Licensing Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 8 April 2003.

Standing Committee D

Clause 3 - Licensing authorities

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 60, in

clause 3, page 2, leave out line 40.

Amendment No. 61, in

clause 3, page 2, leave out line 41.

Amendment No. 64, in

clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—

'( ) The University of Cambridge,'.

Amendment No. 62, in

clause 7, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 63, in

clause 8, page 5, line 33, leave out subsection (10).

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for reminding the Committee of where we had reached at the end of our sitting on Thursday. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) had alerted me to that fact a moment ago. We were discussing whether the licensing authorities should be those bodies and people listed under subsection (1). My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) suggested that we should at least consider whether there was justification in moving from licensing justices being the licensing authority for liquor licensing to being the authority for all licensing purposes as set out under amendment No. 59. If I have misinterpreted the amendment, perhaps my hon. Friend will correct me.

I want to concentrate on the other amendments in the group. They could be considered to be contradictory in spirit. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would remove paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection 1, which refer to the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple. Amendment No. 64 would make the university of Cambridge a licensing authority. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire did not table them for their intrinsic merit. He was looking for a philosophy from the Government about which bodies they want to be liquor-licensing authorities.

There has been no great difficulty, certainly not in my constituency, with liquor licensing resting with licensing magistrates. Will the Minister explain why those responsibilities are to be transferred to local authorities, which are elected by the local residents, yet the Government are proposing the inclusion of two people who are not elected by local residents? Indeed, so individual are they that further on in the Bill it becomes impossible for them to appoint a sub-committee. A sub-committee cannot be appointed from a committee of one. That is my interpretation of amendment No. 62.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The Bill will extend the historical privileges that apply to the City of London. Both the Middle and Inner Temples are partly in the city of Westminster and, for historical reasons, licensing matters have rested with the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple. I do not want to speak on behalf of the Government; I am sure that the Minister has words of wisdom to pass on to us. Rather than interfere with that process, I suppose that the Government thought it sensible to maintain the long-standing privileges of the City of London.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I must confess that I like that argument. If the Government wish to maintain historic privileges and traditions, I am all for that. If the amendment were subjected to a Division, I would be happy to vote against my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire who wants the removal of the two paragraphs. However, I support strongly his amendment No. 64 to include the university of Cambridge. We should undoubtedly maintain some of the historical privileges of that secondary institution, but why does the Minister propose the retention of some historical privileges and traditions but not others? What is wrong with the Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743, for example? What do the Government so dislike about that Act to make them repeal its provisions in this Bill?

What is wrong with retaining the powers of the university of Cambridge? Is the Government's decision something to do with the cross-border nature of the university? Some of its colleges are outside the boundary of the city, therefore, exactly the same geographical considerations apply as to the Inner and Middle Temples. The university is a cross-boundary institution and it is not convenient for licensing power to rest with either one local authority in the more conventional meaning of that word, or another. Will the Minister explain?

I am happy to go down either the road of removing all historical privileges and traditions or of retaining them, although I would be happier to retain them. I cannot see why the Minister is riding two bicycles in opposite directions in this clause.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Or him.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman says ''Or him'' referring to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, but my hon. Friend is riding two bicycles because he is trying to draw information out of the Minister.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That was quick. It is a great pleasure to see you chairing this Committee on a Tuesday morning, Mr. Benton.

Amendment No. 59 is similar to one moved on Report and on Third Reading in another place which was debated extensively. The subject is central to the modernising elements of the Bill. Schedule 7 to the Bill repeals the Licensing Act 1964, so amendment No. 59 cannot stand alone—there would no longer be a section 2 of the 1964 Act and no definition of what licensing justices are or the extent of their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding those flaws, Amendment No. 59 would maintain the licensing justices as the licensing authority for the sale of alcohol by retail. It would transfer control of entertainment and late night refreshment to the licensing justices from the local authorities and duties in respect of registered members clubs—which will be replaced in the Bill by qualifying clubs—from the magistrates courts.

The amendment does not propose the status quo, as has been suggested, but wholesale change, which is unjustifiable. The Bill deals with six existing licensing regimes, not only with alcohol licensing. Integrating those regimes is a key way of reducing red tape. Five of the regimes—public entertainment, cinema, theatre, night cafes and late-night refreshment—are under the control of local authorities and only alcohol is controlled by the licensing justices. It does not make sense to transfer five licensing regimes to the justices, when integration could be achieved by bringing one under the control of the local authorities.

There is also a common misunderstanding about the status of the licensing justices, which do not sit as a magistrates court. They were established by statute as an administrative committee elected by the magistrates in the relevant petty sessions area. They are not bound by the normal rules of evidence and they are technically free to receive and consider hearsay evidence and petitions. I make those points to stress that they are administrative not judicial bodies, although in certain circumstances they will have a quasi-judicial quality. If Parliament had wanted a judicial process, it would have given the job to magistrates courts, not licensing justices.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

In fairness to the Minister, I have served on a London local authority and was on the licensing committee for some time and there is a quasi-judicial element to licensing within local authorities—not least in the fact that votes on such matters cannot be whipped. The same, of course, applies to planning. It is a little disingenuous to suggest that there is no sense of licensing committees being quasi-judicial. Indeed, legal officers involved with such committees make it clear that the role of the council is quasi-judicial and that the committees are therefore not to be persuaded by party-political considerations.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expanding on that point, which is important.

Once it is accepted that licensing is a regulatory and administrative process undertaken in the interests of the community, the question arises of which body should most appropriately represent those interests.

Licensing justices are accountable only to the magistrates that elect them to the licensing committee and the higher courts. That cannot be said to provide democratic accountability to the community. I stress the words ''democratic accountability'' because administrative processes should be in the hands of the democratically elected representatives of the local electorate. Regulatory processes should be entrusted to those best placed to undertake, on an informed basis, the balancing exercise of deciding what is in the wider community interest in respect of licensing decisions.

Indeed, if the licensing authority does its job badly, it should be possible for local people to give the authority an electoral kick, if that is justified. Licensing justices are elected by magistrates and at the moment only they can deliver such kicks. It is not just the Government who have drawn such conclusions about the scope for reducing red tape and the principle of accountability. The Better Regulation Task Force, acting on behalf of industry, also recommended to the Government that the local authorities should have that role in future.

Now that I have established the points of practicality and principle that justify the approach taken in the Bill, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will not press amendment No. 59 to a vote. Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 would remove the ability of the Inner and Middle Temples to act as licensing authorities. Those bodies are not arcane institutions from which privilege should be stripped. The Committee may be unaware that they are local authorities in their own right. I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) is listening, because I have sought special advice on the subject. The university of Cambridge is not a local authority; it was granted a privilege by royal charter to sell wine within the boundaries of the university. The Temples and the university are very different organisations in that sense. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

To those of us who represent areas of the country that are not like that represented by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), or like the ancient university of Cambridge, the system seems archaic. The Bill would establish the local authority as the licensing authority and given that the Temples have shown that they wish to continue in their role as licensing authorities and that the other London local authorities are in agreement—that is important—it makes complete sense for them to act in that way. I hope that the amendments will therefore be withdrawn.

On amendment No. 64, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge university, through his ability to grant licences to sell wine at the university, enjoys a privilege that cannot be justified in modern times. His authority is based on an ancient charter. Once again, what of proper democratic accountability? It is extremely difficult to imagine any justification for allowing a university to act as a licensing authority, other than some kind of over-nostalgic harking back to traditions that are of neither use nor ornament today. I hope that that amendment, too, will be withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Part of the basis for tabling the amendment and speaking to it in the way that I did and the justification for the major switch from licensing justices to local authorities, was the argument that was in the White Paper and that the Government have been using for the past couple of years—that a considerable saving of £1.9 billion justifies a fundamental shift. The Minister has not even begun to deal with that matter.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have published a good deal of information, although I sense from his contributions that he does not accept that. He quoted a particular pub chain, which I guessed was Stuart Neame's—the hon. Gentleman indicates that his lips are sealed. I have been living this Bill for too long and I recognise the hand of Stuart Neame when I see it. He led the ''Kill the Bill'' the campaign, although he is not a one-off, as Tim Martin of JD Wetherspoon also worked with him on that campaign. Stuart Neame has a particular view on the Bill and, on a whim, has changed his estimated costings by as much as 900 per cent., depending on which argument he uses at any given time. I do not accept that Mr. Neame's views are typical of the licensed trade.

The Government conducted a survey 10 times the size of that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire quoted in Committee and arrived at very different conclusions. The evidence that we have provided in the impact assessment is convincing—I am convinced by it and I am the most sceptical person in the world on this matter.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It seems strange that a business man, who shall remain nameless but who has a chain of about 300 pubs, arrives at a different figure from those of the authors of the White Paper and the impact assessment, who used a sample of about 360 pubs. The magnitude in difference of outcome is in the order of a factor of four. Is the Minister saying that the particular individual who should remain nameless does not know his business? We are talking about the costs involved for his business. Does the Minister care to repeat—what I think I heard him say—that he stands by the figures in the White Paper?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, I have no difficulty in standing by those figures. The hon. Gentleman would be ill advised to accept the word of one owner of a chain of pubs and to disregard the evidence that has been given on many occasions by the great majority of much larger chains. He should carefully consider the agenda that that individual might have on the Bill and on licensing policy in general. The operation of licensing by magistrates requires a hearing in almost every single case. Hearings will be vastly reduced under the new system and should be far less of a burden on the licensed trade in general. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is properly trying to make an argument and he says that not one of the licensees to whom he has spoken is in favour of the Bill's changes. I understand his hon. Friends have said much the same thing.

Prior to the White Paper's publication, a review of licensing law was conducted in close consultation with the licensed trade and many others. Many licensees

pointed to failures with the current system, including licensing justices, inflexibility and the multitude of permissions that were required across lots of licensing regimes. It is uncanny that the view has changed since the White Paper was published: the problem was in the licensing regime, but that is now likely to be the local authorities. I do not blame the licensing business for having done that: it wants to make its life as easy and smooth as possible. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire must be circumspect about some of the results that he has seen.

The Committee is doing a proper thing, and I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his honest and forthright response, and for the fact that we now have it on the record that he believes that there will be £1.9 billion of savings as a result of this change. We will look carefully at results from this sector of the industry in the future to ensure that his assessment was correct.

I began my remarks by saying that this was a probing amendment that attempts to get the Government to justify this substantial shift. Although the local authorities have welcomed it in some respects, there are already mutterings from the Local Government Association that it is all very well lumbering authorities with additional responsibilities, but if they do not have the resources to meet them they will find things extremely difficult. Certain councils can see problems: if the resources do not match the responsibilities, council tax will have to go up yet again, as it is the only means of financing extra work and bureaucracy.

In view of the Minister's comments, I shall withdraw the amendment. There is some inconsistency in the listing that the Government have used in the clause. However, I accept that if local authorities are going to be the main source of licensing permissions in the future, the university of Cambridge does not fit into that pattern, despite the fact that it has an ancient right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in

clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert 'or'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment Nos. 45 and 6.

Amendment No. 140, in

clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—

'(a) to maintain a national register of personal licenses granted under Part 6 of this Act, and'.

Amendment No. 99, in

clause 4, page 3, line 10, after 'Act', insert—

'( ) to act as licensing authority for premises licences where the applicant or owner of the premises is the licensing authority for the area in which the premises are situate,'.

Clause 4 stand part.

Government amendment No. 25.

Clause 110 stand part.

Government amendments Nos. 26 to 28.

Amendment No. 108, in

clause 6, page 4, line 7, after 'authority', insert

'other than the Central Authority'.

Amendment No. 109, in

clause 6, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

'(3A) Before determining its policy the Central Authority must consult—

(a) the Secretary of State for the Home Department;

(b) such persons as represent—

(i) chief officers of police,

(ii) chief fire officers,

(iii) holders of premises licences, and

(iv) holders of club premises certificates, and

(c) holders of personal licences'.

Amendment No. 92, in

clause 6, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

'(3B) Before the licensing policy of the Central Authority shall take effect its licensing statement shall be laid before each House of Parliament for twenty-eight days and may be referred back to the authority for further consideration by resolution of either House.'.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The Committee is now dealing with another area in which well meaning but misguided defeats were inflicted on the Government in another place. This group of amendments overturns those defeats and restores the original drafting of the Bill. However, I reassure those on the Opposition Benches that their handiwork in another place was not entirely in vain: it has prompted the Government and their key partners, including the industry, the local authorities and the police, to accelerate their work to honour the White Paper commitment to set up a national database.

Before I proceed, I will try to clarify for the benefit of the Committee the difference between a national database and a central licensing authority. The distinction is crucial, and I am sorry that, for whatever reason, it was not grasped in its entirety by some of those in another place. We must discuss that significant distinction.

