truth, it is cowardly. However, the number of prosecutions against people for carrying knives and the level of detection remain abysmally low. The courts do not pass sufficiently stiff sentences. They seem sometimes to have forgotten the importance of deterrence.

I strongly commend new clause 2 to the House because it would send a signal to the knife-carrying fraternity that we want to see them severely punished. Under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to carry a bladed article in a public place. There are certain defences, including having a reasonable excuse or lawful authority, but that is the basic offence. It applies to knives with a blade of 3 in or longer. Earlier today, the prevalence of knife-carrying in schools was mentioned, but it is happening not only in schools but out on the streets. I suggest that the police, if asked their opinion, would say that knife-carrying is one of the fastest-growing offences at the moment. It is therefore essential to give the courts the facility to sentence people on indictment to more than two years in prison for this quite dreadful offence.

Some statistics might be of interest to the House. Charges relating to bladed articles have run at between roughly 4,500 and 6,500 a year over the past five years. In 1999, about 4,500 people were proceeded against for carrying a bladed article, of whom about 3,500 were found guilty. In 2003, about 6,800 were proceeded against, of whom 5,311 were found guilty. One might have thought that more people would go to prison for such a serious offence. Being confronted at any time, but particularly at night, by someone carrying a blade in the street is the most terrifying experience.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the wording of his new clause provides for an increase only in the maximum sentence for such offences, and not the minimum? The courts would therefore still have full discretion to impose a lesser sentence if they felt that the circumstances of the case warranted that.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The new clause would simply give a different maximum sentence, not a different minimum. By giving the courts that power, the Minister would permit them to retain the flexibility that they sometimes need. It would not at any stage prevent a court from imposing the sentence that it thought fit, be it considerably less than five years or even less than the current maximum of two years. As my right hon. Friend says, however, it would permit the heavier sentence of five years to be passed in the worst cases. Critically, it would also send a signal to the knife-carrying fraternity that we will not put up with them and that Parliament is beginning to take notice of this increase in crime.

As I said, 5,311 persons were found guilty of the offence of carrying a knife in a public place in 2003. How many of them were actually placed in custody? We might think that 50, 60 or 70 per cent. ought to have been placed in custody—these figures include repeat offenders—but the truth is that only 755, out of well over 5,000, faced a custodial sentence. That means that the people who carry knives on our streets understand that their chances of being caught are very slim, that detection rates are dropping, that they are unlikely to be prosecuted and that their chances of receiving a custodial sentence on conviction are only about one in seven. Times have never been better for the knife carrier, and it is high time that Parliament sent a message to the knife carrier that times are going to get worse.

It is clear that knife crime has increased dramatically in the past few years, but I shall not go further into the figures. I shall simply repeat the fact that it is a terrifying crime. I cannot see any reason for the Government to object to new clause 2, which simply says that the maximum penalty for carrying a bladed article should be increased from two to five years. Such a sentence would not have to be imposed in every case. The advantage of such a measure is that it would send a signal to the courts that Parliament takes knife-carrying very seriously. It would send a signal to the people who carry knives that the maximum sentence that they could face had been increased from two years to five. It would also send a signal to the victims of knife crime that we take their side and want the courts to be much more robust in dealing with those who carry knives.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 also stand in my name in this group. The Bill creates an offence of

"using someone to mind a weapon".

I have no criticism of the Government for introducing this measure; indeed, I would go further and say that it is much to be valued as a tool in our armoury against people who are part of the knife culture. The amendments are designed to tease out from the Minister whether bladed articles are included in the description "dangerous weapon" in clause 24.

Let me set the scene. Under clause 24, a person is guilty of an offence if

"he uses another to look after, hide or transport a dangerous weapon for him".

The clause goes on to state that "dangerous weapon" means

"a weapon to which section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) applies (knives and bladed weapons)".

It is not entirely clear to me that section 141A actually applies to a bladed article, although such an offence is covered in section 139 of the Act. Will the Minister explain whether minding a weapon—which, under clause 25, carries a sentence of up to four years—includes minding a bladed article? For example, if it is an offence to mind or look after a knuckle-duster, a sword or some other weapon that is undoubtedly an offensive weapon per se, and the offender is liable to up to four years in prison, I can understand and readily accept that. However, the purpose of my two probing amendments is to determine whether a bladed article is covered by the description "dangerous weapon". If it is, we shall find ourselves in a slightly odd situation.

The maximum penalty for carrying a bladed article in public is at present two years in prison, but if I were to ask someone to look after that bladed article off the street, it would be an even more serious offence, carrying a four-year prison sentence. That would be slightly odd. Frankly, it is more serious for me to carry a bladed article in the street than to ask a friend to look after it in case I wanted to carry it in the street next week. The friend would thereby keep it off the street. It is strange, if I am right, that I am liable to four years for the second of those activities—asking my friend to look after it—but liable to only two years if, in effect, I am carrying it on the street.

If bladed articles are included, can the Minister cover what appears to be an odd situation in terms of sentencing powers? If they are not included among dangerous weapons, can she tell us whether it is an offence if I ask somebody to look after a bladed instrument on the basis that I might shortly need to take it out on the street for offensive purposes? If that is not an offence, why not? The culture of the knife is on the up and it is vital that Parliament recognises that and sends a signal to the criminal fraternity, the world at large, the judiciary and victims of knife crime that we recognise how terrible it is and propose to give the courts a higher sentencing option in relation to the dreadful offence of carrying a bladed article in a public place. I can see no arguments from the Minister that can possibly resist my proposition in the new clause.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I want to speak to new clause 7, which is not dissimilar to new clause 2, except that our provision exceeds that of the Conservatives by two years. I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said, because having a bladed article in a public place is punished with two years' imprisonment whereas carrying a firearm is an offence punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment.

Whether one is murdered by a knife or gun, the result is precisely the same—one is dead. That exactitude of outcome needs to be reflected by an exactitude of punishment, and perhaps more so in the case of knives as the incidence of knife purchase, carrying and use has soared in recent years, as has been said. That needs to be tackled. In response to an oral question from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), the Home Secretary said that he would examine bringing gun and knife crimes more into line. The Bill provides the ideal opportunity for the Government to address that differential.

I acknowledge that this part of the Bill presents a difficulty, and I appreciate what the Government are trying to achieve in relation to the reduction of knife crime. I fear, however, that one of their measures—raising the age at which one can purchase a knife to 18—might bring the law into disrepute, as it is difficult to imagine how it could be prosecuted. Under the Bill, all knives, however commonly available, would be subject to the offence if purchased under-age. The enforceability and effectiveness of the provision must therefore be questioned. It is ridiculous that people can get married and have children at 16 but not buy their cutlery. Someone under 18 might also legitimately ask a third party to purchase a knife for them, and no satisfactory answer has been given as to the culpability of the third party if a knife so circuitously purchased were used to kill.

A gun has limited use, but knives do not, so we believe that it would be better to strengthen the law in other areas and to propose restrictions on carrying in a public place and restrictions on what type of knife might fall under the provision. In relation to increasing the sentence for carrying knives in a public place to parity with that for guns, we believe that we are better able to tackle irresponsible and criminal use of knives and the mischief that the Government seek to address if we still allow the purchase of knives where that is done responsibly and for a harmless purpose.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) in raising this important point. Many of us have seen a growing incidence of knife-based crime in our communities, which is alarming. I am pleased that he is campaigning on the issue and is trying to get the Government to take suitable action to deal with it. I am also pleased that the Government are legislating and I hope that the Minister will explain, if she does not welcome my hon. Friend's initiative, what else could be done to reassure people that knife crime can be brought under control.

I also hope that the Minister and the Government can reassure us that there is no intention to obstruct the defence to alleged crimes of carrying a knife in a public place that someone has just been to the shop to buy new kitchen knives and is transporting them home, has taken a broken or damaged knife to a repair shop and is taking it home, or is getting a knife sharpened. Of course, it must be a legitimate defence that someone is carrying a dangerous-looking knife in the course of their trade—when people come to fit carpets or other floor coverings they often carry really frightening-looking knives, but they seem effective at doing their job, and such people would not be using them for criminal purposes. Although there is nothing about that in the Bill or in my hon. Friend's new clause, I hope that the Minister will reassure us that that is implied and will carry forward from previous legislation. Some mistaken comments have been made, which are unfortunate. We want a world in which law-abiding citizens, if they need a knife for the purpose of their trade or wish to take new knives back to their home, should be free to do so.

A stronger signal should be sent out, however, that the rising tide of knife crime is unacceptable and that if people are caught in public places with knives around their person for no good reason, very strong action will be taken. Although a person carrying a knife might not go out with a criminal intent, if they get involved in an argument or come under the influence of drink all sorts of dreadful things might happen that could not happen if that person has been persuaded not to carry the knife in the first place.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I thank Members for welcoming the Government's legislation on these issues. We are all concerned about the rise in people carrying knives and, in some cases, being prepared to use them. We therefore need strong legislation.

I am afraid that I cannot agree, however, that the maximum penalty for the offence of possession—two years—is inadequate. To set that in context, there is a different though related offence—possession of an offensive weapon, under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953—which has a maximum penalty of four years. Which offence people will be charged with, and which offence is fulfilled, is a matter of circumstances. It is sometimes said that the second offence of possession of an offensive weapon is hardly ever prosecuted. I am happy to reassure Members that figures for 2004 showed that around 5,800 people were convicted of the more serious offence, which has a maximum penalty of four years, which is broadly the same number as were charged with the lesser offence of possession of a knife or bladed weapon. It is not a little-used offence, which is why the prosecuting authorities and police consider carefully which category defendants ought to fall into.

An "offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or some other person. Clearly, therefore, the nature of the weapon, and the intention of the person carrying it, are an issue. There are certain key factors that put the offender into one category rather than the other. The first is the weapon itself—there is a whole schedule of different weapons that cannot be perceived as having any innocent use, such as butterfly knives, disguised knives and sword sticks, which are offensive weapons per se. If one is caught with those, one is automatically subject to the offence that carries the higher maximum penalty of four years. An offender can be charged with that more serious offence if he is in possession of, say, a kitchen knife, but threatens others with it—as was mentioned, if he draws it in the night, frightens people with it, or it is shown that he planned to use it. Someone who draws what would otherwise be an innocuous item in a threatening way, with intention to use it, may be judged to have committed the more serious offence, which carries a maximum of four years' imprisonment. The two-year maximum relates to the simple act of being in possession of a knife that is capable of being used non-violently in a public place. As the hon. Member for Woking says, we want to ensure that decent law-abiding citizens can still buy knives that could be used entirely legitimately without falling foul of the law. There is already a defence of having a knife with good reason or lawful authority.

I think we agree that maximum penalties should generally be proportionate, the aim being to indicate the relative seriousness of the crime. New clause 2 would raise the maximum sentence to five years, while the Liberal Democrats' new clause 7 would raise it to seven. I do not think that we are in the business of having a Dutch auction, but a comparator might be the offence of causing actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Injury caused by that offence can be minor, but it is nevertheless real injury. Someone who simply possesses a knife without any intention of using it or threatening anyone with it could be subject to a higher maximum prison sentence than someone who had actually caused physical injury. That is why we believe that a two-year sentence is adequate for the former offence. Of course those who use knives are subject to penalties for offences ranging from actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm and wounding with intent to much more serious offences, such as murder. Obviously severe penalties are available for those who use their knives.

The Sentencing Guidelines Council and the sentencing advisory panel are consulting on the "seriousness" test, in the context of a weapon's use as an aggravating factor. We entirely agree that higher sentences should be imposed on those who use knives in violent crime, but we think that that should be done through the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I hope that neither the hon. Member for Woking nor the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) will press their new clauses.

Government amendment No. 45 merely corrects an error in the drafting of clause 24. We want to make it clear that the definition of "dangerous weapon" does not include air weapons or components thereof.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are a little more complex. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking for welcoming some of our proposals, and I hope that I can now be equally generous to him. The amendments concern the definition of "dangerous weapon" in clause 24. In its present form, the clause applies to

"a firearm other than an air weapon or . . . a weapon to which section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 . . . applies (knives and bladed weapons)."

Amendment No. 20 would alter the second part of the definition to include section 139 of the 1988 Act, which contains a wider definition than the one in section 141A. It includes articles with a blade or point per se—not necessarily a knife or a bladed weapon. Compasses have been used as an example in the past. Section 141A includes such articles only if they were made or adapted to cause injury to a person.

A screwdriver, for instance, might have been specially sharpened for use as a weapon. It would fall within the section 141A definition of a knife or bladed weapon, because it would have been turned into a weapon. It would not, however, be covered by the wider definition sought by the hon. Gentleman, which would include objects that had not been made or adapted to cause injury.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Let us suppose that I say to a friend, "Please transport my bladed article—which is a knife—to the such-and-such estate or the such-and-such park, because once I am on that estate or in that park I want to carry it." It appears that that would not be an offence.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

An unlawful purpose would have to be involved. That is part of the definition. I do want to consider the hon. Gentleman's amendment, because I want to be certain that there is no gap in the law and that the section 141A definition covers the circumstances that we want it to cover. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's amendment achieves that, because the definition would apply only if both section 139 and section 141A applied. Perhaps inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has narrowed the definition rather than extending it.

