Licensing Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 1 April 2003.

Standing Committee D

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Standing Committee on the Licensing Bill. I have a couple of housekeeping announcements to make. While I am in the Chair, hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish to do so. I cannot speak for Mr. Benton. Members of the Committee will have to wait to hear what he says on the subject. Having wiled away the winter on the Communications Bill with the Minister and one or two others who are present today, we now seem set fair to see out the spring with this Bill. All being well, however, we shall be out of Committee to see some of the summer. That brings us neatly to the programme resolution.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Licensing Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee do meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8.55 am and at 2.30 pm, except that on Thursday 3rd April the Committee shall not meet at 2.30 pm and on Thursday 1st May the Committee shall not meet;

(2) 18 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clause 1, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 2 to 5, Clause 179, Clauses 6 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 111, Schedule 4, Clauses 112 to 178, Schedule 5, Clauses 180 to 198, Schedules 6 to 8, New Clauses, New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(4) the proceedings on Clause 1, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 2 to 5 and Clause 179 shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Thursday 3rd April;

(5) the proceedings on Clauses 6 to 9, Schedule 3 and Clauses 10 to 46 shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5 pm on Thursday 10th April;

(6) the proceedings on Clauses 47 to 59 shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Tuesday 29th April;

(7) the proceedings on Clauses 60 to 95 shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Tuesday 6th May;

(8) the proceedings on Clauses 96 to 111, Schedule 4 and Clauses 112 to 142 shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Tuesday 13th May;

(9) the proceedings on Clauses 143 to 174 shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Thursday 15th May;

(10) the proceedings on Clauses 175 to 178, Schedule 5, Clauses 180 to 198, Schedules 6 to 8, New Clauses, New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Tuesday 20th May.

It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Gale, to serve on another Committee under your chairmanship. You are a fine Chairman. I am not sure that all members of the Committee will necessarily have such affectionate memories as I do of the way in which you handled

the problem amendments to the Communications Bill, but as you said those proceedings got us through the winter months.

The Bill will greatly modernise the alcohol-licensing regime in this country. It is a balanced package of freedoms and safeguards. It clamps down on crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour that is perpetrated by the minority, while giving the responsible majority of people more freedom and choice of how they spend their leisure time.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I wish to match the effusiveness of the Minister. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, again—if that is the operative word in such circumstances.

We agree with the Minister that the Bill is as important a piece of legislation as any before Parliament. It will affect every aspect of society's cultural, social and leisure activities. It is a far-reaching and wide-ranging Bill. The Minister is greatly respected as someone who always aims to create good, practical and beneficial law. I am sure that we will not be disappointed by his responses during our debates.

I am not criticising the draftsmen of the Bill or the civil servants at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport who have spent many months, if not years, on its gestation. It has been a massive task. Unlike the Communications Bill, however, this Bill has not received pre-legislative scrutiny. Despite such scrutiny, that Bill still had a fairly bumpy passage in Committee.

There are considerable differences between the White Paper and the final product. The Bill is complex and we shall make every effort to ensure that, when it is on the statute book, it is workable and practical and will enhance the lives of members of the community, but not over-regulate those activities that should be beyond regulation.

In our opinion, the programme resolution needs to be more flexible. We have no criticism of the end date and we are happy to work with it, but we should discuss the guillotines. We have only three sittings—that is, until lunchtime on Thursday—to discuss some critical elements of the Bill. Those include schedule 1, which deals with entertainment and is highly contentious, the licensing authorities and the debate on magistrates versus local authorities, which is at the core of the Bill. There is also the matter of the central licensing authority and the general duties of licensing authorities. Those are dealt with in critical clauses and we are expected to debate and scrutinise them in three two-and-a-half-hour sittings.

We have no criticism of the total time allotted, but I put it to the usual channels that Opposition Members do not think that enough time is allotted to the earlier critical clauses and schedules. We hope that there will be a rethink, if we have not done justice to many of the clauses by Thursday lunchtime.

Question put and agreed to.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill and

copies of it are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, Mr. Benton and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.

Clause 1 - Licensable activities and qualifying club activities

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 96, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out 'regulated entertainment' and insert 'premises for public gatherings'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 97, in

clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out 'regulated entertainment' and insert 'premises for public gatherings'.

New schedule 1—Provision of Premises for Public Gatherings—

''The Secretary of State shall make regulations which shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure and which—

(a) define ''the provision of premises for public gatherings'' to have the normal meaning of those words save that they exclude premises which have planning permission (or established use certificates) for use for public gatherings of the size contemplated, and—

(i) have a valid fire safety certificate; or

(ii) have regularly in the last five years been used for public gatherings of the size contemplated; and

(b) define ''the size contemplated'' to mean contemplated by the organizer of the gathering.'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I have not had the privilege of doing so before. I am sure that you will chair the Committee with great fairness and a desire for us to proceed as rapidly as possible through the business, so I do not propose to take too long on these amendments and proposed new schedule 1.

The amendments would remove the provision to regulate entertainment and would replace it with a provision to license public gatherings where there have not been regular public gatherings before. They would do so for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) outlined from the Front Bench.

Schedule 1 defines ''entertainment'' in great detail. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) referred to motocross events—I believe that that is another term for banger racing. Such events took place near Wanborough in her constituency and caused great concern to local people. The schedule does not cover that type of event and I am sure that hon. Members can think of many other events that are not covered.

Hon. Members will know that, in another place, many efforts were made to add to the list of exemptions. For example, there was an exemption for garden fêtes, garden parties and other such entertainments, and amendments on unamplified music. Is the schedule effective, or is it merely confusing? If it is not very effective, is it really necessary? Is there a better way to regulate such entertainments?

I assume, from what the Minister said on Second Reading, and having heard that debate, that the purpose of the regulation was to ensure that people's quiet enjoyment of their own property was not disturbed and that disturbance was not caused to the public in general. I assume that there is no prejudice against outdoor wrestling, compared with outdoor motor cycle events, that it was not thought that scratch race meetings held on private property cause less, or more, trouble than outdoor wrestling, or that it was not because we have a view on whether it matters that a play is or is not scripted.

Would the mime artists in Covent Garden be covered by the Bill? I believe they would be covered, because there is no script and there is a provision for off-the-cuff entertainment. Under the schedule, a single person could put on a play. That provision is slightly arbitrary. There should be some reasoning behind the content of the schedule. I considered the matter another way, by asking what is the problem that the schedule is attempting to put right? The problem is large numbers of people converging on a place and causing noise or other inconvenience to members of the public, either outdoors in public places or in their enjoyment of their private homes and business premises.

The schedule is unnecessary. We should not go to the trouble of defining every different entertainment with a range of inclusions and exclusions. Hon. Members may be taken with this part of my argument, if by no other. It is not necessary to deal with all the amendments printed on pages 506 to 509 of the amendment paper. We should not try to define what is and is not an entertainment; we should instead try to remedy the problem of what is noisy and disruptive.

Public nuisance and environmental health legislation contains provisions to protect people, whether on private premises or in public, from excess noise—excess amplified music—and other types of nuisance, such as smoke. If somebody desires to hold a bonfire in a public place where it has not traditionally been held, that could cause difficulty to some of their neighbours. That would be covered by existing legislation. It is not necessary to regulate entertainment. What is necessary is the regulation of large numbers of people coming together in a particular place, regardless of their purpose.

The Bill covers too many activities that have taken place quietly and without trouble. My intention is that amendments Nos. 96 and 97 should remove the effect of schedule 1. We could limit the application of the regulations by defining public gatherings. If hon. Members turn to page 522 of the amendment paper, they will see that new schedule 1 would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that define both public gatherings and the size that is contemplated for a public gathering. I would have preferred the definitions to be included in the Bill.

Under new schedule 1, the Secretary of State would be able to define a public gathering within

''the normal meaning of those words''—

that is, not a private gathering to which people are invited—

''save that they exclude premises which have planning permission (or established use certificates) for use of public gatherings of the size contemplated''.

Clearly, such a gathering is acceptable—whether it is noisy is a matter for environmental health or public nuisance legislation. Those excluded premises must

''have a valid fire certificate'',

which is a necessity, or they may

''have regularly in the last five years been used''

for this purpose, whether it is for a church fete that takes place once a year in the vicarage garden, or a barn dance that takes place three times a year in a farmer's barn, or whether it is in a town.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

There are circumstances in which the precedent of regular use over the previous five years does not necessarily mean that it is not important to have a valid fire certificate. I promoted an event at the Edinburgh fringe using a room that was converted into a venue every year. I had to put in a scaffolding auditorium and a lighting rig and it was very important that fire safety officers checked what I had done.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Yes, I concede that point. I am sure that the new schedule could be improved on. I am trying to establish the principle that it is more important to regulate the gathering and the noise that it generates, than to regulate the entertainment and, therefore, have to define what is and is not an entertainment.

Most activities of this type do not require the elaborate work that is required to establish a lighting rig. For example, if a pop concert is held on a field provided by an agricultural society for the county show, it is covered by the schedule, but if a religious meeting is held in exactly the same place, using exactly the same equipment and involving exactly the same number of people, that is not covered. There is an inconsistency in the Bill—one that in my view is better covered by public nuisance legislation, rather than by regulation of the type of entertainment proposed.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

When reference was made earlier to ''Bangor'' racing, I was wondering whether the Minister—albeit he has a south Wales background—might be able to tell us what was going on in north Wales, until I realised that it was the pronunciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that had made a difference.

My hon. Friend has introduced the proposed amendments skilfully. I appreciate that only regulated entertainment will, by its nature, be regulated under the Bill. Can the Minister tell us if aspects and areas of unregulated entertainment have emerged in the past five to 10 years? Is it his intention to keep an eye on which areas of unregulated entertainment need to come within the confines of schedule 1? Will there be regular updates to ensure that residents will not be upset by groups who try to

bypass the provisions of the Bill because their entertainment activity does not fall within the confines of either clause 1 or schedule 1?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The amendments would remove the provision of regulated entertainment as a licensable activity as well as schedule 1, which defines the provision of such entertainment and sets out various exemptions and interpretations.

Before I continue I shall point out what the amendments do not do, as that is important. They would leave the provision of regulated entertainment as a club qualifying activity—for which authorisation of a club premises certificate may be applied—unsupported by any definition. It would be left to the licensing authorities and the courts to decide what, if anything, the provision of regulated entertainment includes. I do not want to introduce an element of self-interest into the debate—not this early anyway—but every Labour, Conservative and Liberal club in the country would be mightily concerned about that omission.

Leaving that confusion aside for a moment, the amendments would replace the provision of ''regulated entertainment'' with the provision of ''premises for public gatherings'', which would become a licensable activity. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight explained, the phrase ''premises for public gatherings'' is to be defined in a new schedule, which would give the Secretary of State an enabling power to make regulations relating to that. The regulations would prescribe that the expression should have its normal meaning, except in certain cases. The exceptions are when premises have planning permission for use as a place of public gathering and a valid fire certificate and when premises have been regularly used for the past five years for gatherings of the size contemplated.

The changes would mean that the Bill licensed not just the entertainment activities listed in paragraphs 2(1) and 3(2) of schedule 1, but any premises where public gatherings of any kind were held. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, that could include religious or political meetings. We should ask seriously what the amendments would cover. The potential breadth of meaning of ''public gatherings'' suggests that the changes could be far-reaching.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is testing us. He said that he is quite willing for his new schedule to be considered and modified. However, the potential breadth of meaning is an important consideration. In addition, one can expect any court seeking to give ''premises'' its normal meaning to turn swiftly to the Bill for help. The Bill defines ''premises'' as ''any place''. The same definition has applied in licensing law in London for 40 years—London is different.

The hon. Gentleman is contemplating licensing public demonstrations, which are one of the great and fundamental rights in this country. I am sure that he recognises and supports that right, but his amendments put it in jeopardy. Things would have come to a pretty pass if nobody in this country could demonstrate unless they had a licence. I am sure that

countryside and peace campaigners on the Isle of Wight, which is a wonderful part of Britain, would have something to say about that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I attended a demonstration by peace campaigners from the Isle on Wight in St. James's square, where demonstrations of that kind have been held regularly over the past five years. Similarly, I attended the countryside march in London. It took place over a route that has been used regularly over the past five years for such demonstrations. They would not be covered by my amendments.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I think that they would, but we can debate that.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) raised another point. He did not mention motocross, but the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did. I was confused about ''Bangor'' racing as well. They do some pretty strange things in north Wales—never mind the south. The matter is outside the scope of the Bill, but the antisocial behaviour White Paper expresses the intention to regulate off-road biking and a number of other things. If the hon. Gentleman specifies what kinds of activities may or may not be covered by this Bill, I will find out whether they are covered in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, so that the matter can be considered further.

Under the proposal, a valid fire certificate would become a sort of carte blanche. If a building were given a fire certificate as a meeting hall and people decided to put on a play, which would give rise to all sorts of additional fire risks, licensing law would have no say in the matter. A nightclub with planning permission as a place of public gathering would almost certainly have a valid fire certificate, but the safety and noise issues that arise from the entertainment that takes place there will often go far beyond what can be controlled by planning law or even fire safety law.

The Committee must remember that young people at such premises will often be in a vulnerable state either because of alcohol or drug use. We may not like that, but it is a fact. Normal fire and safety precautions associated with discotheques will not necessarily be adequate. Even the Bar, Entertainment and Dance Association—the trade association representing the nightclub industry—agrees with that view.

The amendments are interesting because the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is coming at the matter from a very different angle. However, they are flawed and, worse than that, in some instances they could be positively dangerous. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps acknowledge that some parts of them have not been entirely thought through. Perhaps I am wrong, but no doubt he wants to regulate Conservative clubs more than commercial premises. I am sure that he does not want to regulate political or religious meetings, public demonstrations or to put the young and vulnerable at risk, so I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am happy to go a little way towards the Minister's position, although I find it hard to understand why he feels that clubs would be regulated even were the amendments carried. I understand why he says that clubs would be covered by simple

omission from the amendments, but the principle of whether we should be regulating individual activities or the noise and nuisance caused by assemblies is, as the Minister acknowledges, an interesting one that does not appear to have been covered previously in discussion on the Bill.

I have absolutely no intention of regulating Conservative, Labour or even Liberal clubs, where they exist, more than they are regulated at the moment. I do not believe that the amendments would do that. I am happy that the Minister has given some thought to the matter, and if we have a future opportunity to consider the legislation, we may look at whether we need the detailed regulation of individual types of entertainment and definitions contained in the schedule. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to move amendment No.1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out

'for consumption on the premises where the supply takes place'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 16 to 24.