The White Paper stated:

''To enable licensing authorities and the police to check readily the validity of licences and the licensee's history they will probably need to support a national database. It may be possible to include on a single national database details of personal licences, premises licences, punishments and sanctions imposed, door supervisor registrations and Home Office guidance.''

The Government will honour that commitment, and I shall say more about that in a moment.

It is important to understand that setting up a national database is not the same as setting up a new statutory body—the central licensing authority—which would be the effect of the Opposition amendments made in another place. The database refers to the development of an electronic system that allows the police, licensing authorities and other responsible authorities to exchange information easily and freely, to allow people to apply for

licences online and facilitate the update of their details—for example, a variation in the supervisor of a designated premises. That would further reduce bureaucracy.

This is a database, not a new body corporate entrusted with statutory functions. Once the Committee understands that important distinction, the argument in favour of a central licensing authority would tend to evaporate. The simple fact is that no one—not the industry, the police, or the local authorities—wants a central licensing authority. It is rather like the great aunt at the party: it seemed like a good idea to invite her, but as soon as she turned up with that bottle of flat dandelion and burdock everyone started secretly praying for her to leave.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister has just said that the local authorities do not want a central authority. I do not know when he last met the LGA, but I met it last week and I was told that it does want a central licensing authority.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman tells us is true, but I can only tell him what we know. Perhaps that says something about the diplomatic skills of the LGA—I think we could learn a lot from it.

We would gain nothing from having such an authority, and it would certainly add to the bureaucracy, cost and delay. The public, most of whom are eagerly awaiting our reforms, are unlikely to react well to delays when our only lame excuse is that we must set up a central licensing authority. Who wants or needs another arm of Government to carry out what should be a relatively simple administrative process? I must confess that I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of such a thing, given that he is a member of the Conservative party. I know that the Conservatives are great friends of the Musicians Union and other trade unions, but they seem to want to extend the machinery of the state and set up another quango. One wonders what happened to the bonfire of the quangos. There would be costs associated with such a body, for which there would be no justification.

Having said that, I must add that there is much merit in a national database, which is why the Bill provides a framework within which it could be developed. The Government are totally committed to working with partners to set up such a system.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I have listened to what the Minister said, and his general line of argument—that a database would be adequate, but a central authority might be gilding the lily—is persuasive. He said that the Bill provided the framework for the establishment of the database. Could he guide me to the part of the Bill that provides for that? The matter of who has access to the register, and in what circumstances, is important for data protection, so the database ought to be on a statutory footing.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We are working on the collection of data; a working party is currently looking at the best way of setting it up. The LGA is a partner on that working party, so I am surprised that it told the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that it

opposed the idea of the database, but not the authority.

On the matter raised by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), I understand that clause 9(6) is the relevant part of the Bill.

It is important to recognise that we live in a world of practical considerations and none of us should be under any misapprehension about the complexity or magnitude of the work involved, especially considering that the measures would need to join up the licensing functions of around 410 authorities. There is still no extant example of a joined-up system of any significance covering every local authority in England and Wales. If we are to take maximum advantage of the opportunities to minimise costs and burdens through electronic service delivery, the situation is further complicated. Work has started, however, on the central database; we are building on the experience of others in the sector—for example, on the local government planning portal and the project to integrate local land and property gazetteers.

It is true that the national database will not be up and running before the beginning of the transition period, which is why we have identified a separate project on data standards that we will be driving forward in the run-up to the first appointed day. The aim of that project will be to ensure that all licensing authorities record the same information in the same way to facilitate the migration of data to the new system when it has been put in place. In doing that, we will encourage the full adoption of Government interoperability and metadata standards.

We have received wholehearted support for that approach. It is the right one, because it allows for the right system to be set up according to the appropriate time scales, without the nightmares that seem to have afflicted other Government IT projects. Problems that seemed to start when the Opposition were in power have certainly continued, but we have made huge efforts to overcome them.

What will happen before the national database has been set up? We have drafted the Bill to allow for a simple system based on effective communication between licensing authorities, which can be up and running from the date of Royal Assent, and for a central register to be developed in due course when the experience and technology is in place. I am confident that the local system will work well up to that point. The administrative burden on the licensing authority will be small. The licence holder will be given a duty to notify the licensing authority of a change in his or her address, as well as other relevant details such as convictions for relevant or foreign offences. It will not be a case of the licensing authority having to track down the licence holder.

We expect approximately 155,000 applications for personal licences during the transition period. Although I recognise that the calculation will not be this simple, that averages out as just a shade fewer than 400 applications per licensing authority. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster told us, the situation will be more intense, and there will be more applications, in some areas than in others.

Given that the vast majority of applications will be dealt with administratively, we do not think that they will be overly burdensome. Similarly, we expect there to be a turnover of roughly 6,500 personal licences annually, which averages out at about 15 or so licences per licensing authority. It should be within the capacity of even the least outstanding licensing authority to manage a task of that magnitude.

The position we set out in the Bill is sensible and pragmatic. It allows for the development of a central register in due course, without delaying the commencement of the new arrangements unnecessarily. It does not provide for a central licensing authority, largely because that would require the unnecessary creation of a new statutory body for little added value. It makes sense to return to that pragmatic position, which has been reinforced by my commitment today to honour our White Paper promise to set up a national database. We will come good on that promise and in the light of that commitment I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill.

In view of what I have said, it should be clear that the Government agree with the sentiment behind amendment No. 140, which would require the Government to maintain a national register for personal licences. However, I cannot accept the amendment. Some of our stakeholders have indicated—in certain cases, firmly—that they would like to see the national database reflect the policy set out in the White Paper, and cover all aspects of licensing. The police and the LGA are of that view. Some in the industry wish the scope to be restricted to personal licences, and discussion on that continues. Amendment No. 140 would immediately impose a restriction on the database as it would relate only to personal licences, which would frustrate our intention to create a truly national database relating to all forms of authorisation.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister said that originally, before a new clause 4 was moved in the other place, there was provision in the Bill for the design and creation of a central register. Where exactly in the previous draft of the Bill was that provision?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

In the previous Bill?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yes, in the Bill as presented to the Lords.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I do not have a copy of that draft of the Bill with me, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly provide an answer in writing, if he likes.

Given the firm commitment that I have given to set up a database, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. Amendments Nos. 99, 108, 92 and 109 would be dependent on the retention of the central licensing authority in the Bill. [Interruption.] I have just got the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Clause 9(6) was part of the original Bill, as was clause 9(7). I hope that in the light of our debate, the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I thank the Minister for his comments. I will leave it to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to

determine whether we are satisfied with the proposed changes. It seems that the debate in the other place was sensible, given the grave concerns that were expressed. I am pleased that the Minister felt able to take on board a number of the issues raised then.

I would like to concentrate on a relatively small factor that applies to several parts of the Bill—the transitional arrangements, to which the Minister briefly referred. One of the Opposition's concerns is that a rushed through transitional arrangement might lead to chaos. Although there may be only an average of 15 licence applications per authority, a lot of those will come through at the 11th hour, in the last few days of the transitional arrangements. There could be grave concerns about how easily the system will continue to operate.

It would cause great problems if there were logjams of licences, particularly in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. I suspect that in his constituency, many licence applications are made for relatively short times, such as during Cowes week and in the summer, given the importance of the tourist trade there. If the transitional period is too short there may well be utter chaos for months, both before the end of that period and when the new system is supposed to operate.

Clause 55, on fees, is central to that, but I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that we will have when we consider that clause—and I am sure that you would not allow me to, Mr. Benton. However, there is a grave concern that the fee structure proposed is far too inflexible. The real risk is that residents and businesses will suffer if there is an overly inflexible system of fees set on a centralised basis, which does not take account of local circumstances in any way. I am just highlighting our concerns about the transitional arrangements, in relation to the amendments.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

The Minister said that he thought that the other place had got it wrong when it put the formula into the Bill, and I think that he was right. The idea that a central licensing authority should grant personal licences does not bear much examination. The advantage of dealing with licensing at local level is that if the applicant has, shall we say, a colourful past, it is more likely that the local licensing authority will have some insight into that than a central licensing authority would. Therefore, the House of Lords went too far by suggesting that a central authority should be the licensing body.

The Minister repeated his commitment to a national database. That is welcome, and the practical arrangements he described for how it would work are sensible. My concern is that although the Bill provides that such a register can be established, which is welcome—the Minister drew our attention to clause 9(6) and (7)—it does not go into much detail about what the statutory footing of that register would be.

It is not so much the administration of the register that I am concerned about. We should not overstate the scale of the task. The Minister said that 155,000

personal licences are likely to be sought. That is not a huge number in data processing terms: hon. Members' constituency agents routinely process electoral records for about 75,000 voters. I am more concerned about the legal footing. Who will have access to the register? The Minister said that the police and other responsible bodies would. Will the magistrates, when they are hearing appeals and so forth, have ready access to it? Such issues would bear being fleshed out in more detail—if not in primary legislation, at least by order—because they will become quite sensitive from time to time, when people are caught up in the middle of them.

There has been a tendency over the past 20 years or more for legislation to become minimalist, and for Bills to say, ''The Minister can do what he likes, when he likes and how he likes, and the details can be filled in later.'' I have no doubt that come the great day of the Liberal Democrat revolution, civil servants will impress upon us the merits of that approach as well. However, on this occasion there should be more detail about what the central register is for, who has access to it and in what circumstances.

The formula that I resorted to in amendment No. 140, which would keep some central body for maintaining the register, might be unnecessary. The body that would keep the register would be much smaller than the one granting licences, and this process does not look as if it will cost a great deal, so that is not an important issue. However, it would be a good idea to nail down how the database would operate and who would have access to it. I readily concede that it might not be necessary to have a central authority—a body corporate—to do that, but we need more detail on this point.

John Grogan (Labour, Selby)

I rise to support the Government amendments. The Minister made a powerful case for a database. There has been a change in emphasis since the debate in the other place. That debate has made a difference: the Government are thinking again.

I chaired a meeting of the all-party beer group, which assessed some of the discussions in the House of Lords, in particular this issue. The meeting involved the police and the Local Government Association as well as the industry. They agreed to make a joint approach to the Department in favour of a national database, particularly for personal licences.

The case for a database for personal licences is stronger than it is for premises licences. Local authorities know the premises licences in their area. However, a personal licensee may move around the country five or six times in the course of their career.

I hope that this work, which is led by the LGA, will make rapid progress. A central licensing authority would be unnecessarily burdensome. As I have a majority of just 2,000, I am always on the lookout for what I might do if I lost my seat and being chairman of a national licensing authority has a certain appeal. The authority would be unnecessarily burdensome, however. The database is the key.

With regard to later amendments, the idea of setting up a committee of the police, the local authorities and

the industry to try to find a way forward is a model that might be followed in other areas.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 99, 108 and 109, but before I do so I want the Minister to examine what may happen in small authorities where the licensee or the applicant is well known—as is likely—to many, if not all, members of the licensing committee. I am not attracted by the notion of large central authorities. Indeed, for the most part, I welcome the argument against having a central licensing authority. There must be an arrangement, however, for those areas where the applicant is well known. Similarly, there must be an arrangement for premises licences when the applicant is the licensing authority. That one should not be judge in his own court is a well-understood judicial principle and I see no reason why it should not apply under the Bill. If the licensing authority also owns and controls the premises, surely it is important that an alternative authority issues the licences.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Is it not the case at present that local authorities can give themselves planning permission on land that they own?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is indeed. It is one of the greatest objections that many members of the public have to the planning permission system. I shall cite an example of what happened in Bournemouth just across the water from me. The local authority gave planning permission for a huge cinema complex on the front, on land that it owned, which it then sold to a developer for a highly advantageous price. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to visit Bournemouth recently will have seen the hideous building.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

It is good for the ratepayers.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Such action may or may not have been good for the ratepayers in that particular case, as allegations were made about who benefited from the granting of planning permission. However, I shall skate gently over that. It was a Liberal Democrat council at the time. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that it was a Tory council. At the time planning permission was granted, the council was controlled by the Liberal Democrats, but I did not rise to speak with the intention of throwing arrows in their direction.

There can be serious conflicts of interests in licensing issues. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) shakes his head, but I shall cite an example. Recently, my local authority decided to re-ignite the flame of the Isle of Wight pop festivals of the early 1970s. It had power under the original Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971 to control pop festivals and large assemblies and decided to do so on land that was within its control. The fact that the land was recreation ground in the middle of Newport, surrounded by houses in a Conservative-held ward did not daunt it one little bit.

