Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2001.

Standing Committee F

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I thank the Minister for providing guidance concerning fixed penalty notices and for tabling two new clauses that deal with the issues surrounding Huntingdon Life Sciences. If it becomes necessary for the Programming Sub-Committee to meet again, will the Minister consider changing the order of consideration to ensure that there will be enough time to debate the new clauses? Perhaps he would consider interposing them after schedule 1, as they address issues that are in the public eye, and there is great concern for the welfare of the scientists involved.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

That may be considered, if the Sub-Committee sits again.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. The Government will carefully consider the comments made by you and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). His suggestion is worthy of being taken seriously, and the matter might usefully be discussed by the usual channels.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has anticipated what I was going to say. I draw the Committee's attention to the brutal outrage committed against Brian Cass, the chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Will the Minister assure the Committee that there will be ample time to discuss the matter?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Lady has succeeded in drawing the Committee's attention to the matter, but it is not a point of order. Clause 15 Designated public places

Clause 15 - Designated public places

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—

`(2A) An order under subsection (2) may only be made by a meeting of the full local authority.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 33, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—

`(5A) The functions of a local authority under this section may not be discharged by an officer of the authority.'.

No. 34, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—

`(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) shall, in particular, provide than any meeting of a local authority, or of a local authority executive or committee, which relates in any way to the making of an order under subsection (2), shall be held in public.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The amendments are intended to provide clarification and certainty about the involvement of local authorities in the matter of designated public places. My party feels strongly that the matter should be dealt with only by elected councillors—rather than by delegation to council officers—and that it should be discussed only in full and public meetings of the relevant local authority. It is necessary for that to be made clear because, despite the Government's much-vaunted protestations that they believe in open government, in other legislation they have gone back on the traditional practice of ensuring that the press have proper access to local authority meetings. You will remember, Mr. Gale, as it is a matter of considerable comment, that early in her parliamentary career, Baroness Thatcher introduced a private Member's Bill that succeeded in enshrining in statute the provision that all local authority meetings should be held in public and that the press should be able to report them fully.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that many Conservative councillors throughout the country, including those who represent authorities that are controlled by the Conservative party, are working in the cabinet style of government that the Government introduced to make the system more effective, along the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was in government. Is there a right hon. Member for Henley versus Lady Thatcher split emerging among the Conservatives on this question?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Local authorities in my area have been forced by legislation to adopt, reluctantly, a system that they find wholly insupportable—as the Minister raised the point, the figures have been fiddled for one of the local authorities in my constituency. On the basis of its real population, the local authority in my constituency should be in a position to benefit from a statutory exemption according to which authorities with a population of less than 85,000 are not liable to the imposition of the new cabinet system. It is only because the Government have indulged in creative accounting and ascribed to my authority an imaginary group of economic migrants and asylum seekers who do not actually exist that their theoretical assessment of the local authority's population is above the 85,000 limit. If I pursue that point any further, I am sure that I will be ruled out of order.

In fairness, the Minister should concede that these are important new provisions. The Government are suggesting significant duties for local authorities. It is essential to clarify in the Bill that proceedings will take place only if the full local authority meets in public and decisions cannot be delegated.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I wish to put on the record a correction to the impression given by the Minister. The Opposition wholeheartedly opposed the local government rules and regulations introduced last year under the Local Government Act 2000. We opposed the Bill on Second and Third Reading and in the House of Lords. We tried to amend it to get rid of the cabinet-style system. We opposed it up and down the nation.

The Minister is right in saying that certain Conservative-controlled local authorities have been forced by the Labour Government to move towards the cabinet-style system, but we would have preferred to retain the status quo.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I know that the Minister raised the issue, that hon. Members wish to respond, and that there is a general election in the offing, but can we get back to the amendment?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point, with which I agree.

Returning to the amendment, perhaps the Minister and other hon. Members will recognise that the matters are of substantial public concern.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman. Just for a second, let us suppose that I accept the general thrust of his argument. Does he concede that in some circumstances—for example, when short notice is given of some public event, perhaps a public demonstration—it might be important that a local authority is able to designate an area without delay, and that to insist on a full meeting of the local authority before the event would actually threaten public order? There might be circumstances in which a sub-committee or even delegated powers would make sense, to prevent a threat to public order.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that interesting point. The view of the Opposition is that, because of the importance of the new powers, every local authority must have an opportunity to debate fully what is a public place for the purposes of the operation of the new powers. One hopes that a local authority would take its responsibilities seriously. The proceedings should always take the form of full, public debates. A good way to ensure that that happens is to state in the Bill that a meeting of the full local authority is required.

If the provisions become law, local authorities will be able to plan ahead once they are accustomed to using the powers. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the powers will not be workable if events are arranged at short notice. No doubt, in designating public places, local authorities will need to plan ahead and decide which areas are likely locations for such events. We hope that, over time, local authorities will get used to meeting in public, and will realise that they cannot delegate powers and that it is not in the public interest for events to be arranged at short notice. If a local authority has met in full and designated public places where events that require these powers might occur, events that subsequently take place will be subject to that decision.

I hope that the Minister will take our concerns seriously and respond to them. If he says that our amendments are not to the point, but that he will think about tabling Government amendments on the matter, perhaps on Report, we will consider that.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I want to raise some points about the amendment because, coincidentally, Wyre borough council, which represents half my constituency, will meet this evening to discuss setting up byelaws to limit drinking in public places. The police's recommendation to the council is that although there is not a problem in general, some areas—for example, Fleetwood—have problems.

The people of Fleetwood are considering whether to set up a town council. They think that it is the responsibility of a town council to debate and discuss law and order and pass on comments to the district council, which covers a wide geographical area.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

In Royston in my constituency, we have a good town council that does a lot of work along those lines. Is not one of the great benefits of a town council that the local police chief—be that the inspector or the superintendent—can explain police plans to the town council and listen to the town council's priorities?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

That is certainly the case. My point is that I do not want town or parish councils—both of which we have in Lancashire—excluded from active involvement in decision making. Representatives on those councils have a good understanding of their areas. I have raised that issue, as have some of my hon. Friends, with my hon. Friend the Minister.

The explanatory notes suggest that the Government are considering producing regulations about the procedure that local authorities should follow for designating public places. I urge the Minister to consider how, according to such regulations, parish and town councils might be involved. Will he accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) that there will be instances where local authorities may not meet for two or three months, perhaps over the summer? We must ensure that the regulations govern the right areas.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. When we reach clause 18, which defines local authorities, she may want to ask the Minister whether the Government have got it wrong.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I am sure that we will examine clause 18 in detail, but I am talking about clause 15 and the regulations that will govern the responsibilities of local authorities when making decisions. It is important that an opportunity exists in the setting up of those regulations for the widest possible debate. Parish and town councils must have their say, and I urge the Minister to consider that when drawing up the regulations.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I strongly support the amendments. Chapter II, and particularly clause 15, proposes that special regulations should govern some parts of the public domain. Any such restrictions on liberty should be subject to a decision taken by a democratically elected authority, meeting in public with all its members present, and able both to participate in the debate and to vote. It would be wrong for such a decision to be delegated to officers, which is why amendment No. 33 is appropriate. It would also be wrong for such a decision to be delegated to any other part of the local authority that does not meet in public.

The only plausible argument in opposition to the amendments—that the matter is one for the local authority to decide—does not wash. We are determining, at national level, that there may be restrictions on liberty in some parts of the country. It should not be for local authorities to decide how to go about making those restrictions. Such decisions should be matters of national policy, to be made by central Government, which local authorities can then opt into, and implement, if they so wish. I strongly support the amendments, and hope that the Minister will accept them either in principle or in detail.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I, too, support the amendments. They cover the points made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) about the inclusion of town and parish councils. In my experience, there is much double representation: many town councillors are also borough councillors. That may be a sad reflection of the difficulty these days in finding people who want to be involved in local politics. I suspect that it is as true in her party as in mine that one falls with great enthusiasm on any talented person who takes a local interest. That person can then end up as a representative on almost as many local bodies as he or she has the capacity to deal with. In my local area, some Horley town councillors and Salfords parish councillors are also representatives on Reigate and Banstead borough council, and even on the county council.

If the amendments are accepted, there will be an opportunity for a full public discussion of the drinking bans, and any previous discussions that have taken place in a borough or district, at town or parish council level, may be taken into account publicly. Representatives of such subsidiary authorities will probably take part in the full public debate. If the debate were limited to the local authority executive—under a Cabinet-style system, or where there is a directly elected mayor—rather than being in public, and undertaken by the whole authority, there would be no way of knowing whether town and parish council discussions were being taken into account. That is one of the benefits of the proposals, and I hope that the Minister will find a way of incorporating them into the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I leave aside the party political badinage, and apologise to you, Mr. Gale, if I played any part in encouraging it. I was simply seeking to respond to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), which I thought were ignorant.

I think that the Committee is in general agreement about the substance of the debate. The Government have sympathy with views that hon. Members have expressed today, and with similar points that were made on Second Reading. Hon. Members think it important to ensure that the local authority functions exercised by the full council are not delegated to one council member or to an official in council employ. We believe, however, that that concern will be more appropriately dealt with through the regulations that the Secretary of State will be required to make, and I will clarify the process that will be involved.

First, the regulations will be made by statutory instrument, and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Secondly, they will describe the procedures to be followed by local authorities. We accept that the Local Government Association and other bodies that have an interest in the matter should be consulted about the precise nature of those regulations. Detailed drafting has to follow these stages of the Bill.

The Government's intention is that the regulations should cover all relevant matters, including consultation with the police and others before making the designation order, to ensure that the local authority satisfies itself that the area concerned has experienced the problems associated with public drinking. They should also address the procedures to be followed within the local authority. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take full account of the views of Committee members about both the key role of elected members in these decision-taking processes and the need for decisions to be taken in the full public arena, so that they can be fully and properly debated.

Thirdly, the regulations will deal with publicity, including the need to ensure that such areas are clearly identified as being ones to which the powers will apply.

Fourthly, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood for the way in which she put her point, which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. She was right to emphasise the role of parish and the town councils in informing the decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) has also taken up the point very energetically on behalf of her constituents. The point has been powerfully made in Committee and elsewhere in Parliament.

However, we do not believe that parish and town councils should have statutory responsibility—that should remain with elected local authorities in the conventional way. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood that the regulations will oblige local authorities to look at the position of parish and town councils, and will positively encourage such councils to participate in deciding what should be regarded as public places in their areas. That might not go as far as she hoped, as it would not replace the elected local authority with the parish or town council, but it would go some way by giving those councils a specific role in the process.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I do not seek to replace the role of the district council. My concern was that the district or borough council, in making its decision, should consult parish and town councils in its area.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can give an absolute assurance on that point. The regulations will meet that specific point.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister is being very helpful and constructive. He has said that he expects that the secondary legislation will deal with some of these points. Will he go one step further and say that he is prepared to consider some of the points that we have made—particularly that the matters should not be delegated to officers and that meetings should always take place in public—and table appropriate amendments on Report?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will consider that. I can give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I do not want to mislead him. The regulations that will be required and set out by statutory instrument and debated in Parliament by virtue of subsection (4) will deal with a number of issues, including the need to consult; the role of parish and town councils, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood; the procedures to be followed within local authorities; and the need for proper publicity so that there is public information about what happens when the decision is taken. I am not convinced that there is a case for primary legislation to cover all the issues mentioned, but I shall bear in mind the points that have been made, and consider whether we should table amendments on Report.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we agree with the thrust of his point and shall seek to ensure that it is reflected in the regulations. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I have said, the Minister has been helpful and constructive and has taken account of the points that have been made, including that made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As the Minister has acknowledged that these are serious points that need to be considered further by the Government, I hope that he will consider tabling amendments on Report. It is always preferable for a serious point to be dealt with in the Bill rather than by secondary legislation.

In the light of the Minister's assurances and constructive responses, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Places which are not designated public places

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 8, leave out lines 29 and 30.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 61, in page 8, leave out lines 31 to 33.

No. 62, in page 8, leave out lines 34 to 36.

No. 63, in page 8, leave out lines 37 to 40.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The amendments are intended to help the police and to clarify the situation. In previous debates, I referred to the difficult choices that an ordinary police constable on the beat may face. We ask the Government to consider the reality of policing in a town or city late at night, or in the early hours of the morning.

There should not be too many exceptions or limitations in the clause. We do not want an ordinary police officer, making difficult decisions about his powers of arrest, to face too many arguments about the legality of the arrest and about whether the person detained was in a public place. The Government have perhaps been too cautious by including paragraphs defining exceptions to designated public places in the Bill.

The Minister took seriously the matters raised by our amendments to the previous clause, and we hope that he will take these amendments equally seriously. We want to ensure that officers at the sharp end, who face difficult decisions while policing public places, will have the opportunity to make arrests in what they consider to be such places.

In an earlier group of amendments, we sought to give an arresting officer a reasonableness exception. If the officer reasonably believed that somewhere was a designated public place, the arrest would not be rendered unlawful if it was discovered later that it occurred just outside the designated public place. These amendments have the same purpose.

If it is clear that a place is a designated public place, there should not be too many restrictions on that, but the Bill makes the exceptions that

``A place is not a designated public place or part of such a place if it is...a place within the curtilage of any licensed premises''

or where there is occasional permission, or where sale of intoxicating liquor is not for the time being authorised by an occasional licence. There is a danger of many legalistic arguments arising at a later stage.

We will be interested to hear the Minister's response concerning whether the Government are being too complex and too taken up with niceties. We are concerned about the problems that an ordinary police officer will face when exercising the power that he will be given, and he should not have to face later legalistic arguments.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Subject to the Minister not saying anything contrary to his intentions, I take the view that the clause, as drafted, is better than it would be with the Tory amendments.

The purpose of the clause is that public places should be covered by the ban. We must explore other provisions, have further debates and consider other rules that relate to licensed premises, to the spillover from the interior of those premises—into the garden at the back or on the pavement at the front—and to occasional use of extra rooms within them. Those arrangements are dealt with in the clause, but would be much better governed by legislation and regulations that deal with licensed premises, rather than by a public order provision such as the Bill.

I understand where the amendments are coming from, but I believe that they are misplaced in this context. I will not support them, unless the Minister unwittingly persuades me to do so with an argument that I have not heard before. I hope that the clause will be passed without amendment.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

It was odd to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, a lawyer, complaining about the legalistic arguments that the police will face. It struck me as rather strange that such comments came from a man who, before he came to this place, made his living from legalistic arguments.

I confess that I have a sneaking sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, because I had hoped that the amendments were designed to probe, rather than to modify, the meaning of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will treat them in that way because I am confused by paragraphs (c) and (d). They refer to a situation in which premises are granted a licence 20 minutes before the occurrence of an incident that prompts the police immediately to try to shut them down. What is the significance of the 20 minutes? I should be grateful if the Minister could explain those paragraphs, and the effects of the amendments, because I could not find guidance on them from the explanatory notes.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In response to my hon. Friend's first point, let me say that those of us who have been involved in legal arguments can see their dangers. He might also understand what we are trying to do with the amendments if I tell him about the concerns of the Police Federation. It says:

``Such zones would be brought quickly into disrepute by drinkers moving just out of reach and taunting officers accordingly, bringing the enforcement of such zones quickly into disrepute''.

Does he not see that danger?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I note that danger but I presume that such an incident could occur at any licensed premises, as paragraph (a) seems to suggest. Paragraph (b) defines areas covered by the Bill rather more carefully, so that the police will understand their limitations. If we are to exempt licensed premises, we should define exactly which parts of the licensed premises that means, making it clear that the licence applies to the whole premises, including the gardens and pavements that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned. However, I remain thoroughly confused by paragraphs (c) and (d) and would be grateful if the Minister could explain exactly what they mean.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I accept that the amendments were tabled in good spirit to clarify the situation, rather than for any other reason. However, the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey were right.

I was tempted to urge the Committee to support amendment No. 60, purely to remove from the Bill the word ``curtilage'', which I regard as a lawyers' word, not a real word. I consider myself well educated but I did not know what it meant. I know that my hon. Friends will fully understand the word, but there will be one or two on the Opposition Benches who will not, so I shall clarify what it means. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of curtilage is

``a small court, yard or piece of ground attached to''

premises

``and forming one enclosure with it''.

That should answer the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). In the context of the Bill, it will cover those areas of pub courtyards or gardens that might not technically be licensed premises but are effectively attached to them.

The amendment would remove the exceptions to restrictions on public drinking within a designated area. We believe that the exceptions are necessary to ensure that the powers provided by clause 14 are not exercisable where a license has been granted. As the hon. Gentleman said, I need to clarify the definition of such situations and explain some of the wordings in the clause. The licensing arrangements in relation to subsection (1)(a) to (d) cover the justices' on-licences for premises including pubs, night clubs, wine bars, discotheques, restaurants and hotels. All have met the rigorous tests set by the licensing justices for those venues.

Registered non-profit-making clubs such as the Royal British Legion, Conservative, Labour and Liberal clubs and similar sporting clubs have codes of discipline and must have the permission of the magistrates court, via a registration certificate, to supply alcohol to members and their guests. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know the serious issues for magistrates when applications for such permissions are made, and how they are discussed and resolved.

An occasional licence is an authority that enables the holder of a justices' on-licence to sell alcohol at premises other than his licensed premises. For example, a licensee might organise a bar at a special venue for a local wedding, ball, festival or other such event. The authority to sell alcohol in those circumstances is given by the licensing justices after full consultation with the police.

An occasional permission is granted by the licensing justices to allow an organisation without an existing justices' licence to sell alcohol at unlicensed premises. That is how a charity can sell wine at a fundraising bash in a village hall, or a school can sell wine to parents at an event on school premises designed to raise funds, even though those organisations would not normally have licences for that purpose. Such events are also subject to strict control by the magistrates, and the police have full rights to object. When the courts and police do not object to such activities, and indeed have authorised them, the organisers should not be subject to a ban by the local authority, independent of the process of authorising a licence.

The hon. Member for Reigate made a point about time. Section 63 of the Licensing Act 1964 deals with what is traditionally known as drinking-up time. Under that section, where alcohol is supplied under the terms of the Act in any premises during permitted licensing hours, consumption on the premises is permitted for 20 minutes after the period ends, hence the reference to 20 minutes. Historically, drinking-up time has been permitted because sales and supply can continue up to the end of permitted hours, including any extension of them. It is reasonable to allow an individual time to consume what has been purchased. I gather that the Leader of the Opposition can handle that situation in far less than 20 minutes.