Government amendment No. 33.

Government amendment No. 34.

Government new clause 1—Club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The amendments will remove the Bill's existing prohibition on the supply of alcohol by, or on behalf of, a club to a member of the club for consumption off the premises. Clubs will be allowed to make off-sales to their members but not their members' guests. An amendment was tabled in another place to provide for qualifying clubs—now known as registered members clubs—under current legislation to conduct off-supplies of alcohol to their members. The Government undertook to consider the issue further and amend the Bill if necessary. That is precisely what I am going to do today.

Under existing law, registered members clubs, which will become qualifying clubs under the Bill, include political clubs—Labour, Liberal and Conservative clubs—working men's clubs, ex-services clubs and Royal British Legion clubs, as well as clubs for serving professions and activities, miners' institutes and many sports clubs. Such clubs enjoy a different status to premises that operate under justices' licences. They operate under premises licences because they have a particular role to play as meeting places in the community. They are, however, limited in their activities—for example, alcohol can only be supplied to members and guests and not to the general public.

Registered clubs are permitted by current law to supply alcohol to their members for consumption off the premises. It is likely that that was included for clarification purposes as the provision by a club of its own alcohol to members for their personal purposes outside the club would not be a licensable activity. The Bill as originally drafted made no provision for the

supply of alcohol to members for consumption off the premises because it was decided that such supplies had little to do with the club's traditional role as a meeting place in the community. However, following further consultation with the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations, we have taken the view that as members of clubs already own the alcohol stock it would be churlish to deny them the right to take home beer—or any other tasty drink. We also believe that allowing them to do so does not pose any significant risk to the achievement of the licensing objectives.

However, new clause 1 sets certain conditions relating to club premises certificates authorising off-sales from qualifying clubs. A club premises certificate may not authorise the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises unless it also authorises supply to members for consumption on the premises. Also, a club premises certificate authorising the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must include three conditions. First,

''the supply must be made at a time when the premises are open for the purposes of supplying alcohol, in accordance with the club premises certificate, to members of the club for consumption on the premises.''

Secondly,

''any alcohol supplied for consumption off the premises must be in a sealed container.''

Thirdly,

''any supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must be made to a member of the club in person.''

I hope that the Committee will agree that with these conditions in place there is no good reason to prevent qualifying clubs from supplying alcohol to their members for consumption off the premises.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We are grateful that the Minister and his team have looked carefully at the amendment proposed by their Lordships, and that they have reached a practical outcome with regard to it. However, I have a brief question for the Minister. He refers to alcohol leaving the premises in sealed containers, such as bottles or cans, but what about draft beer that is put into plastic bottles with a screw top? Is that technically a sealed container, or must the seal be something that can be broken?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

It is a long time since I have drunk beer from a screw-top container, but I believe that that is classified as a sealed container.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I have to take the Minister's word for that, but we must wait to see whether it will stand the test of time. A screw top is not a seal because a quick twist will undo it, but if the Minister is happy with the wording of new clause 1, I will say no more.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

First, I must declare an interest. I am a member of the Sacriston working men's club in the great county of Durham.

I welcome the amendment. Working men's clubs—certainly those in the north-east—have enjoyed the right to do off-licence sales for about 60 years. It is important to deal with working men's clubs and registered clubs differently from public houses.

Working men's clubs in the north-east know their members, and they are an important part of the community. In many of the smaller villages, they are the only place where off-licence sales can be supplied. Therefore, the provision will be welcomed by clubs in the north-east. It is a sensible move forward.

The point about the sealed container is important. We do not want health issues and risks surrounding beer being put into inappropriate containers to arise. A sealed container must be the bottle or can that the drink is sold in. I do not want beer that is put into any type of bottle to be carried out of a public house.

The provision will be welcomed. Working men's clubs are responsible. They know their members. They have had this right for 60 years, and the provision will mean that they continue to have it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in

clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—

'(6A) For the purposes of this Act ''normal trading hours'' are those between 5.00 am and midnight.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 36, in

clause 18, page 11, line 10, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 37, in

clause 18, page 11, line 15, at end insert

'and

(d) where the application is for opening hours to include those beyond normal trading hours, by an environmental impact assessment.'.

Amendment No. 38, in

clause 19, page 12, line 7, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (11)'.

Amendment No. 39, in

clause 19, page 13, line 18, at end insert—

'(11) Where an application is made in accordance with section 18(3)(d) the licensing authority may grant the licence having considered the environmental impact assessment.'.

Amendment No. 40, in

clause 55, page 33, line 6, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 41, in

clause 55, page 33, line 7, at end insert

'and

(c) prescribe the additional fee for licensable activities outside normal trading hours in relation to the length of time the premises remain open after midnight.'.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Clearly, many residents—not only those in central London, which is the part of the country that I represent, but throughout the land—are concerned about 24-hour licensing. That issue in the legislation has been highlighted, and it has made the headlines. The day before the last general election text messages went out to tens of thousands of would-be voters—not from the Conservatives, but the Labour party—saying, ''There were 24 hours to save the health service in 1997 and there will be 24 hours to save your liver perhaps in 2001''. Of course, what was threatened has not come to pass in the meantime. There are some

genuine concerns about the prospect of a blanket 24-hour licensing regime.

The purpose of the amendments that I have tabled is not to stop the Government allowing flexible hours and even, on occasion, allowing 24-hour licensing over a holiday season, for particularly strong reasons, given the location of licensed premises. They are designed, as part of the safeguard that should be in place, to establish a higher level of scrutiny and, indeed, a higher fee for new applications for premises that trade between midnight and 5 am. Those may be slightly arbitrary hours. As I am sure that the Minister is aware, 11 pm is the usual closing time for most licensed premises and therefore the amendments suggest flexibility. Amendment No. 41 calls for a higher level of scrutiny, and higher fees for the five-hour period in the middle of the night. I should like licensing authorities to be given some discretion when deciding whether to grant such applications.

The concern that has been expressed to me by many of my residents associations, of which I shall say more later, is that a national template is being put in place. The Government have, rightly and understandably, pointed out on a number of occasions that licensing regulations are antediluvian. Many licensing regulations were put in place during the first world war. During the 14 years between 1919 and 1933, alcohol was prohibited in the United States. It is interesting that many temperance associations worked closely with the suffragette movement at that time, in this country and worldwide.

It is clear that there needs to be a change. The great worry is that, unless there is flexibility and discretion in the hands of licensing authorities, there will be a feeling that a national template is being imposed. Although powers are being taken away from the magistrates courts, the licensing authorities will find that their hands are tied when it comes to making decisions that have to be responsive to particular areas.

With great respect to my hon. Friends, the reality is that each area is different, be it Fareham, the Isle of Wight or Cambridgeshire. I am sure that the Isle of Wight during Cowes week is extremely busy and it is understandable that there would be extensions to regular hours. Likewise, in central London, a different regime should apply. There is great concern about the Bill. One reason why we have tabled the amendments is so that the Government recognise different requirements. Licensing authorities should have some discretion to take account of those fundamental differences.

The amendments would ensure that applications for opening hours up until midnight were treated with the deregulatory light touch that the Government wish to put in place. I am sure that all hon. Members would welcome that. I believe that the additional hour will cater for the vast majority of people who demand longer hours throughout the country. It would ensure that we did not have the mad dash between 10.45 pm and 11 pm with more drink being consumed, thus creating the rowdiness, urination and other antisocial

behaviour on the streets at kicking-out time, which has become part and parcel of our pub culture.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will not the amendment move the rush out to the streets that currently occurs at 11 o'clock to 12 o'clock?

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

No. The notional idea is that there should be flexibility between midnight and 5 am and acceptance that midnight would be the absolute minimum, rather than 11 o'clock. I appreciate that, whenever any hon. Members speak on the subject, there always seems to be an impression of special pleading. In my own area in Westminster, around the Soho and Covent Garden area that the ever-silent Whip on your side knows so well—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. There is no Whip on my side and never has been.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I am very disappointed; I assumed that there were about three. You are in great control, Mr. Gale. I am obviously much mistaken about the role of the Chairman in the Committee.

In places such as Soho and Covent Garden premises have late licences. More than 60 premises in Soho have licences to open up to 4 am in the morning. There are graduated closing times for many licensed premises in central London. I hope to see the imposition of an environmental impact assessment in advance to encourage all applicants to look at the potential adverse effects and impacts, and to build in measures that were specific to local communities from the outset to avoid, minimise or mitigate those consequences.

Amendment No. 41 would allow the Government to fix a higher fee based on types of activities and the length of time that premises are to be open after midnight. That establishes the principle that the polluter should pay and again allows for a certain amount of flexibility in a national template, rather than the matter being regulated and centralised.

Outside central London and outside the UK, a different regime comes into play. Every bar in Paris, for example, has to close between 3 am and 5 am. I am not suggesting that that should happen here, but there is a different regime, notwithstanding the fact that everyone remarks on how liberal much of the drinking regulations in Europe are. In Paris, there is a two-hour period every day when no licensed premises can be open. Likewise, Glasgow has a 1 am terminal hour. In New York, greater police numbers make quite a difference and ensure far greater enforcement, including fines for staff taking control of matters during the early hours of the day in the absence of an owner or manager.

I hope that the Minister will seriously consider ensuring that there will be added discretion. We are not talking about amendments that run counter to the intention of the Government in any way. In fact, rather the opposite is true. One hopes, as all Members do on the Conservative Benches—although we are here to scrutinise the Bill—for practical and workable legislation whereby all parties are aware of what is going on. We hope not to see matters determined in the courts in the years ahead, but for local authorities, licensing authorities and businesses in the

entertainment and alcohol industry, alongside residents, to have a sense of certainty. I appreciate that there is an issue concerning the level of discretion, but hopefully that would be brought about by all local parties working together.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he tell the Committee about his intention that businesses should have to conduct an impact assessment? I am quite intrigued by that.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Again, we are not looking at something that will be over-bureaucratic. A sensible assessment should be made in each area where extensive licensing—potentially 24-hour licensing—during the early hours of the morning is considered. At least some consideration should be given to the impact. Inevitably, one looks at the matter from the perspective of a constituency MP. Many people have no appreciation of how many people live in Soho.

Of the 5,000 people who live in Soho, many are young parents trying to bring up children, and a great majority live in social housing. They are not living there because they have decided to buy a house in the middle of a busy, vibrant area; they have little say in the matter. They are either council tenants, or live in Peabody Trust or other trust housing. It seems all too easy to put the interests of residents to one side—almost ignore them—and assume that because one does not see many residents out and about in the early hours of the morning, their interests should be bypassed, or that they do not exist at all. All I am saying is that I would like an environmental assessment survey to be undertaken. However, we would also have to consider infrastructure and I spoke about that on Second Reading.

One of the grave concerns in London about the prospect of much more extensive or all-night licensing is that there is no mechanism to allow people to leave the area. I am not making a narrow partisan political point, but the public transport system is simply not up to the job. I have to give some credit to the Mayor of London for the steps that have been taken with the bus network, but that will not solve all of the problems. We do not have a fully-fledged underground or rail system and, as we know, the police could not cater for extended licensing. Sensible regulation should be put into place.

It is easy for a London Member of Parliament to assume that the world revolves around the capital, but there are similar concerns in other areas, including in many of our county towns and in rural areas, particularly as the summer months begin. There should be some assessment to ensure that, in trying to deregulate—and that is an admirable aim—we do not undermine the charm and beauty of many parts of the country, and make life much more miserable for residents and, in the longer term, businesses.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

In making my first contribution, I thank you for giving up your time to chair our proceedings, Mr. Gale.

I oppose the amendments. Despite the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Cities of London and

Westminster, I believe that the amendments would, fundamentally, undermine the Bill and the Government's intention in introducing it. If the amendments were made, I would almost have to query whether there was any purpose in continuing with the legislation. I accept entirely that the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendments from perfectly sincere motives, and that he did not intend them to be wrecking amendments. Nevertheless, in my view, they are exactly that.

The amendments would effectively reintroduce the previous legislation by the back door. The entire thrust of getting rid of some of the draconian controls would be undone if we were to bring in the assumptions and control mechanisms underlying the amendments. If we simply wanted to move the standard closing time from 11 pm to midnight—that, effectively, is what the amendments would do—it would be simpler to amend existing legislation by deleting ''11'' and inserting ''12''.

I understand that there are problems in the heart of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and it is right that he should address them, but it cannot be right to introduce a nationwide system just to tackle the specific problems in his constituency. I encourage him to have more faith in, and give more of a chance to, the local licensing policies that the Bill invites local authorities to draw up. If those policies work as they should, they will provide solutions for local authorities that have trouble spots.

In areas saturated with licensed premises, including Soho and other parts of the Cities of London and Westminster, local authorities may well have particular considerations about opening hours in trouble spots. However, to invite the entire country and local authorities everywhere to introduce the assumption of closing at midnight is taking a sledgehammer to the problem. It would be desirable to have a more pinpointed and precise way of dealing with those problems. Every small pub in every village in the country would have to shut at midnight if we went down the route of the amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I intended to speak in support of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, and I may well still do that, because I do not believe that the difficulties that he mentioned are confined to London. Soho and the Covent Garden area are divided between two London boroughs, and other boroughs abut on to them. The problem spreads well beyond the boundaries of particular licensing authorities. That, of course, is not the case in my licensing authority. Does the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) accept that he is being a little harsh on my hon. Friend?

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

No, I do not, but I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that the problems are not unique to the Cities of London and Westminster. It is probable that there will be certain known pinpoint areas in almost every local authority, and I accept that local authorities will want to develop, through local licensing policy, an approach to deal with such areas. My objection remains that by inviting them to go down the route suggested by the

amendments, the old regime would effectively be reintroduced by the back door.

I am pleased that the Government have taken the view that the licence application fee will be set nationally within a banding system. I am sure that, as a thrusting deregulator, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster envisages that the environmental impact assessments will be straightforward, small-scale operations and I am sure that he has the most benign intention in suggesting that local authorities should be able to set a special fee for late night applications. However, just wait until those in local government, who are of a rather less deregulatory inclination than the hon. Gentleman, get their hands on this. They will reintroduce ludicrously punitive—[Interruption.] Yes, I have no doubt that Liberal councils will be among them; I am sorry that I cannot acquit them of culpability in this matter. The local authorities will all be as bad as each other. They will demand enormous impact assessments with bells and whistles that will cost everyone a fortune to commission. Should they be allowed to set their own fees for late night applications, they will be equipped with a remarkable variety of sticks and clubs with which to bang applicants over the head. That is a theme to which we will return as we deal with further clauses.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman intends there to be three checks: an assumption of a standard closure at midnight, the requirement for there to be an impact assessment for times after midnight and the ability to charge super-normal fees for premises that want to go beyond midnight. If those are added together, there should be fundamental queries about whether the purpose of the Bill is being undermined.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

May I challenge the hon. Gentleman on his suggestion that a local authority would not be justified in charging a higher fee for an activity that requires much more detailed scrutiny?