The hon. Gentleman said that if a person persuaded someone else to hide a weapon, the maximum sentence could be four years rather than two. In creating a "minding" offence, we sought to put the penalty at the higher end of penalties relating to knives, because we consider that a serious offence. It is not a mandatory minimum, as in the case of guns; it is a maximum sentence to give the courts discretion to establish where the offence might lie. I do not entirely accept that there is a contradiction, because we have genuinely tried to place such offences at the higher end of the scale.

My reservation about the hon. Gentleman's amendment is that I do not want to muddy the waters. I do not want to obscure the primary purpose of clause 24, which is to ensure that people do not seek to persuade others to conceal their weapons and thus evade prosecution and punishment. I do not want us to become so remote as to implicate what may be innocent articles that people have asked others to mind for them in innocent circumstances. We had a long debate in Committee about shotguns being left in the back of cars, and about whether that constituted inadvertence, negligence or recklessness. I do not want to repeat that debate now, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look at his proposals again and consider whether there is a need for amendments to plug any gap that needs to be filled.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I warmly thank the Minister for her constructive approach to my amendments. I think that we all want to ensure that someone who said, "Please transport my bladed article across the city and give it to me at the other side, because I intend to do something with it tonight which I do not want to tell you about because it is not very kind" would be guilty of an offence. It was very thoughtful of the Minister to say that she would consider the matter.

This is a rare situation. The Minister has been kind enough to express sympathy with two of my amendments, and she is thinking of acting on them. I may achieve a first before long and have an amendment accepted by the Government, even if my drafting is not quite up to it.

Let me return to the important principle of a maximum sentence. I repeat that it is a maximum, not a minimum. Conservative Members believe that a maximum sentence of two years for carrying a bladed article is too low, in view of the enormous increase in such offences. The Minister said that the maximum sentence for carrying an offensive weapon was four years. We do not need to discuss what constitutes an offensive weapon; we know that a knuckleduster, for instance, is an offensive weapon per se. On the other hand, items made or adapted for offensive purposes can also come under the definition of offensive weapons. A perfectly innocent item such as a baseball bat, or a cricket bat—I apologise to the cricketers among us, if there are any—[Interruption.] I understand that there are distinguished cricketers on the Conservative Benches; and I forgot to mention your vital role, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in relation to parliamentary cricket, which is on our minds all the time and is much appreciated. Anyway, carrying a cricket bat in public with unlawful intent would put someone in the frame for carrying an offensive weapon. Actually, I would rather come across someone carrying a cricket bat in public than a bladed article. On that note, I believe that it is important to test the House's opinion on whether the maximum sentence for vicious, nasty offence of carrying a bladed article in public should, in these difficult times, be lifted to five years maximum. I believe that it should and I hope that the House does, too.

Clause 1 — Drinking Banning Orders

Clause 11 — Interpretation of Chapter 1

Clause 12 — Alcohol Disorder Zones

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 10, line 25, after 'retail', insert

', provided that the premises have been proven to contribute to alcohol-related disturbances'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 39, in page 10, line 28, at end insert

', provided that the premises have been proven to contribute to alcohol-related disturbances'.

No. 17, in page 10, line 28, at end insert

', provided that in every case the local authority and the Secretary of State think it reasonable so to do.'.

No. 18, in page 10, line 28, at end insert

', provided that no charges shall be payable by any persons or clubs unless the local authority is satisfied on the basis of evidence that it is reasonable to impose charges on those particular persons or clubs.'.

No. 15, in page 10, line 31, leave out from 'the' to end of line 32 and insert

'purpose of reducing alcohol-related disorder in the locality.'.

No. 16, in page 10, line 33, leave out from 'as' to end of line 37 and insert—

'(a) the Secretary of State considers appropriate for securing that the funds that he considers appropriate are available (after the costs of the scheme have been met from the charges) to be used for any purposes specified or determined under subsection (2); and

(b) are commensurate with the level of responsibility for alcohol-related disorder in the locality of the persons or clubs so charged.'.

No. 40, in page 11, line 9, leave out 'and'.

No. 33, in page 11, line 13, at end insert

'; and

(c) the sale of alcohol has not contributed to alcohol-related disorder in the relevant alcohol disorder zone.'.

No. 41, in page 11, line 13, at end insert

'and

(c) the holder of the premises licence has implemented and taken the steps necessary to make the designation of the premises unnecessary, in accordance with the action plan set up by the local authority or the local chief officer of police.'.

No. 8, in page 11, line 22, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

No. 7, in page 11, line 23, at beginning insert 'the imposition,'.

No. 9, in page 11, line 29, after 'appeals', insert 'to the court'.

No. 12, in page 20, line 36, at end insert

'or to a term of 51 weeks imprisonment or both'.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I suppose that this chapter is probably where lies most legislative disorder. In all the amendments, I am trying to separate the chaff from the wheat, the good from the bad, and the honest and good landlord from the misbehaving landlord. We have concerns about the one-for-all and all-for-one approach in the imposition of alcohol disorder zones. We have been promised that guidance will make a differential in charging between the good and the bad, but as yet we have not seen formal guidance of any clarity that would allow us to have confidence that there will be a sufficient differential so that good landlords are not penalised.

There should be cause and effect, and punishment should be set out in the Bill. There seems to be more emphasis on location than on behaviour. I am not sure that that is a good principle or approach in terms of charging. We need a more causal link to establish whether premises or a pub have contributed to alcohol-related disturbances. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would establish a causal link between the alcohol-related disturbance and the licensed premises, be they a club, a pub or whatever.

If responsible establishments are caught in an area where ADZs are brought into being and those responsible find that they have to pay the charge, that is not only unfair but is a disincentive for licence holders to maintain good standards, when they are effectively to be penalised by the irresponsibility of other establishments. This approach appears to be somewhat contrary to the Government's consultation paper, "Drinking Responsibly", which has very much targeted responsible premises.

As for amendment No. 33, as I have said, there needs to be a more causal link. For example, an area might border an alcohol disorder zone. That area might be blamed for disorders that occurred when it had nothing to do with the adjacent area. However, it could be included in an exemption. The adjacent area would bear the brunt of the result of drunken and disorderly behaviour.

In stepping out of an ADZ one might go down a road along which there is a quiet pub where citizens are drinking responsibly until various times of the night, causing no disturbance. However, people coming from the ADZ make a noise and are riotous, and therefore are responsible for an extension of the zone. Through no fault of their own, the good pub owner becomes subject to charges.

The terms of amendment No. 41 were not even considered in Committee. They raise an interesting point to explore with the Minister. It reads:

"the holder of the premises licence has implemented and taken the steps necessary to make the designation of the premises unnecessary, in accordance with"

an agreed

"action plan set up by the local authority or the local chief officer of police."

Once consulted on and agreed by the local authority and police officers, some establishments will comply with the eight-week action plan and spend money to facilitate and adopt it. However, they might get to the end of the eight weeks and find that others in the group have not adhered to it and have not undertaken the steps agreed. The local authority will then impose the ADZ and charge those establishments that had done everything that was asked of them. They will be punished alongside those who did not follow the plan. That is inordinately unfair and was not considered in Committee. I hope that the Government take that on board.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I am pleased to be able to speak against the amendment. The proposals for the alcohol disorder zones are an important tool to deal with the specific syndrome that has developed around drinking in some of our towns and inner cities. Of course some licensees are good, but others are worse. However, the sum effect of having a large number of drinking venues in a small area is a cycle of behaviour that is destructive to the environment in a town centre and to behaviour in general. It also has an effect on what happens to crime and disorder in those areas.

We all know of that type of behaviour, which I described to some hilarity in Committee. It ranges from the mildly disorderly to the outrageously criminal. Some serious fights can happen in the course of an evening. If we are to crack that behaviour, which damages the economy in the town centre, spoils the environment and is a massive drain on police resources, we must have an effective tool. The alcohol disorder zone provides just that. It makes it possible to consider the servicing of a designated area and to make the industry realise that if it is going to take large amounts of money from young people in the area, it also has to deal with the consequences of their behaviour.

Many sections of the leisure industry oppose the measure. Indeed, I consulted some licensees in my area and they were opposed to it. I can understand why. No one wants to pay out money, and they do not want to pay what they perceive to be an extra amount when they have already paid their business charges. However, there is good reason for saying that it is appropriate to charge people in the sector extra for the services that they receive.

One argument to support that is the amount that is made out of alcohol. When I went around with the police in my patch some time ago, I talked to licensees about the money that people spent across the bars. Northampton is reckoned to be part of the golden triangle for 18 to 24-year-olds, and they have one of the highest levels of disposable income of people in their age group anywhere in the country. The owner of one of the venues in the town centre thought that some of the best clients spent about £1,200 a person a month just on drink. That is an astonishing amount. High profits are to be made, and it is only fair that the industry is told about the costs of running the sector.

Any town centre business has to pay for a certain level of policing because town centres need extra policing. They also need more street cleaning because there is a heavier footfall. I would also argue—the industry needs to consider this—that the cost of policing the late-night leisure industry is a disproportionate burden that should not be borne by general council tax payers. There is a disproportionate amount of littering from all kinds of sources. There is also more substantial cleansing because of people's behaviour when drunk. In addition, there is the completely disproportionate cost of policing.

The policing of Northampton town centre—I guess other areas are the same—is a drain on the routine police resources that are supposed to cover the whole county. It is unjust that people who expect to pay for policing to cover burglaries and crime in the suburbs should have the staffing resources pulled into the town centre on a Friday and Saturday night to manage the behaviour of one section of the community—the young people—and to manage objectionable events, such as fights, which can also be serious crimes. People do not think that the police should spend their time chasing drunken young people and managing their behaviour in the middle of town. The football industry has had to take account of its special policing needs and the costs fall on the clubs. We should say to the leisure industry in certain areas, "Look. The costs are disproportionate and you have to bear some of them."

I hope that Northampton borough council takes note of the Bill and uses it to sort out the town centre. The problem with the amendment, as with other amendments throughout our deliberations, is that it would make the measures unworkable. That is wrong. On the causal link, the problem is what happens in a town centre as a whole, not in one pub. Young people will go from one licensed premises to the next in the course of the night. They will end up in the worst place, where the drinks are cheapest, but there will be problems right the way down the line. It is wrong to table an amendment that would make the provision unworkable.

The Liberal Democrats have to be honest. If they amend the provision and make it unworkable, they cannot turn around at a later date and say, "By the way, we want this, that and the other town centre to have an ADZ because it will sort out the problems." If we are to tackle the problem, the legislation must be workable. Tabling wrecking amendments shows that they oppose the provision and are using weasel words to get around it.

I oppose the amendment. It is much better for the Liberal Democrats to stand up and say that they oppose alcohol disorder zones, if that is the truth of the matter, and I accept that there is an argument against them. However, I very much support the proposal. It is an important tool.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

That is not the case. We think that we have to tackle town centre disorder and believe in the "polluter pays" principle, but we want to make the legislation more workable because there might be the unintended consequence of small businesses going broke. Does the hon. Lady think that it would have been more convincing if the Government had widened the powers of local authorities to apply saturation policies and limit the number of establishments? She is right: most trouble is caused where many places are close together.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

When we talked about another provision in Committee, the Liberal Democrats said that we could not issue drinking banning orders without psychiatric reports. That was nonsense—I was going to say nutty—because, again, it would have made the provisions unworkable. Young people move around a town centre where there are a number of licensed premises, drinking as they go. It is ridiculous to ask, "Where did you drink the particular tot that got you over the top?" One might just as well ask where they ate their fish and chips that night and ban the fish and chip shop.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

In that case, why does the hon. Lady reject the idea of capping the amount that could be charged? In Committee, the Government rejected a cap of 3 per cent. of the rateable value, which might have provided some security to the businesses involved. Given that there will be no cap, businesses are scared that they will go broke.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Of course businesses will claim that they will go broke, but that happens for all kinds of different reasons. The issue is how to manage the behaviour that is seen in town centres and encourage the industry to act more responsibly. The Bill contains a range of measures, and the provision for alcohol disorder zones is an important one. The zone and the charging can be structured in various ways, but it will not work if only applied to bad licensees. No one will admit to being an irresponsible licensee.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Does the hon. Lady agree that if more complete and definitive guidance on charging had been available, we might have been less nervous about the provisions?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

No, I do not, because some areas have had voluntary charging schemes that have worked fine. However, the problem with a voluntary system is that it cannot be implemented in areas where the licensees are being difficult. I can understand it if hon. Members need more information about charging regimes and regulations, but that is very different from tabling an amendment that would make the proposal unworkable. The proposals would be tough on the industry, but the voluntary schemes have proved that the industry is capable of dealing with them. Some sectors of the industry are also making a large amount of money. The schemes will be tough for some businesses, but they will also be an important weapon for the local authorities and police to have in their arsenal to deal with what has become a real problem. It is a problem not only in the demands it places on the police and local services, but for the viability of certain town centres. The sort of things that go on in Northampton town centre on Friday and Saturday nights every week are also damaging for business.

I support the Government's proposals and I oppose the Liberal Democrats' amendments because they would make the proposals unworkable.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

In contrast to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), whose contributions in Committee I respected, I view the Liberal Democrats' amendments favourably. They draw our attention to an important aspect of the alcohol disorder zones, which is the basic unfairness of blanket coverage across a locality instead of targeting premises that are more culpable than others.