The fundamental logic of our position is that powers to sell alcohol where a licence has been granted should not be contradicted by a local authority. We sought to set out exceptions to avoid precisely such contradictions.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right to suggest that the issues must be considered in the overall context of reform of the licensing regulations. We predicated our intention to legislate on that at an early stage in a White Paper published some time ago. That is the way to deal with points that may seem rather obscure, rather than taking a position that could set a local authority designation of a public place at odds with a licensing decision.

I understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and I do not think that he has been wrong or unreasonable. However, I hope that my explanation satisfies him and makes him think that it would be appropriate to withdraw the amendment.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I seek clarification on how the provisions for 20 minutes' drinking-up time will work in practice. In effect, does the legislation mean that a local authority can designate a place, but from only 20 minutes after its licence expires? That assumes that there is a process of designation. It would seem odd if a local authority went to the trouble of designating a place, and then had to give a licence on top of that. Is the only effect of the provisions to provide 20 minutes' grace?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As I understand it, that is the case—the hon. Gentleman has put it quite correctly. The reason for that is to make the legislation under discussion consistent with the drinking-up time provisions of the Licensing Act 1964, which allows that 20-minute period of grace for the reasons that I gave earlier. The purpose of the measure is to achieve exactly the effect that he has just described. Perhaps I have not clarified the matter.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister has, but that throws up a peculiar problem. The justices, in consultation with the police but on their own authority, might grant a licence for people to drink in a place designated as banned by the local authority. Is there not a potential conflict between one authority and another?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

There is a tension, but we are talking about exceptions. Premises within a designated area can be given a licence. The measure is designed to make such licences work. I agree that a conflict could arise between the local authority designating a particular geographical area and the magistrates giving a licence to a particular premises in that area. That tension could arise, but I submit that it will not arise in practice, because the magistrates will be aware of the local authority's decision on designating a public area around the area where a licence is being requested. The licensers will take full account of such decisions. Our central preoccupation is to ensure that we do not end up with a contradiction in law between the local authority designation and the licensing process.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, the Minister is being helpful in attempting to deal with the issue that we have raised. I accept that he is trying to deal with tensions that could arise. During my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, I spoke about the Police Federation's concern that the provisions could worsen the situation of the police officer on the beat. The federation's point is that, if there are licensed premises within a zone, people can go into those premises and taunt the officers on the beat. That might happen in a town such as Guildford, which has a city centre area that might at some stage be designated, but has a lot of licensed premises within it. Is there not a danger that those whom our chief constable in Surrey calls the Guildford warriors will taunt the police?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand the point. I should again make it clear that the measure is designed to ensure that the area that is granted a licence is not also a designated public place within the meaning of the legislation. The measure could give rise to the kind of issues under discussion, but it would be far worse if a conflict arose between the granting of a licence in a particular area and a local authority designation. That would lead to a conflict of status, which would be more difficult not only for members of the public but for the police.

The police have immense experience of dealing with such issues. They deal all the time with the issue of what can take place and how it can take place. We should seek consistency between the licensing regime and the power that we intend to operate, and that is what the clause does. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment. I understand that it was positively meant, but it is important to achieve consistency on the licensing issues in the way that I have tried to describe.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I would be grateful if the Minister would consider one small matter. I understand the drinking-up point. However, it seems likely that under any Government there will be reform of the licensing laws. I imagine that consideration will be given to changing the drinking-up provisions, because it is argued that short drinking-up periods contribute to alcohol-induced bad behaviour.

I assume that a move towards a 30-minute period will be considered. As making any such change explicit in the legislation would be prescriptive, there should be an agreed amendment that refers to the drinking-up period in licensing regulations, so that there is a clear rule. That is almost a drafting point, but it is an attempt to follow the general wish of the Government not to put in the Bill something that is likely to require amendment. We know that there is legislation in the pipeline that will impinge on such provisions.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am happy to examine that possibility and consider whether such an amendment would be appropriate. I am prepared to give an even stronger commitment: any legislation that this Government introduce to amend the licensing law in line with the recent White Paper will encompass amendments to this measure and to all relevant legislation to deal with that point and to ensure consistency.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister has responded very constructively. We recognise the tension between the Government's proposals in the Bill and existing licensing law. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, we think that it would help if the Government would keep in mind the points that have been made, and reconsider the matter. We should like to return to it on Report because of the concerns about that tension expressed by the Police Federation and others. The Minister has said that he takes our points seriously and will keep the matter under consideration. We would therefore like to think further about it and consult organisations such as the Police Federation again.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Effect of sections 14 to 16 on byelaws

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 9, line 3, leave out

`Subsections (2) and (3) apply'

and insert `Subsection (2) applies'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 65, in page 9, line 16, leave out subsection (3).

No. 129, in page 9, line 17, leave out `10' and insert `5'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, we want to probe the Government. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 are intended to raise the importance of protecting the rights of local authorities to make their own decisions. That issue has come up in earlier debates, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred at an earlier sitting to sunset clauses, of which the Conservatives generally approve. However, we want to probe whether it is appropriate for the Government to say, as they appear to in subsection (3), that whatever a local authority has decided, it will be wiped out after 10 years. Is it appropriate for a national Government thus to insist on overriding what a local authority has decided to do? As the Minister conceded in relation to an intervention made earlier this morning by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, local authorities should consider their own affairs, and decide what is right in such matters.

We do not think that an automatic override, such as that which the Government propose here, is appropriate, and we wish to probe what they really have in mind. Perhaps they will consider whether it would be more appropriate not to have an automatic 10-year wipeout. I do not wish to take up much Committee time, but I would like to hear the Minister's response and discover the Government's thinking on the matter.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Again, I tend to the Government view. The effect of the legislation will be to enable local government to make decisions to implement national legislation. It will therefore effectively render otiose the existing procedure, which is the making of byelaws. That will not impinge on local authorities' rights, because they will still have the right to implement the legislation. The proposal is good, because there should be as little legislation as possible cluttering up the statute books. Byelaws are fine up to a point, but it is very difficult to find out which byelaws exist, and even to get into the place where they are recorded. In my experience—we have probably all had similar experiences—it is even more difficult to find out what the byelaws are than it is to find out what the current legislation is. It is hard enough to access law easily in an up-to-date, word-processed form that takes into account the codification and tidying-up of the law. Byelaws do not relate or cross-refer to one another or legislation, so anyone who is intelligently trying to hunt through them to find relevant regulations is in difficulty. The legislation provides a way of making them easier to discover.

There would be some merit in providing an easily accessible venue for anyone, including the public, who has an interest in knowing what orders are made by local government under legislation. That would apply to other aspects of law, and certainly to the matters under discussion. We should have a facility to log into the orders made under regulations by the London borough of Southwark, to discover the legislation that it seeks to implement and the way in which it seeks to do so. That is especially important when there is discretion, which will result in differences. There will inevitably be differences in this case, as it depends on local government around the country.

My final point touches again on our discussions of fixed penalty notices. If there are different parking regimes, fixed penalty regimes, tariffs and hours, we must try to make the law as comprehensible as possible. Earlier, the Minister expressed a view about the clarity of some wording in the Bill, and I agree with him. We should all make a perpetual effort to make as few laws as possible and to make them as simply drafted, accessible and up to date as possible. We should make as little cross-reference as possible to legislative provisions that no one in their right mind would want to spend a lot of time looking for on a Saturday afternoon in his or her local library.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Except lawyers.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

They would not do so on a Saturday afternoon in the library, but would charge for doing so in their chambers or offices on a Friday afternoon.

I understand exactly why there should be a sunset provision on the byelaw arrangements, but I hope, whatever the phasing out of the byelaw plans, that everyone can easily access the phasing in of the orders. That should generally be the case on this and other similar legislation.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I hope that the Minister can restrain himself from screaming about a Tory split, but I do not agree with my hon. Friends' amendments, as is clear from my amendment, No. 129. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me. Two principles are conflicting and, as a Conservative, there is a judgment to be made about which side of the argument to take.

My hon. Friends have properly said that the matter should be decided by local authorities, and that it is not for us to tell them how to deal with byelaws. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has made the equally proper counter-argument that the law should, as far as possible, be simple for the public to understand. Local authorities can probably use the powers through byelaws if they want to, as can be seen in the example of the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. However, as we are to use a vehicle of national legislation, I come down on the side of the argument made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which was that it is better to have only one frame of reference—the national legislation. The rules should come into force through that vehicle, set up under the regulations and guidelines put in place by the Government under secondary legislation.

Frankly, we should get on with that process. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 129, which would reduce from 10 years to five years the handover period, in which the public will be confused as to where the authority is coming from. Once the legislation is on the statute book, it would be perfectly proper for local authorities to have a five-year period in which to examine their byelaws and the confusion of rules made in the past, to consider problems that are a nuisance to local people, such as alcohol abuse, and to decide whether they want to clear away byelaws and put the legislation in place. Ten years is too long to subject the public to the confusion of two systems running alongside each other; five years is enough. We must either get on and use the national framework created by the legislation—which means that the Minister will accept amendment No. 129—or accept amendments Nos. 64 and 65, which allow this to remain a matter for local authorities. We have to judge which of those conflicting principles is appropriate.

If we believe that the issue is a matter for local authorities and that they should be able to make extra regulations, we must accept my hon. Friend's amendments. If not, why should we allow 10 years? Byelaws should be reviewed as soon as possible; five years should be the longest time allowed for local authorities to review them and I see no case for 10.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This has been an interesting discussion. In response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I will let the Committee into the mind of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. While examining the issue, he and I discovered an arcane system of byelaws—what they are and how they are made—that shocked him. In party political vein, I could add that that is all part of the Tory inheritance that we are trying to deal with.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister say how long the procedures for byelaws have been in place? I think that it is at least 150 years.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

One of my great political regrets is that the Conservatives have been in power for more of the past 150 years than the Labour party. I am glad to repeat the Prime Minister's phrase that the 21st century will be the progressive, and not the conservative, century. I assure the hon. Member for Reigate that the words ``Tory split'' will never pass my lips in the context of this debate; that would be inappropriate.

The points made by the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Reigate are correct. I would like to reinforce a point that they did not make—[Laughter.] The thought police are here. We are talking about replacing a series of local byelaws with a national framework. One reason for that is to achieve consistency across the country so that, for example, people travelling from Bradford to Blackpool or Brighton on holiday—as people from Bradford often do—will be subject to broadly the same legal framework. There is a national, as well as a general, argument for that. It will not only simplify procedures but establish some national consistency.

We agree that there would be confusion if a national framework was side by side with local byelaws, which is why we do not accept amendments Nos. 64 and 65. There are issues about the framework's operation, but it would be unreasonable to think that a local authority should chose to take the byelaw route rather than the national one that we are establishing. I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will withdraw amendment No. 64 and will not press amendment No. 65.

I am more sympathetic to amendment No. 129, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate. It deals with a serious issue. One reason why we decided on 10 years, which may seem rather arbitrary, was because of the 10-year limit in respect of byelaws concerning dog fouling. I will examine his point about whether five years, or a shorter period, might be a more appropriate time scale with a view to tabling a Government amendment on Report. However, I want to discuss with the Local Government Association and other relevant bodies their thoughts and feelings on the matter before committing myself to five years or coming back with a recommendation. Given my assurance that the Government will seriously consider an amendment on Report to reduce the 10-year period, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Although I understand that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath does not want an overweening Government to have the right to override the wishes of local authorities, it would be worse for citizens, and more difficult for the police, if parallel sets of legislation were in force beyond a transitional period whose length can be debated. I therefore hope that he will not press the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Our probing amendments have proved to be worthwhile as they have succeeded in provoking an interesting debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate is correct that a judgment call must be made, and I am grateful that the Minister has acknowledged that the comparative power of central Government and local government is an important issue.

The Minister is wise to consider further amendment No. 129, which addresses the sunset clause issue. A local authority is unlikely to forget what byelaws are in place over a five-year period. However, over a longer period, such as 10 years, during which time a number of its officers and councillors might move on or retire, there is a danger that an authority might believe that byelaws were still in force, whereas under the Bill, they would automatically lapse. The Government must consider that issue when pondering what to do on Report, but if they want to include a sunset clause, five years might be preferable to 10.

I am grateful to the Minister for taking the matter seriously, and I accept that the Government have decided which side of the dividing line to come down on. I also welcome his assurance that he will keep the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate under review.

As the Committee has had a worthwhile debate and the matter has been sufficiently probed, I do not seek to pursue it further, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Interpretation of sections 14 to 17.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 9, line 40, at end insert—

`(f) the Greater London Authority'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 74, in clause 30, page 24, line 3, at end insert—

`(vi) The Greater London Authority'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Committee is aware that amendment No. 74 relates to clause 30, and that it matches amendment No. 66, which relates to clause 18. They are intended to probe why the Greater London Authority is not included in the lists. In the light of what the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood said earlier, she may suggest that the Government should at least consider whether town or parish councils should be included, but the Minister answered that by saying that he feels that although the views of town or parish councils might be taken into account in respect of the regulations, they should not be decision-making bodies. However, that argument cannot apply to the Greater London Authority.

It might be the case that there are major problems in the relationship between the Government and the system that they set up for London. Perhaps that is because the Government's preferred candidate for Mayor of London came a humiliating fourth in the poll, as we all remember. It might also be the case that the only good ideas about law and order in relation to London are coming from Conservative Members of the Greater London Authority. I and some of my colleagues have held discussions with them and we know that they have very good ideas about the subject.

We thought that it was right to probe the Government because we are surprised that the Greater London Authority is not on the list of local authorities in clause 18, although unitary authorities, county councils and London borough councils are. We hope that the Government will set out their reason for including London borough councils and not the Greater London Authority, and we look forward to hearing justification of the Government's position.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I do not support the amendments but, logically, the Government should. They got into a terrible muddle when the Greater London Authority Bill went through Parliament—I have first-hand experience of that because I had the long and laborious task of serving on the Committee. I think that I am the only Member who served on both the Committee to abolish the Greater London council and the Committee to establish its successor. I was delighted to serve on the latter Committee, although not the first.

During proceedings on the Greater London Authority Bill, the Government started by defining the Greater London Authority as regional government. However, the Deputy Prime Minister became cool on regional government—particularly London regional government where things may not go to plan—so the definition became a unique form of government that was not regional government. By the end of the Committee stage, the definition was local government, which was not the initial plan. However, if the Greater London Authority is defined as local government, it should be included in the clause because the clause refers to local authorities.

I believe that the Greater London Authority should be defined as regional government rather than local government. In the Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill, we debated the fact that it is a form of regional government that is castrated, weakened, hamstrung and tied to the apron strings. Sadly, that is still the case and would be the case even if Labour had won the mayoral election.

Logically, the orders to designate public places should be made by proper local government. In London, that constitutes 32 London borough councils and the City of London. It would not be appropriate for the orders to be made by the tier above that, which has specific functions, and certainly not for them to be made by regional government. I oppose the amendments but if the Government are consistent they will, no doubt, support them.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The amendment would allow the Greater London Authority to set zones over a wide area. However, it also gives the Minister an opportunity to explain, in more detail, exactly how he envisages that the provisions will work.

For example, there may be a street, each side of which is in a different borough. One borough council may think that the road should be designated while the other does not. That will create problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath mentioned the Police Federation. Its chairman, Fred Broughton, wrote to me about the practicality of enforcing such zones, saying that they

``would be brought quickly into disrepute by drinkers moving just out of reach and taunting officers accordingly, bringing the enforcement of such zones quickly into disrepute.''

It would help if the Minister would explain how he envisages enforcement working in the context of a big city. Will there be cases of one borough saying that the left-hand side of a road should be designated, while the neighbouring borough says no?

What does the Minister think would be the size of a designated area? Would it be a whole city, an area around a row of shops, or a bit of both? It would be a pity if the measure was introduced and it was then found that nothing could be done about youngsters who are discovered, standing 2 ft beyond the zone, drinking alcohol in the street and being a nuisance. I should be grateful if the Minister would flesh out his vision of the proposals in more detail.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am always happy to flesh out my vision of any aspect for the Committee.

On the main point of the amendment, without getting into arcane discussions about local versus regional, it would be fundamentally confusing to have two different authorities dealing with the matter. The responsibility of dealing with it should be given either to the Greater London Authority, or to the local London boroughs. It should be given to the London boroughs rather than the GLA, because the issues need to be considered as locally as possible. The idea of the GLA designating some part of Havering or Redbridge is absurd. It would be much more appropriate for the local authorities concerned to do so.

There are serious arguments surrounding the issue of the centres of major cities. However, Westminster city council and the City of London have a lot of experience of dealing with such national, citywide issues. Although they are only borough councils, we can be confident that they would handle those matters well. It would be confusing to include the GLA in the organisations that have these powers. It is right to go to the lowest possible level, which in London is that of the borough councils. That is why I oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

On the question of boundaries raised by the hon. Gentleman, all local authorities have a boundary question. Clearly, the problem can be more acute in urban areas. There is also the entertaining council tax and borough services argument, exemplified by the dispute between Lambeth and Wandsworth concerning closed circuit television cameras in streets and so on.

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

It is obvious that the residents of a local authority bordering on a designated area in another authority would hardly thank their elected representatives on the council if their area became a refuge for drunken yobs hurling abuse at the police across the road. Is the problem not just a perceived one, rather than one that reflects democratic realities in local authorities?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend is entirely right about situations such as that which he has just described. People will respond and deal with such situations as they come along. However, it might help if the guidance that we issue under clause 15(4) refers to the need for local authorities to discuss the situation with neighbouring authorities. That is probably unnecessary, as they would do so routinely, but it may help if we give that assurance, just to clarify the point so that any particular issues that may arise can be dealt with.

Just as we are requiring local authorities to take account of the views of residents it is reasonable, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, to require them to take account of the views of neighbouring authorities in the event that a designated area borders such an authority. That should minimise the problems although, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, they are hypothetical. They may be so, but it is appropriate for such consultation to be part of the process. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister helpfully clarified the point in relation to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. There should be some recognition of the issue in the guidance, because local authorities do not always meet at the same time and in the same week. An incident might occur on the edge of a place recently designated by a local authority before the bordering local authority has had the chance to meet. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) said, that might be a matter more of pure theory than of reality. However, it would help if that were clarified in the guidance.