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

In having a range of fees that depend on the nature of the premises and the activities, the Government are, in a sense, intending that that should be so. That is reasonable—I do not suggest that there should be a single fee. However, alarm bells ring when I see what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is proposing. This is just the kind of opportunity to increase revenues for which some in local government have been waiting; they would grab it with both hands. I think that it is rotten. It undermines what we are trying to do. The group of amendments must be resisted. I hope that the Government will resist them.

John Grogan (Labour, Selby)

I, too, oppose the amendments because they strike at the heart of the Bill. If I represented a village and there were a pub with a problem in a residential area, I am not sure that I would want normal permitted hours to be until midnight. The principles in the Bill, whereby extensions beyond 11 pm—the grandfather rights—should be considered in terms of crime, disorder, nuisance, and so on, are much better than those in the alternative system.

I was interested in the use of language by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. He used the words ''the polluter pays''. It is a pity to regard a hospitality industry that stays open after midnight, which does a great deal for both our rural and urban economy, as necessarily ''polluting''.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The point that I was making was clearly environmental. I was making a comparison to the idea that ''the polluter pays''. Representing as I do this vibrant capital London, I would not wish to suggest that leisure and tourism was somehow a polluter. The principle remains that where there are additional costs to the public purse—both in environmental assessment and in extending hours to 24-hour opening—it is sensible that there should be some flexibility, within confines. That would avoid the problems that the hon. Member for North Devon has pointed out. There should be some flexibility in the fee-charging structure.

John Grogan (Labour, Selby)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, although I still think that it is an unfortunate use of language. It mirrors the language used in the Institute of Alcohol Studies paper on the situation in Westminster. The institute is funded by the Temperance Alliance, which has an interest in these matters.

Some premises may have implications for public services if they stay open after midnight; a lot may not. In the case of a restaurant in a non-residential area, or a village pub in Selby, the implications for public services are fairly limited. If such a pub stays open until 1 o'clock in the morning, it is just a question of people walking home when it closes. To re-institute last orders at midnight is dangerous.

I received a letter from a barmaid that crystallised in my mind why last orders are a bad thing, whether at 11 o'clock or midnight. I will read a few paragraphs that reflect her experience:

''You spend hours, days, weeks cultivating a relationship with the regulars, charming newcomers, learning to pour that perfect pint, yet, the moment you ring that bell it all goes out the window.

Suddenly all eyes are upon you, then all eyes are upon the clock and the muttering begins; 'That clock's fast', 'Is it that time already', 'Give us a takeout', 'I've just put two quid in the jukebox', 'Down it we'll squeeze one more in.'

And the bar that you have served so efficiently all evening . . . becomes THE place to be, no joking, no social niceties now. It is each for their own, digging that elbow space, thrusting fivers in your face, no-one is going to risk returning to their mates empty handed.

Inevitably, there's always one, on the phone, in the toilet, didn't hear the bell—begging, pleading, demanding, but you can't give in, serve one and you'll have to serve them all you've made yourself really unpopular now . . .

You have to wander round the pub forcing people to down their drinks, shouting . . . 'Come on drink up folks, can I have your glasses please' . . .

In under half an hour you have gone from being a right laugh and everybody's friend to public enemy number one.''

That is the reality of our liquor licensing laws. That is the reality of 11 o'clock closing, and it would be the reality if you did it all at midnight. It is much better to consider each case on its individual merits. If the pub is in a residential area, 11 pm may be late enough, particularly if it has not been well managed in the past and there have been problems. In other circumstances, I cannot see any problems with 1 am or 2 am.

There is a big lobby from the City of Westminster, and I know that there are real problems there. I understand that there has been a decline in the number of licensed premises in central London over recent years. There are clear problems to be addressed there, but I look to other authorities up and down the country that are beginning to solve, or at least combat, some of the problems of crime or disorder through partnerships. It is not rocket science. For example, in Slough the authority has got together with the licensed premises; they have reached voluntary agreements on matters such as happy hours, moved taxi ranks and provided late night transport. Many of those problems can be addressed by partnership working. That presents a better route than a fixed closing time at midnight.

The idea that a village pub in Selby should undergo a regulatory impact assessment to stay open until 1 am on a Friday is almost beyond belief. Local residents will be able to make their voices heard to the local licensing committee in Selby, and I think that that is enough.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

As the hon. Member for North Devon and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) have told the Committee, this group of amendments goes to the heart of the matter. The amendments would impose new and significant red tape on businesses operating any licensable activities after midnight, and would undermine the benefits in terms of tackling crime and disorder that flexible hours would promote.

The amendments would inject a serious deterrent to any business that had it in mind to open after midnight. To supply alcohol or put on music and dancing—or even to sell a cup a coffee—later than midnight, an applicant for a licence for a pub, nightclub, restaurant, cinema, night café or theatre would have to go to the expense of producing an environmental impact assessment. In addition to that, the intention is that a higher fee should be paid. If those extra costs are not enough, the deterrent is completed by the apparent extension of the discretion of the licensing authority to refuse the application even if no interested party, such as a local resident, or no responsible authority, such as an environmental health department, makes a representation. I use the word ''apparent'' because, as it is worded, amendment No. 39 does not quite achieve that extension.

I have no doubt that Conservative Members will claim that they are against red tape and putting unnecessary burdens on the industry; I bet that they will make such representations when we debate designated premises supervisors and live music. However, from the outset, they have supported amendments that would place significantly more red tape and restrictions on such businesses—as the hon. Member for North Devon and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby made clear.

Under current law a nightclub can obtain permission to sell alcohol until 2 am in most of the country, or until 3 am in the west end of London, without producing an environmental impact

assessment; a casino can obtain permission to sell alcohol until 6 am without such an assessment; a restaurant can obtain permission to sell alcohol with meals until 1 am without such an assessment; and any of them can obtain a public entertainment licence until any hour of the night for music and dancing without the need to produce such an assessment. Therefore, this proposal is seriously regulatory, and it would rein back not only the Bill's provisions but the existing arrangements.

For what purpose is this red tape proposed? It is important to remember that licensing is not a re-run of the planning process: all such premises will have gone through the planning process before they seek licences. They may have gone through a series of appeals to the planning inspectorate, the Secretary of State and the courts. If all of that was set aside with regard to the new environmental impact assessments, it would be very bureaucratic and a wholly unjustified duplication of the process. A planning authority will have considered the environmental impact of a business. Why is further duplication necessary? The amendments would revisit that consideration for no sensible purpose.

In clause 14, the local planning authority is one of the responsible authorities that are entitled to make representations to the licensing authority about any application, including in respect of hours of opening. They have an opportunity to make points if they consider that there is an important issue regarding saturation or cumulative impact in relation to carrying on licensable activities. In that respect, these amendments are unnecessary.

We should not be mealy-mouthed about what is being proposed. The intention is to build into the Bill significant deterrents to minimise the number of premises opening after midnight. Many businesses would look at the potential for additional costs and fees and the higher risk of refusal, and they would settle for a midnight closing time. That would mean that the peak of disorder and disturbance that is now experienced soon after 11 pm would be shifted to midnight. A key aim of the Bill is to encourage longer and later opening hours because that would allow customers to drink more slowly and to disperse more gradually, and that would reduce the peaks of disorder and nuisance that are caused when hundreds or thousands of people hit the streets—and sometimes each other—simultaneously. These amendments not only represent the worst kind of red tape but would undermine our efforts through the Bill to reduce late-night crime, disorder and nuisance.

We have twice liberalised licensing hours at new year—we permitted continuous opening for 36 hours. Following the liberalisation in 2001, we wrote to every police force in England and Wales. No force identified any detrimental impact, and many saw benefits. The Police Superintendents Association said:

''In terms of licensed premises, few members report that any sizeable number of pubs or clubs took advantage of the facility to open for the full 36 hour period. However, the discretion allowed the licensee did cause a staggered closing time. As has been said in the past, this prevents large numbers of inebriated people being on the streets at the same time, which is welcomed by the police service.''

West Yorkshire police said:

''There were no serious disorder issues arising as a result of extended hours, possibly owing to the fact that there was no mass exodus on to the streets at 0030 hours. The premises that remained open were in the main quiet and of no problem to the police.''

The divisional commander for Rhondda Cynon Taff, my local authority, reported:

''It is fair to say the staggered closing of licensed premises throughout the area generally appeared to encourage people to act in a responsible and orderly fashion.''

Bedfordshire police commented:

''Interestingly, one of our divisional commanders commented that the total number of alcohol related incidents (and incidents generally) was lower than for a normal Saturday night/Sunday morning.''

The Government are not the only body to have drawn the conclusion that lengthening the current fixed and artificially early closing times would bring benefits in terms of reduced disorder and disturbance. In saying that, I remind the Committee that the Bill does not in any way ignore the legitimate concerns of the Civic Trust and others about the development of the late-night economy.

Let us consider the range of provisions. A duty is placed on an applicant to set out in their operating schedule the steps that they will take to prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder in the vicinity of the premises. A stronger voice is given to residents living in the vicinity and to residents associations. The right of representation is given to planning authorities on issues such as saturation and cumulative effect, which relate to the licensing objectives. The police have a similar right relating to the impact on crime and disorder, as do environmental health authorities in relation to noise and other nuisance. The police will have expanded powers to close down rowdy premises instantly for up to 24 hours in the first instance. The antisocial behaviour White Paper recently published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shows our intent to introduce other legislation to tackle antisocial nuisance behaviour in our towns and cities.

The Government are taking a balanced and responsible approach. I know that the Civic Trust is concerned that the Bill puts a burden on local residents and residents associations to make representations and that some, for a variety of reasons, may prefer to rely on their local authority to act for them. It is claimed that we are not giving local authorities enough discretion to do that. That is simply not so. If residents want to sit back and rely on their local authority to act for them, they can do so. The local authority is the planning authority; it is the environmental health authority; and it will normally be the enforcing arm for health and safety. In those guises, the local authority, acting on its own initiative, can protect its residents' interests by making representations to the licensing authority. The concerns that have been expressed are met and dealt with in this balanced Bill.

Finally, in asking the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster not to press the amendments, I ask him to remember the consumer. Part of the desire to introduce greater flexibility into

licensing regimes relates to giving the consumer greater choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby, who has said many memorable things in his political career, once said that

''unlike Cinderella, not all of us have to go home at midnight.''

We should remember that. You and I may go home at midnight, Mr. Gale. In fact, if I have a pint at 10 o'clock, I usually have to go home at half-past 10, because I fall asleep. However, flexibility will be good for consumers and tourists, and tourists are vital to our economy. When balancing competing interests, let us remember the consumer, who is extremely important. Millions of people are employed in the industries in question; they are also important and we must bear them in mind.

I listened to the arguments that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made. Of course he is concerned about his constituents who reside in Soho. Indeed, Committee members are all worried about residents in our constituencies who live close to concentrations of drinking establishments and other licensed premises. However, I hope that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is balanced. It gives local residents, the police and local authority the means by which they can ensure that the welfare of people is properly looked after.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I want to deal with one or two of the issues referred to by the Minister. It is fair to say that there is a certain balance in the Bill and that it has been assisted in the other place. It will be interesting to see how many of the amendments made in the other place are maintained when we examine the matter in the weeks ahead. I hope that some element of balance will have its part to play.

I accept the Minister's view that licensing has to be integrated alongside the planning system, but that integration involves a serious examination of the issues of cumulative impact and saturation. They should not just be seen as a planning matter; in my view and that of many Conservative Members, they should have a part to play in the licensing process. I do not wish to insult the Minister or accuse him of naivety about how the planning system works. I think that all of us might have read textbooks about how Government or Parliament works before coming here, and in those books planning procedures all seemed dry and straightforward. We all know that the practical reality is different.

The reality is that the planning process, particularly in central London for the bars in Soho and Covent Garden to which I have referred, is far less easy on residents, residents associations and the local authority than the Minister would have us believe. Large-scale operators, who rely on thousands of people being in their Soho or Covent Garden bars until 3 or 4 am on a Saturday or Sunday, will have deep pockets; they will go to court umpteen times to ensure that they get their way, notwithstanding the safeguards of various district policies. The real problem is twofold, along the lines that the Minister pointed out.

Small operators in areas such as Soho and Covent Garden will suffer. They include businesses that have been run by the same families for years. The owners

have a stake in the community, not least because the business is based there. Many owners and employees of such businesses live in the vicinity. They will suffer under a much stricter planning and licensing regime.

Moreover, consumer choice will be affected. One of the great charms of going into Dean street or other parts of Soho is the fact that, alongside the large national chains, small local pubs, restaurants, bars and cafés are open until the early hours of the morning. No one wishes to drive those organisations and institutions out of business, but the reality is that they are the most vulnerable businesses. Genuine consumer choice means that we should have not just a Burger King or a McDonald's. That does not represent a wide choice. We want a broad consumer choice that will attract tourists to London not just once but many times. I am concerned that the balance that all of us are looking for will not be achieved unless amendments such as those in this group are brought into play.

Obviously, the hon. Member for Selby has Bet Lynch as one of his correspondents. I must confess that the antics that he was talking about seem to be similar to what goes on in the Strangers Bar every night of the week, and that does not have a kicking-out hour. I am sorry that he and, indeed, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) assume that our amendments would encourage red tape—given my political persuasion, perhaps that should be blue tape. On this occasion, I will happily—but with a heavy heart—withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that serious consideration will be given to ensuring that we get the balance right on these matters, particularly as the subjects are pervasive, and come up in other parts of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Provision of regulated entertainment

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 48, in

schedule 1, page 109, leave out line 10.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 111, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 32, leave out paragraph 3.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Would it be in order to speak to amendments Nos. 49 and 50, too? They are pretty much on the same subject.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am perfectly happy to allow the hon. Gentleman to talk to those amendments, but if we are to proceed down that road, I had better introduce a caveat that I have given on other occasions. I am happy to have a broad-ranging debate on schedule 1 on the understanding that it is unlikely that we will have a stand part debate on it later. That is for the convenience of hon. Members, because this is a comprehensive schedule covering a wide range of interlinked issues. However, if the hon.

Gentleman speaks to amendment No. 49 now, he cannot spend much time speaking to it when we reach it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for that guidance.

Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 and 111 are linked with the parts of the Bill that deal with entertainment facilities. Amendment No. 50 would delete paragraph 1(3), which deals with entertainment facilities, and the others are consequential on that. The other purpose of the amendments is to elicit the Government's reasons for including ''entertainment facilities'' per se. We would like a clear and unambiguous definition of what that term entails.

The Bill seems to be directed towards licensable activities. If it goes too far in that direction, and an attempt is made to license the mere provision of facilities, the Bill will cease to focus on the potential mischief—that is, the activity—and will create a whole new tier of unnecessary and onerous regulation. Surely it is the entertainment activity alone, not the premises, that gives rise to problems, and raises the question whether to regulate it for reasons of health and safety, noise, pollution or crime and disorder. After all, those facilities could have been dormant for a period, or could lie unused for long periods.

We have tabled the amendments in order to probe the Government on why they have included the catch-all definition of ''entertainment facilities''. In our opinion, it is entertainment activities that are critical for regulation, not the facilities—which may not, after all, be used. There is no need to define entertainment facilities in the schedule. All that is needed is simple permission to allow music, dancing, and similar forms of entertainment to take place within the regulatory framework, subject of course to the conditions deemed necessary and appropriate. That is what we have tried to achieve with amendment No. 111. Permission for the public to participate should be included in paragraph 2(1), as, indeed, is proposed in the Bill.

These are probing amendments tabled to discover why, if the Government's intention is to have light-touch regulation and to avoid it wherever possible, they have deemed it necessary to include entertainment facilities in the catch-all way that I have outlined.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we proceed, I ought to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that because he has spoken to amendment No. 49 with my consent, he would ordinarily have had the opportunity to push it to a vote. That amendment has not been moved. I take it from what he said that it is a probing amendment, but if he wishes to press amendment No. 49 to a vote, perhaps he would be kind enough to make that clear.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

These probing amendments are fascinating. They would remove the concept of entertainment facilities from the Bill, although that concept is part of the definition of the ''provision of regulated entertainment''.

As a starting point, it is important to appreciate the difference between the words ''entertainment'' and ''entertainment facilities''. Under schedule 1, the word ''entertainment'' includes, among other things, a performance of dance, including, for example, ballet

or clog dancing performed for an audience. It would not cover dancing in a discotheque that is performed not by individuals intending to entertain an audience, or even the other dancers, but by members of the public dancing for their own personal satisfaction and entertainment. I suppose people might be strutting their stuff to impress another dancer, but that is something different.

Similarly, ''entertainment'' includes a performance of live music, but only in the presence of an audience for the purpose of entertaining that audience. An ''entertainment facility'' would be one that provided musical instruments or karaoke equipment for use by the public, even if only the individuals using the facility themselves were being entertained.

The Bill deals with that difference by recognising that in such circumstances the provision of the facility should be covered—the dance floor or the karaoke machine provided for the members of the public at the venue. If it did not do so, music and dancing that might give rise to public safety problems or noise nuisance would escape control.

Clubbing gives rise to serious public safety issues because the people dancing at clubs are often, I am afraid to say, in a vulnerable state as a result of taking drugs. Last year, the Home Office published guidance entitled ''Safer Clubbing'', which advises club operators of the potential dangers of the heady mix of drugs and certain types of music and dancing. It points out that the key dangers from drugs like ecstasy are from dehydration and overheating, which are made worse by dancing in overcrowded conditions in poorly ventilated premises to hypnotic music. ''Safer Clubbing'' recommends that licensing conditions tackle such issues.

As I have done my rounds, I have spoken to the owners of nightclubs—the entrepreneurs—who tell me that the cost of providing adequate air conditioning in some of the big clubs is huge and prohibitive and that it forms a large part of the capital outlay in building clubs. Those people recognise that there are special conditions.

In certain venues, conditions will be attached that require the provision of free drinking water, adequate ventilation, ''chill-out'' rooms, where dancers can escape the loud music and safe capacities that prevent overcrowding. If the Bill did not include the provision of entertainment facilities, those sorts of protection could not be imposed and enforced.

On music, the potential for disturbance is no different whether professional performers are entertaining an audience or members of the public are entertaining themselves using facilities that have been provided for that purpose. In the latter case, the potential for noise nuisance and disturbance to neighbours may be even greater.

I resist the amendments. Some hon. Members believe that noise nuisance legislation is enough to control such problems, but the Government disagree. Legislation that controls noise is reactive and it would usually take a neighbour some time to obtain

satisfaction—if, indeed, he could obtain it. Licensing allows pro-active action to ensure that problems do not arise in the first place, especially in densely residential areas.

Under current legislation, there is a package whereby conditions imposed under the licensing regime, whether they relate to alcohol, entertainment or late-night refreshment houses or cafes, complement health and safety and environmental protection controls.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

The Minister referred to the licensing regime and said that the Bill is pro-active on noise and disturbance. Does the Bill cover funfairs? My constituents are concerned about the funfair on the outskirts of the constituency. Noise regulations do not seem to be effective.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am sure that, within minutes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman whether funfairs are covered. I do not know at present, but I shall find out.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

I agree with my hon. Friends about why we need to license facilities. Let us consider a pub or club with a small stage or raised area in the corner, which the licensee has no intention of using for entertainment. Will the licensee still require an entertainment licence for a facility that he had no intention of using?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I do not believe that the licensee would have to have an entertainment licence. He would have to have the intention of putting on entertainment of a licensable description if he wanted permission to hold entertainment. He would not be required to have a licence simply because of a structure that happened to be in a pub, a club or a bar.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) asked an interesting question. The Minister seemed to say that the activity generates the need to apply for a licence, not the facility. That is why I tabled the amendments. I am still not clear why the facility needs to be engaged. If it were dormant and not being used, it would not be included in the licence. What triggers off the application for a licence is an activity, be it dance or music.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I can cast a little light on the problem. I have received information from a source. Music and dancing at funfairs would be licensable when they were not incidental to the main activity. Local authority byelaws also regulate funfairs. I assume that when part of a funfair has a dance floor, which is common on the continent, for example, that would be a licensable activity because that is the main purpose of that part of the funfair. It is incorporated as part of the entertainment.

Some hon. Members believe that noise nuisance legislation is enough to control such problems.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister answer the question that I asked a moment ago? He was kind enough to answer that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), but he has ignored my question.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is because I forgot the hon. Gentleman's question. If he can remind me of it, I shall try to answer it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I alluded to the good question asked by the hon. Member for Waveney. He implied that it was not the facility that triggered off the application for a licence, but the desire to put on an activity in that facility. If a dance floor were redundant or dormant, the Minister said that a licence was not necessary. I am still not clear why entertainment facilities are included, as it is the activity, not the facility that gives rise to problems of noise, nuisance and crime and disorder.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I refer to licensed premises that could mount music, dance, drama or whatever. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) has a famous pub in his constituency called the Latchmere that I remember from 30 years ago, which became a great centre of drama. The fact that the holder of the licence has that facility does not mean that he would necessarily want to put on drama, music or anything else on the premises. Under the present regulations, the licensee would have to pay dearly to take out a licence to put on music—in central London, perhaps as much as £20,000 for one year. There would be no sense in the licence holders doing that simply because they have a building in which they could put on such activity if they wanted to. That is the best answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman's question. We may return to this matter.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on the matter by alluding to what takes place now. Under present legislation, a pub landlord would describe the activities that he hoped to hold on his premises—be it music, dance or whatever—when applying for a public entertainment licence. There would be some attachment to the premises; the activity would take place in that location. Is that simply replicating in a different form of words the conditions attached to a PEL at a pub for, say, music, or is it a move beyond that—an additional regulation encompassing facilities?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I acknowledge that it is a difficult question. The key point is the intention to provide the facility for the purpose of providing entertainment. If the facility is not to be available for regulated entertainment, then no licence is required. If the Bill focused entirely on activity, many types of entertainment would be caught that should not be caught. For example, if the playing of music is the licensable activity, then playing in a music lesson would be licensable, but it is not.

When people go to a nightclub there may be dancing, but that dancing is not entertainment—the dancers are not entertaining an audience, they are there for their own pleasure, dancing with each other.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I think we are getting there. Can I ask the Minister another question? Let us consider morris dancers for example. If they perform inside on a dance floor, that would presumably be an entertainment facility, but if they dance outside, what becomes the entertainment facility then?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We will be coming to that. If we agree that morris dancing indoors is an entertainment, then clearly we would have to agree that the holder of the licence would have to apply for an entertainments licence for the premises.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I will in a moment. I will answer the question first. Let us suppose that the morris dancers are part of an Easter festival. I remember making a film about some morris dancers outside the Bodleian in Oxford. I think it was at Easter time because it was very cold. The local authority may regard that area outside the Bodleian as one that can properly be licensed for entertainment. It may do that now because other festivals may be held there.

If the activity is regarded as licensable for the purposes of entertaining people, a licence will be required for those premises, whether they are indoors or outdoors. Incidental entertainments may be taking place. Carol singers or even morris dancers may be wandering along the road. Under those circumstances, very different rules may apply. I am sure that the Committee will agree that we could discuss this in a more structured way when we come to the relevant amendments.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does not the system that is imposed simplify things? If someone applies for a liquor licence and a public entertainment licence, there is no onus on him to put on entertainment every night or even every month. There is flexibility, whereas at present if someone has a stage that is used only occasionally, such as the one described by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, he would have to apply for a public entertainment licence for that performance. This system makes it much simpler for people who want to put on entertainments.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Indeed. There is more than an element of truth in that. That flexibility is important. I would feel aggrieved if I were the holder of a premises licence who happened to have inherited a stage at one end of a bar but who hated the idea of putting on music, that I would have to have permission to put on entertainments.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I do not claim any particular expertise in the art of morris dancing, although I was an Oxford city councillor at one time. To the best of my recollection, the council never regulated entertainment provided in university premises. Would the Bill make a difference to that? Is the Minister genuinely saying that morris dancing of the kind provided by the Headington Quarry morris dancers outside the Chequers pub in Headington Quarry, which was in the ward that I represented on Oxford city council, would have to be licensed? Is the pub required to be licensed now?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The moment I said Bodleian, I realised that there must be someone here who served on Oxford council. I will try to find out the position with regard to putting on entertainments on university premises. The university may well be the authority that seeks the entertainment licence.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does outdoor morris dancing have to be licensed now?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes. It depends where the dancing is, what form it takes and how well it is enforced by the local authority. As we have gone around the country

to see how well or astutely the currently laws are enforced, we have found big differences. Some local authorities are much more assiduous than others. Some, with a nod and a wink—I suppose that is rather appropriate when we are talking about morris dancers—allow morris dancers to continue without any licence. Others are quite strict. That seems to apply to dancing performed indoors as well as outdoors. The situation is mixed around the country.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

This discussion illustrates to some extent the can of worms that has been opened by this Bill. Many people were unaware of the requirements that already exist in relation to public entertainment. The Minister may be aware of a controversy in Dorset just before Christmas over a mummers play outside a pub, which was shut down by the local authority, West Dorset district council, because it did not have a licence. Does he agree that one of the benefits of going through the legislation and tidying it up is that we can sort out inconsistencies and clarify matters for people?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, I agree entirely.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

In a moment. The hon. Gentleman, being from the Cities of London and Westminster, will be very interested in what I have to say. Outdoor morris dancing would be licensable in London and on private land outside London if wholly or mainly in the open air, but not on public land outside London. It would normally require local authority and police permission.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I was intrigued by the Minister's comments a moment ago on the differences between areas in the way in which the regulations are enforced. That goes to the centre of many of our concerns. Does the Minister feel that the right way forward is to have an entirely centralised plan, or to have a plan that is left open to local authorities' discretion? Such discretion will inevitably mean differences between local authorities, perhaps even neighbouring ones.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We are certainly trying to clarify the situation because it is very confused at the moment, as I have tried to communicate to the Committee and as other Committee members have given witness to. We need to have clarity but, where flexibility is concerned, success will depend in many ways on local authorities' ability to interpret the guidelines in what they perceive to be the best way. That is very important. For example, some local authorities are very strict in the way in which they allow carol singers to sing in shopping centres at Christmas time, whereas others seem far more relaxed about that. We want not to close options but to keep them open. We shall examine issues raised by amendments in another place relating, for example, to educational establishments. The last thing that we want is to see creativity—an important part of our society and economy—constrained in any way by what we do in this Committee and this House. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Under current legislation, a package of conditions imposed through the licensing regime, whether they relate to alcohol, entertainment or late night refreshment houses or cafés, complements health and safety and environmental protection controls. If we

removed part of that package, such as the ability to enforce conditions attached to licences for the provision of entertainment facilities, we would destroy the efficacy of the protections that ensure that licensable activities take place responsibly and promote the licensing objectives.

I turn briefly to amendments Nos. 49 and 50, because the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was brief in speaking to them. They would remove from the Bill the concept of entertainment facilities, which forms part of the scope of the definition of ''provision of regulated entertainment''. To start with, it is important to appreciate the difference, as I have said, between entertainment and entertainment facilities. Under schedule 1, entertainment could include ballet or clog dancing performed for an audience being entertained. I have tried to explain the difference between that and entertainment as understood by people who go to a discotheque.

The Bill deals with that difference by recognising that what should be covered in such circumstances is the provision of the facility—the dance floor or the karaoke machine provided for members of the public at the venue. If the Bill did not do that, the music and dancing might give rise to public safety problems and noise nuisance that might escape control.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I will in just one moment. If the Bill did not include the provision of entertainment facilities, such protection could not be imposed and enforced. In the musical context, the potential for disturbance is no different whether professional performers are entertaining an audience, or members of the public are entertaining themselves using facilities provided for that purpose.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney about intent, which I think the Minister touched on just before he gave way. If it is not the intent of the pub operator to provide a facility for dancing, but customers spontaneously dance, is that a licensable activity? Even if a pub provides a stage and no activities are to be carried out on it, paragraph 3 of the schedule refers to facilities enabling persons to take part in entertainment. I am not sure that intent is covered properly.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot conduct discussions with the civil service during a Committee.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I shall bring my intervention to a conclusion regarding the clarity of intent on entertainment facilities.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I will try to deal with that point. The purpose of the commission as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1 is to place a limitation on what is to be licensed as regulated entertainment. Paragraph 3 is crucial because it means that entertainment only becomes licensable as regulated entertainment if the premises had been made available for that purpose, or purposes including the purpose of enabling entertainment to take place.

If a group of friends and I go to a park, for example, so that I may entertain them—or, more likely, drive them demented—by singing a Cole Porter song, that is not a licensable activity because the premises of the park were not made available for the purpose of enabling the entertainment to take place. Similarly, if Conservative Members spontaneously broke into a rendition of ''Happy Birthday'' in a public house, that would not be licensable because the pub's facilities were not made available for that purpose. I could go on listing similar examples.

The hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading about live music were by and large concerned that such music should not be over-regulated. I am afraid that the amendments do just that. The two conditions in schedule 1 limit what is to be regarded as licensable activity in the provision of regulated entertainment and prevent informal and spontaneous singalongs from being caught. I do not believe that Opposition Members want regulatory control to be extended in that area, so I urge them not to press the amendment to a vote.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Minister for a fairly lengthy answer to short specific questions. We got there in the end. I am sorry that I mentioned morris dancing, but the subject was so productive that I intend to return to it later.

The hon. Gentleman talked about local authority permission when a festival of morris dancers took place in a town. Permission to do what? Either an activity is licensable or it is not. I am not sure what the permission would be for. In Whittlesey, in my constituency, we have what is called a straw bear festival in early January, which is famous throughout the country. It attracts up to 30 teams of dancers from all round the country, who parade through the town, stop outside the pubs and in turn, each does a particular routine. If I understand the Minister correctly, none of that would be licensable unless they went into the pub grounds or the pub itself. Would they need local authority permission to hold the festival? Perhaps we can return to that later.

I understand the need to tie in the facilities. In other words, if a pub landlord applied for an entertainment licence to have dancing in the pub, the authorities would want to be assured that the facilities in the pub were sufficient to meet the requirements of the stated activity. That could be checked anyway, once the application for dancing was triggered. If the Minister believes that activities outside the Bill would be caught if things were not stated in such a way, I am prepared, at this juncture, to go along with that assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in

schedule 1, page 110, leave out line 19.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 53, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 20, after 'boxing', insert 'martial arts'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Again, these are probing amendments. Amendment No. 52 would delete the words ''an indoor sporting event'', removing paragraph 2(1)(c) of schedule 1. It is important that the Government define clearly what they mean by an indoor activity. There is a question about whether such activities are licensable at the moment. If they are not and there has been no cause for concern or alarm, how can the provision be justified as a deregulatory measure?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am sorry to intervene so early on. Games played in pubs fall within the definition of indoor sports decided by Parliament in 1987—the laws defining and governing them are relatively recent.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for that definition. However, I did not mention pubs; I mentioned only indoor sporting events.

We believe that the inclusion of indoor sporting events has unnecessarily wide ramifications. For example, it may concern swimming tournaments in school swimming pools, charity darts or snooker matches in pubs, or any similar tournaments where friends and families attend in support of the players. The pub sector apparently raises some £120 million a year for charity. It appears that, under the proposals, a charity indoor sporting event in a pub, such as a darts tournament, would be a licensable activity because it would normally be a public event, not a private fund-raising event. The industry is concerned that the provision may deter licensees from holding charity events. Such events are, of course, often linked with community interests and concerns.

Is it necessary that such events should be specified in the schedule? If it is, the entertainment section of the operating schedule and the final premises licence document will have to be very prescriptive. Surely, that is not in the interests of a less bureaucratic and more straightforward system. Must all the listed activities be licensed? Would it not be simpler to have a general permission to provide entertainment? The kind of entertainment could be outlined in the operating schedule, and the scale of the proposed activity would trigger the necessary control.

The matter of indoor arenas with sliding roofs was queried during the deliberations on the Bill in the other place, but I do not think that it was answered satisfactorily. When does an outdoor event become an indoor event? One would not wish to license the Welsh rugby team playing in the national stadium with the roof closed, as opposed to when it is open. It may be helpful if we had clarification about what constitutes an indoor event.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will my hon. Friend, or the Minister, tell me whether a bandstand has to be licensed?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us when he responds.

On amendment No. 53, we understand and accept that boxing and wrestling, as types of entertainment, need licensing. The activities have one thing in common: they are violent forms of entertainment and have given rise to serious public disorder,

sometimes involving mass brawls and serious injuries to people in attendance. Perhaps such things will be more likely in future as we see an increase in audience participation in an active rather than a passive sense, particularly at wrestling events.

We have no problem with the requirement in paragraph 2(1)(d) to license boxing and wrestling. However, we fail to see why other violent—if I may use that category—sporting activities such as kick-boxing, karate, judo, tae kwon do and other so-called martial arts are exempt. The reason may be that there have been few complaints from the public or instances of disorder. Why does that apply in that case, but not in the case of other activities such as music and dance, about which, equally, there are no noise and disorder complaints from the public? If it is a health and safety issue, and if that is not covered by current legislation, all sporting events that are similar to boxing and wrestling should be included.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I did not intend to speak on this group of amendments, but they are useful probing amendments and I was rather surprised by something that the Minister said in an exchange with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. If the Minister is right in saying that 1987 legislation defines games in a pub, which I presume means skittles, pool, table football, darts and so on, as indoor sports, can he confirm that, under the Bill, any pub that anticipates holding a skittles match against the pub in the next village will have to tick the entertainment box and go through whatever additional regulation the entertainment regime brings? Pubs probably are not aware of that and have not taken it on board. There may be another campaign raging before the Minister knows where he is.[Mr. Mark Field in the Chair]

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Paragraph 2 lists the descriptions of entertainments for the purposes of the Bill. Those descriptions include ''an indoor sporting event''. Amendment No. 52 would remove such events from the list, so they would not fall within the scope of the Bill. Amendment No. 53 would add martial arts entertainments to the list of descriptions.

The Government do not wish to exclude any entertainment that is covered by the current licensing regime. The competitive nature of the activities means that indoor sporting events can attract sizeable crowds and create an atmosphere of excitement. These days, that may not apply to the Welsh rugby team—I visited my allotment in the second half on Saturday. Indoor sporting events should continue to be licensed because only regulation through such a system can ensure public safety and prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder. To exclude indoor sporting events without proper justification would lead to serious problems.

There has been some speculation in the press that the Bill signals the end of some traditional British pastimes such as darts, an idea that was repeated a moment ago by the hon. Member for North Devon. I assure the Committee that that is not the case. The Bill introduces nothing new in terms of the licensing of pub

sports. Traditional games such as skittles, darts, billiards, snooker, pool or table football are played by ordinary members of the public for personal enjoyment. Those games do not require licensing and will not do so under the Bill.

Such games played in pubs fall within the definition of indoor sports decided by Parliament in 1987. That definition is based on sports that have a history of disorder and/or public safety issues. Normally, the sports would be played not for the entertainment of spectators, but for the personal enjoyment of participants. As such, they are not licensable activities under the Bill. However, as at present, major competitions such as national or international darts competitions staged for spectators would be licensable under the Bill, not least to ensure the safety of the public and contestants.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for the clarification. Just to be sure that I have the matter spot on, the Minister is confirming that if a charitable darts competition were held in a pub, with two, three or more teams competing, it would be a licensable event. Similarly,

a swimming gala for charity, involving some form of competition, which was open to the public and so had entertainment value would be licensable. Are those new licences under the Bill, or, as the Minister alluded earlier, are they requirements under existing legislation?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I believe that they are requirements under existing legislation. They are licensable activities because they are designed to make profit. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is an element of emotion in the matter, because the events may be held for charity. Of course, they may not be for charity, and we cannot differentiate between a profit that is raised for charity and one that is not. We will be issuing statutory guidance to licensing authorities to help them to discharge their duties under the Bill.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked about bandstands. A bandstand is an entertainment facility when it is used for the purpose of making music. It could be in a park in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or in mine. A famous orchestra or band may use it. Under those circumstances, other musical entrepreneurs in the area or owners of venues may have something to say if such an event were not licensed, given that they would have to have a licence for relatively small venues such as a country pub. A bandstand would require a licence for such an event.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

Does a bandstand require a licence under current legislation? If so, how many bandstands have a licence?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I cannot answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. At present, if an event were staged before an audience to make a profit, it would require a licence.

We will be issuing statutory guidance to licensing authorities to help them discharge their duties under the Bill. That will cover the licensing of indoor sporting events. As we have said in respect of the licensing of music, we expect licensing authorities to deliver the Bill with a heavy dose of common sense. The hon. Member for North Devon is laughing. I do not know why.

On the suggested inclusion of outdoor martial arts within the licensing regime, I want to make it clear that indoor martial arts events can be covered by the Bill's provisions. Historically, outdoor boxing and wrestling have been covered by the entertainment licensing regime, but martial arts have not. That is because the problems that need to be controlled by the licensing system have arisen at boxing and wrestling matches, but not at martial arts events. It is worth remembering that licensing is about the carrying on of activities in a manner that promotes licensing objectives, including public safety and the prevention of disorder. The activity in question is the provision of regulated entertainment.

The Bill is not aimed at protecting performers and participants from harm. It does not allow the licensing authority to become involved in whether boxing is safe

for boxers. If the aim of the amendment were to give the equivalence of protection for martial arts fighters, it would not have that effect, but I do not believe that that is its aim. We do not have evidence that there is a serious problem about the licensing objectives of public safety or of public disorder at martial arts contests, which would justify our bringing them within the licensing arrangements. That is the case now, but I think that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was hinting that that is not necessarily the end of the matter. He referred to kick boxing. That is increasingly becoming commercial entertainment.

The Bill provides a power for the Secretary of State to alter the definition under schedule 1. It may be used if experience shows that other forms of entertainment should be licensed and it would be in the public interest to extend the scope of control in that way. If I am proven wrong and martial arts contests become a serious focus of trouble, safety or nuisance problems, we can deal with that within the controls over the use of the power under schedule 1.

I am willing to consider the case prepared by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. If I am convinced that there is a pressing need for outdoor martial arts events to be covered by the licensing regime, I shall happily include them. With that reassurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment. I shall announce the result of our considerations about martial arts on Report.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Is the Minister confident that the Bill's powers allow local authorities to use common sense? It is not my experience that local authorities are uniform in their application of that attribution. If the Minister is to issue guidelines that require them to exercise common sense, they must be confident that they at least have the legal power to do so. My concern is that once the Bill is enacted, local authority solicitors and others will scrabble around in their usual business of trying to find something to do and they will discover that these things are licensable. They may or may not have been licensable in the past, but they will know that they are licensable now and they will wander from pub to pub looking for darts competitions and trying to find out whether they are licensable. They will spend an infinite amount of time on that. They will conclude that they are regulated entertainment and that they do not have the discretion to ignore a failure by a publican or others to apply for a licence for that purpose: that is my concern. Regardless of how good the Minister's guidelines are—I would like to see them before we progress much further—I do not believe that the Bill provides for local authorities to use common sense.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to disagree. We have had long and fruitful discussions with the Local Government Association and others and they are aware that we will be watching carefully: the guidelines that we issue will have statutory powers so that they can be judicially reviewed if authorities try to prevent activities that are not licensable. The Bill introduces nothing new in terms of the licensing of pub sports: the situation will be the same as it is now.

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting comment. He said, ''Perhaps they have suddenly realised that there are powers that they should have been thinking about previously.'' I cannot answer for local authorities that have been sleepy in that respect, but I assure him that we will watch this carefully and that the guidelines will be strict. We want to encourage rather than discourage those types of activities.

I forgot to mention sliding roofs—probably because it is such a painful subject at the moment as the only sliding roof in any stadium of any size that I know of is the one on the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, which has been the venue of a series of recent disasters.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I merely want to remind the Minister of the sterling performance of the Welsh football team in the Millennium stadium. I am sure that his constituents would want to hear that he strongly supports the team and that he celebrates its victory.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

My punchline was nicked by somebody from South Dorset.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister should not have given way.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman is right.

That was a magnificent win and I was glad about it because it is nice that we win at something.

The Bill deals with sliding roofs in paragraph 16(2) of schedule 1. The Millennium stadium is treated as an outdoor stadium even if its roof is closed.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

May I go back to the earlier point in the debate over local authorities? Is it not the case that the restraints on local government finance have led to a situation in which, where local councils have powers to impose fees and powers to license, they will use them to the fullest extent—not necessarily because they want to be that way, but because it is one of the few things that they can control? Will the Minister bear that in mind in drawing up the guidance?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has pored over the Bill, so he will know that we are arranging fees centrally and we will certainly ensure that no owner of a licence in his constituency will be priced out of putting on entertainment in the venue simply because the local authority has decided it is a nice little earner. We want that fee simply to cover the costs and we will consider carefully how those costs are assessed, set out and audited.

With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will ask leave to withdraw the amendments.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister did not answer my earlier question about whether darts, for example, and swimming events that are held for charitable purposes are licensable under existing legislation.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I tried to answer the hon. Gentleman, but I do not know whether he heard me, or understood me. Such events are licensable at the moment and, yes, they are licensable for charities, too.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for intervening. On sliding roofs, I am grateful to him for referring to part 3, paragraph 18 of schedule 1, which I have read carefully for the nth time. However,

I am not convinced that the Minister's interpretation is correct. Paragraph 18(1) states:

''An 'indoor sporting event' is a sporting event

(a) which takes place wholly inside a building''.

Paragraph 18(2) states:

'' 'building''' means any roofed structure (other than a structure with a roof which may be opened or closed)''.

I would say that it is not included. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should not have sat down. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that indoor sporting events will include martial arts, which I admit I had overlooked. I was not thinking about outdoor martial arts events, which I did not know existed, let alone outdoor boxing and wrestling events. On a small point, does outdoor boxing and wrestling mean in the open air or does it include those events in a tent or a marquee? The definition of a building in paragraph 18(2) is that it has a roof structure, but it is a temporary structure.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman really threw me then; I thought that I was reading things wrongly. I think what he is confused about is that it is an outdoor arena—an arena with indoor sports. It is an outdoor arena even if it has got a sliding roof on it. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It does not say that anywhere in the schedule but I will take it as read that that is what the Minister means.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

An entertainment that is often put on by the Bembridge branch of the Isle of Wight Conservative association is called horseracing, but it does not involve live animals. It can take place in a tent if the weather is inclement, which it seldom is in my constituency. If the tent is a moveable structure it is covered by paragraph 18(2) on page 113, which includes a moveable structure. However, if the roof can be taken off the moveable structure it is not an indoor event. Clearly, a roof can be taken off a tent at any time; does a tent therefore count as an indoor event or not?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am sure there are lots of tents from which the roof can be taken. However, if the hon. Gentleman would put that down on paper and draw for me the kind of tent he has in mind, I will try to answer his question before Report.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in

schedule 1, page 110, leave out line 21.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 116, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 21, after 'of', insert 'amplified'.

Amendment No. 115, in

schedule 1, page 110, leave out line 22.

Amendment No. 113, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 22, leave out 'playing' and insert 'performance'.