The local authority estimated that such action would cost £2,000, but found that it would be more like £20,000. The fact that it cost the council about £300,000 did not daunt it either. It applied to itself for a licence and, lo and behold, granted itself a licence. Only the fact—unfortunate for council tax payers—

that few people attended that pop festival led to it not being a serious inconvenience to people in Newport. That local authorities have the opportunity to take such action under planning legislation is an error that should be corrected. It is entirely wrong for a local authority to be judge and jury in its own case. That is why I tabled the amendment that proposes that the central licensing authority should be the authority for the granting of premises licences,

''where the applicant or owner of the premises is the licensing authority for the area in which the premises are situate''.

I recognise that the central licensing authority need not be that authority, it could be the licensing justices as they are now constructed or another body. We will have the opportunity to discuss whether it should be the licensing justices when we reach amendment No. 177. However, the Minister should consider the matter when he decides whether the clause should be amended as he has proposed.

Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 would be redundant should the clause not stand part of the Bill. They are an attempt to tackle the term ''licensing authority'' in clause 6(3), which clearly includes the central licensing authority, when the provisions in that subsection are inappropriate to a central licensing authority. Clearly, it is not possible for the central licensing authority to consult the chief officer of police for the licensing authority's area, because its area is England and Wales and there is no chief officer of police for England and Wales. That is why, in amendment No. 109, I substituted

''the Secretary of State for the Home Department''

and

''such persons as represent—chief officers of police . . . chief fire officers . . . holders of premises licences and holders of club . . . certificates''

and that the authority should consult ''holders of personal licences'' before amending its licensing policy.

Those are the reasons why I tabled the amendments. I accept that they will fall should the clause not stand part of the Bill. However, I would like the Minister to comment particularly on the first of those three amendments.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

At the heart of this series of amendments and the clause stand part debate is whether the Government's intention—as set out in the White Paper initially and in the Bill before it was amended in the other place—is to deal with potential real and practical problems, the existence of which both the Minister and his team and my Opposition colleagues recognise. Paragraph 41 of the White Paper states:

''To enable licensing authorities and the police to check readily the validity of licences and the licensee's history they will probably need to support a national database''.

I emphasise ''they''. The White Paper continues:

''It may be possible to include on a single national database details of personal licences, premises licences, punishments and sanctions imposed, door supervisor registrations and Home Office guidance.''

The Government were clear when the White Paper was being written that a central register where all such information was stored for ease of access was probably

needed—for the individual licensing authorities and also for the police. The question is whether that has been translated into the provisions in the Bill to a degree that provides a comfort zone. I have re-examined clause 9(6) and the wording is not sufficiently clear. It states:

''The Secretary of State may arrange for the duties conferred on licensing authorities by this section to be discharged by means of one or more central registers''

—why we need more than one, I do not know—but

''kept by a person appointed pursuant to the arrangements.''

If the Government said, ''We will remove the word 'may' and put in 'shall' '', the Opposition would feel that they intended to deal with the problem.

Last week, I spoke to someone from the LGA who was, at that point, still saying that it wanted a central register or authority. I understand there was subsequently a meeting involving the LGA. I recognise the difference between an authority issuing licences and a body keeping a central register. An authority may fear that the cost of operating such a system would get out of hand, especially if there were cross-checking throughout the country for personal licence holders applying in different local authority areas.

Looking at the practicalities, the chief officer of police for the area where a licence was originally granted is obliged to consider giving an objection notice to an application for an area outside of his jurisdiction. That could be 100 miles away. If a new application were made for a personal licence in Cornwall for someone who originally held one in Northumberland, for example, the onus of responsibility would be on the chief officer of police for that area. If the objection notice were served, the licensing authority in the original area should hold a hearing to consider the objection. I understand that that should be held regardless of the location of the new licensee, or the conditions under which they are living and operating. There may be a time gap between a person surrendering a licence in the first local authority area and thinking some two or three years later that he will become a licence holder again.

There are practical problems and there is merit in having a central register or database. But who should be responsible for that? The hon. Member for North Devon is attempting to tie that matter down with his amendment. I listened carefully to the remarks he made; he is on the right lines in questioning where in the Bill it is said that that will be done. How will it be done? Are we to sign off the Bill without knowing how such things, which are not yet in the guidance, shall be achieved?

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

My hon. Friend said that he would have got more comfort from the Minister if the wording of clause 9(6) had been changed from ''may to ''shall''. He may have got more comfort if the Government had taken serious steps to amend clause 4, rather than trying to delete it, to assure us that the register would be set up sensibly and that it would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. So far, the attitude of the Government to the debates and the successful amendments in the other place has been to dump on them from a great height; they are chucking them out without even considering the real basis for the argument why the amendments were tabled. Perhaps, the Government do not want to go down the road of setting up a wholly new quango, as the Minister said. Certainly, we would not be in favour of huge costs. We must be assured that things will happen and that somebody, or some Department, will be held responsible for setting things up and ensuring they work.

If there were a central authority, which is the intention behind clause 4—originally the amendment in the other place—it would at least be identifiable, would be given a clear role and resources to fulfil that role and there would be one set of IT dealing with things. However, we are not sure about that and the Minister has not given us any assurance that the IT systems used by different local authorities would be able to talk to one another sensibly.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is a reasonable argument. At the moment, there is hardly a single system encompassing all local authority systems. Everybody is trying to achieve interoperability, but so far they have found it difficult to achieve. We cannot let that problem hold back the Bill. We may not be able to see a way of achieving interoperability in the immediate future, but we will work towards it and that is precisely why we need flexibility.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I hear what the Minister says, but it is a weak argument. During the gestation of the legislation, going back to discussions prior to and since the White Paper, the issue has not been properly addressed—not even at this late hour. The Opposition believe that a central database is absolutely vital and that the LGA and the police share our view. We shall vote against the Government's amendment to leave out clause 4, because until we get any indication otherwise that is the only reassurance in the Bill that a central registering database will be taken seriously.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman will vote against the amendment as I am not sure that I understand the logic of his position.

I shall first try to answer the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. The Government are in regular and detailed discussion with the LGA and the Association of London Government about transition. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as having a large number of applications, local authorities will receive a large number of licence fees. It should be noted that during transition the licensing authority will not have an enforcement role. The fee revenue would therefore be more than adequate to cover set-up costs and see it through a difficult period. We are confident that the licensing authorities can manage the transition process.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Does the Minister fully understand that the so-called enforcement role does not simply cover policing, but giving advice and support? The notion that the need for that will disappear during the transition period is fundamentally mistaken. Local

authorities have an important role in giving general advice and support to business, but it is often assumed that enforcement is all about coming down hard on people. Local authorities use the carrot, as well as the stick, approach.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, indeed. I want to encourage that approach. As a Minister who was responsible for trading standards officers departments, I advocated that approach as it is the way to tackle many of the problems that arise.

The hon. Member for North Devon made some important points about access to information. Questions of access, privacy and data sharing are part of the detailed discussions being held with various partners. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must be clear about those questions and I certainly would not want a creep—if I can use that word—towards access being increasingly opened up to what might be very sensitive information. Some information may shade into information that is commercially confidential and that could cause difficulties.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised some interesting issues about who might know whom when decisions are made. All Members of Parliament will have come across some odd decisions, especially about planning. The situation is never perfect. We have one of the least corrupt planning regimes on the face of the earth and it has served us well. However, it could be refined in several ways, some of which the hon. Gentleman pointed out—at least, he suggested some directions that could be pursued.

I am sure that hon. Members will recall that the Bill replaces the rather vague ''fit and proper person'' test with a much more open and transparent criteria. In the vast majority of cases, the situation that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight describes should not arise. Local authorities can apply for public entertainment licences and that illustrates many of the tensions that he mentioned.

I assure the Committee that we have looked into this matter and we are confident that existing provisions governing the way in which local authorities discharge the functions vested in them ensure that where it is improper for an individual to be involved in a licensing decision, self-disqualification would take place. Therefore, there is no need to amend the Bill to ensure that, for example, where councillors have a financial interest in the outcome of a decision, they will not be party to any decision.

I have every confidence that local authorities will be able to carry out their many functions effectively and impartially and that existing standing orders governing issues of propriety offer effective safeguards. The system set out in the Bill will ensure that licensing decisions benefit from the participation of councillors with knowledge of the local area and from a joined-up approach that allows licensing to be seen in the wider context of other local authority responsibilities.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I want to make some progress first. We will return to this matter when we discuss the role that MPs, MEPs and councillors play in notification and objections.

Clause 9(6) is drafted as it is because the requirement to keep and maintain a register bites as soon as the provisions come into force and a central national register will not be available at that time. Therefore, the word ''shall'' is inappropriate in the context of that requirement.

In the current draft, ''may'' is a strong word. A provision should not be included in legislation if there is no intention to use the power that is being given. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested, the legislation has to be drafted to reflect a practical problem: the appropriate machinery must get into the national register, if I can use that expression. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the difficulties that might arise from a case. He said that the inquiry might be in Cornwall when the initial licence was granted in Northumberland. That is a good example. The expense could be just as great if the case involved Cornwall and Devon. It is true that the application for the renewal of a licence is made to the authority that issued the original licence. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that would be an administrative process. As the hon. Member for North Devon pointed out, the numbers involved are not huge by any standard, and in the few cases where a hearing is required, all the relevant details would be available to the police and the licensing authority as a result of the provisions in the Bill that require an identification of convictions.

The hon. Gentleman asked who would lead the database project. We are leading it—although I am not sure whether that gives him any confidence. We are leading an initial scoping phase and once we have a clear and detailed business case, we will be in a better position to determine ownership models and so forth. It would be wrong of us to pre-empt the results of those discussions.

I hope that those remarks answer at least some of the doubts and questions that have been raised.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 5.

Clause 4 - Central Licensing Authority

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I shall now put the question of whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.

Fraser Kemp (Labour, Houghton and Washington East)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. I wonder if you could advise us. Given that we discussed whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill under clause 3, what is the position on the new clause 4?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

It is an existing clause and whether it should stand part of the Bill is being put to the Committee, as we have debated it with the previous group of amendments. It is now merely a question of putting the question formally. I repeat the question.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Clause 5 - General duties of licensing authorities

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 118, in

clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert

'to grant permission, in the form of a licence, to a person, business or organisation to provide—

(a) the sale by retail of alcohol,

(b) the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club,

(c) regulated entertainment as set out in Schedule 1,

(d) late night refreshment as set out in Schedule 2,

where it would otherwise be an offence without such a licence; and further to promote—'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this we may discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 8.

Amendment No. 107, in

clause 5, page 3, line 30, leave out from 'premises' to '; and' in line 31.

Amendment No. 66, in

clause 5, page 3, line 31, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 65, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, after 'children', insert 'and other vulnerable persons'.

Amendment No. 67, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the protection of the quality of life of communities'.

Amendment No. 68, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the protection of the environment'.

Amendment No. 69, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the protection of public health'.

Amendment No. 70, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the control of alcohol sales at licensed premises'.

Amendment No. 71, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the regulation of licensed premises providing a leisure amenity for the general public'.

Amendment No. 88, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

(c) the safeguarding of cultural activity.'

Amendment No. 134, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the protection of residential amenity'.

Amendment No. 73, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert

'which shall in particular set out the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers to justify the exclusion of children from free access to licensed premises.'.

Amendment No. 74, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert

'which shall in particular set out the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers justify the prevention of any licensing authority from restricting the number of licensed premises, regulating the type of licensed premises, or imposing a generalised closing time in any part of a town centre of other locality within the licensing area.'.

Amendment No. 119, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert

'and

( ) the encouragement of the development of social, cultural and sporting facilities for persons living and working in that area, or visitors to that area, in such a manner as is consistent with the licensing objectives.'.

Amendment No. 79, in

clause 6, page 4, line 20, at end insert—

'( ) In drawing up keeping under review or revising a licensing policy, a licensing authority must take into account the need to promote such live music, dancing and theatre as it considers to be for the wider cultural benefit of its local community.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The key Opposition amendment in this group is No. 118, which would add to the list of licensing objectives. During our debate, we have discussed what activities should and should not be included in the scope of a licensing Act. That has exposed a fundamental flaw: during the translation of the proposal from the White Paper to the legal framework, the whole purpose of licensing seems to

have been lost, with overdue attention being paid to what has been termed as the licensing objectives.

The purpose of licensing in any activity or business is to give permission for something to occur that would otherwise not be permissible. Much has been said about the effects of the Bill as it stands, but little so far about its fundamental purpose. Few would disagree that the sale of alcohol should be regulated; the need to acquire a licence strengthens the effect and efficacy of the enforcement of that regulation. However, it is different to claim that the objective of the licence is to prevent crime and disorder, protect the amenity of the area and protect the public from harm, which is what the Bill sets out as its objective. The licence merely gives permission for alcohol to be sold and states the conditions under which it must be sold. The so-called licensing objectives that appear in clause 5 are much more duteous on those holding the licence—they should uphold them since knowingly contravening them can result in the removal of permission through the revocation of the licence.