I understand what the Minister said about the Government's decision to leave matters to the individual London boroughs. It was helpful for us to hear that from the Minister, and it was right for us to raise the issue. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, in a backhanded contribution, that although he did not agree with us, he thought that the Government should agree with our amendments. Perhaps that, of itself, means that it was proper for us to raise the issue. However, we have heard what the Government have said, and we think that we have achieved our purpose in tabling this probing amendment. I do not seek to prolong the debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Closure of certain licensed premises

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 10, line 6, at beginning, insert—

``Following a first and second warning''.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 130, in page 10, line 8, leave out ``reasonably believes that'' and insert ``has evidence that''.

No. 81, in page 10, line 9, leave out ``is likely to'' and insert—

``are reasonable grounds to believe that there will''.

No. 131, in page 10, line 9, leave out ``, or in the vicinity of,''.

No. 34A, in page 10, line 9, after ``or'', insert—

``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is''.

No. 36, in page 10, line 9, after ``the'', insert ``immediate''.

No. 82, in page 10, line 9, at end, insert ``and related to''.

No. 37, in page 10, line 10, leave out

``is necessary in the interests of''

and insert—

``will significantly assist in securing''.

No. 132, in page 10, line 12, leave out ``,or in the vicinity of''.

No. 35, in page 10, line 12, after ``or'', insert—

``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is''.

No. 76, in page 10, line 12, after first ``the'', insert ``immediate''.

No. 83, in page 10, line 12, after ``of'', insert ``and related to''.

No. 38, in page 10, line 13, leave out

``is necessary in the interests of''

and insert—

``will significantly assist in securing''.

No. 84, in page 10, line 15, after ``(c)'', insert—

``having made a request to the holder of the licence to act reasonably by reducing or ceasing the emission of noise from the premises''.

No. 133, in page 10, line 18, at end insert—

``following at least one request from a uniformed police officer to the person ostensibly having control of the premises to end the disturbance.''.

No. 39, in page 10, line 18, at end insert—

``(1A) A closure order may only be made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c) if the senior police officer has given notice to the licensee that he intends to make the order, and the licensee has failed to take appropriate action to quell the disturbance.''.

No. 77, in page 12, line 26, after second ``or'', insert—

``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is''.

No. 92, in page 12, line 30, after ``Act,'', insert—

``a request having been made to the holder of the licence to act reasonably by reducing or ceasing the emission of noise from the premises''.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Amendment No. 4, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), has collected rather a large group of other amendments, which are not in either of our names although some of them, for example amendments Nos. 84, 133 and 39, touch on similar issues.

As so many groups of amendments relating to clause 19 have been tabled, in opening the debate I shall put on the record what the notes on clauses say about the context, which will explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I have tabled amendment No. 4. We are considering part I of the Bill—the second subsection of chapter II, which deals with the closure of certain licensed premises due to disorder or disturbance.

Whereas the previous debate was about disorder on the street, this one is about disorder in licensed premises. Clause 19 is designed to amend existing legislation, specifically the Licensing Act 1964, to which we referred in the previous debate. It provides for an additional clause, albeit a long one, to be inserted into that Act by this Bill, to allow a senior police officer to make a closure order for a licensed premises. The definition of licensed premises in this proposed additional clause would not include non-profit-making registered clubs such as working men's clubs or the Royal British Legion, unless they had a justices' licence, as opposed to permission to sell drinks only to their members.

Police officers of the rank of inspector and above would be given that authority. They would not be required to be present at the scene; they would be able, although absent, to act on reports from officers of lower rank who, presumably, would be present. That would allow them to hold the ``reasonable belief'' on which a closure order would have to be based. Thus officers on the street or in the pub could radio through to the station and obtain permission from their boss to make a closure order.

There are various descriptions of how the officer should make an assessment, and amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate and others that relate to those issues. As the clause is drafted, the senior police officer must reasonably believe one of three things: that there is likely to be disorder in the premises or in the immediate vicinity of the premises, so that the closure would be necessary in the interests of public safety, including customers; that there is already disorder in, or in the immediate vicinity of, the premises, so that they need to be closed for public safety, or that there is excessive noise in the premises, such that they must be closed to prevent a disturbance.

Mr. Blunt rose—

Mr. Heald rose—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I give way to the hon. Member for Reigate.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I suspect that I may be on the same track as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. The hon. Gentleman has automatically inserted the word ``immediate'' into his description of ``in the vicinity''. It is not in the Bill, but it would be if my hon. Friend's amendment were accepted. If it is still not in the Bill when it becomes law, it will not apply. The hon. Gentleman's accidental insertion has made the point for us.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I concede to that correction. The hon. Gentleman's amendments specify ``in the immediate vicinity''. I paraphrased accurately the exact wording of the notes on clauses, which include that phrase. I forgot as I read that part that it is not in the Bill. He is right to correct me and we will have a perfectly proper sub-debate on that in a moment.

The purpose of amendment No. 4 and similar amendments is to ensure fair treatment of the owner of the pub or licensed premises or the manager whose name is over the door. The proposal is simply that a closure order should be issued only after reasonable warning. We propose two warnings. The nearest parallel is in football, where a referee shows a player a card and can eventually force him off the pitch. Of course, that rarely happens at my local ground, the Den, where everyone is extremely well behaved at nearly every game. That is why we are leading the second division by a large margin and romping towards inevitable victory.

The amendment raises an important principle, but I should declare an interest. The Committee might have heard me say that my dad and granddad were brewers all their working lives—my dad worked for Whitbread's and my granddad for Young's brewery—and therefore had dealings with the licensed trade and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Association. I am concerned that a first offence or complaint should not result in overly authoritarian action. It will be easy, particularly for young or inexperienced coppers, to take the view that the remedy should be used, because it is the most immediate, effective remedy, but that would not help the pub's reputation when it is time to renew the licence. If there has been a closure order, the proposed provisions will rightly result in immediate closure and the licence holder will have to go to court to renew the licence. That is perfectly proper. However, a closure by the police is draconian. It will affect someone's business and reputation, so it is important to have proper warnings.

I hope that we will agree that we need a proper series of warnings. Under employment law, verbal and written warnings are required before action can be taken. I can imagine circumstances in which first and second warnings could be issued on the same day or even during the same period of licensed opening, particularly in dealing with noise, so the police could use the full power of closing the premises.

There will clearly be occasions when the police should have powers to close ``misbehaving premises'' for any of the reasons that have been set out: trouble may be brewing, is already happening or occurring nearby. We are sympathetic to the amendments because they would circumscribe the powers by ensuring that the trouble is in the immediate vicinity, that the order would have a direct effect on the action or that trouble would ensue. The provision is important, but we must give only the powers that we intend to give and those powers must be clearly justified.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the order for closure should be given by any officer, or by a senior officer rather than a junior one?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I share the view that the order should be given by a senior officer, as the Government broadly propose. It would be an entirely inappropriate decision for an officer on the beat who happened to hear loud music or find a couple of people rolling out of a pub.

It will help if the Minister outlines, as fairly as he can, his current understanding of the views of those with relevant interests. What do they think of the details of the legislation, as opposed to its generality? The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire may ask a similar question. We must be careful to take account of those with relevant interests. We live in an age in which the traditional pub is under considerable threat in many parts of the country and many pubs have closed in recent years. Happily, they are often more viable now in rural areas than they have been in the past, but they are less viable in urban areas, partly because they are being replaced by bars of a different type.

The pub is an important community venue. Public houses should be able to open for as long as the local authority decides. In principle, I am in favour of pubs being open all hours. That is the right way to deal with licensing and reduce alcoholism. We must be careful not to make it even more difficult for people to run pubs, especially those that are not part of multinational or national chains—individual free houses run by small publicans and real ale brewery companies, which are a valuable part of our national infrastructure. I am keen for there to be proper legislation, but we should not act in an over-draconian way on pubs and those who run them. By and large, those people provide an extremely good community service and deserve to be supported in what they do.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we embark on further debate, it might help the Committee if I suggest how we might approach it. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, we have deliberately selected something of a shopping basket of amendments that covers grounds of evidence, the extent of the area covered by closure orders and requirements to notify a licence holder before making an order. Provided that the Chair is given appropriate notice, I shall be perfectly willing to accept Divisions on all or any of those separate categories.

I also think that it might help if we go slightly further. Clause 19 is the first of several clauses that deal with closure orders. Given the breadth of the amendments in this group, it may help the Committee to have a wide-ranging debate on it. I am prepared to permit that, given the nature of the clause and subsequent clauses, on the clear understanding that debates will not become repetitive. If we have a wide-ranging debate now, I shall look fiercely on any suggestion that we might need a stand part debate later.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

That is a most helpful suggestion, for which I am sure that the Committee is grateful.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made a point towards the close of his remarks about the nature of the industry with which we are dealing. The licensed industry runs many public houses and clubs, and is involved in a range of law and order issues. The industry is alarmed, as are we, by the fact that the Government do not seem to have a clear idea of the implications of closure orders. The explanatory notes, in paragraph 374 on page 68, estimate the effect on ``errant'' and ``innocent'' premises, as they are described. They state that the police have estimated that about 800 businesses are likely to fall foul of a closure order and that the commercial and legal costs of closure to the businesses will range from £1,100 to £60,000. The notes go on to say:

``If the number of closures is taken to be approximately 1000, the total cost to errant businesses could be between £1.1 million and £60 million. In addition, the cost to the estimated 15 innocent premises could be between £16,500 and £900,000. The total cost could therefore be between £1.16 million and £60.9 million. The costs to a business of the potential loss of licence following a court hearing are unquantifiable, involving both owners of businesses and salaried managers.''

We can see that there is a wide range of possible costs to innocent and other businesses—£1,100 to £60,000 and £1 million to £60 million. The wide spread of the estimates causes alarm in the industry, and it feels that the power could be wide-ranging and damaging. If the power were properly targeted, it would be a worthwhile exercise and less threatening to the industry. The amendments have been tabled to ensure that closure orders are properly targeted and made only in genuine cases of fault on the part of the landlord or the staff of the premises. It should not be a blanket approach, but effective and targeted.

Another aspect of concern is the practicality of closure orders. They will involve a senior police officer making a decision as set out the proposed new sections of the Licensing Act 1964. It is true that the senior police officer will be able to act on the basis of information given to him by other officers, but he will have to make the order. The Police Federation inspectors committee has considerable concerns about how practical that will be because, in reality, the inspectors will be the senior police officers.

The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and others in the industry support most of the official Opposition's amendments, including amendment No. 81. It is similar to an amendment that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, and would require the senior police officer not simply to believe that disorder is likely, but to have reasonable grounds for that belief. The Minister might be able to assure us on the legal effect of the current words, but we think that there should be an element of evidence and of reasonable grounds, which is more substantial than a judgment about likelihood. We should be grateful if he would help because, given the potential for substantial losses, it is important to licensees that the process is transparent.

Proposed new section 179A refers to the likelihood and presence of disorder ``in the vicinity of'' the premises. Amendments Nos. 34A and 35 would change that to say:

``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is in the vicinity of''.

The Minister might say that if a licensee is responsible for an area, it is part of the licensed premises. In that case, he might want to deal with the matter in other ways than through the amendment. Amendments Nos. 34A, 35 and 77 are intended to probe the question of fault, and the suggestion that the landlord or staff of the premises might not have done everything expected of them.

As drafted, the provision is wide and seems to apply to an unspecified vicinity. The feeling in the industry is that if a licensee is responsible for trouble that has occurred, he should be liable, but if that is not the case, there is a risk of unfair closure. The BLRA wants to ensure that a licensee could not be unfairly penalised by the extended closure of his establishment unless he could be held responsible for the anticipated or actual disorder. That would establish a clear ground rule that the closure of premises must be based on disorder directly linked with those premises, and cannot be justified by general local behaviour alone. Responsible publicans who actively discourage rowdy and unacceptable behaviour should not be penalised because they happen to be sited in an area where there is disorder unconnected with the pub.

Amendment No. 36 relates to the same issue, specifying that the disorder, or likely disorder, should be in the immediate vicinity of the premises. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has observed, that is what is said in the explanatory notes. The words ``immediate vicinity'' are used in paragraph 38, with which I know the Minister is familiar—he is looking at it as we speak. It says:

``To make a closure order, the senior police officer must reasonably believe that there is likely to be disorder in or in the immediate vicinity of the premises in question''.

It seems that the amendment is pushing at an open door, as the amendment contains only the words in the explanatory notes.

Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 would provide that a disorder should not only be in the immediate vicinity of premises, but related to them. The Minister's previous presentation suggested, as do the notes, that the Government's aim is that there should be a relationship between the licensed premises and the disorder. Why, then, can he not accept the point?

Amendment No. 83 concerns whether an action

``is necessary in the interests of public safety''.

That is the current wording. We think that

``will significantly assist in securing public safety''

would provide a stricter test, and ensure that closure orders are used only where they will have a positive effect. If the Minister can assure us that his wording is just as rigorous, we will accept it, but it is important that there should be a strict test, where the interests of public safety, and the securing of those interests, are concerned.

Amendments Nos. 84 and 92 would ensure, as would amendment No. 4, some procedure whereby the licensee or his staff would be requested to perform as the police wanted. If they failed to do so, proceedings would be taken to make an order. Amendment No. 84 would provide that a request would have to be made

``to the holder of the licence to act reasonably by reducing or ceasing the emission of noise from the premises''

before an order was made. The Minister may say that he expects that to happen, but it would be useful to provide for it in the Bill, as it would for the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.

Amendment No. 92 makes a similar point, suggesting that a warning system should enable the operator to take action to address excessive noise before extreme closure action takes place. Amendments Nos. 84 and 92 are supported by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association.

Amendment No. 39 would provide that

``A closure order may only be made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c)''—

the noise provision—

``if the senior police officer has given notice to the licensee that he intends to make the order, and the licensee has failed to take appropriate action to quell the disturbance''.

Again, that is an early warning provision.

Amendment No. 39 would provide that

``A closure order may only be made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c)''

if notice has been given. It is a similar amendment. In fact, it is the same one; I have reread my notes. I apologise. Winston Churchill once read his notes twice when making a speech to the House and, when challenged about it, he said that it showed how important the point was.

I shall put the amendments in an overall context. They raise three basic issues. The first is the reasonable grounds and proper warnings that a senior police officer has to believe and give in order to close premises. The second is the link between the premises and the decision made. Is it possible to define ``in the vicinity'' so that it clearly relates to premises owned by the licensee? Should the reference not be to the immediate vicinity? Should the whole relationship be closer? The third issue is whether the closure would significantly assist public safety.

The industry feels that it has strong support among its members and those involved for firm discipline in licensed premises. It is already involved in a range of partnerships with the police and the community. As the Minister will recall, last year he launched the BLRA partnerships initiative, which we think has worked rather well. Co-operation has been active, and 84 industry representatives have been allocated to local partnerships. There have been considerable benefits from working partnerships between the industry, the Government, local communities and the police.

Just outside my constituency, in Hitchin, the Unique Pub Company has worked closely with Hitchin police. Superintendent Jon Caldwell and Mr. Raynsford of Unique recently met to emphasise the way in which their close co-operation is working. Both have said that they have been impressed by their approaches to and the effects of close working.

The industry should not be pictured as being full of unreasonable people who want to serve their drinks without any let or hindrance, and who do not care about discipline. They clearly do care about it, as no one wants to run a rowdy pub. It is important that the proposed measures be well targeted.

The coverage in the trade papers shows great concern. For instance, The Licensee and Morning Advertiser on 1 February said that the first reason—namely, that there is likely to be disorder—would give wide scope to the police. It continued:

``If there is a football match in town and the police think that fans might descend on `the circuit', are they going to close down all the pubs in the area, or wait until trouble happens? What is the situation where fights are developing in the street? Does the nearest innocent pub warrant a closure order while they sort it out?

As the Bill now stands, it is not just so-called `rowdy pubs' which are in the firing line. Many readers of this newspaper will know from personal experience that a fight can start in an instant, and they want it to end just as much as the police. It would be most unfortunate if an innocent landlord gained a double punishment—by having his bar trashed and then being forced to close for 24 hours as a result.''

The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, too, is worried. It says that the Bill's provisions may prove excessive and it protests that not enough checks and balances are in place to protect the legitimate business and commercial interests of licensees. It says:

``Under the proposals as drafted, the `senior' police officer does not even have to be at the premises but would have the right to shut any put where violence or disorder breaks out on the recommendation of the junior officer on the spot, and regardless of the reasons behind it, the pub's previous history or the landlord's efforts to control it.''

It also explains that the issuing of warnings is not prescribed in the Bill, a point that the amendments seek to deal with, and that no mention is made of discussing the reasons for closure orders.

Of cases being taken to court, the association states:

``The Bill recommends that this happen as soon as possible, but allows police to extend the closure order if this cannot happen immediately. In the meantime, the livelihood and income of many small business may be jeopardised. The ALMR believes that the appeals mechanism set out in the Bill must be strengthened and a statutory requirement be imposed on the licensing authority to meet in emergency session to review the closure order the following day. Police should not have the power to enforce extended periods of closure''.

The association then talks about the effect that improperly targeted measures would have on the relationship between the police and the licensees. It states:

``We are also concerned that these proposals may inadvertently lead to a breakdown in the relationship between licensees and the police. The regime may discourage licensees from calling the police if trouble breaks out in their premises for fear that it may lead to a closure order being issued or if the incident may be referred to in future licensing reviews.''

The association quite reasonably points out that

``there are certain pubs which do not comply with best practice and act as magnets for disorder, violence and drug dealing. Similarly, some pubs will persistently breach noise regulations.''

It supports the general intent of the provision, but it is concerned, first, that there should be adequate protections to relate the trouble to the premises in question; and, secondly, that there should be an element of fault.

The Minister told the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association that his concern in using the words ``in the vicinity'' was centred on fighting among drunken and disorderly customers that spills out onto the street outside public houses. He said that such fights would be directly connected with the public house and that they would not have happened if the pub had not been open and serving alcohol in the immediate vicinity. I understand that he made his concern known to the BLRA in a letter.

Our amendments mirror the Minister's concern—for instance, that the disorder should be related to the premises and in the immediate vicinity. I venture to suggest that it should be possible for the Committee to reach agreement on the safeguards that are needed. I hope that we shall not have a lot of talk about guidance, although I know that he is expert in such sweet words. We need something in the Bill to safeguard the industry. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 are particularly important. In the light of his views, he should be able to reach some agreement with us.