Clause 12 creates the power to impose charges on licence holders, but it is vague and uncertain. I cannot see how the House can properly be expected to debate the clause when it contains so many references to the Secretary of State making regulations on important matters. I may have missed something, but I do not think that I have seen details of those important regulations. For example, clause 12(2) states:

"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a local authority"—

to do something. Clause 12(4) states:

"Regulations under this section fixing the rates of charges may fix different rates for different descriptions".

How wise can we be about the rates that might be fixed?

Clause 12(7) states:

"Regulations providing for a discount . . . may make a discount"—

in certain circumstances. We have not seen those regulations. Clause 12(8) states:

"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about . . . the payment, collection and enforcement of charges."

I do not know whether the Secretary of State has made those regulations yet. If he has, I hope that someone will draw them to my attention, because the House needs to look at them carefully. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us when the regulations will be published. Can we be sure that they will be available for debate in the other place? May we have a date for the production of the regulations? The vagueness and uncertainty of clause 12, coupled with what may be a basic unfairness, trouble my party, and that is why the Liberal Democrat amendments are commendable.

I tabled amendments Nos. 17, 18, 15, 16, 8, 7, 9 and 12. It may well be the case that we will wish to test the opinion of the House on amendment No. 18, which addresses the fundamental proposition that we face tonight. Clause 12(1) states:

"The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for the imposition by a local authority of charges to be paid to the authority for each month by"—

licence holders, in effect. Amendment No. 18 would add the words:

"provided that no charges shall be payable by any persons or clubs unless the local authority is satisfied on the basis of evidence that it is reasonable to impose charges on those particular persons or clubs."

I seek to establish the principle that charges should be paid by licensed premises and clubs only if there is some tangible evidence that they are culpable in relation to the incidents of alcohol-related disorder in their area. It would be nonsense to penalise small and innocent licence holders when the problems have been created by others.

We all know that there is immense alcohol-related disorder on the streets at night, but when it happens in our constituencies we know the premises from which the trouble emanates. The provisions would condemn sports clubs, cinemas that sell alcohol and restaurants from which no trouble emanates—or if it does, it does so rarely. They should not be punished for the problems caused by some pubs. I know a pub in the north-east of England where I tried my luck on the slot machine. I put a token into the slot, pulled the lever and instead of three cherries coming up, a sign says, "Next drink free" or "Next drink half price" or "Sorry, next drink normal price". Many premises contribute to the incidence of alcohol-related disorder in their area by their conduct. Happy hours are extended for a long time. Some pubs give young girls free drinks to get young boys to go into the pub. We know that pubs serve people who are drunk and who should not be given drinks in that condition But how different are they in terms of guilt for disorder in their area? How different is their position from that of other licensed premises? It is that essential element of fairness that leads me to propose strongly to the House my amendment No. 18, which requires the local authority, before imposing charges, to be

"satisfied on the basis of evidence that it is reasonable to impose charges on those particular persons or clubs".

The Government are getting extremely used to quoting the police and saying that if the police say something it must be right. I have a feeling that they said that in a debate in the House last week. The Government said "Well, the police think so, therefore it follows that it is right." In that case, what do the Government say about the fact that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not like the concept of alcohol disorder zones? ACPO takes the view, as do many others, that such zones not only highlight hot spots but may in some cases exacerbate problems and attract troublemakers to an area.

Will the Minister deal with what is meant by the word "locality" on page 11, line 43? Yet again, the meaning of the word is vague and needs to be defined carefully by the Minister. The Collins dictionary defines it as a neighbourhood or an area, but other dictionaries offer a different explanation and state that it is a site or the scene of an event.

Amendment No. 17 is the forerunner to amendment No. 18. It takes an alternative approach to line 28 on page 10, requiring that in every case, before imposing charges,

"the local authority and the Secretary of State think it reasonable so to do".

I have already spoken to amendment No. 8.

May I refer the Minister to subsection (6) of clause 12 which deals with the possible exemptions from charges for which regulations may provide? Again, we are no wiser about which exemptions will be laid down in relation to persons or licence holders who will be exempt from charges. The provision refers only to regulations that "may provide", so will the Minister discuss with us the position of non-normal, slightly unusual, licensed premises?

The explanatory notes are well worth reading, as they state that the purpose of subsection (7), which deals with regulations providing for discounts or exemptions,

"is to ensure that premises such as restaurants, cinemas and gyms, which do not significantly"—

a word of some interest: what is meant by it?—

"contribute to the problems of alcohol-related violence and disorder, do not have to pay the charge."

Can the Minister tell us what will be the position of those premises? These are key questions. Many licence holders and holders of club registration certificates will want to know whether they will be exempt and are scratching their heads about that interesting point in the explanatory notes—I appreciate that the Minister did not draft the notes personally—which states that a person may be safe if they do not "significantly contribute" to the problems of alcohol-related violence. May we cover restaurants, cinemas and gyms?

May we also cover private clubs? In every constituency, there are a number of law-abiding private clubs, mostly sports clubs, but also political clubs with a licence where people mainly go to drink. Many premises need to be covered, so we need an explanation from the Minister of what the regulations will say. Who will be covered and who will not?

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

Does my hon. Friend agree that more alcohol is consumed in some restaurants than in some pubs, so those restaurants would be contributing more substantially to the problems that the Government want to address, yet their purpose as restaurants is not primarily the supply of alcohol?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is undoubtedly true of some restaurants. He hammers home the point that we need a real explanation from the Minister about which premises will and will not be covered, and in what circumstances premises would find themselves saved from the need to impose the charges.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

In some areas, the distinction may be a fine one, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a world of difference between a restaurant where people have something to drink with their meal and a vertical drinking place where young people drink as much as they can and are shoved out on to the street? It is the second that causes the problems in a large number of our town centres.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but we must decide what the Bill says and means. Although it is undoubtedly true that standards of behaviour vary between premises, it is equally true that the clause will affect little corner shops or specialist trade off-licences whose contribution to alcohol-related disorder is zero. Of course, many of us think that some pubs need attention and that some restaurants might, but some pubs might not. That is where the measure is so vague. In Committee and throughout our debate today, there has been a complete absence of further explanation from the Government about what on earth they mean by the clause, so it is difficult for us to decide whether it is appropriate.

Will the Minister make the clearest possible statement about clubs such as night clubs, where people predominantly go to dance—or do they? Do they go to such clubs for alcohol? I do not dance—[Laughter.]—if I can help it. By mistake, I took rock and roll dancing lessons about two years ago. It was a pathetic sight. However, people in the trade want to know about the position of night clubs where there is a serious combination of music and heavy drinking. Will they be exempted under subsection (6)?

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that constituencies differ, as do town centres. Does not he feel that the appropriateness of the provisions in a particular area—their effect on restaurants and so on—would be taken into account by the crime partnership before considering an alcohol dispersal zone? Is not it a tool that can be used effectively in places where local crime partnerships feel it important? I cannot understand why he does not want to give that option to councils, such as Stockport, which have huge problems of alcohol-related disorder in their town centres.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Lady makes a sensible and accurate point about different problems in different constituencies. One would want to ensure that sensible discretion is used, but I remind her of what I said a few moments ago: we are debating a Bill and we need to ensure that it leaves the House in a state that we can understand and predict. Although the hon. Lady and I might agree that premises that are not the cause of alcohol-related disturbance should not be charged, that is not in the Bill. We need much more explanation from the Minister about the meaning of the clause.

Clause 12(2) deals with the use to which sums received by the local authority will be put and is a tremendous example of vagueness. It states that the Secretary of State may make regulations—terrific—

"requiring a local authority that imposes charges . . . to use sums received by them in respect of those charges for the purposes specified . . . under the regulations."

How on earth are hon. Members supposed to have a meaningful debate about that? Frankly, it could be no more than a tax-raising exercise by local authorities. Why is it not possible to insert, as I seek to do in amendment No. 15, a requirement that the purpose should be to reduce alcohol-related disorder in the locality, as opposed to any purpose that the Government might deem appropriate when they make some regulations, as suggested in the Bill.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I assume that the hon. Gentleman's point relates to policing and crime, but does he not accept that major issues, such as cleansing and other services, are key to what happens in the town centre and closely linked to drink-related behaviour? The proposals are not just about policing costs. Street cleaning and design are important in helping to deal with the problem, as the Minister would agree.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Funnily enough, that may be true, but the problem is that none of it is set out in the Bill and we will never see the regulations. It is right to insert a requirement that the money must be used for the purpose of reducing alcohol-related disorder in the locality. Frankly, if the Government had introduced a Bill in which they had set out certain other purposes for which it should be used, including street cleansing, as least we would have something to debate tonight, whereas the truth is that we have nothing to debate at all.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

Constituencies such as mine do not have a primary town centre and public houses are in residential areas, where vast disturbance is caused to residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in such areas, money should be directed to stop the cause: antisocial drinking and antisocial behaviour? Surely, that would make more sense.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point—I cannot but agree with him—but in a sense he reinforces the fact that we simply do not know what the Government have in mind under the Bill. We would like to know what they have in mind.

Amendment No. 16 takes the matter not much further in the sense that it is a repetition in a different part of the Bill of a point that I made earlier, and it is to the effect that the charges should be

"commensurate with the level of responsibility for alcohol-related disorder . . . of the persons or clubs so charged."

Surely the Minister would feel it appropriate to accept amendment No. 8. Clause 12(7)(b) states that the Secretary of Sate "may" by regulation make provision about the payment, collection and enforcement of charges. I may have misunderstood the word "may"—it may have some parliamentary meaning that has completely escaped me—but I am not sure about that. It seems that the word "may" means that she may or may not. I see absolutely no reason why the word "must" should not go into the Bill, as I suggest in amendment No. 8. Likewise, amendment No. 7 says that the regulations should deal with the imposition of charges, which is to say the basis on which charges are imposed on licensed premises.

Amendment No. 9 is quite important and relates to clause 12(8)(b), which states that the Secretary of State may by regulation make provision about

"appeals against decisions determining such questions."

The appeals point is very important indeed. My amendment suggests that the appeals should be made to the court. The reason I tabled that amendment is, yet again, that the Government have included the most vague statement: they may make regulations about appeals. We must face the fact that some licensed premises or, indeed, trade organisations will decide that they want to appeal against the imposition of such charges on their own premises. What can we debate about the appeal?

Bills that relate to crime normally at least include a provision of appeal to a court and deal with matters such as legal aid. One can get one's teeth into that, but it seems quite vague to say that regulations can make provision about appeals. Can the Minister specifically tell us today to whom the appeals will be made? Is there an undoubted provision for appeal? Who has the ability to overturn—if she thinks that it is not improper to overturn—the decision of the local authority?

Amendment No. 12, which is linked to this group, relates to a different clause, which deals with selling alcohol persistently to children—one of the new offences that we discussed at some length in Committee. My amendment is simply a probing amendment. Whereas I always thought that it was an offence to sell alcohol to under-18s, the Government suggest another offence of persistently selling alcohol. There might be another offence next year of persistently selling alcohol persistently. It is either an offence or it is not.

The Minister may tell me how many people have been charged in the past 12 months with selling alcohol to under-18s. Does she know? Perhaps she would like to intervene to tell me now, because that might shorten my next comments. It appears that she is not entirely sure whether anyone has been charged with the existing offence under the law.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Police officers have told me about the difficulty of using young people's evidence to get a conviction. The offence of selling alcohol to children is phenomenally difficult to prosecute. The police might know that it is going on, but they find it difficult to get the evidence.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

It may indeed be a difficult offence to investigate and bring charges, which is clearly why the Government have made it so much easier by giving us the new offence of doing it three times. Of course, that will ease the position, and the hon. Lady's undoubtedly sincere doubts about the ability to enforce the law will be eased by the fact that, now that it is an offence to do it three times, it will be a matter of great simplicity for the police force.

I merely wonder in amendment No. 12 whether a custodial sentence for that very serious offence should be inserted in the Bill. I shall bring my remarks to a close by saying that those who are engaged in the wine, spirit and pub world are universally worried—very properly so—about the whole concept of alcohol disorder zones and would undoubtedly support my proposition that the charges should be imposed only where there is an element of guilt.

The Campaign for Real Ale was one of the first to write to me saying that the zones might

"inhibit moves towards a more responsible drinking environment by treating",

as the Bill does,

"all licensees the same regardless of steps taken to encourage responsible drinking."

CAMRA, like many others, believes that there should be discounts for well-run community public houses.

Justice, which is a very respected organisation, is again

"concerned that these zones discriminate insufficiently between premises that are a cause of alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder and other premises that merely happen to be in the same locality."

It is concerned about clause 12(7)(b), which provides that

"premises whose main purpose is the sale of alcohol may not be exempted from charges."

It believes that

"those premises that are not contributing to offending behaviour should be exempt from charges.

It is also right in saying that

"premises for which exemptions are allowed by clause 12(7) may include those that are contributing substantially to disorder—there may even be legal argument as to whether nightclubs are included."

I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

I had a long meeting with Tesco, which represents several people interested in the supermarket trade. It, like many others, is extremely responsible in its approach to the sale of alcohol. There is a strong argument that such supermarkets should be excluded from the provisions altogether, because the main purpose of entering them is not to buy alcohol. The Government's assertion that off-licence shops and supermarkets are a significant cause of alcohol-fuelled disorder is not good because their consultation in January conceded that any causal link between the behaviour of an individual and off-sales of alcohol was "tenuous".