It is questionable as to what activities should be licensed under the Bill. It is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but nowhere does it actively seek to promote the social life of the country. The main purpose of providing a licence is to give permission to do certain things and our amendment would make it clear that, in considering a licence, the promotion of social, cultural and sporting activity is as important as the promotion of public safety, nuisance issues and the prevention of crime and disorder.

Amendment No. 42, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, deals with amenity. Government amendment No. 8 would delete huge sections of clause 5(2)(c), which deal with amenity. It is important that we tease out from the Government why they are so much against amenity and in favour reintroducing the concept of nuisance to the Bill. The Secretary of State said in Parliament on 24 March 2003 that the Government did not intend to accept the amendment made in the other place to add the protection of amenity as an objective—that intention is clear from Government amendment No. 8.

The introduction of a licensing objective under which amenity generally may be considered can only constrain the ability to address public nuisance if the existing public nuisance objective is removed from the Bill. However, it is agreed in some quarters that that objective should remain. In fact, the term ''public nuisance'' may constrain the ability of licensing authorities to take into account all the potential adverse impacts that licensed premises may have, as it is a phrase that has been given a specific and relatively narrow meaning by the courts in the context of environmental protection. The term ''amenity'' does not have that disadvantage. It is wrong to suggest that amenity in planning terms solely concerns aesthetic and visual appearance. The word has been given a wide meaning by the courts in a planning context. In the case of Ellis v. Ruislip-Northwood UDC 1920, it was interpreted as

''pleasant circumstances or features, advantages''.

Under section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for example, planning legislation requires a local planning authority to have regard to the interests of amenity. Such provisions have never caused problems or difficulties of interpretation. Given what I said about amenity, will the Minister explain why the Government consider it necessary to remove from the Bill any reference to amenity, as amendment No. 8 would do? There is a place for amenity. Surely the Bill's objectives are to promote cultural and social activities. After all, most people drink in a social context when they go out to enjoy themselves. We recognise that that activity needs to be licensed, but surely we must accept that, if drinking alcohol is lawful, the objectives should encompass some definition of why people undertake such activities.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Amendment No. 88 is a probing amendment. I have no intention of putting it to the vote. It follows from my intervention on the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading, when I suggested that a licensing objective should be the safeguarding of cultural activity. My thinking is not dissimilar to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. We must provide a little more balance within the objectives, such as safeguarding against disorder and promoting public safety, and child protection. It would be helpful to have an objective by which cultural life was safeguarded to ensure that we achieve that balance. It may provide some comfort for the representatives of the culture industry who have lobbied so hard on the Bill.

A balance has been created in planning. When I was a member of a planning committee, we balanced the important regulation and control of land use with the need to stimulate and encourage economic development. Similarly, we want the licensing committee to balance the need to sustain and generate a good quality of life for citizens with the economic benefit that cultural life can generate. That economic benefit was well documented through the 1980s and 1990s, when John Myerscough carried out an excellent examination of the economic benefit of the arts in cities, such as Glasgow and Birmingham. Such work has continued and the Department fully supports it. We must balance that benefit with the need to protect against public disorder, to ensure public safety and protect children from harm.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Is not the problem the fact that the clause defines culture? Some people think that morris dancing and high art are culture, while others consider that Newcastle brown and football are part of the culture in the north-east.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

That was an interesting intervention. It may be up to individual licensing authorities to decide whether they want to protect Newcastle brown and football in the north-east. They may well want to protect such things—it is not for me to say. One of the benefits of the Bill is that it delegates such decisions to local communities, and they can judge which cultural activities to safeguard.

I have an example of a balance that has been difficult to achieve within the existing licensing of

public entertainment by local authorities. I have already mentioned to the Committee that I used to be a member of Mendip district council, which is the licensing authority for the Glastonbury festival. That festival is probably the most important and significant cultural festival in Europe, especially for young people. It is of great significance to youth culture. However, huge public safety, disorder and public health problems are presented when a community of 200,000 people is temporarily created in a farmer's field in Somerset.

Despite the precedents—the Glastonbury festival has existed for some 25 years, after starting as the Pilton pop festival—a consistent problem is that the local community is understandably ambivalent about whether the festival should go ahead. Michael Eavis struggles to obtain licences because elements in the local authority care as lot about crime and disorder, public safety, the protection of children and so forth, but do not balance potential problems with the need to protect the cultural life of the nation by allowing the Glastonbury festival to go ahead. The negotiations continue.

In many ways, that example informs my reason for tabling the amendment. I wish to ensure that licensing committees balance the two concerns when they make their decisions. Glastonbury festival is an extreme example, but similar points could be made about the folk festivals in Weymouth and Swanage, both of which take place in my constituency. I am sure that we in the Committee are all united in wanting to encourage and enhance folk music and other such activities.

I would like the Minister to respond to my concerns and consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce an amendment on Report, because I will not press my amendment to a vote. The Secretary of State responded to my intervention on Second Reading by saying that she was worried that we would overload committees by giving them too much to think about, but it is reasonable to ask licensing committees to balance the objectives in the Bill with safeguarding the cultural life of their areas.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I would like to say a few words about Government amendment No. 8, but first I shall say something about amendment No. 118, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. He usually argues the case for his amendments logically and sensibly, but on this occasion he has lost the plot. The distinction between functions and objectives is relatively straightforward. The function of the licensing authority is to push bits of paper around, but surely that is not its objective. We continually ask ourselves, ''Why are we doing this?'' and, ''Why do entertainments need to be licensed?'' The answer cannot be, ''Because we want to issue bits of paper''; it must be, ''We are doing this for the greater good''. I shall discuss what the objectives are, but amendment No. 118 has missed the target.

On Government amendment No. 8, I regret that the Government wish to repudiate the amendment made

in the House of Lords, which strengthens this part of the Bill significantly, not least for the reasons described by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). We are asking the authorities to perform a balancing act, and if the objectives simply comprise the avoidance of four public perils, but do not counterbalance that with the promotion of anything positive, the entire function seems to be one of trying to avoid catastrophe, rather than promoting anything that is worth while or good. The notion of a balancing task in sub-paragraph (c), which was drafted by the Lords, is a good basis on which to work.

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was correct in putting forward arguments about the fairly well established legal definition of public nuisance. The courts require high standards of proof for public nuisance, and what constitutes public nuisance is well explored and well trodden ground. The legal textbooks contain examples of such things as running a brothel, letting off fireworks and other exceptional acts of antisocial behaviour.

We are talking about extending pub opening into the early hours of the morning; I share that general goal, and I would sign up to it. The Government are correct in trying to end our outdated drinking hours. However, behaviour that would not constitute a public nuisance in the middle of the afternoon can be unpleasant for people living or sleeping in the close vicinity of a public house in the early hours of the morning. Cars coming and going, the opening and closing of car doors, the starting of engines and conversation in the street could be perfectly acceptable at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, but can be unpleasant for people at 3 o'clock in the morning.

None of those things comes anywhere near constituting the type of public nuisance established in legal precedent. The Government are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The measure suggested by the House of Lords would allow licensing authorities to exercise some common sense, and give them some discretion to consider whether the premises in question were located near housing, and so forth.

Without the critical concept of protecting amenity, which the Lords introduced, people will not even have the right to make representations under clause 19, because under subsection (6) they would be confined to making relevant representations

''about the likely effect of the grant of the premises licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives''.

The whole thing tracks back to the list of objectives that we are considering at the moment. The other place helpfully introduced a balancing act that gives the licensing authority plenty of scope to exercise sensible discretion, and also allows those who believe that they will suffer from other people's all-night drinking to have their say.

The principle of moving the decision making from the magistrates to the local authorities was designed precisely to invite a sensible considered analysis of representations on such issues by the committees. If we do not incorporate some concept of amenity, we would adversely narrow the scope of the discretion and the

task carried out by the licensing committees. I urge the Government to think again. Perhaps sub-paragraph (c) is not perfect and could be further polished, but I believe that it introduces something worth while. To throw it out and go back to the straightforward concept of public nuisance would be regrettable.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am in sympathy with the case that the hon. Gentleman makes. Does he recall that on previous occasions the Minister suggested that matters of amenity were planning, not licensing, matters? Does he agree that it is all very well to talk about planning matters, but in many cases planning permission has already been given, on the assumption that the premises will close at 11 or 11.30 pm?

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he says that many of the premises will have been given planning permission many years—indeed, decades—ago. However, even if that were not the case, I would not believe that planning was a complete solution, for the reason I gave earlier: what may be perfectly reasonable at 3 o'clock in the afternoon may be completely unreasonable at 3 o'clock in the morning. I would not expect planning permission for a public house to be denied because of people opening and closing their car doors at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, but it might be reasonable, on the basis of protecting residents' amenity, for the public authorities to insist that it did not stay open, thus causing that noise, until 3 o'clock in the morning.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for North Devon are right to say that this is an important part of the Bill, not least because getting the licensing objectives right will have a knock-on effect. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that all the protections set out in clause 19 will be for naught if the particular subject areas do not fall within the confines of the licensing objectives.

A stranger, seeing that my name had been attached to Government amendment No. 8, might think that there must be broad-based agreement between us on everything in the Bill. Of course that is not entirely so, because that amendment suggests reverting back to including public nuisance as one of the objectives. I have no particular concerns about that. However, in my view we should consider having a fifth objective—that of residential amenity. It is with that in mind that I favour re-instituting the concept of public nuisance. That is an important concept and should appear in the Bill. There was a long and fruitful debate on the subject in the other place, and the Lords tried their best to find a sensible compromise that would ensure that the need to balance various interests was brought to the fore.

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said earlier. Also, we have been greatly helped by the Civic Trust and the Local Government Association, who helped to prepare briefs on our behalf. Some local authorities need to feel that they can take into account the cumulative negative impact of a high concentration of premises, and customers, on local communities. Local

authorities across the country are increasingly reporting problems of noise in the street.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, anyone who goes on to the streets of Soho in the early hours of Saturday or Sunday will see an enormous amount of antisocial behaviour, from urination in the street to drug taking and loud disorder. An underlying assumption that the Government make all too often in the Bill is that the areas under great stress are city centres with no residential population. As I have pointed out in Committee, Soho and Covent Garden have enormous residential communities, and there is little doubt that the same applies to the centres of such cities as Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle.

The interests of local residents need to be protected, as do the interests of local businesses. We should not think of this as an ''us or them'' issue. It is perhaps all too easy for local residents associations to be perceived as simply representing the interests of the residential population. I appreciate that there is a great danger that in tabling some of the amendments, Opposition Members run the risk of considering only one side of the argument. Business interests need to be maintained—certainly in central London, given the importance of the tourist trade, and there are long-standing business interests both in central London and beyond. There are family restaurants, bars and pubs that have been around for many decades, which I hope will be around for many decades to come. The biggest worry is that if we do not get the Bill right, at the next economic upturn many small family-run businesses will be bought up by the large chains, which will undermine the consumer choice that we all crave.

I am developing some very bad habits as a young new Member of Parliament. One of them, which I think I learned from the apostles of new Labour, is to look at focus groups. Over the past few months I have got in touch with a number of my local residents and their associations to find out about their views on the Licensing Bill as a whole, and this is an appropriate moment to put on the public record some of the concerns that they expressed.

One of the residents groups that I had contact with is in the Marylebone High Street ward, which is north of Oxford street and therefore just outside Soho and the main west end stress area. I received a substantial number of responses—about 60 or 70. A fair few—about 40 per cent.—were from residents who did not have many concerns about the idea of 24-hour licensing and the extension of licensing. It is therefore fair to say that the residential population do not by any means universally object to licensing regulations or say that they fail to take account of residential and other amenities.

I shall pass on a few brief comments from local resident associations throughout Westminster. As in any city centre, although a lot of attention is paid to places such as Soho and Covent Garden, there are also smaller stress areas, such as around Victoria station, in Bayswater, where Queensway is becoming an active commercial zone all day and all night, and in places such as Marylebone high street.

The Ashley Gardens Residents Association expressed great concern about the character of residential areas in large cities. It felt that in London there was a risk that ill-thought-through licensing legislation that took no account of residential amenity would in time result in areas being wholly altered, and there would be a lack of incentives for landlords to keep reasonable order. In fairness, it should be said that the Strand, Aldwych and Trafalgar Square Association, which represents predominantly licensees, was broadly supportive of the introduction of the Bill in its current unfettered form. However, the Leicester Square Association, which comprises a vibrant mix of residents and business people, was worried about the local atmosphere becoming that of a wild west frontier town, which it felt was already the case at weekends. That association does not want drinking hours to be extended.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is adopting new Labour tactics. When he conducted his survey, did he point out to the residents in his constituency that under this Bill they will have a direct say in the granting of licences for the first time? That fact may have been withheld from them until now.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Although I am adopting new Labour tactics, it may be wishful thinking to imagine that I would be able to deliver on these matters—and even if I could, that might be taking new Labour tactics a step too far.