Amendment No. 114, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 22, at end insert 'to the public'.

Amendment No. 110, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 25, at end insert—

'(i) dancing,

(j) making music,'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We have arrived at one of the most contentious aspects, if not the most contentious, of the Bill. The provision on licensing music has caused more opposition and lobbying and been the subject of more print inches than any other. The question that the Government must answer is straightforward: why is it deemed necessary to license musical activities at all? Currently, we have the two-in-a-bar rule and we shall end up with a none-in-a-bar rule. I am not sure whether that is progress.

What grounds will the Government cite—I am sure that they are written down in the Minister's response—for regulating live music? There is a discrepancy in their argument. They say that they are licensing activities because they cause a nuisance—the noise problem associated with music, let us say. There is not much in the way of accusations that musical activity gives rise to crime and disorder, so the only real ground is probably noise. However, the Noise Abatement Society says that 81 per cent. of its complaints about pubs and bars are caused by noisy people outside the premises.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is a great concern. I have my own concerns, but as a former deputy leader of Mendip district council, which was the licensing authority for the Glastonbury festival, I say to him that certain musical licensing events do give rise to great public order and crime and disorder concerns. That is why his Conservative colleagues on that council consistently oppose the licensing of that festival.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out; I was coming to that point. We are talking about scale. What is there to say that all musical activity does not have the propensity to create noise and nuisance? I am not saying that it does not. I started with the two-in-a-bar level and planned to work upwards. The United Kingdom Noise Association says that complaints about live music are relatively rare. It receives more complaints about noisy recorded music. The Institute of Alcohol Studies, which canvasses the views of residents' associations about licensing reform, says that none has ever made an issue of live music. Residents' associations in Soho and Covent Garden—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will enlarge on this—accept that noise breakout from premises can be controlled by existing legislation.

I believe that certain legislation enables local authorities to seize the equipment that is causing the noise pretty well immediately and issue a £20,000 noise

abatement notice for compliance forthwith. In anticipation of a noise nuisance, they have recourse to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The police already have powers to close noisy pubs for up to 24 hours. On the ground of noise, therefore, the case has not been made that a great swathe of public opinion says, ''For goodness' sake, do something about music noise in pubs and clubs.''

What about the public safety aspects? I understand that a radical new fire safety regime for workplaces is due to be introduced in 2004, entitled the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. That order will apply to premises including cinemas, theatres, pubs and restaurants, and will cover the provision of entertainment irrespective of licensing requirements. Another Department is therefore already working towards the risk assessment where the onus is on the owner or manager to examine carefully the fire safety regime of their premises, and that requirement will come into effect in the next year or so irrespective of the licensing legislation.

Local authorities are, as we know, the enforcing authority for safety legislation in workplaces. Paragraph 9 of schedule 1 of the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 empowers them to regulate specific activities, including entertainment and

''practice or presentation of the arts.''

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 places a statutory duty on employers and the self-employed to make risk assessments of their work activities covering risks to employees and others in connection with their work. Failure to undertake such risk assessments could lead to criminal prosecution.

The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of employees and of non-employees who may be affected. Event organisers and promoters or licensees are bound by that duty to ensure that premises are safe and without risks to health. Trailing bare cables or blocking fire exits could lead to criminal prosecution under that legislation.

There is a plethora of legislation already on the statute book covering noise and public safety. Why do we need extra laws to govern activities, many of which are small scale, in pubs in the UK? The playing of music in pubs is not the only situation about which the Musicians Union and others involved in music are concerned, but it is a starting point. The two-in-a-bar rule—I am not suggesting that that should be retained, and have tabled amendments to that effect—at least means that some small-scale musical activity does take place daily and weekly in hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of small locations, and in pubs in particular. This legislation has the potential to cut that out entirely.

The cost or ease of application is not the issue. On Second Reading, the Minister made the point, which I accept, that it will be easy for a pub landlord, at the same time as he is applying for his premises licence to put in for an entertainment licence, and that it may not

cost him much to do so. We have not begun to discuss fees yet, of course. The problem relates to applications for public entertainment licences under existing legislation, and to what the landlord is required to do to his premises to satisfy the requirements of that licence.

I made a point of contacting my local brewery, Elgood and Sons in Wisbech, which has approximately 30 pubs in North-East Cambridgeshire, and saw specific examples in which landlords had to pay £2,000, £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 to carry out work and improvements related to health and safety or similar concerns, simply to be allowed a public entertainment licence. That is where the costs will be incurred.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The hon. Gentleman described the existing and potential health and safety legislation

for regulating those pubs. Would not those public houses have to carry out that work anyway, if they wanted to put on entertainment and obtain, for example, a fire certificate or a health and safety certificate?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

They would have to do some work, obviously. However, if we are talking about small-scale musical activity on their premises—the current two-in-a-bar rule—it is possible that, in the future, someone may decide to change the requirements related to that rule.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee D

Schedule 1 - Provision of regulated amendments

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 116, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 21, after 'of', insert 'amplified'.

Amendment No. 115, in

schedule 1, page 110, leave out line 22.

Amendment No. 113, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 22, leave out 'playing' and insert 'performance'.

Amendment No. 114, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 22, at end insert 'to the public'.

Amendment No. 110, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 25, at end insert—

'(i) dancing,

(j) making music,'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

May I begin, Mr. Benton, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again. I was coming to the second part of my remarks on amendment No. 54, which I said at the outset is a probing amendment to ask the Government why live music should be licensable in the first place. Before I comment on the other amendments, may I say that it seems to many people in the music industry that the Bill discriminates against live music in favour of, say, wide-screen television and juke boxes, which are both exempt from the Bill. We will come to those later.

There is a feeling—we will develop the argument I am sure in later clauses—that the Bill infringes human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights found that the Government have provided no evidence of any need to increase licensing controls over live music and that the Bill could infringe people's right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. It is our view, shared by those in the music industry, that a licensing regime that encourages and enables the performance of live music in pubs and clubs would bring incalculable benefits for the nation. It would provide another incentive for tourism, help young musicians to develop and hone their music skills, increase access by the general public to live music and increase work opportunities for musicians of all ages.

In the huge amount of material that I, and no doubt other members of the Committee as well as the Minister and his officials, have received were two

quotations from two of our leading jazz musicians of long standing. I refer, of course, to Humphrey Lyttleton and John Dankworth. I want to quote briefly from both of them. Humphrey Lyttleton states:

''The question must be answered—why? Ostensibly, I understand, it is to help curb anti-social behaviour. I have surveyed audiences in venues from prestigious to humble for over half a century and never once suffered so much as a twinge of anxiety that they might, as a result of my music-making, rush out into the street and create mayhem.''

John Dankworth says:

''The proposed bill is a nightmare for musicians. It began as a simple attempt to get rid of an antiquated and stupid restriction on our lives. The result is another far more stupid (and pernicious) restriction on our simple wish to make music. However well-intentioned its perpetrators might be, the new legislation can only be seen by those it affects in one way—bureaucracy gone mad, and yet another unwarranted interference by government in our already difficult battle with recorded music.''

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I should be interested to know when those comments were written because towards the end of last year an enormous number of myths were circulating about the implications of the Bill, particularly for live music. Were they written while those hares were running?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman because I do not have the date on the quotes. I would not have thought such eminent musicians would wax lyrical in that way unless they were sure of their ground.

Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 110, which appear in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), would make it clear on the face of the Bill that it is not just the playing of recorded music that is the issue, but the more active involvement in the performance of recorded music by a disc jockey. Amendment No. 2 does not solve the problem; it compounds it.

Returning to the performance of recorded music, there seems to be scope for confusion between the reference to any playing of recorded music in this part of the schedule, and part 2 paragraph 7, which provides exemption for the playing of recorded music

''to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity''.

This calls into question when recorded music is deemed to be incidental. Is that related to the type or simply to the volume of the recorded music?

Will businesses risk being in breach of their operating plan if they misinterpret their recorded music as being incidental and do not include it when submitting their application to the licensing authority? The assumption seems to be that paragraph (2)(1)(f) is aimed primarily at the performance of recorded music by DJs. If that is the case, it needs to be amended as proposed in the interests of clarification.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I shall address some remarks to amendments Nos. 116 and 115, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). Let me say at the outset that I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) in moving this group of amendments. As yet, we have not heard from the Government why we need to license music and entertainment at all. I will not go

over all the same ground. The hon. Gentleman went through the other forms of regulation that already exist: noise abatement, environmental health departments, health and safety, fire and so on.

What is it that necessitates this extra form of regulation? Why is it that they do not feel the need for it in Scotland—and the world does not seem to have ended there as a result—but we persevere with it in England and Wales? I am not convinced that we need to get into these realms of regulation at all. If the Bill was to achieve some of the deregulatory objectives that it sets for itself, the Government would have taken this opportunity to follow the Scottish example.

We tabled the two amendments, one on live and the other on recorded music, because we need to hear the Government's interpretation of the amendment on incidental music that was passed in the other place, which they have reformulated for us here. If it is the Government's interpretation that the performing of music in a pub is incidental to the main business of serving alcohol, that is a significant breakthrough. It was our fear that fewer venues would host live music in the future, but it may not be as bad as we initially supposed. However, I have not yet heard the Government confirm that that is their view. We shall come to that in a few minutes. If that is not their interpretation, the two amendments—other ways of skinning the same cat—introduced by Conservative Members will be very necessary. Otherwise, as I said on Second Reading and as was said this morning, we are replacing the two-in-a-bar rule with a none-in-the-bar rule. If we are, that would be a retrograde step and there will be a danger of killing live music, particularly in pubs.

Landlords will be reluctant to tick the entertainment box entitling them to hold live music events if they think that it may raise queries about their entire licence and that residents in the area may put forward objections that would put the licence in doubt. That could mean that far fewer pubs and clubs will be willing to apply for a licence and serve as a venue for musical events. I hope that the Government will clear that up for us this afternoon.

Amendment No. 115 would remove the phrase

''any playing of recorded music''.

The amendment would enable those who play live but want the backing of pre-recorded music to do just that. Some musicians use background harmonies, or a drum or piano track, to improve the quality of their performance, which was one of the ideas that we had in mind when tabling the amendment. The amendments approach the same issue in different ways. Perhaps they can serve as probing amendments if the Government have a more comprehensive solution up their sleeve, but if not, they are very important. We need to hear from the Government what their interpretation of amendments Nos. 2 and 3, with which we shall deal later, actually is.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I have concerns about the need to regulate live music, which I will expand upon when we deal with the amendment in my name and that of my

hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). I wanted to speak briefly to these amendments, which do not quite hit the mark in dealing with the concerns.

Amendment No. 54 would omit live music from the provision. As I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, there are circumstances in which live music certainly should be regarded as regulated entertainment. I used the example of the Glastonbury festival—the most extreme example, but there are plenty of others—as a place where a performance of music will undoubtedly attract a significant number of people. That should be regulated for the sake of public safety, noise nuisance and so on. The amendment does not hit the mark.

Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 suggest that we refer to the ''performance'' of recorded music to the public. I find that idea of the performance of live music fairly confusing. I can imagine some scenarios where the definition might work. Miming on ''Top of the Pops'' might be regarded as a performance of recorded music. I suppose that Fatboy Slim and the like, who are DJs, might be performing recorded music. However, having listened to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, it sounds as if he has framed the amendment to get round some of his worries about incidental music, so I do not think that he quite hits the mark with that amendment either.

I am unsure about amendment No. 110 adding ''dancing'' and ''making music''. As a former arts promoter and performer, I think that the participatory aspects of the arts should not be regulated. I would be concerned if amendment No. 110 added dancing and making music to regulated entertainments. I do not want participation in dancing and making music to be regulated.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman has doubts about music making and dancing being included in No. 110, but those are already there in paragraph (3). Is he saying that he does not agree with their being there?

I will look quickly at paragraph 3. I am concerned about how this part of the schedule is framed. There are circumstances in which huge, mass dances and mass jamming sessions may be required to be regulated entertainments. My amendment is intended to explore whether exemptions may be made for such things in the provisions for regulated entertainment.

The Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 115 and 116 are equally flawed and unconvincing. Those talk about the performance of amplified live music. That sounds as if it is moving more in the right direction. However, I am mindful of what I would feel like if I had a steel drum band or an African drum group next door. Those are capable of making as much noise as amplified music.

Leaving out the playing of recorded music puts me in mind of that huge problem for public safety on Brighton beach, when 100,000 people turned up to hear the likes of Fatboy Slim, who were playing recorded music. Such events should certainly be regarded as regulated entertainment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The more I listen to debates on the schedule, the more convinced I am that the approach adopted by the Government is wrong. If I had the opportunity to listen further to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), I would perhaps feel that the approach is even more wrong. The approach seems to consist of saying, ''What kind of event is this? Shall we put it in the Bill?'' The judgment about whether to include it in the Bill depends on what kind of trouble the event causes. As the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated, the approach should vary according to not the kind of event but its size, the volume of noise generated, the numbers in the audience or the number of spectators, and the kind of participation in which they engage. We have not considered such things in the debates on the amendments moved so far.

I find it difficult to get into a sensible debate on the schedule when the Minister says, ''It is no good talking about environmental health legislation, because it does not work.''

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells) indicated dissent.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister shakes his head. I thought that he said that that legislation was retrospective, rather than prospective, and that it would not work for the purpose of the Bill. Surely, we should make existing legislation work when we are amending legislation, rather than create new legislation that also does not work.