Finally, I turn to views of the Police Federation, and particularly those of the inspectors central committee. John Francis, the secretary of that committee, has written to me about the reduction in the number of inspectors over recent years, commenting particularly on the power to close down licensed premises. His letter states:

``Provisions within the planned Criminal Justice and Police Bill include powers to close down licensed premises due to disorder by a `senior police officer'. This `senior police officer' is defined as `a police officer of or above the rank of inspector'. Where they are going to find this senior police officer when a disturbance is occurring, I cannot imagine. As an inspector myself from 1986, in a rough part of the East End of London, I remember many occasions where I stepped in and took action to control disorder at a very early stage. There was an expectation, as an Inspector that you would control licensed premises when on duty and not wait until it was so out of control that urgent measures were needed to `close them down'. This was the case with all my colleagues when they had the capacity to respond to such incidents.''

He is concerned about the practicality of involving an inspector in the process.

Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, also refers to the matter in letters to me. Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient inspectors and that they will be sufficiently available? How does he imagine that the process will work? Is it a question of a mobile phone? Is it a question of ringing through or of asking the inspector to attend?

The provision is similar to some of the others that we will come to later in our consideration of the Bill. The police are expert in judging a situation. That expertise is based not just on what somebody says to them down a phone, but on their experience of the situation. When one talks to both junior and senior officers, they all make the point that the more experienced officer, who is used to dealing with and controlling situations, is best at judging what the proper approach is. The number of officers of experience is currently decreasing. If the Government win another general election—let us hope that they do not—they hope that they will be able to recruit sufficient youngsters to cover for those experienced officers over the succeeding years.

The Government state that in a force that will, if their plans work out, have more and more young constables, such decisions can be made with the inspector at arm's length, or further away—in another police station, in a car or on a mobile phone. I am concerned about whether that is the proper approach. I should be grateful if the Minister would amplify his view of how the process will work for the inspectors.

The Government are always introducing new powers, because they think that it is good for the headlines. In some cases, they no doubt even believe that they will work. That is all very well, but if the effect of introducing a new measure is to burden the police with further responsibilities, duties and paperwork, and if there are not sufficient officers to do the job on the ground, it is a worthless exercise. We need the Minister to supply a concrete analysis of exactly how the procedure will work in practice, to clarify the provisions.

The challenge for the Committee is to ensure that there are proper safeguards for the industry while retaining the ability to close rowdy public houses in short order, which we support. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I have not referred to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, because I know that he will explain them, and it will be interesting to hear his views.

John Grogan (Labour, Selby)

I agree with two of the points made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. He mentioned The Licensee and Morning Advertiser. I should declare that I am an occasional columnist for that newspaper. Although he did not quote from my column, I was living in hope.

There should never come a point at which a responsible licensee is afraid to call on the police because of the prospect of a closure order. That is to some extent dealt with in the notes. Paragraph 40, on page 8, refers to the fact that a police officer should

``in deciding whether to make a closure order...take account of any conduct of the licence holder or manager of the premises in relation to the disorder and disturbance.''

I consider it important that that message should be conveyed to the trade. Publicans have nothing to fear, and when they need to call the police they should do so. Furthermore, the police will take into account a licensee's behaviour in deciding whether to make a closure order.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has also noticed the Government's commitment in paragraph 373 on page 68 to issuing guidance explaining that a closure order should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. That is helpful, but does he agree that safeguards should be in the Bill?

John Grogan (Labour, Selby)

I believe that a high threshold should be set. There are arguments for including such a safeguard in the Bill, which none of the amendments deals with. Perhaps we should return to the matter on Report. The second point on which I wanted to agree with the hon. Gentleman is that on this and all questions relating to the closure orders, a high threshold should be maintained. That is why I disagree with amendment No. 37. The wording in the Bill, requiring closure to be

``necessary in the interests of public safety''

is a higher test than requiring that closure should ``significantly assist in securing'' public safety. I should be interested in the Minister's views on that. The regulatory impact assessment was mentioned, rightly; my hopes are for a lower rather than a higher figure.

Amendment No. 84 deals with noise. One thing that the Chamber has in common with pubs and licensed premises is that both are occasionally the subject of complaints about noise, excessive exuberance and disturbance. In both cases, the judgment to be made is very subjective. Sometimes the Chamber at its noisiest is at its best, in a democratic sense. Equally, it is difficult to make fine judgments about whether noise in pubs is excessive. Sometimes noise wafting from a pub, such as jazz on a summer evening, could entice people in. Heavy metal late at night when children are trying to sleep is clearly different.

I am interested in why the issue of noise has arisen with regard to closure orders. The licensing White Paper contained reference to closure orders with respect to disorderly and violent conduct, and the preservation of public safety. However, excessive noise seems now to have become a relevant issue. I do not know that there is a strong lobby among the police for such an addition to the reasons for making a closure order. I fear that there could be a danger of confusion. Should a householder call the police or environmental health officers first about a problem with a pub next door?

The statute book contains quite a body of legislation on noise. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives local authorities strong powers to deal with statutory nuisances, which are defined as

``noise emitting from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance''.

If a noise deemed to be a nuisance is occurring, or is likely to occur or recur, an abatement notice must be served by the local authority, which can even seize noise-making equipment. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 allows councils to issue antisocial behaviour orders to deal with harassment, alarm or distress, including noise pollution. If closure orders were to cut environmental health officers out of the loop difficulties could result.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has reaffirmed the Government's commitment to liquor licensing reform. Several hon. Members have referred to the importance of flexible hours in combating crime, and of changing the drinking culture in our country. However, the licensing White Paper proposed not only flexible hours but a new licensing system, which included a premises licence. That White Paper contained much debate about including restrictions on noise in the premises licence. An advantage of the premises licence is that if there was a noise problem, a range of sanctions would be available to the licensing authorities. Under the Bill, if a pub is closed because of excessive noise and the case reaches the magistrates, very little can be done beyond withdrawing the licence completely.

The issue of noise must be treated carefully. The amendment refers to warnings, but I wonder whether the police have to be involved. There could be a situation where noise is not creating disorder but is still an immediate problem, and the police might need to act on the advice of environmental health officers because they cannot deal with a situation straight away.

I want to stress the importance of crime and disorder partnerships to the community and industry. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire mentioned, many members of the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association are involved in them. Two or three years ago, Selby had a bad reputation, but it is now safe for me, as a Member of Parliament, to go out on a Friday night to have a drink. Through a mixture of partnerships, a pubwatch scheme and closed circuit television, violent alcohol-related crime has been reduced. York, part of which is my constituency, has also been innovative in developing such partnerships.

Although I recognise that closure orders must deal with extreme circumstances, the way to combat alcohol-related crime in the round is to develop partnerships and reform our licensing laws so that, over time—and I appreciate that it will take time—England and Wales will develop a culture with a more civilised attitude towards alcohol.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

The amendments break down into three issues. I remind the Committee that we are phrasing law that will guide the police. If we thought that the police were capable of doing everything, were always right and never abused their powers, there would be no point in our taking care to make laws and we could just leave them to get on with it. They would then be responsible for enforcing the law without checks or balances. However, our purpose is to ensure that the police operate under rules that everybody understands. That is a particularly sensitive area. Police and those who run licensed premises have different interests, and that could lead to difficulties. We have set in place the licensing system to patrol that. For example, people must go to a magistrate for a licence. The police can give evidence but the magistrates determine whether someone can be given a licence.

The Bill is wrong because it produces a situation where a policeman can decide to close a premises of his own volition because he believes that disorder might occur in the vicinity.

That leads on to amendment No. 130, which is similar to amendment No. 81. If a senior police officer is to make a judgment about the possibility of disorder, he should be acting on evidence. The evidence test would not have to be sufficient to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt or even on a balance of probability, but evidence must exist.

It would be wrong for police officers to be able to say that they believed that something might happen without having to offer supporting evidence in dealing with the difficult problem of licensed premises. They will have built up a picture of a particular publican's pub in a particular area. A police inspector who is particularly officious or oppressive in his policing may wish to a target a publican for reasons wholly other than the prospect of disorder around a premises. For whatever reason, he may have a downer on the publican and use all his powers to target him. If the Bill draws police powers too widely, police inspectors will be able to act oppressively towards an individual, in circumstances beyond what I understand to be the Government's intentions, as set out in the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill.

This provision must be amended in one way or another. If the Government accept the official Opposition amendments, I will support them and not press mine, because they would improve the Bill and make the test for the police clearer. However, I prefer amendment No. 130, which simply substitutes a need for evidence for the test of the police officer having reasonable grounds for belief. Evidence would have to be produced, irrespective of how valid or weighty it is. The evidence could be only a complaint of a disturbance, but the police officer would be able to give that as his reason for imposing a closure order.

I want to deal with the matter of ``the vicinity of'' where the disorder will occur. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire rightly tabled amendments that make it clear that the disturbance should be in the ``immediate'' vicinity of the premises, rather than simply ``the vicinity of'' the premises, and that the disturbance in the vicinity of the premises must be related to the premises in question. I would support those amendments but I think that amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are slightly better and clearer because they would simply remove the phrase

``or in the vicinity of''.

The Minister described a situation to the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association where people leave a pub and engage in a fight in the street. If the police are faced with that, they arrest the people who are fighting on a charge of disorder. However, it is being suggested that the pub has become a production line. Nobody misbehaves inside the premises, but all go outside and have a punch-up or create disorder. It beggars belief that such a production line would continue so as to necessitate the closure of the pub.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As a supporter of the general proposition that such situations do not occur, I happened to be talking to the acting borough commander about the issue on a road that is well known for its pubs and late licences—the Old Kent road. If we examine the incidence of reported crime, arrests and police activity, we see that most cases occur on the premises during licensing hours. Contrary to the general view that kicking-out time causes all the problems, there are fewer problems after licensing hours outside the pubs.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's point.

On the amendment, I think that ``in the vicinity of'' is too widely defined. My house in my constituency is in the vicinity of Horley, which happens to be two or three miles away, so what do the words mean? Such a wide definition could cause all sorts of problems. Although inserting the word ``immediate'', as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire suggested, would be an improvement, it would still be a matter of definition. What would in the ``immediate vicinity of'' mean? After working that out, we would still have to establish that the disturbance was ``related to'' the premises.

We should be clear about what the licensee is responsible for: conduct and behaviour on his licensed premises. He cannot be held responsible for what happens on the street once people have left his premises. It would be much better to remove

``or in the vicinity of''

and I urge the Government to consider it seriously. If the disorder or noise comes from the licensed premises, the licensee is clearly responsible and, if the police make that judgment, he deserves to be subject to a closure order. That is serious, as we can see from the proposed punishment for violation of the closure order, which we will discuss later. The current drafting is too vague and could be unfair. I hope that the Minister will accept my amendments. If he does not, I hope that he will accept the offical Opposition amendments, which would at least establish in the Bill a link between the licensed premises and the disorder.

I want to address the question of notifying the landlord, or the person in charge of the premises at the time, that he will be the subject of a closure order. Amendment No. 4 would insert

``Following a first and second warning''.

In practice, the police could issue both warnings by just saying ``Here's your first warning'' and then ``Here's your second warning.'' The warnings could just be a form of words that the police use to get round the requirement. If there is to be a warning, and it is to be a proper warning, only one is necessary.

I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire on amendment No. 39. It would insert the words:

``A closure order may only be made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c) if the senior police officer has given notice to the licensee that he intends to make the order, and the licensee has failed to take appropriate action to quell the disturbance.''

I wholly agree with the sense of that. The licensee must be given a warning. The Bill as it stands is unfair, as under it a closure order would suddenly be slapped on the licensee with no notice and no opportunity for him to put right what has gone wrong.

The only problem that I have with amendment No. 39 is the use of the words ``senior police officer''. My hon. Friend drew attention to his letter from the central committee of police inspectors, which said that, in case of widespread disturbance, one would not be able to send an inspector into every licensed premises to deliver that warning. I hope that he would therefore consider amendment, No. 133, which suggests the wording:

``following at least one request from a uniformed police officer to the person ostensibly having control of the premises to end the disturbance''.

Amendment No. 133 would meet a situation in which the senior police officer in charge of a shift, who might be faced with considerable disorder across the whole of his division, was trying to control the division from a central position. He could say that he had received evidence that he needed to shut down any number of licensed premises to stop the source of disturbance. Having made the closure order, he could give instructions by radio or other means from his central location to a uniformed police officer on the scene. That officer could give the warning that if the problem could not be sorted out, the premises would have to be closed down.

It would be unreasonable to expect the inspector, in all situations, to go to all premises to issue the warning. It is essential that a warning should be issued, but the balance of judgment is that only one warning should be given, and that it should be given by any uniformed police officer rather than necessarily by the inspector.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I do not want to stand firmly to the two-warning position, although I want a warning procedure. The only addition that I would make to the hon. Gentleman's proposition is that the legislation must give a reasonable period in which a reasonable licensee could act on the warning before any action as envisaged in the legislation could take place. A warning procedure is required, as is time to act on it, if we are to have rational legislation.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I agree in a sense, but there is a question about practicality. The test is between what is realistic for the police in the circumstances and the reality for the licensee. It would tie the police's hands unnecessarily if the Bill stated that the licensee had 15 minutes to sort out the problem, yet it was plain to the police that the place needed to be closed down as soon as possible because it was completely out of control and the licensee did not have a cat in hell's chance of sorting it out, however long he was given.

Some judgment must be exercised about the powers to be delegated to the police in those circumstances. It would tie them too much to say that the warning order had to be followed by a set length of time. That judgment must be made by a police officer.

I hope that my amendments will commend themselves to the Government, as they would achieve exactly what they have set out to do. I fear that the Bill is currently much too widely drawn. The matter is already controlled, as people have to obtain a licence in the first place. To a degree, there will be tension between the police and those who run licensed premises, as there is already, so I hope that the Government will consider my amendments.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This has been a most interesting discussion, and I would like to make some general points at the outset.

As hon. Members will know, the Portman Group is a respected organisation that works closely with the licensed industry. The group commissioned a MORI survey, which it published in January of this year, in which 14 per cent. of people reported that they had been the victim of violence in pubs. That seemed to me a very large figure indeed. About 20 per cent. of frequent drinkers had been victims of violence in pubs. I was struck by those figures. It seems to me that, overall, although many such polls are simply a matter of subjective assessment, the data show that there is an issue that must be tackled. That is why the Portman Group published them.

Secondly, I want to pay public tribute to the industry itself and its various organisations, some of which have been referred to by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, which have worked closely with the Government, and across government, to develop a more positive approach to all the matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said, the industry and its organisations believe that it is important that we reach a state of affairs where alcohol is not seen as a cause of crime; where people can go and have a quiet drink in the evening and that can be seen simply as a normal part of life. The organisations, the brewers and the licensees know that it is important to ensure that people who work in their industry but do not live up to its standards should not be seen as representative of it. They have been positive about many of the proposals that we have discussed.

Thirdly, it is important to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, and reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, about the importance of partnership. Soon after I started doing this job I was most impressed by a visit that I paid to the city of York, where there is a joint operation run by the police, the local authority and the licensees. That operation is a close partnership, with a whole set of requirements about the way in which people work together. It is designed to achieve the kind of position that my hon. Friend is talking about, where licensees feel confident in the police and work with them to tackle the issues that arise as they arise, and where police respect licensees. I pay tribute to what has been done in the city of York. I will not take up the Committee's time by giving further examples, but there are many places other than York where that kind of joint work has been positively developed. Nothing in the Bill should be seen as undermining that type of critical relationship.

Fourthly, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a point about safeguards for the industry and proper targeting—that constellation of issues. Just as we support partnerships, we share entirely the aspiration expressed by the hon. Gentleman in relation to the matter. It would be appalling if powers in the Bill were to lead to a disentangling of the relations through improper targeting, if that is the right phrase, or through blanket operations in particular chunks of cities, or by any other means.

We agree with that point, and we agree that it is right to debate the amendments that have been put forward by the industry to clarify and draw out the issues in a constructive way. In that context, it is necessary to have a high threshold for action to be taken, so that it will be seen as a rare rather than a frequent event for any of the actions set out in the Bill to be taken. I emphasise that the Government do not believe that thousands of pubs around the country are acting in an unacceptable way, on which, through the powers of the Bill, the firm hand of the law will come down. Incidents of unacceptable behaviour are isolated, but the matter must be dealt with. Isolated targeting is at the core of our approach.

My next point relates to the remarks of the hon. Member for Reigate. This is an issue for all of us. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire decries guidance, but police conduct is an issue. It is a matter of how the police are trained, under what guidance they are operating, and how they normally proceed, for example in the area of warnings, which we will discuss in detail in a moment. It is the practice of the police, who have constantly to decide on different uses of their powers, to warn. I suspect that, usually, they would warn on many occasions, because they are the first to recognise that if they use their powers in a way that is perceived as arbitrary or dictatorial, they will not succeed in making the law work.

Our guidance will deal with those matters in the most effective way. I believe—it is not an evasion—that it is our job as legislators to set the legal framework, but that its implementation is a matter for guidance. How it is to be implemented should be a professional matter for the police, and it should be the subject of consultation and debate—including debate by the House.

I want to make one final, general point. There has been talk—not here today, but on other occasions—suggesting that the powers could be thought of as draconian. That is not right. I refer to what the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said at the start of his speech about costs and the implications for business. New section 179A(2) defines a closure order as

``an order requiring relevant licensed premises to be closed for a period not exceeding twenty-four hours beginning with the coming into force of the order''.

It might often be a great deal less time than that; it might be until midnight, until what would otherwise have been closing time, or from 10.30 pm until 2 am. It is not right to describe such a power as draconian. I am not trying to put words into the mouths of Opposition Members, but in debates on later amendments we shall be discussing the work of magistrates and so forth. It is not an arbitrary power that could put someone out of business; it is a particular power to deal with the particular circumstances of disorderly pubs. That is the context in which I want to address the amendments. I shall deal with them one by one in a moment.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

An important point of principle, which the Minister and I have debated on other occasions, is that the law should set down the powers that Parliament wants to give to the police; but it should be restricted to that. Ministers often present measures that are widely drawn and then say that guidance will be issued to ensure that they are properly focused. There is a difference between us on that. I believe that the law should state clearly what the powers are. I admit that a case can be made for guidance, but if the law is wrong, guidance will not provide justice.