The rhetoric of the Bill has been about devolving power to local groups—taking it away from what might be perceived as a distant magistrates court, and putting it in the hands of a local authority. However, the real proof of the pudding will be whether the approach is highly centralising. That theme has come up before; I have mentioned it on a number of occasions in this Committee, and on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. The real concern is that without protection to cover public nuisance and, more importantly, residential amenity, the notional powers and protections in the hands of local residents and small businesses will be somewhat illusory, because the operations with the largest and deepest pockets will be able to benefit most from a highly centralised system. That is one of the reasons why we are keen to encourage residential amenity.

The South East Bayswater Residents Association, which has done sterling work over a long period, and has briefed a number of Lords in the other place, highlighted a great concern about the proposed disadvantages of deregulation. What would happen if advantages were not apparent, and crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour continued, or even increased, under any new regime? The association expressed the concern that that could lead to major problems, against which there would be no protection, and the Bayswater area would become less attractive. The association said that there was a lack of infrastructure for policing and enforcement in the early hours of the morning, and also a lack of reliable public transport to allow people to leave the area.

The Soho Society made some important contributions to the debate in the other place, and I am grateful for all the help that a number of its key members have given me during the past nine months in understanding a little more about the Bill. It raised the issue of human rights with the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Comparisons have been drawn with cities such as New York and Paris, where regulations have been introduced to prevent over-concentration. In Paris, a new full liquor licence has not been granted since 1915, and New York has the 500 ft rule—in Paris it is called the 75 m rule—which specifies the minimum distance between each licensed premises. Again, residential amenity is an integral part of the thought process. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should adopt such a prescriptive approach, but what lies behind the approaches in those two important capital cities, which are comparable to London, is the sense that residential amenity needs to be protected.

One of the great things about the history of much of inner London is that the population in particular pockets has begun to rise for the first time in two centuries. As I said earlier, that applies in particular to the City of London, which needs a vibrant residential population to ensure that its population continues to rise. That population will include families, which inevitably need schools and all the associated infrastructure. That then becomes an important residential amenity that must be protected.

The Soho Society concluded by saying that it was determined that the power should remain in the hands of residents and the local council, and that to provide such protection, either there should be some sort of amendment relating to the protection of residential amenity, or the Government should accept the amendments from the other place.

I also spoke to the British Hospitality Association and the Tourism Alliance, which were, in the broadest sense, keen to support Second Reading. They feel that the tourism industry stands to gain much from the removal of some of the complexities of the law, but that facilities for tourists should be provided when and where they are needed—on demand, rather than dictated by central Government—or local government. There would be concerns, even under the new regime, about whether the needs and aspirations of the tourist market and its consumers would be ignored. Inevitably, there are lobby groups on both sides of the fence, which makes it all the more necessary to achieve a balance.

I shall end by quoting one or two of my local residents. I shall concentrate on those who are against the Bill and the licensing objectives, with the caveat that a significant minority of those whom I have contacted have said that they are in favour of the Bill. A couple who had lived in Marylebone for some 25 years said that they were very much opposed to 24-hour licensing; there were four pubs within 100 yards of the block of flats in which they lived, and in the summer the noise was a serious nuisance until 1 o'clock in the morning.

Another couple said:

''Whilst the idea of a 24 hour city for commercial premises may appeal to some, this freedom is at odds with domestic leases that stipulate 'quiet enjoyment' of owners' homes''.

They felt that restrictions should be imposed on the playing of music between, say, midnight and 8 am. Another local resident in Marylebone said:

''At present the licensing laws are draconian, particularly compared to Europe, and need to be liberalised.''

However, the resident did not agree that licensing functions should be taken from magistrates and given to local authorities or others, because they considered that the present system was objective and free from a perception of political bias.

Above all, it is evident that residential amenities are much in the forefront of people's minds. I am worried that the licensing objectives in the Bill are far too abstract and vague. They lay the whole process open to several legal challenges, which would serve no one, least of all local residents or hard-working people with small businesses who are determined to ensure that their businesses remain a success.

Given the numbers in Committee, the Government can railroad through their ideas. None the less, I hope that we can hold sway with the amendments that we have tabled and the Minister will come back on Report, having given some thought to achieving a balance. All of us want a system that will succeed. I apologise for arguing in some detail, but the clause is of key importance. Without achieving the right licensing objectives, we run the risk of having a system that will be beset by bureaucracy, red tape and perhaps by umpteen legal challenges.

It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly said that amenity was misunderstood by the Secretary of State when it was dealt with on Second Reading. He referred to a case that took place in 1920, which was 83 years ago. We will have a blizzard of litigation if we do not get that aspect of the Bill right. I hope that the Minister will give considerable thought to our arguments.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I had not intended to speak to the amendments but I wish to follow on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and the hon. Member for North Durham. If we do not ensure that the objectives contain some reference to residential amenity or that broader issues are taken into account by licensing authorities when determining their policy and its implementation, residents will feel disfranchised from the process. We say that we are giving them a voice through the Bill, but they have a voice in a similar quasi-judicial process—planning. They often feel disfranchised from that process and consider that their objections have limited impact because of the nature of the planning process, the fact that policies are set out and that there is Government guidance. The views of local communities are often overridden by the quasi-judicial nature of that process.

If there is no reference under the Bill to important issues for local communities, residents and businesses, I fear that their views will not be properly taken into

account when determining the statement of licensing policy, notwithstanding the guidance in the Government's draft document. If we are to ensure that licensing authorities have a broader perspective of their objectives under the Bill, we must tackle residential amenity. Without that, local communities will consider that they do not have a proper voice in forming policies, ensuring that they are properly implemented and that their local community is protected from excessive free licensing of pubs or other entertainment venues.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, I had not intended to speak at length on the amendment, although I had intended to talk to my amendment No. 107. However, that disappears into insignificance when compared with Government amendment No. 8. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, that makes it impossible to object legitimately to the granting of many licences.

Dr. Howells indicated dissent.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister shakes his head. He says that he sighs rather than snorts.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is total rubbish.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is not rubbish. As the hon. Member for North Devon clearly said, a person can object only within the context of the licensing objectives, which are set out in the clause. If those objectives require only the prevention of public nuisance, its statutory definition—perhaps I should say, ''The court's judgment about what is a public nuisance''—comes into play. I hope the Minister will deal forensically with that assertion rather than simply say that it is rubbish.

The hon. Member for North Devon outlined a serious, genuine objection and I will try to back that up with reference to paragraph 4.10 of the Minister's draft guidance, which says:

''no Statement of Policy should override the right of any person to make representations on an application or seek a review of a licence or certificate where''

—and I emphasise this—

''provision has been made for them to do so in the Act''.

My reading of that paragraph is that there is no provision in the Bill for anyone to make an objection, except within the context of the licensing objectives.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

This is called the Alcohol Licensing Bill, just in case the hon. Gentleman had forgotten; it is not about controlling society or running wider objectives for society.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have not forgotten, but I did not know that there was any reference to alcohol in the title.

The Bill is not to do with controlling society, but it is to do with the consequences of a much more liberal licensing regime on those who may suffer under it. I am not suggesting that the licensing regime should not be liberal; I am suggesting that local authorities should be required to pay proper attention to the consequences, among which are the noise and other effects of people gathering in the streets late at night. The Minister has accepted that, because he has

justified staggering closing hours—there not being a fixed closing time—by saying that that measure will reduce noise and disruption in the streets of our towns and cities between 11 and 12 o'clock and 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.

The Minister accepts that the Bill will have consequences and I am arguing about those. I do not dispute that there will be an alleviation of the consequences of everyone flooding out of pubs between 11 and 12 o'clock. However, there may be additional noise and some displacement in towns that do not have a significant problem at that time of night.

Many of my constituents contend that noise at 3 am is less acceptable than noise between 11 pm and midnight. I say that with absolute confidence because I live in the centre of Cowes and during Cowes week people are prepared to put up with noise between 2 and 3 am, but they would prefer not to put up with it at that time every week throughout the summer.

Such noise is acceptable during some special events and people are prepared to put up with it, but they do not want to be disturbed every night, especially on week day nights, particularly if they are in the serious business of providing public services, such as transport, postal or ferry services and have to be up in time to drive the first bus or operate the first ferry. People worry about the noise consequences and about the leakage of noise—not just noise caused on the premises, but that caused by people assembling outside. The draft guidance says that the local authority

''statement of policy should make clear that licensing law is not a mechanism'',

which the Minister has already asserted,

''for the general control of anti-social behaviour by individuals once they are beyond the direct control of the individual, club or business holding the licence''.

Of course, it is not meant to be such a mechanism, but my examples would be consequent on allowing many licences. Indeed, that is acknowledged further on, because the guidance refers to cumulative effect.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Not in this clause.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

No. The guidance also requires an objector to do something that to all intents and purposes is impossible: to lay an evidentiary base for the assertion that the addition of the premises in question would produce the cumulative effect claimed. How can one possibly prove what will happen in the future? It is simply impossible. It is possible to assert or offer evidence of what has happened on previous occasions, but it is utterly impossible to prove what will happen. The guidance is therefore wholly unreasonable.

In case the Minister thinks that I am drifting away from the object of the amendments, I am concerned that the licensing objectives are drawn too narrowly. If subsection (2)(c) is amended in the way proposed by the Minister, people will find it even more difficult to object. In their amendments, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench proposed adding a range of things and I concede that the hon. Member for South Dorset also

made a good point: decisions should be a matter of balancing the cultural benefit. Cowes week has a cultural as well as a major economic benefit and that is the type of cultural activity that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting should be safeguarded.

My great concern, however, is the narrow definition of public nuisance, which is already covered by environmental protection legislation. As one of his reasons for the requirement to license, the Minister suggested that such legislation was retrospective rather than prospective, which I accept. That is a good reason why the licensing authorities should look ahead. The licensing authority needs to look beyond the narrowly drawn definition of public nuisance to the social amenity of those who live in the area that is likely to be significantly affected by any noise consequent upon the granting of licences.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

These are important amendments and we have had an interesting debate on them. I will deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for North Devon, but I am leapfrogging for a moment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster describes an accurate picture of what goes on in the streets of Soho and the other pressure points in his constituency, but such activities are the perverse effects of the current licensing laws. He is right to say that we must try to improve the licensing laws to tackle some of those problems, but the activities that he describes are a result of what is happening now. I hope that he remembers that. The new system is designed to reduce crime, disorder, antisocial behaviour and public nuisance.

I will attempt a forensic description of ''public nuisance'', as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked me to do. It is also a problem that, if people believe that the area is like the wild west—as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said—things can only get worse. We are offering a chance to make things better. The situation at the moment is a direct product of our current laws. The anxieties are an argument for change, not for the status quo, which is why the hon. Gentleman's comments worry me.

The new system will give the hon. Gentleman's constituents a stronger voice than ever before. They will be able to call for a review of an existing licence, which could result in conditions being imposed on the licence that improve matters for the residents in the area.

I want to answer some of the questions before the knife falls. I do not have much time to do that because there are some big questions to address. Before I discuss the specifics of this group of amendments and the arguments outlined, especially by the hon. Members for North Devon and for Isle of Wight and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset in amendment No. 88, I should explain that the licensing objectives are not relevant simply for the licensing authority in carrying out its licensing functions. Individual applicants for premises licences and club premises certificates must explain the steps that they intend to take to promote them in the operating schedule that must accompany each application. As a consequence, the licensing objectives and their promotion must be capable of

being translated into conditions with which licensees must comply as well as of representing the overarching criteria against which the licensing authority must discharge its functions in the public interest.

It is impossible to expect licensees to promote the aspirational—and sometimes wonderful, as in the case of my hon. Friend's amendment No. 88—objectives proposed and I will try to explain why. Amendment No. 118 is one of those amendments, although I suspect that its intention may be to probe the Government about the workings of the new system. It sets out again one of the key elements of the new regime—namely, that a licensing authority will be expected to grant a licence in the absence of representations from responsible authorities or interested parties. I hope that I can reassure the Committee that the Bill is clear on this point: clause 19 states that in the absence of relevant representations the licensing authority must grant a licence, subject only to such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application. That is very important.

The amendment is therefore unnecessary. The granting of permissions is already a function of the licensing authorities. It would also create a licensing objective that it would be impossible for individual licensees to promote, however much they might like to be responsible for granting themselves licences. Although the licensing system provided by the Bill requires applicants to make assessments for themselves, the Government are not putting in place a system of self-regulation.