The debates we have had demonstrate that, however much we fiddle around with the definitions, there will be some things with which we will be deeply sympathetic, such as two people playing quiet instruments in a public house some distance from residential accommodation in the middle of the day, and other things with which we will be unsympathetic, such as two people playing steel drums in a public house close to residential accommodation in the middle of the night. There is, however, nothing in the Bill that distinguishes between those two things. As far as I can see, none of the amendments seeks to tackle the problem.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does not the licensing board have the freedom to take into consideration local noise nuisance and, more important, the venue, rather than the number of people playing? That is the important point in the public safety argument, rather than the nonsense of whether the rule is two musicians in a bar or, as proposed in Lords, 250 people in a bar or venue.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I accept that that is the issue from the public safety point of view, but the argument has not been about public safety; it has been about noise pollution.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

No. As someone who used to administer public entertainment licences, I know that the key issue is often not noise but the public safety of the people who are attending the events.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am prepared to accept that from the hon. Gentleman. I was merely giving my recollection

of the debate on amendments to the schedule so far. That debate was not, in the main, about public safety.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

It should be.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The problem is that it cannot be. If different events were held with exactly the same number of people in the same building, some would be unlicensable and others licensable. Therefore, it cannot be public safety that makes the difference as to whether 100 people are in a building for the purpose of religious worship or to listen to two people strum a guitar in a non-religious manner.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am not sure what type of religious services the hon. Gentleman attends, but most that I attend are quite well organised and are serious events. There is a big difference between them and public entertainment that may involve live music and alcohol. The only alcohol served in my local church is that served during communion.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is exactly the problem. The Bill—

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

They are different things

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

They are not different things. The two kinds of event could take place in the same building and involve the same number of people, but one of them, which may include a recitation of scripture, some organ music, singing and perhaps even dancing, would be unlicensable and the other, which may include singing and dancing but have two people playing, would be licensable.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of religious services that involve, for example, consumption of large amounts of alcohol?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I do not claim to know everything about all religious services ever conducted, but I know of plenty of live concerts that do not involve massive consumption of alcohol.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

Perhaps a better example of the hon. Gentleman's point would be that a television pounding out a concert may be watched by just as many people, cause just as much noise and involve the consumption of just as much alcohol as live music. However, the live music would have to be licensed.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman makes my point a great deal better than I did. I am greatly obliged to him. That is a perfect example. [Interruption.] I am quite content to be rescued from time to time by the Liberal Democrats. They do a great deal of good for me in my constituency, where they run the local council in much the way that the hon. Gentleman described earlier. I am grateful for that intervention. It is an example of the Bill distinguishing between two activities that are just as likely to be noisy and a threat to public safety. The Bill also fails to distinguish between activities that are miles apart in terms of noise and public safety. As I said earlier, playing steel drums in the middle of the night next to residential accommodation is very different from playing a clarinet and a flute in the middle of the day at a country pub miles from residential accommodation, yet they are both treated in the same way under the Bill. That is a fundamental problem with the way in which we are proceeding.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The argument is rather ridiculous, because surely the local licensing authority will have something to say about noise nuisance. If the steel drums to which the hon. Gentleman referred were played in a residential area, local residents would object. The Bill gives them the right to do so.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is right. Now we are getting to the point. The hon. Gentleman prefers that people should have to go to the licensing authority to ask whether they are allowed to have two clarinets or guitars—two relatively quiet instruments—playing in a bar at lunchtime. That is what this is about. The reason why some things are exempt from licensing is that it is thought that it is unnecessary for them to be licensable. It is not a matter of the conditions involved: it is that the Government and the other place do not think that such things should be licensable. In my view, plenty of other things in the schedule should not be licensable.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

In the case of two clarinettists playing in a bar, there is little likelihood that there would be objections or problems with the licensing authority.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

But the problem is the bureaucracy—filling in the application.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

That involves ticking a box.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That may well be, but why should we legislate, regulate and give local authorities the power to control—[Interruption.] I understand that they already have the power in relation to two-in-a-bar.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

At the moment, the two-in-a-bar rule means that there is an exemption from having to seek a licence. A licence has to be obtained for anything above that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to the Minister, because that contradicts what was said about having to obtain a licence for the two clarinettists.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

No. If there is a string quartet in a pub, a public entertainment licence has to be obtained.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, but a quartet consists of four people. Two clarinettists are exempt at the moment. The question is why should such things be licensed? Why should somebody be asked to apply for a licence to do what we would expect them to be able to do in a free country? They are not doing something that causes trouble to anyone else, or causes noise or traffic pollution, or poses a threat to public safety.

The fact that such things need licences now is no answer. I think that it was Mr. Micawber who uttered the immortal words,

''the law is a ass''.

The law is quiet often an ass. It is our job to try to make it better, not merely to say, ''Because it happens now, it will happen in future.'' There are plenty of things that Governments of all descriptions have passed that we throw out. Indeed, we are throwing out many things with the Bill. The fact that something happens now is no argument. The problem is that the Bill does not approach the issue from the point of view of whether the things in question are a nuisance or even from the point of view of public safety.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I will illustrate that point by referring to the intervention that I made this morning on the Minister. The Bill would not cover noise pollution from a funfair, at which music is incidental to the entertainment, but it would cover the same noise levels produced by a concert. The concert would be licensed as entertainment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It would indeed. To give another example, the other day I gave away the prizes at an event in my constituency for young learners. Perhaps giving away prizes is an educational function, but there were films, extremely noisy performances of recorded music and large numbers of people in a small space, not all of whom were participating and some of whom were the audience or spectators. Because that was educational, it appears not to be covered by the schedule. That seems utterly absurd.

Will the Minister explain why he is approaching the matter from an event-by-event point of view, rather than by considering whether things are a threat to public safety? It is no good saying that the licensing committee will decide, because the provider of the entertainment has already been constrained by being forced to apply for a licence in the first place. That is the infringement of individual liberty that we will be legislating to create—or to maintain—if we pass this schedule unamended.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I also wish to thank you, Mr. Benton, for chairing this Committee. It is good of you to give up your time and it is always a pleasure to serve on a Committee with you.

Amendment No. 54 goes to the heart of the Bill. It would remove

''a performance of live music''

from the descriptions of entertainment that is to be regulated by the Bill. It would therefore take live music out of the licensing scheme altogether.

Now that we have amended the Bill and introduced a series of non-legislative concessions, all musicians should welcome its reforms. If the industry makes full use of them, the opportunities for musicians to perform and for the public to enjoy a much wider range of music, will be vastly increased. Under the new system, it will be much easier and—in most cases—much cheaper to get the necessary authorisation to put on live music. It must be remembered that the Bill provides a one-stop shop for the first time. Any premises obtaining a licence permitting the sale of alcohol can simultaneously obtain permission for live music at no additional fee. I hope that the Committee takes that on board, because some of the fees that are charged for entertainment licences are huge and many of them have to be renewed annually: they can be more than £20,000 for premises in London.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Government are continuing to say that there is no extra charge. That is true if the landlord of the pub, for example, makes a simultaneous application for his drinks and entertainment licences and ticks the appropriate box. However, at present there is much uncertainty and 95 per cent. of pubs do not have a public

entertainment licence. Why is there going to be a massive rush in the transition period to tick the box when there is that air of uncertainty? If a pub landlord is going to apply for an entertainment licence, he will probably do it later rather than sooner and there will be a charge if landlords do not apply for the licences simultaneously.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we owe the music industry and the licensing industry a duty to clarify the situation with regard to licensing music. I do not know the exact number of licensed premises that apply for an entertainments licence at present: some people say that the proportion is about 8 per cent. and others say that it is lower than that. Regardless of what the figure is, the performance of live music in this country is enormously distorted by the two-in-a-bar rule. The Musicians Union was the first to want to get rid of that rule: it said that a much more consistent approach was necessary. Increasingly, we are not even seeing two in a bar; it is one guy with a karaoke machine and that is the golden age of live music performances in licensed premises in this country. I fear that we will lose the hugely creative undergrowth that is necessary for an industry that is important to us.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does my hon. Friend also agree that the problem at the moment is not only the cost of the licence but the bureaucracy surrounding the hearing for a public entertainment licence and the expense that many licensees have to go to, sometimes on an annual basis—hiring solicitors and others—to appear before the licensing boards?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, absolutely: there is great bureaucracy at the moment, which is why so many landlords of licensed premises are put off from doing anything other than allowing one or two musicians in a bar to play without any application for a licence. I have been amazed about this. As I said, the Musicians Union initially thought that the two-in-a-bar rule was a nonsense that was distorting music. I suppose that there were good reasons for it, especially in the days before amplified music, although that was a long time ago. The Musicians Union felt that it was not good. It was certainly no good for the jazz music that I like. Something can be done with two in a bar, but not very much. It does not make for very adventurous music. It certainly does not allow people to experiment, which I should have thought was important.

I understand fully the argument of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). When he said that two in a bar was better than none in a bar, he echoed what the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said earlier. I shall explain why such worries are misplaced, although I acknowledge that the provision will make a big change in the way in which we regard entertainment in licensed premises.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Before the Minister starts to justify the Government's action, I want to pick up on his point about the Musicians Union. It is all right for him to pray in aid the fact that it wanted the two-in-a-bar rule to be eliminated, but that was done on the basis that all live music would be permitted without a licence up to about 12 hours a week. That was the initial approach in 1998. Since then, the Department for

Culture, Media and Sport has been saying that the Musicians Union was persuading the Government to take such action. Yes, it wanted them to get rid of two in a bar, but it wanted live music to be exempt up to a given level of hours in a week. That was the union's argument.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Such a suggestion is fair enough. I cannot remember what the situation was in 1998. I am not even sure that it was a matter for the Department at that time. We are proposing a better scheme.

I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed most vociferously by performers and their representatives. That is why we have made several concessions about live music. However, amendment No. 54 would go too far. An obvious point and some technical detail lie behind the Government's thinking. Under the amendment, there would be no means of regulating public safety at, say, a 70,000-capacity concert at one of the country's great stadiums. There would be no means for the police to tackle crime and disorder, especially drugs, at large rock festivals. Local residents would have no say whatever if a heavy metal band decided to play gigs in the local community centre. The Government cannot agree to the amendment.

The Committee must appreciate that live music often gives rise to special considerations that are not relevant to many other forms of entertainment. For example, events may be large and immensely popular. They may generate particular noise and other nuisance problems and they may give rise to specific public safety problems—for example, when large numbers of people gather in premises that are not designed for such a purpose. However, the problem is not always down to size, especially when public safety and nuisance issues are involved.

Many people have argued that there is no need to license live music because existing health, safety, and nuisance legislation is sufficient to regulate problems that may arise. The hon. Member for North Devon pointed that out. I rarely disagree with him, but I do now for two reasons. First, existing health and safety nuisance law is not adequate. As I said, it is reactive. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what I mean. Action can be taken only when a problem has arisen. It would rely on premises operators having a thorough understanding of the special safety and nuisance considerations associated with live music to protect members of the public fully.

Let us imagine the operator of a community centre putting on a live band for the first time. Although we want to encourage that, the operator—not having experience of putting on live bands—would not have a clue about many of the hazards that might arise. They probably would not know how to prevent shock, trip or fire hazards as a result of cabling. They might not know what were the safety issues surrounding the provision of a stage, or how a crowd might behave in the event of a fire. Importantly, their idea of a nuisance might be different from that of local residents living near the venue. That is something we have hardly mentioned so far.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does my hon. Friend also agree that if we accepted the amendments there would, for example, be nothing to stop someone taking over a warehouse or any derelict building and holding a rave, which could cause great nuisance and annoyance to local residents and local authorities and the police would have no powers to close down such an illegal activity? From personal experience, in Newcastle in the 1990s there were raves and the only legislation that stopped them was that covering the grant of a public entertainment licence.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, indeed. I agree. The police have made it clear to us that raves—the sudden phenomenon of the 1980s—were often organised by people whose main purpose was selling drugs. Unless the police have a say in the licensing of the sort of events that my hon. Friend describes, they have no way of saying, ''We can tell you that the organiser is very undesirable and the event should not go ahead.'' Given the concerns expressed by hon. Members about the welfare of their constituents, which all of us have, they should be concerned about that.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) mentioned raves. In my experience and in my constituency, most of the raves were not announced to the general public and there were no applications for licences—they just happened. The police turned up—[Interruption.] All right, let me finish. Does the Minister say that the Bill would enable the police to close down such rave events more easily than before?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We will talk, during the later stages of the Bill, about the powers that the enforcement agencies, including the police, will have to close down disruptive events, houses or licensed premises.

If there is no obligation for such a form of entertainment to be licensed, the police cannot possibly know about it before it happens. The police have no remit to become involved until they receive reports about an event. The previous Government introduced measures designed precisely to ensure that the police had some purchase on the incidences of raves in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in many other constituencies.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) deprecated what the previous Government did and I think he was wrong to do so. They did it for good reasons. All manner of public nuisances and dangers were involved in those events and the previous Government introduced measures to try to cope with them. We are trying to make the regime better.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I understand why the Minister feels that the Government's role is to make the regime better, but surely he realises that whether we talk about raves or any similar large-scale event, however much licensing and however many laws are passed, we must have the proper enforcement. If thousands of people attend a rave in the middle of a field, hundreds of police would be needed to rectify the situation and break up the event. All the laws we could pass, whether today or in future, would make no difference unless an enforcement procedure was in place.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he ought to pay some tribute to the previous Government, who looked hard at the matter. The incidence of raves has dropped off considerably, which may be a result of changing fashion—I do not know. I am 56. It is a long time since I went to anything like a rave. We must not make it easier for a drug dealer to organise an event that would result in all sorts of nefarious activities—we should make it harder.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Is the Minister suggesting that the drug dealer will get in touch with the local licensing authority before he goes to sell his drugs to ensure that his rave will be fully and properly licensed? Is he going to be worried about licensing laws? I accept that that is a major problem and I do not wish to trivialise it because I feel as strongly as the Minister does, and indeed, many of our residents tell us that something needs to be done. However, the reality is that putting many more laws into the statute book that are bypassed by a large number of our fellow citizens would surely lead to a worse position than the one we are in at the moment.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No, I disagree profoundly. If a rave is unlicensed, the organisers can be prosecuted for not having a licence. If there is no requirement for a licence, the police can act only if they can prove that other criminal activities are taking place. Making an exemption would put a huge burden on the police and they carry enough of a burden as it is. At the moment, people can be fined £20,000 or given six months in jail, but they must have broken a law. If that law does not exist and people are not required to have a licence for such an event, they are not breaking the law. It is then up to the police to investigate the situation and given, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, that the police are often stretched on such occasions, I cannot see how that would do anything other than make their job more difficult. The licensing scheme gives the experts in such areas an opportunity to make absolutely sure that the event is safe, and local residents a chance to have their voices heard.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

Before we started discussing raves, the Minister went through a list of things that the experts might consider. He cited the example of a community centre putting on a band for the first time, and the different areas that those running it might not know anything about. Does the Minister appreciate that the list of considerations that he was marshalling sounded exactly like the list of concerns put forward by publicans to explain why they would be reluctant to tick the entertainment box? It is the fact that all the experts will be down on them like a ton of bricks that makes them reluctant to tick the box, which means that we run the risk of putting live music out of small pubs.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, I can understand that. That is especially true given the great propaganda war that I have experienced—I think that I have signed about 1,600 letters to right hon. and hon. Members on behalf of constituents who have written. The campaign has been very effective. Especially as misinformation—as I would term it—has been spread about what the legislation will mean. We shall come to that later.