I hope that the Minister agrees with me. If he is saying to the industry that it should be the immediate vicinity, as he does in the notes, how can he not accept an amendment that says so? If he is writing to members of the industry, saying that it is related to the premises, why will he not accept amendments that say just that? Guidance is no substitute for getting the law right.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall come to the amendment on vicinity in a moment; I wish to answer the serious points that have been made on that subject. However, I must first address the practical and principled point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

The principled point is as follows. I do not accept—I doubt whether the previous Government accepted it—that we can write into primary legislation every bit of guidance on how we want it to operate. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about its being necessary to make it clear in legislation what the powers are and when they should be used, which is what we seek to do, but I do not accept that we need to give guidance on every aspect in primary legislation. That is why we have secondary legislation. That is why we have a hierarchy of documents that are not even legislative that can be used to develop best practice, to ensure that all parties can take part in the debate and so on. I am not sure from the hon. Gentleman's response whether that is a difference between us—[Interruption.] I am glad that he has confirmed it. In that case, I agree with him that there is a principled difference of opinion between us, and I shall take it to the barricades if necessary.

It is right to respect the hierarchy of law making; it has existed for decades under Governments of all parties. It goes from primary legislation to secondary legislation, guidance and so on. It is a good way to legislate, and I defend it in principle. I also defend it in practice. We have that structure because circumstances change; the question is whether it is necessary to return to full primary legislation to reflect those changes. On many occasions, we have been handicapped by the relative slowness and stickiness of Parliament to legislate to reflect such changes. For instance, the industry has changed. The average town centre is fundamentally different from when the hon. Gentleman and I were in our late teens or early 20s. The sort of places that exist, the role that we might wish the police to have, and the role of the licensee are all different. We should be able to change and deal with that situation in a practical way.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am sorry to keep troubling the Minister, particularly with only 59 seconds to go, but if the law is written tightly and effectively, it safeguards the interests of the industry and the individual. If it is written as wide as the Bill, a publican in a bad case could be closed down—

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee F

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It may be convenient for members of the Committee to know that, pursuant to the announcement that I made last Thursday, the Programming Sub-Committee will sit tomorrow afternoon in Room 6 at 5.30 pm, not 5 pm—the time has been changed slightly to accommodate the Minister's diary. No formal notice will be issued, so will members of the Committee and the usual channels ensure that others are informed? Although it is not a requirement, it would be helpful if any hon. Member who wishes to submit a motion for consideration at the meeting could ensure that it is in the hands of the Clerks by close of play today. Clause 19 Closure of certain licensed premises due todisorder or disturbance

Clause 19 - Closure of certain licensed premises due todisorder or disturbance

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 130, in page 10, line 8, leave out ``reasonably believes that'' and insert ``has evidence that''.

No. 81, in page 10, line 9, leave out ``is likely to'' and insert—

``are reasonable grounds to believe that there will''.

No. 131, in page 10, line 9, leave out ``, or in the vicinity of,''.

No. 34A, in page 10, line 9, after ``or'', insert—

``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is''.

No. 36, in page 10, line 9, after ``the'', insert ``immediate''.

No. 82, in page 10, line 9, at end, insert ``and related to''.

No. 37, in page 10, line 10, leave out

``is necessary in the interests of''

and insert—

``will significantly assist in securing''.

No. 132, in page 10, line 12, leave out ``,or in the vicinity of''.

No. 35, in page 10, line 12, after ``or'', insert—

``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is''.

No. 76, in page 10, line 12, after first ``the'', insert ``immediate''.

No. 83, in page 10, line 12, after ``of'', insert ``and related to''.

No. 38, in page 10, line 13, leave out

``is necessary in the interests of''

and insert—

``will significantly assist in securing''.

No. 84, in page 10, line 15, after ``(c)'', insert—

``having made a request to the holder of the licence to act reasonably by reducing or ceasing the emission of noise from the premises''.

No. 133, in page 10, line 18, at end insert—

``following at least one request from a uniformed police officer to the person ostensibly having control of the premises to end the disturbance.''.

No. 39, in page 10, line 18, at end insert—

``(1A) A closure order may only be made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c) if the senior police officer has given notice to the licensee that he intends to make the order, and the licensee has failed to take appropriate action to quell the disturbance.''.

No. 77, in page 12, line 26, after second ``or'', insert—

``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is''.

No. 92, in page 12, line 30, after ``Act,'', insert—

``a request having been made to the holder of the licence to act reasonably by reducing or ceasing the emission of noise from the premises''.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First, Mr. Gale, I express my appreciation to you for your flexibility on the timing of the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee.

During my previous comments in responding to the debate, I set out some of the general circumstances around the matter. I shall not repeat any of that, but discuss the amendments in order.

Amendment No. 4 would require the senior police officer to warn a licensee twice about his conduct of the premises before being able to make a closure order on the grounds of disorder or excessive noise. I understand the motivation behind that. As I said earlier, all the amendments have substance and were tabled properly, correctly and helpfully. However, this is a matter for guidance and for police practice, not primary legislation. The police officer present has to make his or her judgment on the basis of the circumstances that he or she sees. In almost all imaginable circumstances, it is likely that warnings will be issued more than once or twice, because that is how the police operate. They must, through the guidance that we discuss with them, arrive at the right way of dealing with the matter. An overly legalistic approach could lead to doubts about whether the police could act effectively and as the Bill intends. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will consider asking leave to withdraw the amendment. I understand the force of his argument and the practice that he described, but what he proposes should be in the guidance, and part of police practice, rather than in primary legislation.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Should it be a matter for regulation by statutory instrument rather than guidance? I understand that the Minister is saying that their significance is gradated, but at least to the extent that there should be a prior warning, the procedure in question would more properly be covered in regulation, which has much clearer force in statute than guidance.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am prepared to consider that. Earlier, I talked about the hierarchy of legislation; it is a matter of judgment where the guidance sits in that hierarchy, but it is certainly important. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall have a good look at the matter to see whether regulation, rather than guidance, would be more appropriate.

Amendment No. 130 would require the senior police to have evidence of disorder as outlined in the clause. It would create objective, rather than subjective, tests, and therefore represents a higher threshold of police action. I am concerned about the proposal, not because I do not understand the points that were well made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)—in general, I agree that the threshold for action should be higher rather than lower—but because an objective test is difficult to achieve, especially in view of the extent of the sanction available: closure for up to 24 hours in normal circumstances. For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friends not to support amendment No. 130. Having to establish an objective rather than a subjective test makes it more difficult to assess a situation.

Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 would prevent the police from making a closure order if the disorder, or the likely disorder, occurred or was expected to occur in the vicinity of the licensed premises—that is, outside the premises. That would be a mistake, as disorder inside a premises can turn into disorder outside.

Amendment No. 81 would require the senior police officer to have reasonable grounds to believe that there will be disorder on or in the vicinity of the premises and that the closure of the premises is necessary in the interests of public safety. The amendment is not well worded; it attempts to create an objective, rather than a subjective test. It fails to achieve its purpose by creating a mixed test involving objective and subjective elements, which will be confusing for the police and the courts.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister has just made my argument for me. He referred to situations in which disorder inside a pub spills over into disorder outside a pub. The licensee is responsible for what goes on inside the licensed premises; he cannot be responsible for what is happening outside. That is why the words ``in the vicinity of'' should be removed. The Minister is trying to find circumstances in which there is no disorder in the pub but that lead to disorder outside the pub. He described circumstances in which both are happening, in which case the police would have every reason to act under the powers given in the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

With respect, the hon. Gentleman's implication is not quite right. The measures are not designed to punish a licensee for behaviour that is less than adequate in any respect. Issues of that type exist, but they are not covered by these provisions. The clause deals with whether it is necessary, in the view of the police, in a particular circumstance, to close an establishment because it is a cause of disorder, excessive noise or other reason specified in proposed new section 179A of the Licensing Act 1964. It is not intended to be a punishment for the licensee.

I acknowledge that there is an element of punishment for the licensee. If the pub is closed for a particular period—from 10 pm to midnight, say—there may be a loss of revenue, the costs to which the hon. Gentleman referred, a loss of reputation and so on. That could be tested by magistrates soon after the police officer has made that judgment, according to the procedures set out. The principal purpose is not to punish the licensee but to deal with the source of disorder. Disorder, inside or outside the premises, may or may not be due to the conduct of the licensee in any given circumstances.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The simple point is that if disorder is taking place outside the pub, the police have the powers to deal with it because it is disorder. The Bill gives the police wide powers to close down establishments because of activities that, being outside the premises, can never be the responsibility of the licensee.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, although I understand his point, I do not accept it. The fact that disorder is occurring outside the pub does not mean that what is going on inside the pub has no impact on what is happening on the street. He is right to say that the police have powers to deal with circumstances of disorder on the street. They already have those powers, irrespective of the Bill. However, all hon. Members are familiar with circumstances in which what is happening on the street is not independent of the fact that the pub happens to be nearby. If one imagines the pub suddenly being taken away, will there still be disorder on the street in those circumstances? The answer would generally be no. I can imagine that the answer could be yes, but we are discussing circumstances in which the pub is the cause of disorder in the particular area. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again on this point, I emphasise yet again that the purpose of the closure power is to deal with the source of the disorder, not to punish the licensee.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

In practice, the police operate under the precautionary principle. If there is an area of disorder within a police division, the police will have the authority under the Bill to issue closure notices for all pubs within the vicinity of that disorder. It is more than likely that, whether or not the disorder is related to one premises, the police officer will say, ``Shut the lot of them.'' That is what happened at Twickenham, which simply meant that all the people going to international rugby were displaced to premises outside Twickenham. The police cannot necessarily be expected to get it right, and they will operate on principles such as the precautionary principle. They will operate much more widely than the Minister intends, unless the phrase ``in the vicinity of'' is removed or a qualification introduced.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will make a further point in a moment about ``in the vicinity of'' in relation to amendments Nos. 34A, 35, 36, 76 and 77. I return to my fundamental point that the closure power can be exercised only if closure is in the interests of public safety. It is clear that closure has implications for the licensee, but it is not designed to penalise a licensee for, say, running his or her establishment incompetently. It is intended to deal with the existing problem of the risk to public safety, which in the police's judgment needs to be addressed.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am prompted to intervene by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, who rightly cited the example of the Rugby Football Union headquarters and stadium at Twickenham. He may not know that our hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I, as Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, have taken up this matter with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The Assistant Commissioner, Ian Johnston, has given a detailed response, and although I cannot discuss it in a brief intervention, there is no doubt that the police are operating on the precautionary principle. I can foresee what will happen, and the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate makes in respect of Twickenham will apply to towns such as Guildford and Reigate.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I emphasise again that, if enacted, the Bill will empower the police to close an establishment for up to 24 hours. The matter would then go before magistrates, who would make their judgment. If it transpired that the police took inappropriately broad action for reasons that the hon. Gentleman implied, I believe that magistrates would react in the way that I have suggested.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I very much share the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Reigate. In many places in my constituency—I am sure that the same is true of the Minister's—several pubs are located near to one another. The usual route from one pub to, say, the minicab office therefore involves passing other pubs that are very different. For example, where one pub might exercise strict door control, another might impose a fee for late-night drinking. Although in management terms it would be much easier to close all pubs in the vicinity when there is trouble, the benefit of doing so would be outweighed by the consequent risk that a pub with a faultless track record would become associated with closure. My concern is therefore a practical one.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand that the hon. Gentlemen's concern is practical, but I do not accept the underlying premise, based on the example of Twickenham, to which the hon. Members for Reigate and for Surrey Heath referred. According to it, the police are likely to deal with disorder by imposing a blanket order, thereby wiping out half a dozen pubs in the vicinity. I can see that that is possible in theory, but I do not accept that it is a practical likelihood or reality, because a police officer will have to make a judgment about what is going on in each set of licensed premises. Under the clause, a police officer must assess whether

``there is likely to be disorder on, or in the vicinity of, the premises''.

Such judgments will therefore be made on the basis of events in and around the premises. Three members of the Committee are now advancing the fundamental premise that the police are likely to exercise a blanket use of these powers in a given locality, but I do not accept that.

Mr. Hawkins rose—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not want to appear to suppress debate, but before giving way I should re-emphasise that the powers are limited to closing a pub for up to 24 hours in a given circumstance. Such a decision will then be subject to the judgment of magistrates and the procedure as set out in the clause. Were the police to use the powers in the manner implied—and I do not accept that they would—I believe that magistrates, who are familiar with licensing issues, would judge their actions accordingly and that behaviour would change if necessary. The problem as described simply does not exist.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Events at Twickenham are an example under existing law of what we are afraid of. The police have accepted in writing and openly that there has never been disorder after a rugby union international. However, precisely because they were operating the precautionary principle, a new officer decided that there might be a risk and that all the bars should be closed after every rugby union international. It was only after huge cross-party pressure from hon. Members who are interested in rugby, including the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and other Labour Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, myself and other Opposition Members that the Metropolitan police reluctantly agreed to a two-match pilot to reopen the bars. We are worried about what is happening under existing law.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that adds nothing to his previous intervention and I have nothing further to add. As he said, what is happening now at Twickenham is happening under current law with the current powers of the police. We are discussing disorder when

``A senior police officer may make a closure order in relation to relevant licensed premises if he reasonably believes that''

any of the specified problems might arise. I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise.

I turn to the words ``in the vicinity''. Amendments Nos. 34A, 35, 36, 76 and 77 would allow a closure order to be made only if disorder or the threat of disorder occurred on property for which the licence holder was responsible. That is similar to the matters raised on amendments Nos. 131 and 132 and it would be difficult to justify making such an order if disorder or the threat of it was taking place in the street outside the boundary of the licensed premises. Closure orders could be justified only when the place or likely place of the disorder was under the licensee's control.

The amendments would significantly water down the effect of the provisions. I understand the reasons for that and that it is not meant in a general spirit of weakening the process, but that would be the effect. Under current law, when a fight between drunken customers spills out on to the street, the police could make a closure order if they reasonably believed that closure was necessary in the interests of public safety. Similarly, if, after the disorder was quelled, further fighting was likely to break out in the street outside at closing time, the police could close the pub and disperse the crowd. The amendments would allow the licensee to argue that he had no control over the behaviour of customers once outside the curtilage of his premises, which is the argument made by the hon. Member for Reigate. However, the fight or likely fight would result from the sale of alcohol in the pub leading to drunkenness and disorder.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

In a moment.

This is also the area in which the word ``immediate'' in the notes and the legislation was discussed. I am advised that no legal effect is implied by inserting ``immediate'' into the legislation, but we believe that it is necessary not to restrict unduly the area in which disorder can provoke a closure order. The word ``immediate'' would make it harder to act when disorder occurred outside and would lead to disputes in court.

I am also advised that because the notes were written in layman's terms--that is the benefit of the notes in contrast to the legislation--``in the vicinity of'' would generally be interpreted by the courts as meaning the immediate vicinity. I acknowledge that there could be confusion, which is undesirable, so I shall consider the use of the word ``immediate'' because I do not want any confusion in the legislation. I am not accepting that such an amendment should be made, but I accept that confusion is possible and I am prepared to consider whether clearer wording is necessary. However, the fundamental point is what is happening outside the pub. I do not accept that the sort of circumstance described by hon. Members is likely. A more likely circumstance is of people spilling out of pubs and fights taking place, and it would be unfortunate if the police had no powers to deal with that.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He said earlier that he was not implying any criticism of the landlord or staff when the events took place outside, but he now seems to be saying that they are related to the fact that the pub is open and serving alcohol. He must decide whether he is saying, ``Landlords control the situation so it is right to make an order outside'' or, ``Landlords do not control the situation outside so they cannot be criticised. Therefore, this public order measure is unconnected to them.''

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I return to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Reigate. The legislation is not about punishing a particular licensee for the way in which they conduct their premises; there are processes in licensing legislation to move that forward. We are discussing emergency situations where the police decide on public safety grounds that action must be taken. In considering that power, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is right to say that there is an implication for the licensee. I argue—and this is the Government's position—that there can be and often is a relationship between events inside a particular pub and circumstances outside it. We should not seek to restrict police powers when those situations arise.

The hon. Gentleman argues that if, for whatever reason, the situation is clearly outside the responsibility of the licensee, as it would be if customers leave the pub, pay their bills, go outside and are about to go elsewhere when they get into a drunken fight, or even if events are further outside the licensee's control—such as if events taking place elsewhere spill over towards his or her pub—unless the licensee is specifically responsible for events by his or her conduct, the police should have no powers in that area. However, I do not accept that. We are not discussing punishing the licensee, but we are discussing dealing with possible sources of disorder, so it is right to have the emergency power in the way that has been described.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

If disorder is unrelated to a set of licensed premises, how can it be right to close it?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I did not say that such disorder would be unrelated to the premises. There is a spectrum from events taking place in a pub to events taking place 100 miles away; the question is where one draws the line. I say that where events take place in the vicinity of the pub, even if they are not on the licensee's premises, there is often a case that events in the vicinity of a pub are related to the pub itself. I acknowledge that there could be circumstances in the vicinity of the pub that have nothing to do with the licensee's premises, in which case he or she could not be criticised.

However, we say that where events take place around a pub, to go into the rights and wrongs of what is happening, which is something that the police must do on the spot, is a process that will waste time. Considering the extent to which a pub relates to events would be contrary to the purpose of the Bill, which is to deal directly with the source of disorder.

I shall discuss amendments Nos. 82 and 83, which relate to that point. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that these amendments were especially important to the Opposition. They are intended to provide that a closure order could be made only if disorder or the threat of disorder relates to events in the relevant licensed premises. That would mean that if disorder were caused by outside events—for example, if gangs fighting in the street continued their battle after entering the premises—the closure power could not be used.

We do not consider it appropriate that this power should be used only in cases where the cause or threat of disorder emanates from the relevant premises. First, the police must act if there is a situation with a public safety issue. Secondly, the process of proving the connection would make it more difficult for the police to act. Thirdly, we do not seek to punish the licensee; we simply seek to deal with the question of disorder. Fourthly, there is a rapid remedy available to the licensee—namely, that a magistrate must hear the situation shortly thereafter.