I now turn to Government amendment. No. 8 and those relating to it—amendments Nos. 66 and 42 are probably the most important of them. Amendment No. 8 would restore to the Bill the four licensing objectives it originally contained: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm.

The hon. Member for North Devon raised several issues. The idea of the prevention of public nuisance was removed by an amendment in another place, and Government amendment No. 8 is designed to reverse that decision. We believe that replacing the idea of public nuisance with the idea of amenity significantly weakened the Bill, particularly in terms of the protection that it offers local residents in relation to the carrying on of licensable activities. That was not the intention of the amendment in another place, but it was its effect.

In the debate in another place, an impression was given by some contributors that ''public nuisance'' was a narrow concept that would not cover some of the problems that might be caused to residents living near licensed premises. That was because those contributors had regard to the narrow definition of ''nuisance'' in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That definition is misleading in the context of the Licensing Bill. The Bill does not define ''public nuisance'' and it therefore retains the wide meaning it has under common law, rather than that in the 1990

Act or any other statutory definition. The term ''public nuisance'' therefore retains the breadth and flexibility to take in all the concerns likely to arise from the operation of any premises conducting licensable activities, in terms of the impact of nuisance on people living or doing business nearby.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Can the Minister confirm that according to his understanding of the term ''public nuisance'', it covers everything in the House of Lords amendment—in other words, that in his view the amendment made in the other place is superfluous, and that ''public nuisance'' covers all the concerns set out in subsection (2)(c)?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes indeed, but I will modify my agreement with the hon. Gentleman by saying that I do not expect licensees to have regard to the aesthetic qualities of surrounding buildings, for example. However, if behaviour is particularly rowdy, and antisocial behaviour can be proved to have been generated in the premises, what happens in licensed premises and in their vicinity may be said to have an effect on the aesthetics of the surrounding area, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. Apart from that, I would certainly agree with him. In fact, as I have argued, the provision actually weakens the power of the Bill in that respect.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

May I just make a tiny bit of progress first?

Case law has developed on the subject, and will continue to develop in relation to the provisions in the Bill—I just wanted to make that point.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Following on from the discussion between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster about public nuisance, may I point out that paragraph 6.61 of the draft guidance says:

''At any stage, following the grant of a premises licence, a responsible authority''—

it includes in that definition a resident living in the vicinity of the premises—

''. . . may ask the licensing the authority to review the licence''.

So reviews could take place at any time, instead of every three years when the licence is renewable, as is the case at the moment. In the context of his stated aim of putting the phrase ''public nuisance'' back into subsection (2)(c), does the Minister expect a plethora of objections and cases for review to come before the licensing authority, as a result of the definition of ''public nuisance'' and the power, under the guidance, for people to make a complaint?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No, because in my experience—which must be subjective, just as the hon. Gentleman's point or question is—most residents live in relative harmony with most licensed premises. There are exceptions, and we have to make sure that the Bill is framed so as to give residents the opportunity to ask for a review of the licence of any particular premises. There will probably be some objections. The right of residents to object, for the first time, to how licensed premises are run will be very welcome in respect of some licensed premises that I can think of, but will not name, in my

constituency. Although there may well be some objections, it is impossible to predict how many there will be, or what the percentage will be in each constituency. Clearly, some residents will take the opportunity to ask for a hearing on the way in which a particular—

Mr. Moss rose—

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I have a lot to say on this subject—but go on; I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister did not answer the real question, which is whether he believes that there will be an increase. He ended up by saying that there would be some objections; however, if we get the wording in the Bill wrong, there may be an increase in the number. Obviously, that would force the licensees into court, and would involve legal costs and the rest of it. The Lords, through their amendment, were trying to achieve a balance. The local licensing authority had to balance residents' rights to object to a nuisance with the leisure amenity of the facility on a cultural and social basis.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I understand and accept that argument. I am saying that no universal rule will be applied, and there will be places where objections can be made. Because of the way in which the new system will work, with a more relaxed regime for closing times, we will not see the same spikes or peaks of antisocial behaviour, so there will be fewer objections from local residents as a consequence. This is not a simple question, and what happens to clause 5 is very much tied to the overall objectives of the Bill, one of which is to reduce those spikes and problems that occur when everyone is thrown out into the street some time between 11 pm and midnight.

The term ''public amenity'' is narrow and derived from planning law. It refers to the aesthetic and visual qualities of an area. It would not therefore cover the problems of noise, and many aspects of antisocial behaviour that we acknowledge and to which the operations of some premises could give rise. Planning law already provides local planning authorities with the tools that they need to address public amenity concerns about any premises, not just licensed premises. It is therefore essential that we restore the prevention of public nuisance to the licensing objectives in the Bill.

If the Committee accepts amendment No. 8, as I hope it will, amendment No. 134 would add a fifth licensing objective: the protection of residential amenity. The issue of amenity has arisen in the context of the debate on what has been called cumulative impact, or saturation; it concerns not the accumulation of licensed premises in and of itself, but the consequences that can sometimes flow from an accumulation of premises in a small and restricted area—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned this. For example, that can happen in Soho in London, and in other places throughout the country.

The licensing objectives chosen in the Bill are not random, but address the problems that decades of experience have shown—problems that can arise from

the co-existence in one area of a number of licensed premises. Of particular relevance here are the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The choice of objectives derives from experience in decision making about licensing. They represent the reference against which the licensing authority will balance competing specific interests to reach a decision on an application that is in the overall public interest.

The Government are committed to ensuring that licensing authorities have the powers to address both crime and disorder and public nuisance arising from the carrying on of licensable activities. We have consulted widely with interested parties, including most recently with the LGA, the Association of London Government and the London boroughs of Westminster and Camden to determine whether the Bill's powers are sufficient for those purposes. As a result of that consultation, our policy was developed. We have incorporated in the draft guidance clear statements about the way in which a licensing authority's policy may be developed under the Bill where the cumulative effect of licensed premises impacts on the licensing objectives. We have already moved a long way with the principle of cumulative effect since the Bill was introduced—so far, indeed, that amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 74 are unnecessary, and I hope that they will be withdrawn.

I shall say a little about how the Bill already allows licensing authorities to take into account the cumulative impact of licensing on the amenity of an area. As I have already explained, the expression ''public nuisance'' has been chosen for the Bill as a well known concept that is flexible and capable of application in a huge range of circumstances. The licensing authority, informed by the responsible authorities—the experts—described in clause 14, needs to be in a position to determine what constitutes public nuisance in each individual case. In certain circumstances, lower level nuisance—such as the slamming of doors by patrons leaving a premises late at night, as described by the hon. Member for North Devon—has to be taken into account. Public nuisance is not only about acid house parties, raves, loud music or the selling of drugs on the street in Soho, to which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred, although it might include those types of nuisance.

The Bill allows for a necessarily flexible approach. As is stated in the guidance that has been made available to hon. Members,

''The 2003 Act requires licensing authorities and responsible authorities to make objective judgements about what constitutes nuisance and what is needed, in terms of conditions attached to premises licences and club premises certificates to prevent it. These will not be easy judgements as one man's enjoyable music is another man's irritating noise. It is therefore important that in applying the relevant objective tests, licensing authorities and responsible authorities focus on impacts of the licensable activities at the relevant premises on people living, working and sleeping in the vicinity that are unreasonable.''

''Amenity'' is a narrow issue, which more properly arises in the context of planning applications and applications for a change of use of premises. To introduce it into the licensing objectives would cause an unnecessary duplication of the planning process. However, to allay worries about cumulative impact, we have included the planning authority as a responsible authority. It will be free to make representations to the licensing authority about the cumulative impact of public nuisance or disorder from large numbers of similar premises, when that relates to the promotion of the licensing objective.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Paragraph 8.31 of the guidance states:

''In the context of preventing public nuisance, it is again essential that conditions are focused on measures within the direct control of the licence holder.''

The planning authority can represent until it is blue in the face, but if the licensing authority does not have the power to take account of matters by attaching conditions that are not within the direct control of the licence holder, the planning authority's efforts will be in vain. That point has been made by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) to whom I referred in at our first sitting.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I wish to stress what I have said consistently throughout our proceedings in the House and in Committee. Licensing law must not become a rerun of planning. We must remember that many businesses employ a lot of people, and may have to go through hell and high water to receive planning permission. Under the regime described by the hon. Gentleman, they would then have to go through it all again. When local residents decided that they could not oppose planning permission that way, they would try another way.

The Bill is not designed to deal with the behaviour of patrons after they have long left the vicinity of the premises. It would be neither practicable nor reasonable to expect it to do so. Under the Bill, licensing objectives must be capable of translation into conditions that can reasonably be imposed on any licence holder. That is important. The conditions must be within his or her control, so that failure to comply can properly result in prosecution. It must be clear to the holder of the licence and the enforcement officers when the holder has transgressed the law.

It is easy to see how a licensee might encourage respectful behaviour as individuals are leaving his or her premises, even when they are getting into their nearby cars and driving away. A condition attached to his licence could therefore reasonably require him to do so. That could involve clear signs being displayed at exits. However, that influence will become quickly attenuated. When customers are beyond the licence holder's control, the onus for good conduct should fall squarely on the individual, and it is on the individual that enforcement efforts should then be focused.

In addition, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently published a White Paper that shows our intention to deal with antisocial behaviour by individuals in such circumstances. We are not ignoring the issue. The Licensing Bill must focus,

however, on the duties that we can place on licence holders and the actions that we can require them to take. A licence holder and his staff cannot exert absolute control over individuals after they have left the vicinity of the premises and may be hundreds of yards away. That is why the Home Secretary intends to equip the police with additional tools to control antisocial behaviour.

I ask the Committee to support Government amendment No. 8.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We have had a good debate on the clause and the amendments associated with it. The Opposition amendments were intended to probe and find out exactly why the Government included some objectives and not others. The objectives fall under the general duties of the licensing authorities, not, as the Minister implied, under the licensee application, which must be accompanied by an operating schedule, which in turn must be directed to achieve the objectives as they are set out.

We want to consider proactively the role of local licensing authorities in so far as they consider their licensing function, not just in a negative sense. We should not simply say, ''No, no, no'' on the various grounds set out in the objectives; we should say, ''These are cultural and social facilities that we wish to endorse and support''—for example, in a community with a growing tourist trade, and in other similar situations. There must be a balance between the interests of local residents, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned in speaking clearly to his own amendments, and those of the licensed business community.

I am not convinced by the Minister's assuring me that there will not be many more requests for reviews under the heading of public nuisance. I can foresee a huge number of vexatious applications for review. I know the guidance; I have read it carefully. It says that not more than one application in any 12-month period should be acceptable. I know that the Government are attempting to plug that loophole; nevertheless, people in the licensing trade may be faced with increased legal bills for defending themselves against local people who have objected to a pub being there from day one, and who will continue to do so. During local elections, when local councillors are coming up for election, there may be vexatious campaigns based on such objections.

We tabled our amendments in the interests of balance. We cannot accept the Government's amendment, which would delete the portion of subsection 2(c) that resulted from an amendment in another place. However, on the basis of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, No. 8, in

clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out from first 'of' to '; and' in line 31 and insert 'public nuisance'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Clause 179 - Guidance

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in

clause 179, page 99, leave out lines 5 to 19 and insert—

'( ) But the Secretary of State may not revise the licensing guidance unless a draft of the revised version has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Looking at the clock, I see that we have an enormous amount of time left to consider the clause and my probing amendment. Partly because the Government tabled an amendment on Report in the House of Lords—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002], and the Order of the Committee [1 April and 3 April 2003], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clause 179 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Standing Committee D

Clause 6 - Statement of licensing policy

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 75, in

clause 6, page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (1).

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 80, in

clause 6, page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment No. 135, in

clause 6, page 4, line 26, after 'policies', insert

'including policies relating to the management of cumulative impact and saturation,'.

Amendment No. 136, in

clause 19, page 12, line 8, after 'application', insert

'unless a saturation policy is in place,'.

Amendment No. 137, in

clause 31, page 17, line 31, after 'made', insert

'subject to the adoption of a saturation policy by the licensing authority,'.

Amendment No. 138, in

clause 35, page 20, line 18, at end insert

'unless a saturation policy is in place.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendments Nos. 75 and 80 are fairly simple and are essentially probing amendments. The Government need to justify why they deem it necessary to prescribe matters in this way, particularly with regard to the duration of the licensing policy. Why must each licensing authority publish a licensing statement every three years, which will follow on from fairly extensive consultations each time? In any event, subsection (3) asks each licensing authority to take into account the views of people in the local area. Subsection (4) provides licensing authorities with the power to revise policy at any time. It is not necessary to prescribe at the outset that a local authority has to go through that hoop every three years.