I say to the hon. Member for North Devon that the Secretary of State will issue guidance that will make the situation very clear. If, for example there are two musicians, singers or dancers in a bar—or whatever the absurd rules allow at present—a local authority will not suddenly be able to say, ''If you want that to continue, you're going to have to put another fire door in.''. We are going to be very strict and clear on that in the guidance, which will have statutory power. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman about that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is somewhat surprising that we are in Committee debating a Bill that was introduced in another place and we still have not seen the guidance, or even a draft. I do not know if the guidance is available. It does not appear to be in front of us. Is that the extent of the so-called legislative reforms to which the Minister referred earlier? I am concerned that we shall find that the guidance may even be statutory guidance, but such guidance cannot change the law. If the law says that something is licensable, one can be absolutely certain that some local authority somewhere will be chasing around saying, ''It is licensable. You have to apply for a licence under these conditions. The Secretary of State may say that you shouldn't need a new fire door, but we think that it is necessary.'' I realise that I have asked two questions.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. In a way, I am making a statement of faith; when we put out the statutory guidance, we will have to make sure that it works. That is the job of a Department, and there is no question about that. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's cynical view of how local authorities work, as some are very good, but he is right to say that some are very poor. The response to existing laws has been incredibly patchy. I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will be interested to hear that we even found local authorities that are charging licence fees for two in a bar. That is extraordinary in this modern age of live music in licensed premises.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It is illegal.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Absolutely. I do not want to strengthen the argument of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, but that is something that we must bear in mind.

The hon. Member for North Devon drew attention to the list that I read out. I am sure that he will be interested to hear that the Musicians Union publishes a code of good practice for the health and safety of performers. If existing health and safety law on live music were adequate in itself, surely there would be no need for such guidance, welcome though it is. The conditions attached to licences form an essential part of the package ensuring that entertainment is provided in a responsible way, paying appropriate regard to the need to protect public safety, among other things.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

A question was asked about the guidance. The Minister responded that it is available and has been for some time. When I went to get an updated copy from the Vote Office only yesterday, I got the same version that I had some weeks ago. At the back, under annexe A, which relates to schedule 1, there are the wonderful words, ''being prepared''. The

Vote Office did not have the updated version yesterday. Has it materialised now? We are discussing schedule 1, but we do not have the guidance relating to it and at 5.30 pm we will be moving on to other things. Is that satisfactory?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I have found the relevant passage; it refers to the list of annexes being prepared and is on the last page. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the annexes are still being prepared. There is a chunk of guidance there that he can read, but I will try to ensure that he and the Committee get the rest of the guidance at the earliest opportunity.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for making sure that I get a copy, but I do not suppose that it will be an advance copy; I will get it with everyone else. My point is that the Minister said that he has made two concessions to the Musicians Union that it would be pleased about and that they are in the guidance. Well, who knows whether they are or not? The Committee certainly does not.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I would have said that they will be in the guidance. I put that on record. I shall try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee get the guidance at the earliest opportunity. I am making that statement in Committee and it carries some weight because I am giving an undertaking, on behalf of my Department, that that will be a fact.

Mr. Moss rose—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman speaks, notwithstanding what the Minister said, the learned Clerk has drawn to my attention that the list of annexes being prepared—schedule 1, 2, 4 and so on—are actually the schedules. I hope that that remark is helpful. It is easy for me to understand, but I hope the Committee may be able to accept it as well so that we can make some progress.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton, I am sure that the Committee is grateful for that explanation. Would it not be helpful if papers that were to be referred to in Committee were available to hon. Members here? I accept that we are expected to collect them from the Vote Office, but in Committees on which I have served in the past, the Department sent copies of guidance to right hon. and hon. Members in advance and copies of those papers were available for reference at the Committee meetings.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but that is a matter for the Minister. I suggest that the Committee should make some progress as we are getting bogged down.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Thank you Mr. Benton. I pointed out that the conditions attached to licences form an essential part of the package, to ensure that—among other things—entertainment is provided in a responsible way, paying appropriate regard to the need to protect public safety. Many people are under the misapprehension that the only problems that arise from the provision of live music relate to public safety and public nuisance. That has been the main thrust of the argument so far; but it is not the case.

Many events have the potential to give rise to serious crime and disorder problems. For example, in

extreme cases some popular music is closely associated with drug culture, which can lead to violence and disorder. If music is to be performed in public at licensed premises, then the licensing authority would have the power—after the relevant representations have been made—to impose necessary and proportionate conditions to promote the licensing objectives for the benefit of residents and customers. We understand the need for common sense and proportionality in relation to the conditions that the licensing authority might impose on licences providing authorisation for live music. That is why we have convened a special working group to suggest conditions that might be appropriate for certain types of music in certain circumstances. Representatives of performers, the music industry, local authorities and so on have been invited to become part of that group and we have had a good take-up. If we agree the amendments, we will put innocent people at serious risk for the benefit of a minority. I ask for the amendments to be withdrawn.

Amendment No. 116 would exempt all unamplified live music. The Government cannot accept that amendment for a number of reasons. First, it creates a perverse restriction on the sort of music that would generally be provided to the public. We would end up finding it hard to benefit from the full range of cultural provision that the Bill was designed to foster. That would be bad news for both performers and the public.

I was in a pub recently where two people were singing in a corner with a guitar and a small amplifier; if they had not had the amplifier it would have been impossible to hear them. I do not see why they should be discriminated against. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset talked about a loud drummer. Someone keeps mentioning Japanese drummers to me, who can be extremely loud, but an ordinary drum kit can make a racket, especially if the venue is in the middle of a residential street.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

Could there be more than two of them?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is precisely my point. I am convinced that there will be a renaissance of live music in this country because we are going to put everybody on an even footing and make it much easier to put music on. The idea that we should favour music that has no amplification could create a real problem—although perhaps not as much of a problem as the two-in-a-bar rule tends to generate. I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon on that matter.

Some of my own musical heroes—from Charlie Christian and the great jazz guitarists onwards—would never have played if the music had not been amplified. They transformed music, but they needed amplification to do so.

Amendment No. 115 would exempt any playing of recorded music from the licensing scheme. I do not wish to say anything further on that, save that it would exempt all DJs from the licensing scheme. We have heard about the extraordinary event in Brighton. Somebody might have died—although, perhaps, not

as a direct consequence of the musical event. After it, the bill for picking up the broken glass on Brighton beach was phenomenal. That was partly because no conditions were attached in the way that they could have been—somebody from Brighton will now probably write to me to say that they were.

On a similar point, amendment No. 113 ensures that only the performance of recorded music should be caught by the Bill. That is unnecessary because the Bill makes it clear that incidental recorded music—the kind that would be exempted as a consequence of the amendment—is already outside the scope of the new regime.

Amendment No. 114 adds ''to the public'' to the description. That is also unnecessary. Where recorded music is played in private and people are not charged to listen, there is no need for a licence. If people are worried that playing CDs at home would be licensable, I reassure them that it would not.

Amendment No. 110 adds two further descriptions to the list—''dancing'' and ''making music''. That appears to add nothing of value to the system already set out in the Bill.

I hope that hon. Members will not press any of the amendments in this group.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We have had a good debate on this matter, and we should address the issues that it raises again when we discuss further groupings of amendments.

The Minister stated that there are concessions in the guidance that the music lobby would find very attractive and that would allay all of its fears about the legislation. However, we have discovered that there is no guidance relating to schedule 1 and entertainment—an explanation of that would be helpful—and the Minister has not told us what the two wonderful concessions are, if they exist. He is looking blankly at me.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I can immediately think of one concession. If musicians or a musician had played a gig at a licensed premises which did not have an entertainments licence or did not have permission to play music, they could have been prosecuted, with very serious consequences. Their Lordships protested against that in another place. The Bill removes that, which is an important concession.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that, but I already knew that: it is in schedule 1(1)(6). That is a concession of a kind, and it is welcome. However, the panoply of argument against this heavy hand of legislation and bureaucracy coming down on the whole of live music being played has still not been answered: the Government have not made the case for that.

We would not stand in the way of proper regulation of large raves, gatherings, pop concerts or festivals. However, we are talking about small-scale making of music—not just in pubs, but in all sorts of venues—where people will now have to start applying for licences.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how the local authority and police would regulate large entertainment or music events such as raves if we were to accept his amendment?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

As I have said, my amendments are probing amendments. I want the Government to tell the Committee and the world outside why they are going down this road.

Two of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues have tabled later amendments that attempt to find a way in which small-scale live music can be exempt from licensing. I do not know whether their amendments will do the job. I have not tabled amendments to do that. I am simply asking the Government to say why the whole of live music, from the oboe player to the symphony concert, has to be regulated in that way. I do not think that the case has been made, but we will return to that later.

The amendment is a probing amendment. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that I have not tabled the amendment to sort out the problem. However, it is the Government's Bill and they ought to sort it out. They have had enough aggravation in the other place and here, as well as from the Musicians Union and the musicians lobby. They must understand that there is a great deal of anger and frustration that such bodies are not being listened to.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I accept that it is the responsibility of the Government to justify their action, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the greater public also want to hear from the Government how they would regulate the serious antisocial behaviour that is associated with events such raves in large entertainment venues?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Plenty in the Bill enables such matters to be taken care of. Earlier, I pointed to existing legislation that allows the police to move in and shut places down immediately if there is too much noise. A whole raft of legislation already exists. When paragraph 12 under part 2 of the schedule covering exemptions was discussed, there was an attempt between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in the other place to solve the problem. Later today, if we can, we shall look at the Government's position on that proposal, which is to chuck it out wholesale. They are not giving credence to any of the proposals being put forward. This afternoon, Labour Members may have some ideas that the Government will favour. We have tried to find a way through the huge edifice of legislation to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out. We are in favour of dealing with them but in such a way that the Bill does not crush other smaller groups of people who play live music.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend may recall that, when they were in opposition, Labour Members criticised us for regulating local government on the basis of Hackney, Southwark and one or two loony authorities. They criticised us roundly for that. The Government are now proposing to regulate two people in a bar on the basis of raves in my hon. Friend's constituency. That is absurd.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am not sure whether I agree that raves take place only in my constituency. I assure my hon.

Friend that they happen in lots of rural areas throughout the country. It just happens that rural Cambridgeshire and Norfolk have wide open spaces and plenty of barns for them to take place in. I do not want people to get carried away with the idea that I have a massive problem. It is certainly a lot better than it was.

I said that amendment No. 54 was a probing amendment. I think that the Government will have to go away and think up some stronger arguments to sort out the problems that have been highlighted in the debate. We shall return to those later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 23, at end insert—

'( ) a performance of comedy which is not a play'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 56, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 23, at end insert—

'( ) a performance of hypnotism.'.

Amendment No. 57, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 23, at end insert—

'( ) a playing of a programme including a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c.42),'.

Amendment No. 117, in

schedule 1, page 111, line 29, leave out paragraph 8.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I shall speak briefly because I know that we want to move on to some meatier topics in the Government amendments in the next batch.

Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 are probing amendments. We could not work out why the work of stand-up comedians and hypnotism shows that attract large audiences are not regarded as entertainment under the schedule. If descriptions of various forms of entertainment are deemed necessary, why have they been omitted? If the list is not to be completely prescriptive, what criteria did the Government use to include or exclude certain entertainment forms under paragraph 2(1) of the schedule? Amendment No. 57 follows on from that. It is curious that the list of entertainments to be licensed does not include the broadcasting of either television or radio programmes.

The hon. Member for North Devon wanted to know the difference between the potential for public disorder and noise if a soccer match were broadcast in a pub. Its customers may support different clubs. Copious amounts of drink would be consumed on the premises. There have been instances of public disorder when the soccer game has finished. Why is that exempt when the ubiquitous two-in-a-bar oboe players are not? That does not make a lot of sense. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk to his amendment, which is similar to ours.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I want to say a few words about the hon. Gentleman's last point, which is why we tabled amendment No. 117, which deals with television and radio. I am not anxious for broadcasting media to be

brought within the remit of the Bill, but I want the Government to explain why they are currently outwith it. We are dealing with an anomaly. If the performance of music is to be a licensable activity, why is music that happens to be coming from the television set not to be a licensable activity? Some television sets are large and have big speakers connected to them. Furthermore, although I do not watch it myself, I am told that Channel 5 broadcasts a television programme that, to all intents and purposes, is indistinguishable from karaoke. Music tracks are played at full volume and on-screen lyrics invite the viewer to have a singalong. Karaoke is, in fact, taking place.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will know that Westminster City council, I think, prosecuted the Pitcher and Piano because it noticed that, on several occasions, people in the pub—where there were plasma screens and live music—swayed rhythmically. As a consequence of that, the pub was fined a large amount. Such behaviour has been the subject of some controversy.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

What if there had been rhythmic swaying by people in a pub who were watching a football match? They may have decided to do a Mexican wave. Clearly, that is not a licensable activity. I am looking forward to the Minister telling us what the Government consider is incidental to the primary purpose of the premises. I hope that he thinks that the performance of music in a pub is incidental to its primary business, which is providing alcohol. If he does not, we shall get into tricky waters. Will the advertisement of the fact that a small jazz quartet will be in a pub on a Sunday lunch-time make that something other than incidental? What about the blackboards outside pubs, which say that a football match is to be shown on satellite television on a Wednesday evening, or Saturday afternoon?

I want to hear from the Minister what the difference is in terms of public order, nuisance, noise, safety or whatever. Is the sound and the entertainment from a television set qualitatively different from a performance in a pub?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Paragraph 2 lists the activities that are entertainment for the purposes of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 seek to bring comedy routines and stage hypnotism within the provision of regulated entertainment as defined in schedule 1. Amendments Nos. 57 and 117 seek to make the showing of television programmes a description of entertainment, the provision of which may be a licensable activity. The Bill is mainly deregulatory, which I know the Committee supports. I said that with a straight face, and in a moment I will turn to comedians.

In other respects we have been criticised for not going further with deregulation: for example, in exempting many kinds of music and dancing altogether, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire urged us to. We have been

considering what may be swept away, not what could be added.

I know that many Committee members may feel as though they have been hypnotised already, but perhaps I could deal with hypnotism first. The Hypnotism Act 1952—there is one—already controls and regulates performances of hypnotism at places licensed for public entertainment and at other places. To regulate that under the Bill would duplicate those provisions. Hypnotism gives rise to issues that go beyond the licensing objectives in the Bill. There are, for example, health issues attached to it. Many people still dispute the effects of hypnotism on certain vulnerable people and it is correct that that matter is addressed separately with its own legislation—we do not intend to change that.

I am not sure why the hon. Members who tabled the amendments wish to license stand up comedians or, indeed, comedy of any kind. I have not heard of riots or any problems that need to be controlled at such events and no one else has suggested to us that comedy should be licensed. If that should be licensed, why should we not licence poetry readings?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.