That series of defences deals with the hon. Gentleman's point, which he made for the legitimate reason that he is concerned that there may be some overweening power where licensees are penalised for events that are outside their control. He is seeking to ensure that that power is not included in the Bill. I understand his motivation—it is based on a perfectly respectable argument, which has been solidly presented by the industry. However, the other side of the coin is that if the measure is introduced in the way that he suggests, it would effectively exclude the relationship that often obtains between what is going on inside the licensed premises and what is going on outside, to the detriment of public order.

I have said what I wanted to say about this group of amendments. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene before I continue?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Yes, I do. The power completely exempts the police from all liability. It is a widely drawn power, which—on the Minister's estimate—can cost £60,000 for a set of premises if a mistake is made. Is it right that an order can be made when the incident is completely unrelated to the premises and does not even occur in the immediate vicinity? That is extremely unfair and unjust to the landlord of the public house. If the provision stipulated that the incident had to be related and in the immediate vicinity, we would all say that the Minister had a solid argument, but as it does not, how can he justify it?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have sought to deal with that directly.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Well, we do not agree.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree. A balance of judgment is involved between the obligation on the police, which the Bill seeks to reinforce, to secure public safety and public order in the areas of such premises—which are in a small minority—and the suggestion, which is where the hon. Gentleman falls into error, that unless the incident has a specific relationship to the premises concerned, no action should be taken.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter when he has had a chance to reflect on it.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister must appreciate that under new section 179A(1)(a), the test is not that there is, but that there is likely to be, disorder in the vicinity. The Bill gives the police the power to make a decision to close all the pubs in the vicinity where they think that there might be disorder. Is the Minister seriously saying that the police will not use those powers very widely? I do not believe that that is the Minister's intention, but that is what will happen—the police have to operate under the precautionary principle, because if they do nothing and something happens, people will ask why. The Minister has made it clear that it is not the intention of the Bill that the powers should be so widely used, so he should accept the amendment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman seems unable to accept the point, either because we disagree or because I am inarticulate in explaining it. Shortly after using the powers in the Bill, the police will have to justify their decision before magistrates, when a judgment will be made. When that hearing takes place, arguments will be advanced in respect of whether it was reasonable for the police to believe that the events were likely to happen. Will magistrates always say that whatever the police say has to be supported? I do not think so—that is not the way in which the system operates in any respect.

As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested with his example of Twickenham and the Rugby Football Union, the police already have powers that allow them to take action in such circumstances. The powers in the Bill, subject as they are to magisterial jurisdiction immediately after they have been exercised, do not present the threats about which the hon. Gentleman is worried.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 would weaken the tests that the police have to apply before making a closure order. The hon. Members who tabled the amendments may be under the impression that it would do the opposite and strengthen the police's powers. Our assessment is that, under the present wording, the test that a senior police officer has to meet will be harder. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider that. I think that his intention was to raise the profile of what the police need to do to deal with a particular circumstance. Under the clause as drafted, a senior police officer must reasonably believe that closure is necessary in the interests of public safety.

Hon. Members may think that including the word ``significantly'' would make it harder for a senior police officer to justify taking action. They are wrong. Unless we want to ease the test, the amendments need to be resisted, because in practice their wording would be unlikely to make a major difference to the way in which the police use the new powers in that circumstance.

Amendments Nos. 39, 84 and 133 deal with the ground of excessive noise and say that closure would not be possible unless a police officer had first asked the licensee of the premises to reduce the noise to a reasonable level. I repeat my general point about the way in which the police operate. It is right that they give warnings and ask for changes to take place. It is appropriate to give guidance.

In light of the powerful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), I shall give a little of the background of noise legislation that applies. The closure power for this purpose allows quick or immediate action to be taken to curtail a disturbance to the public, which is especially appropriate late at night. Under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a statutory nuisance is created if noise emitted from any premises causes a nuisance. Local authority officers have the power to enforce that provision by serving an abatement notice on the person responsible for the relevant premises. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, against which action can be taken in summary proceedings in magistrates courts. Under the Noise Act 1996, local authority officers also have the power to enter the premises to seize or remove any equipment that is causing the noise nuisance. However, where a disturbance is caused not by loud music but by noise from, for example, drunken louts, the procedures under those two Acts do not allow action to be taken to secure the immediate ending of the disturbance. That is the overall context, for which my hon. Friend asked.

If a police officer reasonably believes that a crowd is so boisterous or drunk that the noise will resume once the police leave, he should be able to close the premises to prevent the disturbance from occurring. The suggested changes would require the police to make two visits. For the reasons that I gave earlier, which relate to the process, that would be an undesirable restriction. Again, it is important to emphasise that the police are not required to close premises for 24 hours. We are talking about circumstances in which the closure might be as short as half an hour at the end of the day. If there is loud noise late at night, the police may want to close the premises at 10, rather than 11.30 pm. The penalty in such circumstances is not significant and not as overwhelming as the example that we were given earlier. Again, there is the power to test the situation later in a magistrates court in the way that I described.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

In a moment.

Amendment No. 92 would require the police to ask the licensee reasonably to reduce or cease the excessive noise causing the disturbance. It is poorly conceived. Hon. Members have failed to appreciate that, at the point of consideration, the premises would be closed and the main consideration would be whether there was a threat of further disturbance if the pub reopened.

I have summarised the Government's arguments on most of the amendments. I am prepared to consider carefully the use of the word ``immediate'' because there is potential for confusion, which I do not want. The other amendments, well motivated as they are, would unduly restrict the police's ability to deal with what could be a serious public order and public safety issue. On those grounds, I hope that Opposition Members will consider withdrawing their amendments.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On the issue of noise, which the Minister has perfectly properly addressed, and cross-related environmental health legislation, I understand that the clause is about licensed premises, but I ask him to try to ensure, through officials and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, that we end up with streamlined processes in both licensed and unlicensed premises. I understand the arguments, but there are good grounds for police action in relation to noise nuisance in unlicensed premises too, just as there may be perfectly proper grounds for environmental health action in relation to licensed premises. That is not a matter for now, but it should be co-ordinated so that legislation can be simply applied, either by local authority officers or by the police.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will take up that point. I will write to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss the situation with them. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that noise is one of my preoccupations. When I am next on the Back Benches I shall initiate private Member's legislation on noise. I seek a peaceful society and hope that we can move forward on that basis.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am sorry that the Minister has not considered the last third of the amendments, including amendment No. 133, which is about a uniformed police officer giving warnings. [Interruption.] I am happy to let the Minister conclude his remarks, but I should like to come back to speak to amendment No. 131. Will I have the chance to catch your eye again, Mr. Gale?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

If the Minister wishes to intervene, he will indicate his intentions.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I dealt with those amendments. We were quick to start after the last vote and I know that the hon. Member for Reigate is preoccupied by hunting.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I apologise. It is entirely my fault for being late.

Having heard the Minister's arguments being deployed gradually to explain the various situations that arise from the use of these powers, I have become more and more appalled. We have listened to discussions on other parts of the Bill where the Minister has seemed with good intentions to be groping towards solutions to disorder problems. However, the powers here represent the worst accretions of the nanny state because they are drawn so widely.

The only licence that the police could oppose at Twickenham, in the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I gave, was the licence in Twickenham itself, which was renewed for each of the events. However, they could not close the pubs outside Twickenham on the assumption that there might be disorder. If 70,000 people are going to Twickenham, the police officer in charge of public safety can make a case that there is likely to be disorder in the vicinity of endless licensed premises on the way to and from the railway stations and in the area of the stadium itself. That is the test. He does not even have to have evidence, but simply a belief.

When the police are charged with public safety at major public events, they will use all the powers available to them. We saw them use them at Twickenham in an extremely unreasonable manner, which led to a vast number of problems. People could not drink inside Twickenham, so they were all displaced to the licensed premises outside, which the police could not touch under current regulations. Huge crowds of people all went into the stadium at the same time for the beginning of the match and they all came out at the end because they could not stay for two hours to have a quiet drink with their mates and then leave. Unwise police action caused a hugely increased public order problem.

Within 24 hours of any major sporting event and any demonstration or potential cause of public disorder, the police will argue that, because some people believe that there are problems, they should shut all the pubs in the vicinity. They can argue that there is the potential for alcohol-related disorders and that it is safest to impose a blanket ban. We are talking about the quality of life of people who want to go to football matches, enjoy a drink beforehand, meet their mates and then go to the match behaving in a thoroughly responsible way. They will not be abusing alcohol because they cannot enter a football stadium in a drunken state—that is already an offence.

The police will use the regulations that are being made available to them to the maximum extent because otherwise people will say that they had powers but had not used them to deal with incidents. Like anyone else, policemen will want to put up an umbrella against being blamed for not having explored all the avenues to stop public disorder. It is not the Minister's intention, but that would be the effect of the provision.

I cannot accept the Minister's blandishments and will not withdraw amendment No. 131, which deals with the vicinity of premises where there is merely a belief that there will be disorder. I will withdraw the amendments requiring evidence rather than belief and dealing with actual public disorder in the vicinity. However, it is completely unacceptable for the police to be able to make a judgment on not evidence but merely belief that there is likely to be disorder—and not even on the premises concerned. I shall press amendment No. 131 to a vote.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

When the Government consulted on licensing reform in their White Paper, their proposal was much more tightly drawn. It would be a mistake to go with such a wide provision, particularly against a background in which officers will be exempt from liability. We want provisions that can close public houses that are rowdy or likely to be rowdy or where, as the Minister said in his letter to the BLRA,

``a fight between drunk and disorderly customers spills out onto the street outside the pub and requires attendance, the fight is directly connected with the pub and would not be happening if the pub were not open and serving alcohol in the immediate vicinity.''

I would go along with that, but the Minister is proposing something far wider. He is saying that disorder that an officer believes is likely in the vicinity does not have to be related to the premises. The Minister is proposing a far wider provision than the one with which he told the industry that he was trying to deal. In his letter, he referred to the immediate vicinity, but is now proposing the vicinity; where the incident had to be directly related to the pub, it does not now have to be connected in any way.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Under section 188 of the Licensing Act 1964 the police can seek an order from magistrates closing specific licensed premises to prevent riot or tumult. The police rarely seek such orders and the Bill would not change that. However, the police would use section 188 of the Licensing Act rather than the provision to close down licensed premises in a wide area.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Minister is proceeding with the legislation because the procedures under section 188 are far more cumbersome. It is not likely that, given a choice, one would choose section 188—one would be likely to choose the procedure in the Bill because it is simpler. The worry is that the Minister is not putting in the protections that are necessary for the licensee, which can be a small business man or a large chain. If a small business man is faced with a bill for a mistake which, in the Minister's own notes, is somewhere between £1,100 and £60,000, the officer is exempt from liability. I accept that officers are, by and large, fantastic at their job but we all know of examples of police officers failing to act as we would hope. An officer could be reckless or negligent and a licensee or small business man could lose between £1,100 and £60,000. There is no protection because the provision is not drawn tightly enough to encourage an officer to be specific enough about what he is doing. It is drawn far too broadly to be successful.

The problem arises because draftsmen are encouraged to provide for a wide range of possibilities, but no one wants police officers who make mistakes to end up in trouble. The breadth of the provision is not an accident or a mistake: it is intentional. At the same time, however, officers are exempted from liability. The balance between the citizen business man and the state therefore becomes skewed. It really will not do.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with my point about the role of the magistrates? Under new section 179A(4)(c), the closure order must

``specify the grounds for the making of the order'',

and under new section 179B(3), the relevant justices have a range of powers to deal with the circumstances. It is not, apart from the first moment, up to the police officer alone; the justices subsequently have to make their judgments. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Of course. The period is a day.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Up to a day.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Well, it can be extended beyond a day in certain circumstances.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

In a moment, but I want to finish my argument. Page 68 of the explanatory notes makes it clear that costs will range from £1,100 to £60,000 for each incident. That is a lot of money.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

What is important is the link between the making of the closure order and the opportunity to get the matter before the magistrate so that it can be reviewed. The purpose of new sections 179A and 179B, as my hon. Friend mentioned, seems to be that as soon as the order has been made or the police officer is minded to make it—that could be a day earlier—the matter should then proceed quickly to the magistrate. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as drafted, the new sections do not achieve that?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My right hon. and learned Friend, with his background and knowledge in this sector, may wish to expand on that argument. The words

``as soon as reasonably practicable''

appear in new section 179B—clearly a wide-ranging formulation. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is a gap in the logic behind it. The extensions that can be granted during emergencies mean that it could be longer than a day before the matter is reviewed.

Exemption of liability means that an officer cannot be held to account by the publican in any circumstances, yet he faces the prospect of a large bill if a mistake is made. This widely drawn provision will allow premises to be closed if a couple of yobs in the road are fighting, even if the fight is wholly unrelated to the premises.

I hoped that the Minister would jump at the opportunities provided by the amendments and would acknowledge that, of course, any trouble should be in the immediate vicinity of the pub. Indeed, those were his words. I fail to understand why he cannot accept that any disorder must relate to the premises because, when he explained his attitude to the industry, he affirmed that disturbances would have to be directly connected with the pub.

I am not suspicious of the Minister's motives. I am sure that he has been advised to act in a certain way and is doing his best to achieve his ends within that advice, but he has not kept faith with the words that he used earlier to describe his intentions. His concession to think further about ``immediate'' was so qualified that he meant that there would be no guarantees of that happening at all. I am sure that the Minister will agree. To dismiss out of hand the idea that the disorder should be related to the premises is not good enough.

We would be happy to withdraw our amendments, save for No. 36, which deals with the immediacy issue, amendment No. 82, which would ensure that the disorder should be related to the premises, and amendment No. 84, which concerns the emission of noise, although I accept that that is not really part of the overall concept of the Bill, which is supposed to deal with public safety and people being put in danger. While irritating, noise is not in that category, but there should be a warning system under the Bill. Given the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's explanation, I am minded to support amendment No. 131 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate because to have the words

``or in the vicinity of''

in the Bill without there being a proper safeguard is unacceptable.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We will happily support the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire in pushing those three amendments to a Division. We shall also support amendment No. 131 tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate. The debate has been fairly wide and we took the view from the beginning that the clause needed to be improved considerably. It would merit from being taken away and redrafted because it is too widely drawn. We always live in hope that, given such non-core issues of national party policy, there might be a little flexibility on the part of the Back Benchers of the governing party and that they may be allowed to exercise some personal discretion and be unwhipped, as our electors always call for us to be. A good example would be set if the Whips were less dominant. We are minded to make strong representations later that the clause could benefit from being discussed with people outside as well as inside the Committee.

As for amendment No. 4, I am reassured by the Minister's remarks that he is willing to consider both the guidance option, which was his proposal but less appealing to us, and the regulation option, which was my proposal and more appealing to us.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Following the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments, I was not aware that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions had conducted a review of the Noise Act 1996. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to the DETR about it.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps he will be kind enough to ask his colleague to let us have sight of that correspondence if it is the type of correspondence that a Government who believe in freedom of information will allow us to see. It will be a mini-test of whether interdepartmental correspondence can see the light of day. We live in hope. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 131, in page 10, line 9, leave out

``, or in the vicinity of,''.—[Mr. Blunt.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 11.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I have two points, both which I hope that you will regard as points of order. I draw your attention and that of the Clerks of the House to an error that my hon. Friends and I believe has crept into the amendment paper, relating to amendments Nos. 18 and 19, to clauses 35 and 37.

In discussion with my hon. Friends this morning, we discovered that, in addition to the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire should also appear. I tabled the amendments, and purely for the sake of completeness, we thought that we should draw the matter to your attention so that that was clear on the amendment paper. We were worried that if our names did not appear, neither my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire nor myself would be able to speak to the amendments. We understood that a similar point arose during consideration of the Hunting Bill, and your counterpart, the Chairman of that Committee, said that as long as the name of a member of the Committee appeared, other hon. Members could speak to the amendment.

My second point of order relates to when, at the last sitting before the short recess, the Minister of State was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. At column 235, on the afternoon of 15 February, when my hon. Friend questioned the Minister on data, evidence and mapping of local authorities, my hon. Friend said:

``It would be interesting to know a little more about this. Could the Minister allow us to see some of this information? Can he make it available over the recess?''

The Minister responded:

``I would be happy to do that.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 February 2001; c. 235.]

As my hon. Friend said, we were all grateful that late yesterday afternoon, on the Members' Board, we finally received the draft guidance from the Minister. However, nothing has come in response to his promise to my hon. Friend at column 235. I thought that we should mention that so that the Minister was aware of it.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

On the first point, the hon. Gentleman's information is entirely correct. As long as one of the names on the amendment paper is that of a member of the Committee, any member of the Committee may speak to an amendment once it has been moved. The hon. Gentleman noticed that both amendments to which he refers have been selected, and considerable time will probably be available between now and when we discuss those amendments for him to ensure that other names are added if he wishes to do so.

On his second point, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the provision of papers and responses offered by a Minister is entirely a matter for the Minister. If the Minister wishes to respond he may of course do so.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I apologise to the Committee for not circulating the response. I had hoped to do so by today. I hope now to be able to do so by the time that we next meet, on Thursday.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. As we have had two, we might as well have a third now, rather than later. Anticipating business here and downstairs later, on the best intelligence that I have as someone with a departmental interest in the Bill downstairs, I ask you to consider before we break at 7.30 pm or 7 pm whether in the time approaching and immediately after 10 pm—which is scheduled for possible votes downstairs, although we do not know whether they will happen—we might ensure that the Committee does not sit.

Under the timetable motion, provision is made for votes at 10 pm. My intelligence is that it is not yet clear whether such votes are likely to be taken. I think that colleagues would be keen to be present at the beginning of the process to inform themselves about a complex set of votes and it would be helpful to have an agreement not to sit at that time.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

My understanding from the usual channels is that the intention is for the Committee to sit from 8.30 pm until 10 pm. That being so, it has always been my custom to suspend the sitting at 7 pm, for the well-being of the officers of the House apart from anything else. We should have a clear hour and a half as a dinner break.

I intend to suspend the Committee, in whatever form it may be, at 7 pm. If that coincides with a Division, it will be a happy circumstance. I shall then suspend the Committee again, as hon. Members would expect, for a Division of the House. If that coincides with 10 o'clock, provided that no hon. Member is on his or her feet, the Government Whip will be able to move the adjournment of the day's sitting.