The British Retail Consortium is among other bodies that have added their objections to the concept. It talks about its attitude towards responsible retailing and expresses concern about the absence of an appeal. Interestingly, it points out that

"this legislation applies to all retailers who hold a licence to sell alcohol. This would include shops such as John Lewis, Boots and Next who sell alcohol at promotional times of the year but are in no way connected with the problem of alcohol fuelled violence."

Will the Minister confirm whether such premises would be exempt?

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association, which is a responsible body, says:

"We are concerned that the introduction of alcohol disorder zones . . . will have unintended consequences."

It says that the zones will

"penalise small businesses on the basis of their location and will levy charges on responsible business to pay for less-conscientious retailers."

It feels strongly about the matter. Apparently, Home Office officials have made it absolutely clear that

"all restaurants and hotel bars will be exempt from charges".

Will the Minister confirm whether the Home Office has said that? If so, is it wise?

A principal objection is the catch-all and unjust nature of alcohol disorder zone provisions. I repeat again that the Association of Chief Police Officers opposes the concept. The British Hospitality Association is worried on behalf of restaurants, cinemas and gyms. It is concerned about the unfairness of many of the provisions that face it.

Amendment No. 18, which addresses charges in alcohol disorder zones, would ensure that we include in the Bill at least a reference to the fact that payment should be made by those who are culpable, rather than those who are not. The rest of my amendments draw the House's attention to the fact, which must by now be absolutely plain, that clauses 12 and 13 are riddled with uncertainty and vagueness. The Minister has a duty to the House to put us straight on exactly what she means.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I was not intending to speak in the debate, but I have been somewhat incensed by comments made by Opposition Members.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) read into the record many objections to the proposals by a variety of interest groups in the licensed trade. My constituents are hugely worried about alcohol-related disorder and offences in the town centre. The problem arises not only on Friday and Saturday nights, but on Thursdays, Wednesdays, Tuesdays and Mondays. Young people go out for the night, visit numerous pubs and night clubs in the area and end up the worse for wear. They can be assaulted while in a vulnerable state, or assault other people while fuelled by alcohol. There are ways of prosecuting such people, but if we accepted the Liberal amendments we would have to find out which pub caused the alcohol level that induced the violent offence, which would be absolutely impossible. If the Liberal amendments were accepted, nothing would happen. We would have a totally ineffective measure on the statute book.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Does the hon. Lady accept that the police in Stockport and her constituents will have a fair idea about the premises that cause the most problems? Does she not think that it would thus be possible to identify the premises from which most problems come?

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

Yes, but suppose that a young person who had committed an offence had had four pints in one pub, two vodkas in the next pub and a couple of drinks of whatever in another pub. Which pub should be prosecuted? The situation would be absolutely impossible.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Perhaps the answer to the hon. Lady's question lies in the fact that it is an offence to sell alcohol to an intoxicated person, so the last pub must be the culprit.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

That is very interesting, but I defy the hon. Gentleman to identify the point at which a person drinking alcohol reaches the point of total, rather than relative, intoxication. The process of becoming intoxicated is gradual. A person is not, one moment, not intoxicated and, the next, intoxicated. That makes it almost impossible to prove which pub is relevant to the intoxication.

An alcohol disorder zone is a good idea because all licensed premises in that area will have a duty to ensure that anyone drinking in them, or indeed leaving them, is in a proper state. Until we are able to establish alcohol disorder zones, everyone will suffer from the current problem of young people on the streets who are in a state in which they should not be. I do not want to see any more young people being knifed and beaten up in Stockport town centre by other young people who are drunk because they have been out in pubs and clubs that are not responsible enough to control their behaviour: enough is absolutely enough.

Stockport council will not have to apply for the town centre to be an alcohol disorder zone—the crime and disorder partnership need not bother. However, the council should be given the option of doing so because that is what local democracy is about. The tool should be available for it to make such an application and local people can then hold it responsible for their actions.

We in Stockport are fed up with the situation. We are also fed up with the mealy-mouthed words of Opposition Members about any proposal that the Government make to try to sort things out—live in the real world.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I share the passion of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) to see something done about drunken and disorderly conduct in town centres. The issue before the House is not whether we wish to tackle such gross abuse of our town centres at night—everyone in the House wishes to do so—but how we can do that most effectively and justly.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), especially amendments Nos. 18 and 16, which go to the heart of the issue. It would be not merely unjust to impose a tax or levy on licensed premises or restaurants with licences that are perfectly well run, but totally ineffective. Just as the hon. Member for Stockport is passionate about wishing to control disorder in Stockport, I am passionate about wishing to control disorder anywhere in our country, especially places near my constituency. However, I do not for one moment believe that if we impose an extra tax or levy on those who run orderly premises in our society, it will have any impact on disorder. We need to get to the cause of the disorder.

Licensed premises in some towns and other centres might be breaking the rules of their licence, or breaking the law. If they are knowingly selling alcohol to minors, they should be prosecuted. If they are knowingly selling alcohol to people who have already had too much—and visibly so—we are all in favour of action being taken. However, Conservative Members are worried about an ineffective and unjust proposal that will allow any premises with a licence to be clobbered because people misbehave, although many such premises will have had nothing whatsoever to do with the offence and the misbehaviour.

It is likely that in many cases a locality will mean a complete town centre. In a town such as Reading, which I know well because it is just over the border from my constituency, or even a small and relatively well-ordered town such as Wokingham, it will be difficult to draw a line between different streets. Drunkenness spills out across the town centre, and councillors are likely to want to make the whole area into a zone. It is therefore vital that the Minister tells us in general what exemptions would be permitted inside such a large area, which will include many licensed premises that have nothing to do with the trouble.

The Government argue that the people who cause the problems ought to be made to pay. However, those problems are caused primarily not by individuals running licensed premises and businesses but by the drunks themselves. How do the Government propose to make sure that they pay their fair share towards cleaning up the mess and dealing with the damage, and towards the cost of the extra health and policing services that are needed?

Why do the Government think that it makes good or effective law to charge innocent people who are trying to run decent businesses in a town centre and who may offer a countervailing pressure to the unruly behaviour of a minority in a limited number of premises? That would not improve the situation, and would clearly make it worse. The only thing that it is likely to do is drive more of the decent businesses out of town centres to areas where they will not become part of a zone, thus compounding the problem in the town centre, where the wrong kind of businesses will remain. I hope that the Government take seriously the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, and introduce a provision along those lines.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

I, too, support the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has tabled, particularly amendment No. 18. Alcohol disorder zones have the potential to be not only unfair but counter-productive in many ways. The unfairness has been dealt with in detail by other hon. Members, so I will not address it at length. However, the problem does not, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) suggested, stem from the fact it is difficult to isolate individual premises that supply the drink that makes someone drunk or pushes them beyond that point, causing them to come into conflict with the forces of law and order. The problem is that the Government are introducing proposals that financially penalise businesses that operate in the alcohol disorder zone, whatever they do, whether it is right or wrong.

Under those circumstances, the burden of proof rests with the Government to demonstrate that all those businesses share the blame. There is a risk that the proposals will be counter-productive. In Committee, the Minister talked about various programmes and schemes, including the "best bar none" scheme, to which premises could subscribe. They could sign up to best practice proposals and do everything that the Government and the rest of society expected of them by refusing to serve people who were drunk, by behaving responsibly, and by operating their businesses in a way that minimised any disorder outside their premises, but they would still be liable for payment in an alcohol disorder zone. If that is the case, there is a danger that those businesses will simply throw up their hands and say, "Why should I bother? Why should I sign up to all the schemes that the Government want me to join and still have to pay my money?"

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I argued that we could not trace the final pint. However, the industry will, by its very nature, incur extra costs. I will not go into detail, but I believe that the industry should bear a greater proportion of the costs.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

If the hon. Lady is saying that people who supply alcohol to individuals who become drunk and cause disorder should bear the burden of costs, I agree. However, I do not agree that we should assume that every supplier of alcohol is therefore irresponsible. The assumption made by those who framed the proposal is that people who live or operate and work in a particular area of town that the council has designated an alcohol disorder zone must be contributing to the problem and will therefore be charged for the expense of sorting it out. That is fundamentally unfair. If we want premises to comply with all the wonderful schemes and positive measures that have been introduced they will not be encouraged to do so if they are subject to a financial penalty, whether or not they take those measures. The Government must address that difficulty if alcohol disorder zones are to be as effective as they want them to be and, even more worryingly, if they are not to cause our town centres, pubs and clubs to be less inclined to do precisely the things that they would like them to do.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the concept of alcohol disorder zones and I trust that one day the legislation will be extended to Northern Ireland, where there are areas of great disorder associated with licensed premises. There is the added effect of sectarian behaviour by the people who use those premises.

The principle of the polluter pays together with the use of market forces to meet the social costs incurred by businesses is well established. Our debate has centred on whether everyone engaged in the licensed trade is responsible to some extent for those social costs. A number of hon. Members have concluded that some people in the licensed trade sell alcohol but do not contribute to the social costs and, if we accept that argument, the legislation is unjust and unfair. I have listened closely to all the arguments, and some Members said that some individuals are more culpable than others. It was said that some are culpable, but others are not culpable at all.

We have heard a wide range of examples, but when people sell alcohol, especially in an area with a collection of pubs and licensed premises, everyone is culpable to some extent. As has been pointed out, when people go out for the night, they often go from pub to pub until the alcohol in their blood stream builds up and they engage in antisocial behaviour. It is difficult to pinpoint the premises concerned because, as all our constituents know, the disorder is not always associated with premises. It does not happen inside or immediately outside the door—it could happen half a mile away. It is therefore difficult to identify who is culpable.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible to sell alcohol responsibly? If so, can a responsible seller of alcohol work next door to an irresponsible one in an alcohol disorder zone, and would it be right to penalise him?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Whether one sells alcohol responsibly or not, someone could buy one drink in one pub and another drink in another pub. A youngster could visit 10 pubs, and in each of them people could sell him alcohol responsibly. In each pub, he would have only one drink but there would be a cumulative effect, so that that youngster, or a group of youngsters, would go out and behave in a disorderly way.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Is not the hon. Gentleman, with the nodding approval of Government Members, making a case for banning alcohol altogether?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No, I am not. I am arguing that where there are antisocial effects as a result of commercial activity there must a way of recouping the costs. I would like to put some questions to the Minister.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

Before you do—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

May I remind the hon. Gentleman again about correct parliamentary language?

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, very often, the people in question will have three or four pints outside any given zone before entering the zone and enjoying themselves further until they reach the point where they are beyond the pale? Does he accept that, in his terms, people outside the zone are equally culpable?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is a difficult question. We have to define the zone fairly well, but just because there are difficulties we cannot take the view that we should not try to recoup some of the costs associated with alcohol-related disorder.

I accept that some sellers of alcohol are more irresponsible than others. I therefore ask the Minister for some reassurance regarding the practical implications of the measure. The Bill provides for the fixing of

"different rates for . . . different descriptions of premises"

and different rates of discount. Will the Minister give examples? Will such conditions and provisions ensure that differentiation of premises is possible? I do not accept that we can take a black-and-white view in which some are wholly guiltless and make no contribution to the problems. We would run into great difficulties if we tried to do so. No landlord will say, "I am a bad landlord." All will say that they are good landlords, but we know that some try to get as much money as they can from youngsters in as short a time as possible. Those people will be penalised more than those who attempt to reduce the effects of the sale of alcohol.

Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire)

The hon. Gentleman talked about someone going to 10 pubs and having one drink in each. Does he agree that it is likely that the landlord of the 10th pub is being less responsible because the chances are—it depends on the individual's tolerance—that by that point the individual is already intoxicated and selling alcohol to them is already an offence? Does he agree that enforcing the existing law is a way of dealing with the problem.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That point has been made, and I accept it. However, it is not just the last landlord—others have contributed to the individual's drunkenness. Disorderly behaviour does not require a person to be totally drunk—sometimes their inhibitions are lowered simply by the consumption of some alcohol. It would be difficult to establish a cut-off point—to determine the point at which the person became drunk and hold only the one landlord responsible.

I seek some assurances from the Minister because I believe that there should be some differentiation. I shall listen carefully to her reply.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I have to tell the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) that I am unable to be as generous on this group of amendments as I was in earlier debates. I propose to resist every one of them.

The whole idea of alcohol disorder zones is that they will be a last resort. It is not that we think that police and local authorities should seek an ADZ in the face of one or two irresponsible premises. They should use the powers under the Licensing Act 2003 and the much strengthened powers available under our new licensing legislation to bear down on individual premises. An ADZ is designed to deal with a significant number of premises and a general problem, and the process of applying for an ADZ makes that clear. In Committee we debated the process at some length—there will be an initial proposal, then an action plan and time to implement it, and only if that does not work will the point of designating an alcohol disorder zone be reached. Just as drinking banning orders are designed to achieve behaviour change on the part of individuals, ADZs are intended to secure behaviour change on the part of licensees of licensed premises, nightclubs and other organisations. Our aim is to ensure that people take some collective responsibility for the problems that all too often beset us in our town and city centres. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made some good points about differentiation, which I shall deal with later in my speech.

Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are about culpability—their aim is to make a connection between the behaviour and the charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) gave a most passionate explanation of the policy and made it clear that if we were to accept the amendments, ADZs would be unworkable. The note I made asks, "Was it the gin and tonic in the cocktail lounge that caused the bad behaviour, or was it the pint of lager in the Rat and Parrot that made the people drunk and get involved in a fight later, when they were seeking a kebab or a taxi?" It is almost impossible to ascertain which was the drink that tipped someone into committing the sort of violent crime and disorder that we want to tackle.

Having said that, we have tried to ensure that the charges that we shall introduce relate to the degree of risk emanating from individual premises and reflect as far as possible the extra services that will be provided to those premises, whether they be extra enforcement visits by the police, extra test purchasing by trading standards to determine whether alcohol is being sold to under-age youngsters, or extra street cleaning directly outside the premises to deal with the unfortunate behaviour of the patrons of those premises. A real attempt is being made to make sure that we take a bespoke approach.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I am pleased to hear the Minister talk about behaviour change because more emphasis should be placed on that aspect. Bournemouth has a lot of challenges with the night-time economy. Clause 12(2) states that provision will be made for a local authority to impose charges. What might the maximum charge be?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's constituency experiences a lot of night-time disorder and I commend his local police force, which was one of the first to issue fixed-penalty notices in the city centre, which has made a big difference. I am not in a position to say that there will be a specific maximum charge; I am trying to ensure that there is some local flexibility regarding different premises.

I say to the hon. Member for Woking that no, we do not have the regulations before us. However, since before the Committee stage the hon. Gentleman has had a fairly extensive paper that set out the range of costs based on the level of interventions and on factors such as basic pay, allowances, national insurance and superannuation. The paper offered a detailed calculation of the potential costs. It described several options for charges and we decided on option 1, which is to aim as far as possible for bespoke charges for individual premises without creating a completely bureaucratic system. The paper discussed exemptions from the compulsory charge—restaurants, hotels, theatres and gyms would be exempt under the two limbs of the exemption clause. We set out the process for obtaining an alcohol disorder zone designation and, in annexe B, we set out in some detail all the types of activity that could be funded under an ADZ, including employment of door staff and taxi marshals and additional street cleaning. It is uncharacteristically unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that that information was not provided. The paper was a lengthy exposition of the matters that will be covered in regulation and guidance.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Does the Minister agree that local knowledge will be extremely important in relation to alcohol disorder zones? If she does, does she have peace at night when she considers the Home Secretary's plans to regionalise police forces such as West Mercia police, which has that local knowledge? Regionalisation of police forces will not increase local knowledge, but diminish it.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I sleep very peacefully in my bed, when I get to it, knowing that this Government are introducing neighbourhood policing in every community across the country, which will make a real difference to our constituents.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has taken issue with the hon. Member for Woking, who tabled an amendment that would allow the Secretary of State to make decisions in Whitehall. The power is meant to be local and flexible, which has divided opinion on the Opposition Benches.

The hon. Member for Woking has said that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not support alcohol disorder zones. In its letter of 18 March, however, it stated that it did see alcohol disorder zones as a welcome step forward. It said that it responded to its long-held concern that the industry needs to shoulder greater responsibility for the disorder to which excessive drinking gives rise. Similarly, the Local Government Association supports alcohol disorder zones, so it is entirely wrong to characterise alcohol disorder zones as a policy introduced by the Government without the support of important stakeholders.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Can the Minister see that it is difficult for hon. Members to make a fair judgment on the proposal if we do not know how big a charge might be imposed on businesses in such zones and what kind of discount might be available in certain circumstances? If she wants us to eat her dish—she says that it is tasty—she should tell us its price.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

We will introduce regulations, which will be subject to debate, but today we should debate the principle of alcohol disorder zones.

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Member for East Antrim that different charges will be based on a risk assessment of extra enforcement activity in relation to individual premises, and the risk assessment for a 1,000 capacity nightclub may be very different from that for a small local pub. We will also examine discounts, which cannot be introduced until we have introduced the principles and standards code of practice to which the industry will sign up. Once that agreement is in place, people who abide by the provisions in the code of practice will be eligible for discounts, which, at least partially, addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that people who comply with the action plan should be subject to a lower charge. When bar and pub owners do their best to be responsible, it should be acknowledged.

I want to discuss the individual amendments, because we need a little time to discuss some of the other provisions in the Bill. I reject the amendments that seek to establish an audit trail and culpability, which is not the idea behind alcohol disorder zones. I reject the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking on decisions being made in Whitehall, which would be extremely bureaucratic. This is a local power and it should be used locally. When an area is defined, tension may arise, which is why I said in Committee that the police and the local authority must be careful when they draw the boundary and make sure that it is not either too wide or too narrow to catch the mischief that they are seeking to address.

Opposition amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would prescribe the purposes to which funding may be put, but we do not need to include such a provision in the Bill. I made it clear in Committee that the range of additional interventions will be set out in regulations and guidance and I discussed police enforcement and trading standards test purchasing. For example, environmental health officers can deal with excessive noise, which causes a significant problem for many of our constituents, and areas such as street cleaning are important, too.

Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 33, 40 and 41 seek to widen the exemption. At the moment, the exemption has two limbs—whether the principal use of the premises is the sale and supply of alcohol and whether the principal reason why people visit a premises is to obtain alcohol. In order to obtain an exemption, people must meet both limbs of that test, and as I said in Committee, hotels and restaurants—I also mentioned gyms and theatres in my letter—would meet that exemption test.

The Liberal Democrat amendments seek to narrow the exemption test in one way and to widen it in another. Under those amendments, an irresponsible hotel or restaurant would be responsible for the charges, despite having met the test. However, that returns us to the first issue, which is that one would have to be able to see that that individual premises was causing the problem. If an individual premises causes a problem, consideration should be given to using the powers in the Licensing Act 2003 to address that narrow point.

Amendment No. 41 seeks to widen the limb, but it is not appropriate. It would allow people who comply with the action plan not to contribute to costs, but that might be difficult. If the action plan included making a financial contribution in order to facilitate the introduction of proper street-cleaning services, the viability of the alcohol disorder zone might be at risk if several premises did not have to contribute.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

In Committee, I tabled an amendment about moneys going on other services, such as cleaning, but the Minister said that it was not necessary because services in an alcohol disorder zone will be provided by the police and the local authority only, so there will be no need to distribute any other money.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I said that the local authority could commission services, so it is necessary to authorise the police and the local authority only to spend the money.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 address the regulations. In Committee, I said that regulations will be introduced to cover appeals on payment collection and enforcement of the charge. I cannot give the hon. Member for Woking the precise details of the appeals process, but the procedure to appeal against local authorities' charging facilities is well established and I am sure that we will follow it. If we intend to depart from that course, I will let him have the information.

Amendment No. 9 includes a more general right of appeal to a court and, again, we have been over that ground before. The process of making an alcohol disorder zone includes sufficient checks and balances to make a formal appeal structure—which would simply drag out the process—unnecessary. The joint local authority and police trigger means that both of those bodies must consent, and there is also a formal consultation process, the eight-week period to allow the commencement of an action plan and a formal three-monthly review of designation. Those robust checks and balances should be sufficient for us not to have a formal appeal process.

The final issue concerns the offence of persistently selling alcohol to under-age youngsters, which is clearly important. The hon. Member for Woking wants to increase the fine to a level not exceeding £10,000. However, the Licensing Act 2003 increased the fine from £1,000 to £5,000, which is proportionate, and it also includes the power to suspend a licence for up to three months, which is a vigorous remedy. A premises licence holder could be based in London while their business is located in Manchester, and if their offence is simply a matter of neglect, even if it is criminal neglect, a custodial sentence would be a harsh punishment.

I have dealt with all the amendments and urge the House to resist them all. The alcohol disorder policy is a policy of last resort, but it will be hugely welcome in some of our town and city centres. I hope that it will result in the good, responsible pubs and clubs getting together, taking collective responsibility and helping to change behaviour.

David Lepper (Labour, Brighton, Pavilion)

On alcohol disorder zones being a last resort, does the Minister agree that in an area in which a problem clearly exists, local authorities should consider the power in the Local Government Act 2003 to introduce, with the consent of local businesses, business improvement districts, which would deal with many such problems at a much earlier stage?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

My hon. Friend has concluded the debate on a very positive note. We want to encourage people to enter into voluntary arrangements, which has happened in many city centres across the country—for example, Manchester Citysafe and the Tranquility project in Stockton, which has brought peace to that area. Businesses are increasingly realising that it is in their best interests to tackle such problems locally. A safe night out is the kind of night out that people will return to week after week after week, because they have a great time without experiencing the problems of alcohol-fuelled disorder that unfortunately beset far too many of our communities.

I urge the House to resist the amendments.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

All Members want to tackle alcohol-related disorder on the streets of our cities, and I give credit to them for that. This debate is about trying to find the best way to do that. The amendments were tabled because the Government are asking us to take so much on their say-so. I hope that more detail will be made available on charging and capping when the Bill goes to another place. With that hope in my heart, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 18, in page 10, line 28, at end insert—

', provided that no charges shall be payable by any persons or clubs unless the local authority is satisfied on the basis of evidence that it is reasonable to impose charges on those particular persons or clubs.'.—[Mr. Malins.]

Clause 23 — Exclusion Orders in respect of licensed premises

Clause 24 — Using someone to mind a weapon

Clause 27 — Prohibition on sale or transfer of air weapons except by registered dealers

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 29, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 109, in page 29, line 40 [Clause 28], after 'weapon', insert

'with a muzzle energy in excess of 1 joule'.

Amendment No. 110, in page 30, line 24, leave out Clause 29.

Government amendment Nos. 46 to 48.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that if, as now appears likely, there is no debate on the final group of amendments, which begins with amendment No. 112, that absence is not through lack of interest or importance but would relate solely to the terms of the Government's guillotine motion?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The right hon. Gentleman is right. We are proceeding in the way in which the House has already agreed. The time spent on each group of amendments is entirely a matter for those taking part.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

With little time on the clock, I declare my interest as the holder of a shotgun licence, the owner of an air rifle and a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

I am belatedly pleased that the Government have tabled amendments to deal with some matters that we raised in Committee. However, many thousands of people continue to be worried by the uncertainty that has been caused by the manner in which the Bill has progressed. We wholeheartedly support measures that will have a genuine, practical effect on reducing gun crime in the UK and making our systems safer. However, we do not support clauses that create laws for the sake of being seen to be tough on gun crime, but whose effect will be felt almost exclusively by legitimate users of weapons, not the criminals on whom we intend to crack down.

The root of the remaining problems with part 2 is that we do not believe that sufficient consultation has been held with affected as well as expert bodies. Where is the firearms advisory committee, which should have been the proper body to consult about the Bill? The Government said that they would form that committee before abolishing their previous consulting committee, but they failed to do that.

The Government have yet to publish anything that relates to the 4,000-odd responses to the May 2004 consultation paper on controls on firearms. I submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but it elicited the entirely unsatisfactory response that the information would still not be released. This adds further weight to our grave concerns about the fundamental basis of this part of the Bill.

On amendment No. 108, our position remains that the impact of the changes to the law two years ago should be assessed fully before yet further laws penalising legitimate users of air weapons are introduced. Clause 27 requires anyone who sells air weapons by way of trade or business to register with the police as a firearms dealer. The Minister said in Committee that the registration fee was likely to be £150 per establishment. Will she please confirm that that is the case?

In Committee, the Minister undertook to provide information on how the licensing regime was to work. On Thursday night last week, we received a letter which hardly explained the situation. Perhaps she could now explain, for example, what a fishing store would have to do in order to continue to be able to sell air weapons, and how long it would take to do it. Clause 27 would prohibit any person other than a registered dealer from selling or transferring air weapons. Where is the evidence that airguns are misused through being obtained through trade sources rather than private sales? It is hard enough to accept these changes to the Bill so late in the day, but to do so without being given anything to support, explain or justify the clauses relating to air weapons is quite another matter. As I said in Committee, clauses 27 and 28, when taken together with clause 29, will have a serious and unjustifiably adverse effect on legitimate users of airguns and on persons carrying on the business of selling them.

Amendment No. 108 seeks to remove the burdensome, impractical and pointless requirement to keep a register of air weapons. I want to address the amendment in the context of clause 27 as a whole, because they are inextricably linked. I raised this issue in Committee, but the Minister did not address it at the time. There are an estimated 7 million air weapons in circulation in this country. I do not think that the Government are proposing that those 7 million weapons should be registered; I believe that only future sales will be affected. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. If that is the case, how would the measure work in practice? If clause 27 does not propose to register the existing 7 million air weapons, will not subsection (2)—which would require a register of transactions—be futile? There will be 7 million unregistered air weapons in circulation, and this proposal would merely impose a disproportionate administrative burden on registered firearms dealers. The requirement to maintain full records of air weapons sales in a firearms register would simply be unnecessary red tape.

Fewer than 50 per cent. of airguns are sold by registered firearms dealers. The majority are sold by sports shops, fishing shops and similar outlets. No evidence has been produced to show that airguns sold through registered firearms dealers are more or less likely to be misused than those sold through other retail outlets. There is no evidence that retailers who are not registered firearms dealers are irresponsible in selling airguns to the public. Nor is there evidence to suggest that the proposed restrictions will improve public safety.