The Government have required local authorities to carry out reviews of all sorts of things at three-year intervals, so they are bringing this matter into line with what they have already asked authorities to do. If it is not necessary to do it, why make a requirement to do it? If a process is working well, we see no need for a review to be prescribed. If it is not working well, there is provision for reviews to take place as and when the local licensing authority deems it important and necessary to do so.

The Government protest all the time that the Bill is deregulatory, but the clause contains an instruction to

local authorities that they must set up a completely new licensing policy or review the one that they have got every three years. Unless the Government come up with good reasons, there is no need for that over-prescription.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We will keep coming back to the fact that the Bill is an attempt to balance the effectiveness of local government licensing authorities, which rightly seek freedom and flexibility, with the interests of the industry which wants a stable and transparent business environment within which to thrive and, above all, the interests of citizens and consumers, who have a right to live and spend their leisure time in a safe and pleasant environment.

As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) told us, amendment No. 75 probes one of the key provisions of the Bill. The clause requires licensing authorities to determine and publish their policy with respect to the exercise of their licensing functions every three years. Before determining their policy or revising it, they must consult local bodies and those with an interest in, and who are affected by, licensing matters. The consultation is with the police, the fire authority, representatives of holders of premises licences, club premises certificates and personal licences, and representatives of local residents and businesses. It is important to keep that policy fully informed as a result of consultation and up to date. I understand that the industry wants as little change and upheaval as possible, but the requirement to determine the policy every three years will balance the industry's need for stability against the flexibility and room for manoeuvre that licensing authorities will require to tackle local issues effectively.

The hon. Gentleman asked why there will be a three-year basis and why, if things are going pretty well, authorities should have to do this at all. The three-year basis reflects the requirement on local authorities to set out their crime prevention strategies every three years under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It makes good sense to match up and integrate those documents rather than to follow a somewhat vague idea of a licensing policy period or have no regular review of the policy.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Does the Minister mean by that that the review of the licensing policy should be coterminous with the review under the 1998 Act, or will there be different three-year periods?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No, there may well be different periods, although if a local authority wants to make them coterminous there is no reason why it should not. We have chosen three years because that is a fair length of time and provides a good balance, offering a good sense of continuity. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have pointed out in previous sittings, things can change very quickly, especially in city centres. New businesses can arrive and others can close down. Three years is a pretty good balance.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I accept that argument, but as I said in my opening remarks, that is covered by subsection (4), which says:

''During each three year period, a licensing authority must keep its policy under review and make such revisions to it, at such times, as it considers appropriate.''

We have there in the Bill the wherewithal for authorities to react to changes in circumstances, which the Minister mentioned. The question of why we should have a formal three-year assessment is still not answered.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has made the case. Few changes and little tweaking may be required, but three years is a good period for a local authority to ensure that its licensing policy reflects any changes that may have taken place.

To ensure full consultation and an open and transparent process, the Secretary of State will be able to set, through secondary legislation, a framework of rules to apply to the determination and revision of that policy. Subsection (7), with which amendment No. 80 deals, provides the means through which the Secretary of State may set out such a framework to ensure that there is a level playing field. It is intended that licensing authorities will have considerable latitude within that framework to give them the flexibility to tackle the needs of local individuals and businesses. The regulations could cover, for example, the way in which policies should be drawn up and revised, but they will not dictate the content of the policy.

I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I apologise for being slightly late this afternoon, Mr. Gale.

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 135 to 138, which deal with cumulative effect and saturation. Notwithstanding the words of encouragement from the Minister on the allowance for local authorities to have their own policies in place, there are some grave concerns, particularly in the parts of central London that I represent. I suspect that they are replicated all over the country in stress areas of the large-scale alcohol and entertainment industry.

Interestingly, entertainment saturation is one issue that has failed to be addressed in the draft London plan put forward by the Mayor of London and undergoing extensive consultation, much of which involves a sensible sense of vision—I fear that that will not necessarily be executed under the current incumbent. There is little doubt that deregulation and changing lifestyles have resulted in entertainment venues staying open longer and closing later at night than ever before. The growth in the late-night economy means that more people are out at night and that in turn has led to an over-concentration of entertainment venues in particular areas at the expense of residential and other business users.

Residential users have not gone away. They remain an active part of life in many cities and it is important therefore that fuller emphasis is given to entertainment saturation when setting up a statement of licensing

policy. As I have said, there is a concern that the proposals in the Bill are overly prescriptive. Inevitably, there will be some opportunity for local authorities to have some say, but the worry is that we are tweaking at the edges rather than fundamentally reviewing the effects of cumulative impact and saturation.

Obviously, the Government have listened and I give the Department some credit for listening. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear!''] I hasten to add that ''some'' is the operative word. One does not know for what I was about to give credit—perhaps I should stay silent on that point. That is always best, rather than putting both my feet into it.

The Government have partially reversed their position and accepted that it is necessary for some licensing authorities to be able to deal with the overall problem of saturation. There is still a concern that there may be too great a concentration of licensed premises in particular areas. I appreciate that there is a danger that that may sound like special pleading and I accept that Soho and Covent Garden in my constituency are not typical areas. They are exceptional areas and it would be wrong to couch the whole of the Licensing Bill with Soho and Covent Garden and nothing else at all in mind. However, it would equally be a concern if the Bill ignored the residential interests in our inner cities.

All hon. Members are committed to the rebuilding of our inner cities. Indeed, some cities have already made considerable progress. One needs only to look at the centre of Manchester or Liverpool, which had become extremely derelict by the 1980s. In the past decade, under Governments of both colours, there have been significant improvements in those areas and their vibrancy should not be lessened.

We do not want an overly restrictive licensing regime, but if those areas are to continue to thrive and to have an active residential population, it is important that some balance is reached. There is understandable concern about saturation and the need to give the licensing authority some safeguards so that it can take account of cumulative effect.

The Minister will rightly point out that some of those matters are in the hands of planning authorities. It is perhaps idealistic to assume that planning and licensing will be two entirely discrete areas. I very much agreed when the Minister said this morning that the last thing that business or, for that matter, anyone else wanted was an uncertainty of regime, in which the authority gets a second bite of the cherry and can say, ''We lost as far as planning is concerned, but we will now throw the licensing book at you.'' That would be wrong, but one must accept that planning and licensing matters will not be entirely divorced from one another, particularly when it comes to aspects such as the saturation that affects many of our larger cities.

I hope that the Minister will give considerable thought to the representations that he will continue to receive on the matter and that there will be no question that local authorities, particularly in the middle of our bigger cities, will be able to consider cumulative effect and saturation in drawing up their policy; in other

words, that they will be given an opportunity to devise a statement of licensing policy under clause 6 that will take account of local factors that may not necessarily be widely seen throughout the rest of the country. Without that safeguard there is an understandably real fear that some of the good intentions underlying the Bill will come to naught.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The amendments deal with concerns about cumulative impact and saturation. I understand the thinking behind them, but I remind the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), as he has reminded the Committee, that we have developed the policy since the Bill was published to deal with those concerns. We have tabled amendments to tackle them and we have also promised to tackle them through statutory guidance and have published a draft of what that guidance might say. Our changes make the proposed amendments unnecessary.

Amendment No. 135, which would affect the provision in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, would single out areas that do not in themselves comprise licensing objectives. It is not the purpose of the delegated power to prescribe the content of a licensing authority's policy with respect to the exercise of its licensing functions. The management of cumulative effect and saturation is not in itself a licensing function, as the hon. Gentleman told us.

The Bill tries to establish a workable and effective balance between the rights and interests of local people and businesses and those of licensees and the industry. The Bill provides for authorities, such as the police, fire and environmental health, as well as local residents and businesses to have a say. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise businesses because some will be keen to see a number of new licensed premises in the area. He mentioned Manchester and a number other cities where the big pub chains and developers in that sector of the economy are clearly, almost single-handedly in some places, responsible for the rehabilitation of the areas that he described. That is an important consideration. We certainly do not want that to be blighted or stymied in any way.

The Bill provides for those authorities to have a say in all applications for provisional statements, applications for new licences, and applications to vary operating conditions, and to call for the review of existing licences. When one of the authorities makes a relevant representation, a hearing will be held. The necessary and proportionate conditions can be attached to the licence or statement to meet any relevant concerns.

We have introduced a package of measures to allow licensing authorities to deal effectively with cumulative effect. For example, as a result of a Government amendment that was accepted in another place on Report, we have added the local planning authority to the list of responsible authorities identified in the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know, because he will have been lobbied as hard as I have been by the licensing industry, that they are suspicious and worried

about that. I made a point of saying this morning that there must be some degree of proportionality. We cannot have companies spending huge amounts of money going through planning processes only for the result of that process to be blocked further down the line on the whim of a local authority. It is important to remember that.

A further Government amendment places a duty on the licensing committee to consider reports from other local authority committees where a matter that relates to a licensing function and another function of the authority is referred to the licensing committee. In effect, that means that if the licensing committee were considering a licensing matter on which representations had been received about saturation from, say, the local planning authority, it would consider a report on the matter before arriving at a decision. That is a big step forward and a variation in the way the Bill was originally framed. It will ensure that all relevant factors, including cumulative effect where that has an impact on the licensing objectives, can be taken fully into account. In guidance, we make it clear that licensing authorities will be in a position to take the cumulative effect of licensed premises into account where that exists and where it has an impact on the licensing objectives.

As the hon. Gentleman said, each application would need to be considered individually because there will be some good applications which will do a great deal, even for areas where there may already be many licensed premises. For example, a good quality restaurant or music venue—instead of what we have referred to as vertical drinking establishments—might add to the existing mix, which will be welcome. Cities in Europe often have a greater cluster of licensed establishments, but the mix is inevitably greater. That is a civilising influence—I make no excuse for using those words—which makes the environment more attractive for all sorts of people, including young people aged between 18 and 24 who want to become legless and fall over before 11 o'clock. The licensing authority would still have the power to refuse to grant a licence or issue a statement on the basis of cumulative effect when it would impact on the licensing objectives.

We want business to thrive for the sake of investment, employment and local and national economies, and not to be subject to unnecessary burdens or restrictions. That is why, when no representations are made, no hearing will be required. It is also why representations will not be considered when they are not related to the likely impact of the grant of the licence or its variation on the licensing objectives, or when the same representations are made repeatedly, frivolously or vexatiously. Frankly, I believe that when a licensing authority has gone to the trouble of framing an effective policy and, among other things, makes reference to local problems of saturation in respect of certain types of licensed premises, it is improbable that an application would be granted without any representation.

I hope that I have given the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire the reassurance he seeks and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister's counter-argument to amendment No. 75 that we should look again at the mandatory three-year review is that he believes that it is a pretty good period. We also believe that it is a pretty good period, but that does not mean that we should pluck ''three'' out of the air and shove it into the Bill.

I come to some amendments with a more rational approach. The Minister admitted that the reviews will not be coterminous and if part of the objective behind the Bill is to look at crime, disorder, nuisance and such problems, it would have been sensible to tie that in so that both reviews were considered at the same time. However, I take on board the Minister's response to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. 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. 76, in

clause 6, page 4, line 3, leave out from 'section' to end of line 6 and insert 'relevant period' means—

(a) in the case of a council whose members are wholly or partly elected every four years, a period of four years beginning with the date of coming into force of this Act;

(b) in the case of council whose members are wholly or partly elected every three years, a period of three years beginning with the date of coming into force of this Act.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 77, in

clause 6, page 4, line 7, leave out 'three year' and insert 'relevant'.

Amendment No. 78, in

clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out 'three year' and insert 'relevant'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

As I mentioned, the amendments follow on from the group that we have just discussed. Amendment No. 76 is sensible and pragmatic and has the support of many local authorities and councillors as well as the Beer and Pub Association, so there is also support for it within the industry. It would require the licensing policy review to be tied in with the four-yearly elections to any council when the composition of the council and its political hue might change and, therefore, the outlook on licensing policy might also change. It provides that when a council is reconstituted with new councillors after a democratic election, it should consider its licensing policy. It may well consider all sorts of other things—in fact, new councils invariably do—but that would be a logical time to sit down and consider licensing policies. Depending on the political composition of that council, it may take a different view, but it should at least communicate its policy clearly and unequivocally.

The amendment would allow four-yearly reviews that tie in with local elections. After all, the Government have argued consistently that the Bill is a shift to a more democratic system, not least because licences are going to be issued by local authorities as opposed to magistrates. People will have a democratic opportunity to oppose and object in a way that they are not allowed to at the moment. The Bill is couched

in terms of allowing better representation for ordinary voters who vote in council elections, who will determine the licensing policy.

The amendment is logical and the Government in their over-prescription—by determining the three-year period and whom councils should consult—are overriding the flexibility and local democratic input that local authorities feel is very important.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I support the amendment. Before he moved it, I was scribbling some notes on the possible impact of a three-year rule.