I hope that that makes the position clear. We shall of course endeavour to accommodate Divisions as best we can, but I am afraid that it is not in my gift to interrupt the Committee's proceedings otherwise to take account of votes, and nor would I wish to do so. The timetable motion on the Floor of the House is one matter and a timetable motion on this Bill is another. It is my happy job to manage the latter rather than the former.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move amendment No. 113, in page 11, line 1, after `order' insert

`or any extension of it'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 85, in page 11, line 1, after `order,' insert `then in force'.

No. 86, in page 11, line 2, after `exceeding', insert

`£6,000 for a first offence; or, for a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding'.

No. 134, in page 11, line 2, leave out `£20,000' and insert `£5,000'.'.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This is essentially a technical amendment. Proposed new section 179A(6) provides that a person who without reasonable excuse permits relevant licensed premises to be open in contravention of a closure order made by a senior police officer shall be guilty of an offence. The Committee will know that under proposed new section 179C, the senior police officer may in certain circumstances extend the closure order for a period not exceeding 24 hours.

It is important that the extent of the offence under proposed new section 179A(6) is clear, and that a breach of the closure order includes any extension of it made under proposed new section 179C(1). The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the position for those people on whom closure orders are served, for the police required to enforce the law and for the courts when an alleged offender is brought before them. If the legislative scheme is to work sensibly when there is no reasonable excuse, contraventions of a closure order or any extensions of it should be offences. That is the meaning of the amendment.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Government amendment seems to be a sensible clarification in relation to offences committed during the period of the order or an extension to it. I do not need to spend long on that.

Amendment No. 85 is intended to provide clarification. The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association wanted it to be made clear that the closure order would have to be in force at the time that the breach occurred. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the current wording means that the closure order is in force, and not that it would not be acceptable if another situation arose?

Amendment No. 86 raises a more substantial issue. Proposed new section 179A(6) states:

``A person who, without reasonable excuse, permits relevant licensed premises to be open in contravention of a closure order shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £20,000''.

The amendment would reduce that to £6,000 for a first offence. If orders are to be made without the legal requirement for warning to have been given, should the maximum fine be as high as the provision suggests?

If the Government had listened during previous debates, and the Bill contained the sort of protections that we wanted, that would be a different matter. If closure orders can be made when no warning has been given, one can imagine situations in which such a high maximum fine would not be appropriate. I do not need to remind the Committee of the costs that could be imposed on the industry as a result of orders that were made without any failing on the part of the landlord or the staff of the premises. The costs to industry overall are given as £1.1 million to £60 million, which shows that the Government do not have confidence about what the true figure would be. As for innocent closures, the costs nationwide are estimated at £16,500 to £900,000. The Government are about to issue guidance to the police on the issue and should be able carefully to set the parameters of the law. It sums up their half-baked approach that they are not able even to give a decent estimate—a ballpark figure—of the costs that could be imposed on industry. Given that innocent traders could be disadvantaged by the measures, the maximum for a first offence should be lower, to reflect the fact that the person concerned may have received no warning.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I want to speak to amendment No. 134, which would reduce the fine of £20,000 to £5,000. Many of the aims of my amendment would be met by amendment No. 86. The scale of punishments should be related back to what the Minister told us about the purpose of the Bill, which is about disorder. Its purpose is not to punish licensees, he told us—yet the punishments in the clause are pretty savage by any standard. In relation to the fine scales 1 to 5, three months' imprisonment equates to a much lower punishment than the £20,000 in the Bill.

We have just debated the circumstances in which closure orders might be made; they are likely to be highly controversial, and the powers of the police may be extended further than they should be. Given that the Bill contains no requirement for a warning to licensees, those with large premises, especially on the first occasion on which they are subjected to such an order, may find that they are in breach simply because someone is serving a drink around the corner, on another part of their premises. Licensees would then have committed a technical breach and be liable to a fine of £20,000 or three months' imprisonment. That is much too severe.

It is different if licensees make commercial judgments and reason that they will lose £60,000 if they shut so decide that they will remain open, take the profit and pay the £20,000 fine. If they make that judgment, it would be proper for the magistrates to consider imprisonment rather than the fine; people should not be offered the opportunity to make commercial judgments under the provisions. However, the size of the fine does not need to be racked up to give licensees a commercial incentive to obey the police and to close. Instead of giving such licensees the fine, which is the option that they want, we should give them a short salutary lesson at Her Majesty's pleasure, which is the option that they do not want. That would be a proper decision for the magistrates to take. The fine should be much lower than the £20,000 maximum.

I take the point made by my hon. Friend that the fine could be £6,000 for a first offence. That would meet my concerns. If my he presses his amendment to a vote, I shall certainly not press mine.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Government amendment is entirely unexceptional and, therefore, acceptable. The other amendments raise an important set of issues relating to how to deal with any failure to comply with the order. It is necessary to ensure that where an order has been breached there is a strict statement of the legal consequences. The result of such a breach should be made clear. The Bill currently proposes the options of a fine of up to £20,000 or a prison term of up to three months. This is one of those difficult situations in which one tries to provide the envelope, but one should consider what the sentencing guidelines are likely to be. For a first offence, a prison sentence would clearly be inappropriate. Any logical sentencing policy would consider a fine under such circumstances.

It could be argued that the level of the fine should be entirely up to the magistrates, leaving them to take into account issues such as the turnover of the establishment, whether it is owned privately or by an individual or whether it is part of a national chain and so on. Nevertheless, there is a strong argument for having a first offence provision at a lower level than the maximum penalty of £20,000 set out in the Bill. As the Minister said in another context, there is no theology about the matter and there is no obvious answer. One should take appropriate considerations into account, particularly when one is fining the corporate owner of a business.

I would like to link that to another type of offence for which owners of premises are fined and punished—breaches of health and safety law. Generally speaking, such breaches are of one of two sorts. They can take the form of lack of cleanliness and that sort of thing, or they can occur when somebody running some premises fails to comply with the requirements in such a way as to render those premises unsafe.

We must ensure that we get these matters in perspective. I have long supported the creation of an offence of corporate manslaughter. The Government intend to legislate on that, but sadly they have not yet done so. I have always felt that the maximum penalties for many of the breaches of health and safety legislation are too low. When somebody's life has been put at risk or indeed lost, as a result of a failure to have proper scaffolding, or proper control of building sites or vessels—in the case of the Herald of Free Enterprise, for example—the maximum penalties are often too low. It would be inappropriate to have a very high maximum level set for the sort of offence covered by the clause, but a much lower level for offences such as those I have just described.

I cannot remember exactly, but my recollection is that the maximum penalties are still extremely low for breaches of the law that risk people's lives and their physical well-being in a way that is much more direct than the offences under discussion. All I ask is that we do not jump to a conclusion, plucked off the shelf because it sounds tough, without taking into account the logical sequence of punishment—first offence and thereafter. The tariff for a first offence should be reasonable. If the Minister cannot supply the Committee with the data now, I would like someone to examine the comparative fines for such health and safety breaches, which are the sort of penalties for which publicans or owners of pubs could be liable, and tell the Committee what they are.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not really accept a number of the propositions that have been advanced. First, I will deal with the concern of the hon. Member for Reigate about penalising the licensee. Proposed new section 179B(5) states:

``A person who, without reasonable excuse, permits relevant licensed premises to be open in contravention of an order...shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable''.

The provision does not concern a person who has had his premises closed. This is not somebody in whose case an issue has been raised or a judgment taken and whose premises have been closed. The provision concerns people who, without reasonable excuse, keep their premises open in contravention of a closure order. That is a quite different state of affairs. The suggestion that the measure in some way penalises legitimate licensees is false, and it does not contradict the argument that I sought to make earlier. There is no suggestion that it is an offence for licensees to have their premises closed; the penalty is for contravening an order.

With respect to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, similar points arise on health and safety. Such offences are the result of people not having kept their premises in appropriate order under health and safety law and whatever other legislation might apply. Again, it is not necessarily in contravention of the specific order of a police officer—or, indeed, of a magistrate—but is the result of the general conduct of managing the premises.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I shall give an example because, as the Minister said, he is interested in noise. If, under proposed new section 179A(1)(c), a disturbance is being caused to the public by excessive noise, no warning will have been given because the Minister refuses to make it part of the law. The constable who attends—it will not be the senior police officer who made the decision—will hand a piece of paper to the landlord and say, ``Your noise level is too high. We're closing the place.'' The Minister may say that is an extreme example, but one can imagine that there might be a certain amount of argument between the publican and the police officer about the level of noise. The publican may want to speak to his lawyer and will disappear to use the telephone. Meanwhile, the premises will remain open after service of the notice.

The Bill is strict as regards the publican, because 179A(5) states:

``A closure order comes into force as soon as notice of the order is given by a constable to...the holder of the justices' licence''.

If the publican spends half an hour taking legal advice, is the Minister saying that he should face a fine for a first offence that does not exceed £20,000? That levers up the level of fine that will be imposed.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall come to that when dealing with the amendments. I was trying to make a general point. It should not be controversial to a lawyer to suggest that if someone does not go along with a legally made order, there is a problem. No one is suggesting that those who go along with such orders should face such a penalty; the penalties apply only to those who do not obey them. Is the hon. Gentleman asking whether it is a reasonable excuse for a publican to want to consult his lawyer? I do not know whether that would be regarded as a reasonable excuse. However, it is important that we should support the authority of the police and the magistrates courts in such circumstances. The sort of commercial judgments that he is talking about will be made a few days down the line. I do not accept that a penalty that includes the possibility of imprisonment for someone deliberately contravening an order is the same as penalising a licensee by closing premises in the circumstances that we spoke about earlier. That is the only point that I am trying to make.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I completely understand that point. If it was not clear, I was seeking to draw a parallel with similar circumstances in relation to other legislation under which orders can be served. They can be served by environmental health officers, the Health and Safety Executive and others. I want to be sure of comparability between the penalties for people who do not comply with an order, whether on health, safety or other grounds.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That is a fair point, and I shall address it when speaking to the amendments. I wanted to highlight the difference between the penalty for not going along with an order and having one's premises closed.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

That was my concern. The Minister seemed to imply that I was suggesting that that was not the case. I understand exactly what is in the Bill. I was saying that because of the wide way in which the powers have been drawn, the serving of a closure notice is likely to be controversial. The publican may be instantly guilty of the offence, but he may need some time to be convinced of the merits of the case. Because some licensees may not be aware of the exact nature of the law in this area, a fine for a first offence of £20,000 is wholly inappropriate.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that we do not have a misunderstanding. I needed to clear the matter up because he said that it was a demonstration of his earlier point that the general powers represented a penalisation of the licensee, which is not the case.

I am grateful for the comments made by both Government and Opposition Members on Government amendment No. 113. The point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire about amendment No. 85 is broadly correct. The amendment is designed to make it clear that an offence is committed only if the closure order is in force and has not been revoked by the justices. The additional words introduced by the amendment are unnecessary, as there will be no order to breach in the first place if the order is not in force. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the clarity that he seeks.

As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 86 covers a more serious point, as it would reduce the maximum penalty for a first offence from £20,000 to £6,000. Amendment No. 134 would reduce the maximum penalty to £5,000, so there is a relatively marginal distinction between the two. If someone reopens licensed premises in contravention of a closure order, it is for the court that has convicted him or her to decide on the appropriate sentence. That is how our legal system works. However, we believe that the court should be able to consider a fine of £20,000 in the most serious cases.

There are two reasons why we suggest that figure. First, breach of an order could place public safety at risk. Let us recall that the reason for the order in the first place is concern for public safety, as magistrates can impose an order only if they believe that public safety is at risk. The gravity of the risk is already recognised in the law. Someone who breaches a condition of a public entertainment licence, which imposes a safe capacity limit on admission, is liable to a maximum fine of £20,000. That is the sort of direct comparison that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wanted. The same penalty of £20,000 may be applied where a fire authority's safety requirement on premises is flouted. Breach of a closure order, with its implications for public safety, is of the same category, which is why we picked a figure broadly similar to that used in other aspects of law.

The second point is that if a licensee believes that he is likely to lose his licence, because the circumstances of the closure could reflect badly on him in the subsequent review of the licence by the licensing justices under new section 179E of the Licensing Act 1964, he might think that he might as well open for business while he can and make as much money as possible. In the case of a large establishment, that could well exceed the figures of £5,000 or £6,000 suggested in the amendments. For the worst cases, the deterrent has to be substantial.

I acknowledge a point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which was that, as with all such matters, the establishment of a top limit on sentencing guidelines and their operation are matters for the discretion of the court. As a non-lawyer, I sometimes wish that courts did not have such discretions, but that is the system that we operate. We must decide as a Committee, and the House must decide on Report, whether £20,000 is unreasonable. The comparisons that I have made are reasonable, and if someone were intent on flouting the law, a maximum of £5,000 or £6,000, as in the amendments, would be too low. I hope that the hon. Members for Reigate and for North-East Hertfordshire will reconsider and not press their amendments to a vote.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am still not entirely happy with the Minister's reply, but I would like to give further thought to his remarks and perhaps return to the subject on Report. I shall therefore withdraw my amendment.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Likewise, I support my hon. Friend in giving further consideration to the matter, so I, too, shall withdraw my amendment.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

May I gently remind the Committee that it is not possible to withdraw an amendment that has not been moved? In each group of amendments, only the lead amendment is initially moved. All others are taken, if moved, in the order that they arise in the amendment paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 11, line 1, after `liable', insert `on summary conviction'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 41, in page 11, line 1, after `liable', insert `on conviction on indictment'.

No. 42, in page 11, line 36, after `liable', insert `on summary conviction'.

No. 43, in page 11, line 36, after `liable', insert `on conviction on indictment'.

No. 44, in page 11, line 42, after `liable', insert `on summary conviction'.

No. 45, in page 11, line 42, after `liable', insert `on conviction on indictment'.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I shall be brief. We would be interested to hear the Minister's response to the amendments, which are exploratory. They are designed to ensure that we are right to think that all the offences will be dealt with by the magistrates court.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I simply say that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is correct. The amendments are unnecessary, as the Licensing Act 1964 already provides that all offences under that Act are required to be tried summarily in magistrates courts. Section 194(1) of the Act makes that absolutely clear, so the amendments are unnecessary. I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw them.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 11, line 9, after `practicable', insert

`provided that the person given notice of the closure order has been given 3 hours' notice to appear before them'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 88, in page 11, line 11, at end insert—

`( ) The person given notice of the closure order and the holder of the licence (if different) shall be entitled to be heard upon the justices' consideration in accordance with subsection (2) whether to exercise their powers under subsection (3) of this section.'.

No. 89, in page 11, leave out lines 18 and 19.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The amendments are designed to ensure that the licensee and the person on whom the notice of closure is served have an adequate opportunity to be heard by the court. The effect of amendment No. 87 is that, where the clause says that the justices shall,

``as soon as reasonably practicable, consider whether to exercise their powers'',

at which point the three options are available to them, the person who has been given notice of the order should have at least three hours to appear before them, so that he can, however briefly, consider his position.

The BLRA supports the principle that reasonable notice should precede any further action leading to statutory closure, with its consequences. That matter could be dealt with either by guidance or by amendment, but the Minister should tell us what he has in mind to ensure that the licensee or person served with the notice has an opportunity to be heard and set forward his views.

The same applies to amendment No. 88. Under subsection (3), a closure order will be brought before the magistrates and they may take one of the three courses of action: revocation, ordering the premises to remain closed until a decision has been taken by the licensing justices or making any other order in relation to the premises. That amendment would give the licence holder or manager of licensed premises the right to have his opinion heard during such consideration.

Amendment No. 89 is slightly different, because it would remove the third option. In other words, the magistrates would be able either to revoke the order or to order that the premises were to remain closed, but they would not be able to

``make any other order as they think fit in relation to the premises''.

This is a probing amendment, because we would like to know what that provision means. We hope that the Minister can explain to us what sort of orders he has in mind under paragraph (c). So the purport of the amendments is to allow a right to be heard, and to find out what the Minister has in mind under paragraph (c).

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

First, Mr. Gale, I apologise for not being able to be present this morning. I was attending the Standards and Privileges Committee, and I cannot be in two places at once.

These are important probing amendments—indeed, I think that they go a little further than that, because amendments Nos. 87 and 88 insert important rights. I hope that there is common ground between us and the Minister on the principle; we must decide whether we have fulfilled it. Are we to make a substantial jump from the current position under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, whereby if the police anticipate a riot, they can apply to the magistrates court for closure orders? As the Minister said earlier, we know that in practice they do not do so. They are now being given powers under which they can close licensed premises not at a whim, but subject to the light test that they reasonably believe that such a closure would be in the interests of public safety.

We must get the balance right, first, so that the police are not tempted to use such powers too freely or lightly and, secondly, to ensure that when they wish to use them—they may be right to do so—at least the licensee has an opportunity, promptly and preferably before the closure order comes into effect, to have the matter heard and decided by a magistrates court. Unless we have that opportunity, such a power could become very oppressive.

The position will be worse than that because, when an oppressive power is used unwisely, it gets a bad name and the police who, by and large, receive the respect and co-operation of the majority of the British public and licensees will then suddenly find that the licensees in the vicinity regard them differently. A good example was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate when he referred to the roads that presumably lead to Twickenham. If pubs in that or any other area that people habitually visit are suddenly closed for periods at the order of the police, notices will go up in the pubs saying, ``I am sorry that we were closed, but the police insisted on doing so. Such action was not reasonable.'' As a result, respect for the police will be reduced, and the common objective of law and order, which is a proportionate and sensible exercise of power and, consequently, the maintenance of policing by consent will be weakened.

Amendment No. 87 would provide that a pub owner was given at least three hours' notice of the fact that the case was to appear before the magistrates court. It is obviously desirable to achieve that in practice. Likewise, I hope that the Minister will agree that it is essential that the pub owner has the right to be heard before a court before such powers are exercised, as set out in amendment No. 88. Indeed, the European convention on human rights would require that that was so, given that the use of his property was being interfered with.

I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said in relation to leaving out subsection (3)(c), when he asked the meaning of

``make any other order as they think fit in relation to the premises''.