A simpler system would involve creating a lawful check on the sale of firearms, but without the need for registration. One such system could involve ensuring that any person who wished to sell air weapons should apply in writing to the police for written authority to do so. This would essentially be a much simpler system of licensing. If the police believed that the applicant was not a fit person to sell airguns, they could refuse to give their authority. The applicant could then be given the right of appeal. As we said in Committee, a modified form of licensing would be more acceptable, but no changes have been forthcoming from the Government since then. Rather than requiring full registration, regulation could be achieved by using simpler, less restrictive regimes. What I continue to find most bizarre is that the Home Office consultation paper of May 2004 stated that

"we do not therefore believe that there should be a system of licensing or further restrictions on the sale of air guns".

I must ask the Minister why the Government are ignoring their own advice.

Banning the sale of air weapons except through registered firearms dealers approved by the police is an impractical, draconian, burdensome and disproportionate measure, and the Government have failed to provide any evidence that it will have any effect on violent crime. It will serve only to penalise business people and sports persons involved in shooting.

In the Home Office regulatory impact assessment, the Home Office recognises that licensing all air weapons would result in a significant decrease in sales of air weapons and a significant impact on business. The assessment stated:

"We understand that the majority of air weapons are sold through small dealers and tackle shops, so small firms would be affected disproportionately."

It remains unclear exactly how many small sellers would actually convert to getting a firearms licence. The cost and inconvenience could be disproportionate, and again, business as well as sport could suffer.

The more important point for the Minister to show is exactly how that will reduce violent crime involving air weapons. While the clause will make it more difficult for lawful users to acquire air weapons, there is no evidence that that will affect the level of misuse.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as I did in Committee. He is very much opposed to a licensing scheme, and I know that he was very much opposed to a personal purchaser licensing scheme. In the light of that, can he explain why the Conservative group on Dundee city council, along with the Labour and Liberal group, voted tonight for such a licensing scheme?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I have no idea why the Conservative group voted for such a scheme. The policy of this Conservative group is that the scheme as proposed by the Government is unworkable and impractical. If we are to have any scheme at all, that which is offered tonight is not the correct one.

Amendment No. 190 relates to clause 28, which requires the sale of air weapons by way of trade or business to be face-to-face. Once again, we find ourselves asking where exactly the evidence is to support this draconian measure. It is appreciated that the clause is intended to outlaw all sales via the internet or mail order, but in Committee the Minister raised more questions than she answered. We tabled the amendment to draw attention to that. Under the amendment, the clause would be restricted to apply only to air weapons with a muzzle energy in excess of 1 J. As we discussed in Committee, that is not regarded as a lethal barrelled weapon, and is the kind commonly used in airsoft and other legitimate activities. To recap on our little Committee chat on muzzle energies, which Members will remember, 1 J is the equivalent impact to a tennis ball being bounced against the floor.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the sport of airsoft. I have been contacted by Mr. Christie from my constituency, on behalf of 100 airsofters in Kettering who are very worried about the implications of the Bill. I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution on that subject.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My hon. Friend makes a valid intervention, not least because, as a result of timetabling, unfortunately, we will not reach the relevant amendments on airsoft, which, he will be pleased to know, we defended in Committee, and I would have done so again today if I had had the opportunity.

The point about the muzzle velocity is that it is very low impact—that is the sort of air weapon that I suspect would be involved in the majority of mail order sales. Precisely for those reasons, we believe that air weapons with a muzzle energy of 1 J or less should be exempted from this unnecessary red tape. We raised legitimate concerns about internet sales from outside the United Kingdom, and the Minister assured us that she was doing all that she could in relation to internet sales and ensuring international co-operation on that front. Will she tell us how she plans to achieve that international co-operation, and what plans are in place to facilitate that?

In relation to internet sales, a major source of concern is sales originating outside the United Kingdom, where guns are more readily available and often cheaper. About 2,500 registered firearms dealers are spread across Great Britain, of which between 1,000 and 1,200 sell airguns by retail. The remainder are specialist dealers or those who do not sell by retail. There are between 1,000 and 1,200 retailers of airguns that are not registered firearms dealers. Thus there are some 2,400 retail outlets for airguns spread across England, Wales and Scotland. It follows that in many areas, particularly rural ones, direct access to a retailer of airguns would involve considerable time and expense without mail order.

As we well know, clause 29, to which amendment No. 110 relates, raises the age from 17 to 18 at which a person may purchase or hire an airgun or ammunition for an airgun. The clause also raises the minimum age from 17 to 18 at which a person may have with him an airgun or ammunition for that airgun. We remain totally unconvinced as to the justification for raising the age limit for buying an air weapon from 17 to 18. The Minister has repeatedly avoided giving any evidence to show that 17-year-olds are heavily involved in air weapon misuse.

The fact is that the evidence needed to justify the clause has not been forthcoming. Airguns are the gateway to other shooting sports and unjustified diminution in airgun sales will therefore have a knock-on effect on all shooting sports. Furthermore if a reduction in the number of retail outlets is coupled with a requirement for face-to-face sales, people in rural areas will be hit especially hard, and many will be deterred from acquiring airguns.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

So far the hon. Gentleman has concentrated on sports clubs and rural communities. Has he anything to say about the Bill's effect on urban communities, particularly in inner city areas such as those in London where gun crime is rife and people have been killed and maimed daily?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that restricting airgun sales to those aged 17 or 18 will have any material impact on violent crime by youths in our inner cities, he has another think coming.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

May I ask a question that is relevant to what was said by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan)? Surely the effects of airgun use on an inner city estate are very different from the effects on a constituency such as mine or that of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), where most people who use airguns will use them responsibly as part of their sport. Should we not be extremely careful about imposing unnecessary restrictions on the sporting use of guns—a road down which we have gone before—if it will not have the practical effect for which we all hope, which is the reduction of illegal gun use in cities?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

That is a fair point. The truth is that the measures that we are discussing now will not have the effect that the Government want. Of course, we are discussing elements of a much larger Bill. Along with other Conservative Members and, indeed, Liberal Democrats, I made it clear in Committee that we wanted to reduce gun crime. We have a problem with specific issues, and this is one of them.

As I have said, changes in firearms legislation should be soundly based on consultation and evidence, not just on a perceived need to be seen to be doing something for the sake of it. According to the regulatory impact assessment, the vast majority of the 4,000-odd responses to the consultation paper that commented on air weapons—incidentally, we have not had access to those responses: they were received by the Government, but not by us—favoured tackling misuse, but suggested that that should not be achieved through further restrictions on possession or sale.

The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 tried to deal with airgun abuse—for instance, by raising the age at which airguns could be purchased to 17—but it is less than two years old, and there has not been time for its effects to be properly monitored and evaluated. Having consulted widely, we maintain that it would be wrong to impose further restrictions in the absence of alternative evidence.

Tightening the restrictions will penalise the shooting community, and there is no evidence that it will have any benefit in reducing airgun misuse. It will merely deprive 17-year-olds of the opportunity to be taught safely and responsibly how to handle firearms. Training young people to shoot can be valuable in teaching skills, discipline and responsibility. Introducing them to safe, responsible firearms use makes it far less likely that they will ever misuse guns. If young people were prevented from having reasonable access to airguns, all shooting sports would suffer, with little or no effect on crime figures. This attack on airgun ownership constitutes a veiled attack on shooting and on entry to the sport.

Bizarrely, on page 11 of its consultation paper of May 2004 relating to specifically to age limits, the Home Office categorically recommends that there should be no further restrictions on the sale of airguns because of the disproportionate enforcement effort.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when we last tried to restrict the sale of handguns for sporting use, there was no increase in illegal gun use, and that it has gone through the roof since this Labour Government took office?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I would have brought up myself if we had enough time, but we will need to move on to other groups of amendments. I agree with what my hon. Friend said.

It is obvious that all improper use of airguns should be an offence, irrespective of the age of the perpetrator, but existing legislation provides for that. The way to crack down on weapon misuse is through better enforcement of existing legislation. That is what will impact on gun crime. Tinkering with age limits in respect of air weapons will do little but anger and upset people who use guns safely and responsibly. The Minister has simply failed to explain how the clause is likely to reduce crime, never mind violent crime, so we believe that clause 29 should be removed entirely from the Bill. I intend to divide the House on amendment No. 110.

Finally, I want to say that in respect of Government amendments Nos. 46 to 48, we are very pleased to see that the Minister has listened to our legitimate concerns about shooting beyond premises with consent. We want to thank the Minister for acting on our concerns in that regard, even though once again, she has unfortunately provided a defence rather than an exemption.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on the way in which he has proposed the amendments. I support them all, but I want to comment particularly on amendment No. 110 and the matter of raising the age from 17 to 18. As my hon. Friend noted, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 raised the age limit from 14 to 17 only two years ago. At that time, I took on the same role as my hon. Friend of challenging the Government. It is fair to say that, even at that stage, there was little evidence that increasing the age at which one could buy or use, without supervision, an airgun from 14 to 17 would make any difference. What is abundantly clear now is that, since that Act came into force, there is no evidence that it has made any difference and there is certainly no evidence that the gap between 17 and 18 is a problem issue.

That is not to say, as I said umpteen times in Committee, that there are no problems with airgun misuse. We know that there are—in rural as well as urban areas—but there are already 30 different offences on the statute book for the misuse of airguns. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the answer lies with proper enforcement of those 30 existing offences. That is what the Government should be concentrating on, rather than this wilful act that appears to come from the "something must be done" school. What can we do about airguns? Let us raise the age limit from 17 to 18 without any evidence that it will do any good. If the Minister seriously believes that it will make any difference to airgun crime, let us hope that in the few minutes left for debate, she will stand up and present the evidence.

How many young people between 17 and 18 have been convicted for one of the 30 offences to which I referred earlier? In how many cases would the offence not have been committed if those young people had been unable to get hold of an airgun? It would be helpful if the Minister provided us with that information. Since the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, how much violent crime has been reduced by the fact that the age was increased from 14 to 17? Can the Minister provide us with some clear examples and statistical evidence—not just wishful thinking or what the Government think or believe—from the Dispatch Box this evening to justify taking away the opportunities of a group of 17-year-olds whose only interest is in using airguns lawfully, legally, safely and often in connection with their occupation in the countryside? That is the sort of evidence that she must put before the House if we are to accept that clause 29 will make any difference whatever.

Finally, we want to hear the Minister's justification for her stance, so she should tell the House what is wrong with simply ensuring that the 30 existing offences are properly enforced. Before she answers that, she might just check her book, so that she can give us the statistics on how many people have been prosecuted in the past few years. She will find that the figure is woefully small, compared with the existing problems. If the Government enforced the law properly, they would not need to take steps such as this.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I have not seen such passion in the House for some time. It is clear that Conservative Members are very attached to their guns—and they doubtless mean to stick to them during this debate.

I will resist the Opposition's amendments and I shall explain why. It is worth reminding the House of how serious this problem is. In 2003–04, 13,756 crimes were committed in which air weapons were used; in 2,395 cases, they caused injury; in 156 cases, they caused serious injury. Occasionally, someone is killed with an air weapon, as happened in the tragic cases of two-year- old Andrew Morton and 12-year-old Alex Cole. The misuse of air weapons is a serious problem and this Government are determined to meet it with effective action.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

No. We have heard a lot tonight about legitimate shooting and I have no doubt that there are legitimate shooters who act responsibly, but the Bill's purpose is to deal with people who use weapons irresponsibly, just as its purpose is to deal with those who use alcohol irresponsibly. It is about directing our action at the mischief that undoubtedly is caused in our communities. If the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) represented a slightly different area, he would know that older people, in particular, have been plagued by the misuse of air weapons. Various members of the Committee, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler), pointed out that some older people are cowering in their homes because people are taking pot-shots at them and their families. So I make no apologies for trying to ensure that sufficient restrictions are in place.

Amendment No. 108 would remove the requirement for air weapon retailers to keep a register of transactions, but that register is an important part of the controls. It removes purchasers' anonymity and should deter casual and irresponsible sales, which is what we want to achieve. At the moment, people can buy air weapons at car boot sales, through mail order and on the internet. Requiring that a register be kept and that air weapons be sold face to face brings a little more rigour to the system. I do not pretend for a moment that we are introducing a licensing system for the millions of air weapons in existence, but we are doing what we can, in a practical and proportionate way, to ensure that the sale of air weapons is at least a little safer. I realise that the licensing fee is £150, but that is for three years, so it is not an onerous requirement for those stores and shops that want to be responsible air weapon retailers. I am sure that many of them will be delighted to register with their local police force to enable them to sell their weapons properly.

Amendment No. 109 would modify the requirement in clause 28 by applying it only to air weapons with a muzzle energy in excess of 1 J, but such weapons are already included. I discovered in Committee that weapons of 1 J or greater are the only ones that meet the firearms definition of a lethal barrelled weapon in the Firearms Act 1968. Lethality does not occur until a muzzle energy in excess of 1 J is reached, so a weapon with a muzzle energy of less than 1 J is not a lethal barrelled weapon and does not fall within the definition of a firearm. It is very strange for me to be telling the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), an avowed shooter and an expert on the technicalities of such matters, that his amendment is therefore superfluous; nevertheless, I ask him to withdraw it.

Amendment No. 110 would remove from the Bill the increase in the age limit. It is right and proper that we bring the air weapons provision into line with that for knives, because we want to ensure that young people have access to potentially dangerous weapons only in the proper circumstances. Young people will still be able to shoot at approved clubs under adult supervision, or, if they are aged 14 or over, on private premises with the occupier's consent. That gives them sufficient ability to shoot under proper conditions.

I am glad that Government amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 have been welcomed by the Opposition. They clarify the situation in cases where people fire an air weapon beyond the boundary of one premises and into another, with consent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 110, in page 30, line 24, leave out clause 29.—[Mr. Djanogly.]

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for their constructive approach during consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report. Many helpful points, including points of clarification, were raised in Committee, which have enabled us to make more explicit the intention of the Bill and to improve it. I thank the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) for their excellent chairmanship of our discussions.

I also thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is not in the Chamber. I learned more about the Atholl Highlanders during the proceedings of the Bill than I could ever have contemplated. I also know more about managing a rural estate, which is how the hon. Gentleman seems to spend some of his time. The Committee stage was extremely good-natured.

I hope that Members will agree that we responded positively to many of the points raised and that the Bill we are sending to the other place has been significantly improved by the scrutiny process. I welcome the broad measure of cross-party support for many of the provisions. In Committee, we shared the desire to tackle gun and knife crime and to try to reduce the unacceptable, alcohol-fuelled violence and disorder, which we unfortunately see on too many of the streets of our towns and cities, to protect the decent, law-abiding majority of people.

The British crime survey data show considerable falls in violent crime since 1997—a total fall of 34 per cent., which is significant by anybody's reckoning—but we are not complacent, nor would the public want us to be. Too many people are still victims of crime, including violent crime. Too many people live in fear of crime and we need to tackle that, too. We are doing everything we can to try to make a real difference and the Bill contains a good cross-section of provisions, giving the police and local communities the powers they need further to reduce violent crime, particularly in relation to knives, guns and alcohol.

Although most people drink responsibly, we all agree that the scale of alcohol-fuelled violence is too high. I believe that responsibility for ending the binge-drinking culture rests both with individuals, because it is important that they make correct choices about drinking, and with the people who run pubs, clubs, supermarkets and off-licences. I realise that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) wanted to make a distinction between on and off-licence premises in terms of responsibility, but I reject such a distinction. If Members consider the results of the recent test purchasing in off-licence premises, they will see that there is still a significant problem of such premises selling to under-age youngsters. It is not simply a problem for the on-licence trade. Everybody has to take responsibility and the alcohol disorder zone provisions are about ensuring that collective responsibility.

We debated drinking banning orders at some length. I hope that Members will accept the difference between drinking banning orders and ASBOs, although I do not have a great deal of real hope in the case of the hon. Member for Woking. There is a significant difference. We want the orders to be used proactively by the courts whenever people come before them.

There is a series of exceptions to the drinking banning order, because we want to ensure that people can access their home, education and place of work, even when they are under a drinking banning order. We also said that people should still be able to attend their place of worship. That could help them to desist from the demon drink, so it will certainly be included as part of the guidance.

We debated alcohol disorder zones again today. The Bill tries to build on the efforts already made by responsible licensees. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) referred to business improvement districts. We talked about the Citysafe scheme in Manchester and similar schemes in Swansea, Leicester, Cardiff and York, where licensees are working voluntarily with their police and local councils to tackle the problems.

Members have expressed concerns that good operators will be caught with the bad ones. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) put the point extremely well: everybody is culpable but there should be differentiation in the degree of culpability. We shall try to achieve that in the regulations.

I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have continually moved amendments that—in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—would ensure that the provision for alcohol disorder zones was unworkable. We should be honest enough to say either that we support the principle of such zones and ensure that we have practical, effective legislation or that we do not support such zones and would do away with them. What causes me immense frustration is that, time and again, the Liberal Democrats will the ends but not the means.

The Liberal Democrats say that they are against antisocial behaviour, but they will not support ASBOs. They say that they are against gangs hanging around, but they will not support dispersal orders. They say that they want to tackle alcohol-fuelled violence, but are not prepared to support alcohol disorder zones. In politics, it is important that we are clear about what action we want to take. Theirs is a party that has not been in government and is not likely to be in government. It simply wills the ends but not the means to get there. Sometimes, government is about making some pretty hard decisions.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that the Liberal Democrats say one thing in the House and do another thing in the country, but that, tonight, Liberal Democrat Front Benchers have supported the perpetrators of crime, rather than the victims?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. When he put it to the Liberal Democrats earlier that perhaps they would like to include in their "Focus" leaflets their support of the human rights of the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour, he got a resounding silence from them.

Part 2 seeks to address a number of serious problems associated with armed crime and the misuse of imitation firearms, air weapons and knives. I am pleased that it has generally received broad support, although some minor issues have been raised. The appalling deaths and injuries that have been caused by gun and knife crime deeply hurt families and communities and leave a legacy of fear.

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that airguns, which are sometimes called BB guns, can be used recreationally? Although I do not take part in such recreation, I am concerned that such legislation might damage sports such as airsoft or historical re-enactments. Does she agree that perhaps a distinguishing mark on the barrels of such guns could play a part in reducing the criminal use of such items?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

It is excellent to see that Labour Members are interested in practical legislation that can work. I am delighted at my hon. Friend's suggestion. She will know that we have made some amendments to cover historical re-enactments and museums, and she makes an excellent suggestion in relation to airsoft. Clearly, if imitations are not realistic, they can be used in that fashion.

I may as well be even in my disappointment as between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. I was disappointed with the Conservatives in relation to mandatory sentences for people who seek to get others to hide and mind their guns for them. We included a provision that mandatory five-year sentences, such as those for the possession of weapons, would be imposed for seeking to use particularly children to mind illegal guns. Frankly, I was amazed at the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said:

"For this crime, it seems inappropriate that the sentence should be mandatory".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 October 2005; c. 187.]

The Opposition must know that, since we introduced the mandatory five-year sentence for being in possession of an illegal gun, people have reduced their usage of real guns and moved to using imitations, which is why we have the provisions on the banning of realistic imitations.

Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent South)

I, too, was extremely disappointed with the Opposition's attempts to remove the mandatory five-year sentence. With a constituency such as mine, where we have a firearms-related incident every 17 days on average, the removal of such sentences would be absolutely detrimental to the good work that the police are doing in ensuring that gun crime is reduced. We should act responsibly when the Government introduce measures that will effectively save people's lives and ensure that younger people do not take up guns because they know that doing so will carry a mandatory five-year sentence.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

My hon. Friend has a great deal of personal experience of these really devastating problems in her community. I am sure that Labour Members not only share her disappointment, but are shocked by the Opposition's position and the fact that they divided the House to vote against mandatory sentences, which was a great surprise.

Fraser Kemp (Labour, Houghton and Washington East)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the restrictions on airguns in the Bill are good news for one of my constituents, Andrew Ross, who was shot in the face three weeks ago? He needed six stitches and nearly lost an eye. Such restrictions are an important step forward. If, as I hope, the Bill is passed tonight, will she join my call to urge forces throughout the country to have an amnesty for airguns? If fewer such weapons are lying around in people's houses, it is logical that people such as my constituent will be safer.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the restrictions will help to ensure that air weapons are better regulated. As I said earlier, there were 156 serious injuries involving air weapons last year. He suggests an amnesty. If such weapons are no longer being used, they should be kept out of the hands of people who could misuse them, so his suggestion would be a positive way forward.

Gordon Banks (Labour, Ochil and South Perthshire)

I commend the Bill because in the smallest county in Scotland, of which my constituency is part, in the first seven months of the year, 41 of the 50 crimes involving firearms related to airguns. There was an incident similar to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) when a 13 or 14-year-old boy was shot under the eye. Anything that can be done to tighten the registration of, and restriction on, such armaments must be a step in the right direction to make our society and communities much safer.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Yes. I know about my hon. Friend's personal commitment to the issue because I was delighted that he recently presented me with a petition through which many of his constituents expressed their worry about the misuse of air weapons.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

rose—

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I give way to the hon. Gentleman with the striking tie.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I thank the right hon. Lady for her compliment. I raise a genuine constituent's concern. Mr. Cockayne from Kettering is a member of the Great War Society, which has a distinguished record of re-enacting scenes from the great war. The Governments of France and Belgium have invited the society to re-enact the battle of the Somme in July 2006—the right hon. Lady will know that that has special significance. Mr. Cockayne wants to know whether members of the society will be allowed to leave the country with their deactivated original weapons and then be allowed back into the country with those weapons when they return.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Yes. The Bill now provides an exemption for deactivated weapons, so they will not fall under the category of realistic imitation weapons, which will be banned from being manufactured and imported. If the weapons are deactivated, those people will be able to take part in their activity. I have been keen throughout the Bill's passage to try to ensure that we do not cast our net too wide and affect people who do extremely good work, especially with schoolchildren, by re-enacting and taking part in living history lessons to try to bring such history alive. I am conscious of the excellent work done by people in my constituency in that regard.

We had a good debate on air weapons and I think that we have dealt sufficiently with the matter. I was disappointed that we did not have the chance to debate primers because I was looking forward to telling hon. Members that I had learned about not only muzzle joule energy, but percussions caps for UN metallic-cased ammunition. Our chance has now disappeared, but those matters have added to the sum of my knowledge, if not to the sum of human knowledge.

We did not have the chance to discuss imitation firearms, but I am glad that we have been able to include in the Bill exemptions for television and theatrical productions, historical re-enactments and museums. We have struck a pragmatic and realistic balance between the mischief at which we are aiming, which is the misuse of realistic imitations—the use of which has increased by 66 per cent. in the past year, so we need to crack down on that—and protecting legitimate use.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I echo a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). How many such crimes were committed by children aged between 17 and 18? Although the Minister cited many other figures, she did not tell us that information.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

No, I am afraid that I do not have to hand the figures on 17 to 18-year-olds. However, a strong case has been made about the danger of young people obtaining weapons that could be misused at the age of 18. As I have set out, there is a range of circumstances in which youngsters as young as 14 can continue to use air weapons provided that they do so under supervision. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes such provisions, which aim to achieve the right balance, so that people have the freedom to use their weapons, but certainly do not have the freedom to misuse them and harass good, decent, law-abiding citizens.

I have nothing further to add save to commend the Bill to the House. As I said, violent crime has been reduced by 34 per cent. since the Government came to power, which is an excellent record. There is always more that we can do, however, to try to make sure that the people of this country have the right to live in safe and secure communities. The Government will try to achieve that with every measure that we introduce to try to ensure that the criminal justice system and the police service are on the side of the decent, law-abiding majority. I commend the Bill to the House.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I should like to begin in the same way as the Minister by telling the House that all the members of the Committee have good reason to be grateful to our Chairmen, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton), and to the Clerk of the Committee, who looked after us very well during the course of our deliberations.

I particularly thank the Minister, because throughout the Committee, she, like the rest of us, ensured that our debate was reasoned and measured. Although there were disagreements, as is always the case, there were also points on which we agreed, and we approached everything in a constructive manner. I should like to thank my hon. Friends who contributed a great deal in Committee. My hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) were particularly helpful, but I should like to give special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) for taking on his shoulders the heavy burden of dealing with firearms matters. I am grateful to him for that work.

The majority of correspondence that hon. Members received before the Bill went into Committee was sent by people who were interested for personal reasons—they often had relevant hobbies—in the provisions on firearms. We all received many letters from concerned constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) for her contributions in Committee. We had some useful exchanges with Government Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Although I rarely agreed with her, and she rarely agreed with me, that does not alter the fact that such exchanges are worth while.

The Bill has completed its Committee and Report stages, and it will shortly proceed to the other place. Earlier, the Minister said that one or two of our amendments may find favour with her, given what they set out to achieve, although not necessarily as drafted. That shows the House of Commons at its best. From time to time—I wish it happened more often—Governments accept Opposition amendments if they think that there is merit in them. I therefore look forward very much to hearing the Government's proposals on those amendments, sooner rather than later. We have been talking for weeks about the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, which draws our attention to three areas that are of great concern to everyone in the House of Commons and in Parliament generally. First, drink-fuelled crime and alcohol-related disorder are a huge concern. The Minister properly said that the figures are too high, and there is concern about the problem on both sides of the House, particularly among Members who represent urban areas. I understand and respect that concern, because sometimes people from urban areas see things differently. They are not always correct, but they see things differently from people who come from areas that are not so urban. I understand the difference, and accept that there is a balance to be struck.

Hon. Members have expressed throughout our debates—this is a non-party point—their great concern about the increase in binge drinking and alcohol-related violence on our streets. Earlier today, I remarked that all of us are concerned about binge drinking among very young people. Something must be done about it. I hope that hon. Members will accept in the spirit in which it is intended my comment that a number of us may have drunk too much when we were 18, 19 or 20, but in our day it was most unusual to see binge drinking and heavy drunkenness among much younger children such as 13, 14 or 15-year-olds. The fact that we see that quite a lot now is troubling, not least because of the health implications. Setting aside for the moment the obvious public and criminal costs, I fear that there is a generation growing up now who have become used to heavy doses of alcohol in their mid or early teens. We should all worry about that very much.