Is such a formulation common in such legislation? I confess that, to me, it is novel rigmarole, although one usually finds that there is a precedent for almost everything. Whether or not there is a precedent for such a measure, such a provision seems extraordinarily wide. I assume that it would have to be construed sui generis— if we are still allowed to use the Latin term—in a manner that is akin to the overall meaning of the clause. For example, would magistrates be entitled to make an order saying that, although the premises could remain open, the landlord should not be entitled to sell more than one pint of beer to each customer in a 24-hour period? That would no doubt reduce rowdyism, although it might cause dissatisfaction among larger beer drinkers. Could an order be made saying that the premises were to be re-designed, for example, to keep certain doors locked or to provide partitions between the saloon bar and the family bar? Could such orders be made if they could in some way be related to the question of law and order? The provision seems extremely wide, and we are right to probe it. I look forward to the Minister's answers.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 on one hand and 89 on the other raise qualitatively different points for discussion. Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 concern the court procedures before the relevant justices in new section 179B. Amendment No. 87 would prevent the proceedings before the relevant justices taking place unless the person served with a closure order had been given three hours' notice. Amendment No. 88 would give that person and the holder of the justices' licence, if different, the right to make representations to the justices during the hearing. Both amendments reflect anxieties in the licensed trade that there are no procedures in the Bill requiring that licensees be notified of the hearing before the relevant justices or that they should have a right to make representations to the court on the issue of closure. I think that Opposition Members will accept that the amendments are unnecessary. The relevant justices at the initial hearing will operate according to normal magistrates court procedures and human rights law. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for referring to that.

There is no doubt that the licensee or manager served with a closure order will be notified by the court about the time and place of the hearing, will have a right to appear before the justices if he or she wants to do so and will be able to be legally represented and to make representations to the justices. We are concerned that the proceedings should take place as quickly as possible, which is why a single justice will suffice and the best and swiftest means of notifying the licensee will be left to the court to decide. That will allow the court maximum flexibility and will cut the need for any police extensions and put the matter in the justices' hands as quickly as possible.

The process and the flexibility that it entails are entirely in the best interests of the licensed trade. Although I understand the concerns raised about what may or may not be in the Bill, I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the trade will accept that the provisions that are already there for the operation of magistrates courts and the Human Rights Act 1998 provide the security that is warranted.

New section 179F(5) is a failsafe device intended to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations on procedural matters if any justifiable concerns arose about the practices adopted by the courts or if the courts considered that they needed additional and exceptional procedures to be set down. However, I do not expect such regulations to be needed. As I said, I am confident that the courts will establish fair proceedings in this context. I have addressed amendments Nos. 87 and 88 and will now address amendment No. 89.

Mr. Hawkins rose—

Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I give way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

If necessary, I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary beer group, in which the hon. Member for Selby has also played a part.

I have listened carefully to all that the Minister has said. Given that the vehicle chosen by the Government in this part of the Bill is to amend the primary Act—the Licensing Act 1964—which affects the whole licensed trade, does he not accept that that is an extra reason why the licensed trade would like the safeguards to be in the Bill? If it becomes law, it will be a revised version of the major piece of licensing legislation. We are talking not just about this Bill, but about the fact that it affects the primary Act. That is why it would be helpful for the safeguards to be in the Bill, even though the Minister is trying to reassure us by saying that general magistrates court procedures will apply. The Government have changed quite a lot about the way in which magistrates courts operate, so I can understand the concern of the licensed trade.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not accept that. Magistrates courts work in a way that is well established. The Human Rights Act provides important defences and I believe that the process will be absolutely clear. The requirements that anyone might have for the rights of audience are there in an effective way.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

We are focusing on amendments that suggest that the licensees should be given a certain amount of notice when the matter is taken to the court. Could the Minister slot that into the overall framework of how he sees this working? I think that he would agree that it is more desirable that the police officer should give notice of his intention to impose a closure order, which I think that he can, for, let us say, the following day and should give an opportunity for the matter to be heard before a magistrate later that day. Is that the correct framework, or is it as cumbersome as it seems and must he give the closure order that day and then rush round to the magistrates when the matter has already been closed? I may have missed something as I had to be absent, but could the Minister explain?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. We debated this matter at some length while he was away during this afternoon's sitting. I understand that he was at the Standards and Privileges Committee during the morning sitting. I simply repeat that my expectation is that, in accordance with widespread practice, the police will give warnings and magistrates will operate as rapidly as possible; that is the explanation for the phrasing. I believe that the process will provide all the security that any licensee would want.

I shall repeat an argument that I made a moment ago for the sake of emphasis. We all try to follow Winston Churchill's example and we repeat things to emphasise them, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said this morning. We believe that there is a virtue in flexibility to get the hearings in front of magistrates as rapidly as possible. It is in the interests of both the police and the licensee.

Amendment No. 89 would take away from the relevant justices the ability, when considering a closure order made by a senior police officer, to do anything other than revoke or extend the order. The City of Westminster Act 1996 is a model for the clauses on the closure of unlicensed premises. The Bill as published gives the justices an additional option to make any other order as they think fit in relation to the licensed premises that have been closed. The amendment would remove that additional option.

We think that it is sensible to ensure as much flexibility as possible. Cases may arise in which premises have been quite correctly closed, but where it would be safe and acceptable for the justices to allow them to reopen provided that some precaution was taken to avoid an early repetition of the problem that prompted the closure. Let us suppose that there has been a large fight between two groups of sports fans in a pub displaying a slogan that one group finds provocative. The justices might take the view that the pub should remove the slogan, and be able to reopen if it did so. That was the kind of example given by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire a moment ago. If the justices could only revoke or extend the closure order they might feel obliged to keep the pub closed, whereas a relatively simple act would ensure that the pub could open.

Another example of a situation where an order might be made under subsection (3)(c) might be where the justices wanted to maintain the closure order but not until the next licensing sessions and only until after the next weekend. Again, flexibility is the order of the day. Those examples show why the flexibility that the amendment would remove is necessary to avoid doing unnecessary damage to business.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am not aware of any representations that this power would be useful. Has anyone suggested to the Minister that this would be useful? Has he consulted the stipendiary magistrates about this?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not have to hand the specific representations on that point, but the general point that comes from magistrates and the discussions that we have had on this issue is the need to operate as flexibly as possible so that everyone can work to get normal business resumed as rapidly as possible. There is always a danger in flexibility. Powers might seem overweening in certain circumstances and that is what the hon. Gentleman is understandably trying to probe in his amendment.

I appreciate that giving justices the power to make whatever order they think fit may appear wide, but the range of circumstances that could lead to the making of a closure order is itself wide and it would not be sensible to hedge the justices' powers at the review stage. In fact, the power is not as open-ended as it appears at first sight. In context, it should be understood as a qualification of the power to order an extension to a closure order, not as an addition to that power.

The options are straightforward. Either we say that justices have the power to revoke the order and extension of it, or to order the relevant licensed premises to remain closed until the licensing justices deal with relevant matters; or we say that there is room for flexibility. We could try to circumscribe flexibility further by providing a tighter wording than

``make any other order as they think fit'',

but it is difficult to predict what circumstances will apply. I see no evidence that justices—I emphasise that we are talking about justices, not the police—would abuse this power, which could help to resolve difficult situations in the interests of the licensed industry and the safety of the community as a whole.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Is the Minister saying that paragraph (c) means that the magistrates can make a conditional revocation of the order, and that premises must remain closed under paragraph (b) unless certain actions are complied with? Is that the case?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Those are good examples of the way in which matters may operate. They exemplify the sort of flexibility that we want to encourage.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Minister says that they are good examples, but might not other circumstances be relevant? He has confirmed the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire that paragraph (c) must be read as sui generis in relation to paragraphs (b) and (c). We have heard that conditions of revocation could apply and that paragraph (b) provides an ``unless'' provision: is that it, or might there be other examples out there?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have given several examples. The hon. Gentleman could have tabled an amendment to specify different types of qualification, but his amendment would effectively confine matters to paragraphs (a) and (b), which might unduly restrict the flexibility that justices could use in the interests of business and the community. I could understand it if, instead of paragraph (c), the hon. Gentleman wanted paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) to provide justices with a more specific range of options, albeit less flexible than the current position. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that justices would abuse this wide power and damage the industry, the licensee and the business, I simply do not accept that.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will withdraw the amendment.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Before my hon. Friend responds to the request to withdraw, I want to make two quick points. First, on proper notice and the right to be heard, I have anxieties about the notion that the European convention on human rights will prescribe such and such, so it need not be written into legislation. My understanding is that our legislation should comply with it, not that our obligations under the convention should substitute for correctly drawn legislation. Will the Minister deal with that point?

Secondly, I am worried about the flexibility in paragraph (c). It is tempting to say that flexibility is always a good idea, but sometimes flexibility can be astonishingly wide. I was interested to hear about the City of Westminster Act 1996, which was passed for the benefit of one London borough out of the whole of England and Wales and possibly the whole of the United Kingdom. That is a pretty small tail to wag the national dog. It may be that that Bill was not scrutinised as closely as it should have been.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Was that in any way the result of the conduct of the Government of the day?

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

It might well have been. I was a member of that Government and I was also responsible for the quality of legislation in theory—wonderful theory. I may have failed to notice that clause slipping into a Bill that in theory I should have scrutinised. If I am prepared to say mea culpa, the Minister should be all the more ready to accept it as a good reason for not pressing ahead with something about which I now have considerable doubts. I am inclined to suggest to my hon. Friend that we should vote against it unless we get a really sensible reason for such a broad brush extension.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Starting with the procedural matters, in a way under our present regime it is for the Minister to say what his intention is; I hate to mention Pepper v. Hart, but I suppose I should. The courts can always look to see what his intention was. We are then in that happy position of having a more satisfactory law. I share my right hon. and learned Friend's concern that it is never as good to have law that has holes in it and a Minister's assurances about it as to have the right law. [Interruption.] I notice the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) saying that this is slightly repetitive, but it is a point that I shall continue to make, as there is bad drafting.

The Minister has the ability to deal with the matter by regulation under proposed new section 179F(5), but why is he not prepared to write it into the Bill? Does he feel that these procedural matters should be dealt with in secondary legislation? Although these protections are contained in the European convention on human rights, the obligation is for them to be expressed in our law, which may happen only when future regulations are made. Could the Minister consider between now and Report stage whether he could write a little more assurance into the Bill, or alternatively, produce some draft regulations that we could consider? Those regulations might satisfy us on the procedural aspects. One thing is certain: if there is not proper notice and a proper right to be heard, all the prosecutors will end up having considerable time in court at the public expense. We do not want that. We want to get it right.

I share the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire about amendment No. 89 and the Minister's response to it. It is not a procedural matter. It is more important, and concerns the nature of the order that the justices can make. All we needed was for the Minister to have been prepared to nail his colours to the mast and say, ``Yes, what I mean here is that a revocation order can have conditions attached to it and an order for the premises to remain closed can be an unless order.'' That is all we seek with our proposal to delete paragraph (c). However, the Minister kept on using the word ``examples''. He was not specific. That is what worries me. I want precision, not the handing out of wide powers that no one is nailed down to.

Unless the Minister is prepared to help by giving a cast-iron assurance that paragraph (c) means what I have suggested it means, we will have to press amendment No. 89 to a vote. However, I would be prepared to give further consideration to amendments Nos. 87 and 88, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 89, in page 11, leave out lines 18 and 19.—[Mr. Heald.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 12, line 19, after `a', insert `single'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 91, in page 12, line 21, leave out `previous' and insert `initial'.

No. 93, in page 12, line 42, after `given', insert `8 hours'.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 are a pair and are designed to ensure that the police would not be able to close premises for more than 48 hours without the intervention of the justices. Allowing a single extension of a further 24 hours would mean that the closure order could last for a maximum of 48 hours on the say-so of the senior police officer, and within that period the matter would have to be considered by the justices. We consider a period of 48 hours—which is longer than was originally proposed in the licensing White Paper—to be reasonable because we realise that in certain circumstances it is simply not possible for a hearing to take place in 24 hours. However, we are concerned that a period of more than 48 hours would raise the question whether the procedures respect the right of the individual to a fair trial and protection of property. In that context, we ask the Minister to accept that there should be certainty in respect of the initial period of closure. Allowing repeat extensions is simply not acceptable.

Amendment No. 93 would require that eight hours' notice be given. Licensees would thereby be given reasonable notice regarding whether their premises are to remain subject to a closure order. If no such notice is given, they will be left in limbo in respect of reopening arrangements, which would be unfair to them and their employees.

The amendments would limit the period of extension to 48 hours and provide a proper period of notice.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am very sympathetic to the proposals. It is important to have a limit on the closure that can result from the actions of the police. It is reasonable that there should be a second 24-hour period, which the amendment would permit, but not reasonable that the matter should not go before a court for determination after that. I hope that the Minister is sympathetic.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Subsections (1) and (2) of new section 179B clarify the responsibility of everyone to ensure that the relevant hearings take place as quickly as possible, and that is the climate in which we are discussing the amendments.

Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 would prevent the police from making more than one extension of the closure order when the relevant justices were unable to hear the matter. New section 179C permits the responsible senior police officer to extend a closure order for up to 24 hours in the circumstances described. However, under new section 179B(1), the senior police officer is under a duty to apply to the relevant justices

``as soon as reasonably practicable''.

New section 179B(2) places the same duty on the justices. It would be rare, but not impossible, that the police need to exercise their powers under new section 179C more than once.

We cannot foresee every difficulty that might arise for the courts, particularly around national holidays and when, for example, a justice who has undertaken to make himself available falls ill. If circumstances arose in which the police believed that the premises being open would constitute a danger to public safety--police judgment on danger to public safety underlies all those circumstances--it would be wrong if they could not act to deal with that danger by continuing the closure pending efforts by the courts to overcome their difficulties. I agree with the thrust of what is being said on amendments Nos. 90 and 91—that cases should be dealt with without the need for an extension and certainly not more than one—but we cannot exclude the possibility that it may be necessary.

I understand the anxiety of the licensed trade that the police might use their powers to extend closure orders repeatedly without court involvement, and I have discussed that on several occasions with people in the trade, but I simply do not accept that that will happen. The tests that the senior police officer must meet under new section 179C do not represent a simple hurdle and the duties on the police and the justices will ensure that the matter proceeds speedily to a resolution. However, it is not reasonable to exclude the possibility of exceptional circumstances such as holidays, illness and so on. I urge the Committee to resist amendments Nos. 90 and 91.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Given the potential dangers and the amount of money involved when premises are closed for one day--it is obviously twice as much if they are closed for two days--does the Minister agree that some finality is necessary? He may not agree that 48 hours is appropriate, but is he prepared to consider a mechanism to ensure that it is not open-ended, as it is at present, and that there is some pressure to achieve finality?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman accepts that it might be foolhardy simply to state in the amendment that one extension is enough, and by the same token, I cannot accept his fundamental point. If we are not careful, we might set up a process on a narrow point and use a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. The central point is public safety, and if there were a real risk of justices being unable to make a judgment for a long time and that new section 179B(1) and (2) would be flouted, I would accept what he says, but we are discussing exceptional circumstances, and to create a specific process to deal with such circumstances would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My understanding is that, in emergencies, magistrates are always ready, as are judges, to sit during the night and at weekends. Indeed, the police sometimes request them to sit or visit them at home to obtain a warrant and so on. I cannot envisage circumstances in which it would not be possible for a court to determine the matter within 48 hours. I therefore ask the Minister to think again.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman, in his way, is making my point for me. I agree that the matter will be addressed by the way in which magistrates courts operate in such circumstances. However, including a specific time period would not help to resolve the situation. The hon. Gentleman may disagree—in which case he must decide what to do—but I do not think that the problem will arise.

Amendment No. 93 would require the police to extend closure orders under the terms of new section 179C at least eight hours before the end of the original period of closure. That is an unnecessary constraint. The purpose of new section 179C is to provide for extensions only where the necessary conditions in subsection (2) are met and the relevant justices will be unable to hear the matter within the period of the original order. It requires the police to reassess the situation within the period of the original order. That is in the interests of the licensed trade. No automatic extension is permitted—there must be an on-going threat to public safety if closure is to continue.

The amendment would mean that if the police made a closure order at 10 pm on a Friday night and required the pub to be closed until noon the next day—a period of 14 hours, and not an unimaginable state of affairs—the senior police officer would need to know the likelihood of the court hearing the matter before 4 am: that is, eight hours before noon. If by 3.45 am—15 minutes before the eight hours had expired—he could not be confident of the matter being heard before noon on Saturday, he would need to begin his reassessment. That is neither sensible nor desirable. It is preferable that the extension powers are used only where absolutely necessary, so that the matter is turned over to the courts at the first opportunity, without the need for further police intervention.

Another effect of the amendment would be that any closure order made for less than eight hours in the first instance could not be renewed. That would put police officers under unnecessary pressure to issue closure orders for more than eight hours in the first instance. For example, it may be desirable to close a pub from half-time in a local derby game—from, say, 8.15 pm to midnight—to deal with the situation there and then, but if the eight-hour requirement applied, the police would be under pressure to enforce a 24-hour closure and move it much further forward, which would not be in the interests of the licensing industry.

I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will, on consideration, withdraw the amendment.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am not certain that I should, although I am prepared to find out whether the Minister will help us a little more.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is correct to say that nowadays courts do not work on the basis that they once did, when there had to be long delays before matters came to court. Courts are prepared to act swiftly. I am concerned that the Minister is not prepared to give any ground on the matter. Forty-eight hours is a long enough period to wait before the matter comes before a magistrate. I cannot envisage any circumstances, especially now that we have large amalgamated benches—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

What would be the hon. Gentleman's view if a licensee could not make the hearing and asked for an extension?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The licensee should make sure that he is there. The Minister will have noticed that my proposal was not over-generous to licensees—I said that they should have three hours' notice to attend. I am not saying that what is sauce for the goose should not be sauce for the gander. Forty-eight hours is a considerable period in our modern world of communications, when one can send messages around the globe in seconds. Magistrates are much more available than they used to be, and the Minister and his colleagues are in a position to ensure that they are available in such circumstances.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

What does the hon. Gentleman think that the police should do if they believe that there is a risk to public safety?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I believe that magistrates would be able to meet the 48-hour requirement. If the Minister had some evidence that they could not—because the Lord Chancellor's Department had told him so or the police had said to him, ``We couldn't manage it in 48 hours''—he would have a point. However, he is not claiming that, and nor is he claiming that, for example, the Magistrates Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers or the Police Federation have expressed concerns.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am not saying any of those things. I am simply asking what the hon. Gentleman thinks should happen if, on securing the limit, a public safety problem arises for whatever reason.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My concern is to ensure that that question need not be asked.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.