Tackling drink-fuelled crime is important and the Government's approach in the Bill is to introduce two new measures: drinking banning orders and alcohol disorder zones. I have said throughout our debates that I feel that the existing law is in many respects sufficient to cover the mischief with which we are attempting to deal. There is a variety of offences in the criminal law relating to alcohol-fuelled disorder and violence, as well as the range of penalties and criminal offences that—I repeat—the Home Affairs Committee has said are underused by the police. What is important is to enforce existing law, rather than consistently to give in to the apparent need to make new law, which is the Government's answer to everything. If existing law were seriously enforced, we might not be having this debate now. It is a great worry that current law is not being enforced. During his remarks on guns, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred to 30-odd offences on the statute book the proper enforcement and policing of which would ensure that we did not need to debate much of what we have debated today.

I hope to goodness that the drinking banning order proves successful. I have my doubts, but I wish it well. We have expressed our concerns about alcohol disorder zones and argued throughout—we voted on it—that those premises that are not to blame should not be in the same position as those premises that are clearly to blame.

We had a long debate on knives. All of us on both sides of the House accept that knife crime—in particular, the offence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of carrying a bladed article—is increasing dramatically. That is a great worry, yet the only reference to that crime in the Bill is in the fairly narrow, perhaps relevant in their own way but not generally applicable, clauses that deal with knives in schools—a growing problem, with up to 60,000 children aged between 11 and 16 carrying knives in school, which is a terrifying statistic—and the offence of using someone to mind a weapon. The offence of carrying a bladed article in public is one that we must address much more strongly, so I was disappointed by the Government's response to our new clause in which we proposed a new maximum—not minimum—penalty for that offence, increasing it from two years to five years. The Government did not take our arguments on board and made no conciliatory comments in that respect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon carried on his own shoulders a great deal of the burden of our debates on firearms. Tonight, he spoke on the clauses that deal with air weapons, and we were able to force a Division. However, the time ran out, although I do not blame the Minister because it was one of those things. I wish that we had had more time to debate the amendments covering ammunition and realistic imitation firearms and re-enactments, but I repeat that no blame attaches to the Minister.

On firearms, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has made it clear, and I shall make it clear, too, that today's position is different from that a couple of weeks ago. Conservative Members thank the Minister for her reasonable and responsive approach to many of the matters that we raised in Committee, and we are pleased that the Government have tabled amendments that go some way to assuaging our concerns and those of the millions of law-abiding weapon users who stand to be affected by the legislation. However, many thousands of people are still concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the Bill's progress—we know that from our correspondence.

I repeat our support for the intent behind the clauses on weapons, because we support wholeheartedly measures that will have a practical effect on reducing gun crime in the UK and making our citizens safer. However, we do not support creating laws for the sake of being seen to be tough on gun crime, the effect of which will be felt almost exclusively by legitimate users of weapons and not by the criminals on whom we intend to crack down. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon and I take the view that clause 32 is one of most inherently flawed clauses in the entire Bill. It stands to penalise collectors and create a further unnecessary administrative burden while doing virtually nothing to combat violent crime.

Thousands of sportsmen use ammunition loading presses and dies for a number of reasons, including to save money, to help the environment and to improve accuracy. The ability to reload can save up to 50 per cent. of the cost of factory ammunition, allowing clay pigeon shooters who use a significant number of shotgun cartridges to save money. I have made those points because we were unable to debate these important matters on Report, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, realistic imitation firearms were thoroughly debated in Committee, but sadly we have not debated them today, so some concerns have still not been fully addressed. It is good news that the Government realise the serious unintended potential of clause 35 for groups such as re-enactors and museums, but serious concerns linger that it provides only such groups with a defence against a criminal offence.

We must stand up for utterly law-abiding citizens, whom we should not seek to penalise with any of our legislation, and I hope that the other place returns to that point. I was sad and sorry when I received hundreds of letters from those who indulge in the harmless and in many ways laudable sport of airsoft. Their letters—they wrote to many other hon. Members, too—asked why they, who are innocent, must pay the price.

I have three points for the Minister. First, I wish the Bill good fortune in the other place. Secondly, it is vital that we focus on what works: I hope that the Government demonstrate a real need for the particular measures in the Bill and explain why current legislation has been deemed ineffective. Thirdly, I hope that the general principle, with which surely all hon. Members agree, that there is no point in punishing the innocent in the vain belief that it will help to punish the guilty is raised in the other place. That principle goes across the Bill, and it will affect premises that serve alcohol and law-abiding people who are involved in the gun trade. One of my great fears is that we are rapidly moving towards a situation that has arisen under previous Governments whereby we tend far too much to penalise those who are innocent, honest and genuine in the belief that we will affect the mindset of those who are wicked and criminal. The truth is that we will not. It is very important to take that on board.

I say a final word of thanks to the Minister for her courtesy. Conservative Members look forward to seeing the progress of the Bill in the other House. We are united in our belief, as are the Government, that there are vital issues that need to be tackled. Although we disagree with their approach to many of those issues, we share a common purpose and will always work towards that end.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I add my congratulations to the Minister on steering the Bill through. It is an excellent Bill that adds to the existing menu of laws and other restrictions that are being introduced to control antisocial behaviour in our neighbourhoods.

I wish to concentrate on two aspects, the first of which is firearms. There are lots of scaremongering stories in the press suggesting that the Bill limits the freedom of people who use replica weapons. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—unfortunately she is not here tonight—graphically described the siege mentality in parts of her constituency as regards the use of replica guns. Any move to ensure that one less life is taken on the streets of our cities has to be welcome.

I welcome the restrictions on air weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) mentioned one of his constituents in that context. The Newcastle Evening Chronicle has run a well-supported campaign in the north-east on introducing tougher measures on air weapons. Its readers will welcome the Bill, which increases such powers. In my constituency, which is semi-rural, the misuse of air weapons leads to tragic events, including the shooting and mutilation of people's pets, as well as wildlife. The Bill will be welcomed by numerous constituents who have written to me asking for tougher controls on the use of firearms.

I am pleased that the Mobile Telephone (Re-Programming) Bill, which I introduced as a private Member's Bill in the last Parliament, has been incorporated into the Bill. That Bill ran out of parliamentary time, although I did secure my Christmas Day (Trading) Bill. The theft of mobile phones—a crime against the young—is a growing menace in our cities. The amount of money involved in the theft and reprogramming of mobile phones is mind-boggling. The police and the industry believe that the Bill will be a welcome new piece of weaponry in their armoury in bearing down on a crime that did not exist 30 years ago but now plagues many communities. The police in the north-east have told me that there is a clear connection between the stolen mobile phone trade and drug dealing. The Bill makes it an offence to offer the service of reprogramming mobile phones. That gives the police much-needed weaponry to bear down on such crimes, albeit that the perpetrators will probably find ways around it.

We have discussed antisocial behaviour caused by alcohol misuse. The Bill will improve our communities in that respect. Many of the problems in my constituency are caused not by public houses but by youngsters who have access to alcohol and hang around on street corners and estates, making people's lives a misery. I was struck in Committee and today by the difference between the world that I live in and that of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Perhaps he still lives in a quaint age in which people in villages in his constituency think that people getting drunk at weekends is down to high spirits. I certainly do not, and neither do many of my constituents.

I have enjoyed debating the Bill. It will lead to better regulation in our constituencies, and it will be warmly welcomed in North Durham.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I should like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for chairing my first Committee and to the Minister and all hon. Members for a constructive and instructive debate. Despite the Minister's comments, I welcome the Government's attempts to deal with a scourge in all our communities—the twin evils of alcohol and the rise in the use of weapons.

I fear that the Bill will have to deal with more disorder than it would otherwise have done. Although I have much sympathy with the Government's position on relaxing licensing laws, problems are already arising in that local residents' and local authorities' decisions are being overturned. That is a great pity. One of the main ideas was staggering the hours at which people would leave pubs, yet I understand that, instead of leaving at 11 pm or 12 am, they all come out at 2.30 am or 3 am. That will create problems for the alcohol disorder zones and make matters more difficult.

Again, despite the Minister's comments, I support the idea of alcohol disorder zones. I am disappointed that she does not wish me to criticise what I find so difficult about the matter: the lack of regulations or guidance that show what differentials can be made in the charging regime so that different levels of culpability can be appropriately charged. However, we are short of time and I do not want to dwell on that.

I have learned more about weaponry than I ever wanted to know during our debates. One outstanding matter, which we had no time to reach, was determining the lethal Joule energy output. I am not sure that I could make a judgment on that because I understand that Ireland allows 4 J whereas 1 J is allowed here. I do not know at what point one dies or what test should determine that. I had thought about lining people up and ascertaining at what Joule output they keeled over, but I am not sure that that is the right way to approach the matter.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

It is not very liberal.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

The hon. Gentleman should ask my children—I am not very liberal with them, either.

Weapons are a scourge of our time. In some parts of my constituency, young people aspire to criminality and owning guns. Guns and knives are what makes you cool—what makes you the man. However, we need more than legislation to tackle that; we need more work on the ground to change the prospects, future and mindset of those who are so lost that they do not even want a way out. The Bill does not tackle that charter of despair. It deals with some of the important symptoms of what is going on but we need to do more work.

I welcome the beginning of parity between knife and gun crime, especially the moves against imitation firearms, which are a growing evil. I remember visiting SO19, where one is put in front of a training video with a gun, put in a position whereby someone runs towards one with a gun, and given a split second to decide whether to shoot or not. I would undoubtedly have shot, but the person was running past to save me from something.

We will have to ascertain whether some of the alcohol disorder zone and drinking banning order chickens that we have hatched come home to roost. I hope that the Bill will curb some of the worst excesses associated with guns and alcohol but we all need to put on our thinking caps and consider how to tackle the root cause of the twin evils.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

I shall be brief. I am conscious that other hon. Members have served in Committee and been present all day waiting to be called.

I should like to concentrate on gun crime and especially knife crime. Knife crime is a menace in every community that we serve. In my experience in the west of Scotland, knife crime is reported with alarming regularity in all our newspapers almost daily. If any independent testimony were needed to verify the frightening use of knives in our towns and cities, police and hospital staff could give chapter and verse. Hon. Members would be horrified at the extent of knife crime in the west of Scotland, not only at weekends but every day of the week. History and experience of knife crime becomes crucial evidence for toughening existing laws. That is why I fully support the Bill and raising the minimum age at which a young person can carry a knife from 16 to 18.

I should also like to pay tribute to Strathclyde police, who are a force to be reckoned with. They deal very severely with knife crime. They have seen at first hand the way in which the gun and knife cultures have grown in the west of Scotland in the past 20 years, resulting in knives, blades, swords and Stanley knives becoming the weapons of choice among the gangsters and criminals. Anyone who has spoken to members of their local hospital staff will understand the problem that they, too, face in regard to health and safety. The country would be facing an increase in murders of tidal-wave proportions if it were not for the tremendous skill and professionalism of our surgeons and nursing staff.

I want to talk briefly about amnesties. Looking round the Chamber, I imagine that, with one or two exceptions, I am probably the only one here who will remember the amnesty in the early '70s led by the late Frankie Vaughan. He organised a very successful amnesty in the streets and housing estates of Glasgow. Some of our modern celebrities could go a long way if they were able to do the same thing.

A frightening development in gun crime has been the conversion and modification of imitation guns so that they can fire live ammunition, in which there has been a 66 per cent. increase in the 12 months up to this year. I have said that no area is exempt or excluded from the threat of gun crime. However, if further proof is needed, last week in a neighbouring constituency to mine in Renfrewshire, the police raided a flat and removed a 12-bore pump-action shotgun, a bolt-action .22–250 rifle, a 12-bore single-barrelled sawn-off shotgun, a converted replica pistol, and 98 bulleted cartridges. I hope that this legislation will enable the police to do even more to get guns and knives off our streets.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

There is a great deal in the Bill to be commended, not least the provisions regarding real firearms and realistic imitation firearms. As the Minister and other Members who served on the Committee know, however, our primary concern is airgun crime, although attempts to tackle real gun crime remain vital, as I said in Committee and I am happy to put on record again.

I shall explain our concerns about airgun crime. In 2003–04, there were 68 firearms murders, 1,195 attempted murders, and more than 10,000 crimes involving real firearms in England. In Scotland over the same period, there was one murder, four attempted murders and fewer than 200 crimes in which the firearm was identified as a real one. The figures for handguns are even more stark. There were 5,123 crimes, including 35 murders, in England, compared with only 29 handgun crimes and no murders in Scotland. The Government are absolutely right to tackle this scourge and to clamp down on it as hard as they possibly can. I do not want to see the handgun crime that causes so much misery in parts of the south-east of England spreading to Scotland and other parts of the UK. In Scotland over that same period, however, there were 415 airgun crimes, compared with 194 crimes involving a real firearm—more than 200 per cent. more.

I welcome the amendments that have been made to the Bill. The Minister knows that I have concerns about the licensing scheme relating to vendors rather than purchasers. I am being deliberately brief, but I hope that, if the Minister looks at the statistics in a year or two and finds that the measure has not been sufficiently robust, and if airgun crime continues to rise, the Government will revisit this issue and look more sympathetically at a purchaser licensing scheme, rather than a vendor licensing scheme.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I have anything to add except to thank the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) and all the officials who have helped us throughout our consideration of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.