Elections are taking place later this year in many districts throughout the country. They will take place again in 2007 and 2011. The Bill may come into effect in 2004, which will mean that the triennial review of the licensing policy will take place in 2007. That is wonderful because it will coincide with local elections, but the next triennial review will take place in 2010. It is almost inconceivable that a group taking control of a local authority in 2011 would not want to review at other points, even if there were no other reasons for reviewing the licensing policy. They would then undertake a review in 2011, but the next triennial review would come up in 2013. The subsequent local elections would be in 2015. We are going to end up with a series of staggered reviews.

Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot see any opportunity for getting out of that three-year round—based on the date when the Bill takes effect—even if there is a further and perhaps just as broadly based and widely encompassing review between the triennial reviews. A council cannot say, ''We have done a review that is good enough. We can leave the arrangements as they are for another three years or until we feel it is necessary.'' The provision is simply an example of the Government being over-prescriptive. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

This is a question of balance. Industry would like a period longer than three years. Some local authorities would like the review to be more frequent. In the Government's view, three years strikes the right balance. I hope that in the light of the longer debate that we had earlier—I have nothing new to add—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister did not use the words ''a pretty good figure'' again. He avoided that. We are still not persuaded by the Government's arguments. In my discussions with local authorities, I have not come across anyone representing the Local Government Association or local authorities who wanted the period to be shorter than three years. Most of them wanted a longer period before the review took place. The Government are obviously not going to move on this point and there are other more important things to discuss, however. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in

clause 6, page 4, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'businesses' in line 18 and insert—

'(c) holders of premises licences issued by that authority;

(d) holders of club premises certificates issued by that authority;

(e) holders of personal licences living in or carrying on business in the area of that authority; and

(f) '.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 103, in

clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out 'issued by' and insert

'resident in or carrying on business in the area of'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

This matter is only one marginal step up the pecking order of what matters are more important for discussion. I do not claim that it is of huge importance, but it illustrates the Government's approach and, perhaps, that of some local authorities although I am not sure about that.

The question is whether a local licensing authority should be required to consult representative bodies—or such persons as it thinks are representative—or the people whom its policies affect. Amendment No. 104 simply removes from clause 6(3)(c), (d) and (e) the words

''such persons as the licensing authority considers to be representative of''.

That means that the authority would be required to consult the holders of premises licences, club licences and personal licences, not their representatives. Under amendment No. 103, it would be required to consult the holders of personal licences

''resident in or carrying on business in''

the local authority area.

The amendments were drafted when there was still a central licensing authority in the Bill, but it still seems appropriate that, even where a personal licence is issued by another authority, all personal licensees responsible for premises in the area of the licensing authority should be consulted.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The Bill has been drafted to give licensing authorities the flexibility to decide who are the appropriate people or bodies to represent licence holders in local circumstances. It has been drafted to balance the requirement that consultation should be open, transparent and thorough with the need to guard against it becoming an unnecessarily lengthy, bureaucratic and costly exercise. I hope that I can convince the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 103, although laudable in its aim, is a little misconceived. The statement of licensing policy will in most cases set out the policy on personal licences by the licensing authority, rather than on how individual personal licence holders resident in the licensing authority's area go about their business. That aspect of licensing will be managed largely through the operation of premises licences, rather than personal licences. It therefore makes sense to consult those to whom the licensing authority has issued personal licences.

In addition, many personal licence holders may live or work in the relevant licensing authority area, but by no means all of them would be specified on a premises licence for premises in the area. They might not even

work in the area. The licensing authority would not know who those individuals were or at which premises they were working. If a personal licence holder is resident in the area, the Bill already identifies them as a consultee—as a person or persons considered representative of businesses and residents in the area.

Furthermore, under the system set out in the Bill, the licensing authority that issues a personal licence continues, throughout the life of that licence, to function as the relevant licensing authority. Developments in licensing authority policies may affect holders of personal licences issued by that authority, so it is only right that they should be consulted on any such developments. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw the amendment.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am perplexed by subsection (3)(e). If Fareham borough council issued a personal licence to someone who then moved to Newcastle, or became the licensee of the village inn in Sacriston, who would Fareham borough council contact as the representative of that person no longer resident in the borough?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

When the personal licence holder was appointed as the designated premises supervisor, he or she would have been registered with the licensing authority as the person who should be contacted with respect to whatever was going on in that licensed premises. They would be that person.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I call the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to reply.

Mr. Moss rose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am sorry. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has to reply.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is not the only one who is confused. I was confused not by you, Mr. Gale, but by the Minister's reply. I accept that amendment No. 103 is redundant because the central licensing authority has disappeared, but the situation is hard to understand and perhaps he will clarify it. Does the clause require the authority only to consult persons who are representative or can it consult licence holders? Does the clause include all licence holders if that is what the local authority has decided? If that is so, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am happy to answer that question. In preparing its policy, the licensing authority is required by the clause to consult various bodies: the police, the fire authority, representatives of personal licence holders, premises licence holders, club premises certificate holders, representatives of business and residents. Those consultees have been described to ensure that there is consistent and full consultation from licensing authority to licensing authority. The bodies will have to be consulted regardless of local circumstances and the individual decision of a licensing authority. That will help to ensure that policies are determined following the fully informed input of the stakeholders in the industry and both professional and local experts.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the Minister for that answer, which is informative but not so informative that it answers the question. Do such persons include the licence holders? Is an authority permitted under the clause to consult everyone who holds a licence at a particular time?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes. If the licensing authority believed that the appointed representative of the personal licence holders was someone whom they did not believe reflected what personal licence holders in that area actually felt about an issue, there is nothing stopping them from contacting the personal licence holders directly. I hope that that is clear enough for the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Licensing committees

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 81, in

clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out from 'of' to end of line 30 and insert

'such members of the authority as the authority shall determine'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

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

No. 101, in

clause 7, page 4, line 30, leave out 'ten', and insert 'five'.

No. 102, in

clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert

'none of whom shall be members of the executive of that authority'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I now know where I am.

Amendment No. 81 deals with the size of the licensing committees and the lack of flexibility and discretion in the deployment of councillors who serve on them through a provision dictating the number of councillors. The Bill states that such a committee must consist

''of at least ten, but not more than fifteen, members''.

That provision is not flexible enough because it does not reflect the varying sizes of local authorities in terms of the population of their areas, the number of councillors who serve on a council and the number of establishments and premises in their local authority area, which is particularly pertinent to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Westminster city council has a disproportionately huge number of premises to deal with compared with any other council in the country. If the number must be specified, what is the point of making the band so narrow in the first place? Furthermore, the clause limits a local council based in an urban area to the same number of committee members as a small council based in a rural area.

The provision is also unreasonable given the length of the transitional period. Many local authorities, particularly those in urban areas with many premises and establishments, will be inundated during the six-month period with applications for renewals and

variations of existing licences. By imposing the limit so early in the process, the Government could jeopardise the smooth implementation of the Bill and cause gridlock from the outset in some cases. To avoid that, local authorities will have to refuse some applications. Such decisions will go to appeal and that in turn will clog up the magistrates courts, which will have to take the appeals on board.

The Government are being prescriptive in not allowing councils the flexibility to determine the size of their licensing committee according not only to the size of the council area but, as in Westminster's case, to the number of premises and potential applications that they will have to deal with during the six-month transition period. We ask the Government to consider the amendment, which would leave the size of the licensing committee to the discretion of the local authority.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I entirely endorse the comments of my hon. Friend. He hit the nail on the head when he said that we would enter uncharted waters with the transitional arrangements. That applies not only to the city of Westminster, although it will be the most acute case, given the number of licensed premises. The Bill proposes a six-month transition period. There is a real risk of a chaotic effect on licensing if the period is too short.

In so far as there is permission for non-determination, there is an assumption for the conversion of a licence that a two-month gap between an application and non-determination will mean that the licensee will be given authority to proceed on the previous terms. However, for the variation of a licence, the two-month delay will result in an automatic rejection of the variation proposal.

Therefore, it is clear that if the transition period is to be short, there must be far more flexibility in clause 7 to ensure that licensing committees can be larger. Although everyone may have grand plans for the transition arrangements, the practical reality is that many applications will come through in the last few days—that is as inevitable as night following day. There will be a massive rush and the risk of a somewhat chaotic state of affairs.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

Perhaps I am missing something. Would the hon. Gentleman explain how having more members would automatically lead to a speedier determination of the application? My personal experience of councils leads me to believe that the more members there are, the longer they take to discuss a matter.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

It may be said that the quickest and easiest committees are committees of one. That is what I often felt when I was running a business. When I was an employee I took a somewhat different view, but that is life. My argument is that licensing committees will have sub-committees to deal with individual applications. We want to maximise the number of people on the full licensing committee so that there are more people on the sub-committees to deal with day-to-day applications during the transition period.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Unfortunately, the Bill should be renamed the Westminster city

council Bill because everything seems to be being skewed towards Westminster. Is it not a fact that if there were more councillors, more officials would be needed to administer the paper work and to prepare for the committees? As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, increasing the number of councillors is irrelevant.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The fact is that we are taking it for granted in the transition arrangements that the overwhelming majority of applications will be for conversion rather than variation. The process will have to be gone through, so the more councillors who are available to sit on sub-committees, the better.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

But will not some cases be delegated rather than being subject to full hearings of the licensing authority?

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

That may apply to a certain extent and will depend on the policy of councils, but when there is even a small number of objectors, perhaps just a single objector, applications cannot be delegated and must go to a fully fledged licensing committee meeting. Given the obvious cynicism of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), he will never dare to live in the city of Westminster because I shall ensure that council officers, particularly those concerned with parking regulations, are made aware of his concern that all laws start in Westminster, as in fact they do in a literal sense.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has made some sensible suggestions. I understand why the Government want to introduce the legislation quickly, but if the transition arrangements are to be so short—we shall discuss whether six months is too short—and set in stone, it is inevitable that more councillors will be needed from which to choose when constituting a sub-committee to ensure that the process operates smoothly.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I approach the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster from a different angle. If the hon. Member for North Durham objects to the Bill and suggests that it should be called the Westminster Bill, let me put in a bid to add Fareham to its title. Fareham borough council, in line with Government recommendations for streamlining councils, has only 31 members in an urban constituency. There are nine members on the planning committee and I suspect that it will be argued that a member of the planning committee should not be a member of the licensing committee and that the two functions should be kept separate when considering licensing matters. There are six members on the executive and, given the burdens imposed on executive members under the Government's changes to local government functions and the exercise of powers, perhaps they should also be excluded from considering licensing matters. That means that 15 members of the 31-member council may be excluded from those deliberations.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it would not be appropriate for councillors to sit on a planning committee as well as a licensing committee?

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

If someone has determined a planning application to build a new restaurant, how would it be perceived if that person, as a member of a licensing committee, also decided the terms and conditions of the licence to be granted?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I endorse what my hon. Friend says. Advice is being sent out from planning offices throughout the country that anyone who has ''expressed a view'' on the worthiness of a planning application should be debarred from sitting on the planning committee that considers the application. I can see exactly the same advice being issued in respect of a licence when it is obvious that somebody sitting on a planning committee has approved something in the expectation that the premises will be licensed and wants to sit on a licensing committee to consider the same issue.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting me on that point. It is a matter of people's perceptions of the integrity and fairness of the planning and licensing process. If people exercise the same functions on two committees, applicants who feel unfairly treated by either of those committees in respect of an application for the same premises may well think that the committees are biased against them.

A relatively small, efficiently run council, such as Fareham, which has 31 members, will have to draw between 10 and 15 people from a pool of 16 councillors. There may be some authorities where it is right to increase the size of the licensing committee to deal with particular issues in the area, but we should be enabling smaller authorities to put together a licensing committee with fewer than 10 members.

Fareham council also happens to have a licensing and regulatory affairs committee. As well as considering the licensing of pet shops and sex shops and other issues, it considers public entertainment licences. That committee has seven members, who are not on the planning and development control committee. For a small authority, seven members may well be sufficient, particularly after the transitional period has expired. Why can we not give more discretion to local authorities to enable them to determine the appropriate size of committees, according to the burden of responsibility that they have and the number of councillors who are available to fulfil the roles?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is noteworthy that, in objecting to the amendment supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and his argument that 15 is too small a number to constitute a licensing committee, the hon. Member for North Durham argued that one does not need that many people and yet, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who speaks from the Front Bench and who argued that 10 was too large a minimum number, the hon. Gentleman argued that 10 was exactly right and seven was inappropriate. One could tell from the shrugs and remarks—such as ''rubbish''—that he was making during my hon. Friend's contribution that he feels that between 10 and 15 is exactly the right number. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his loyalty to his Minister, but

there must be some justification in the Minister's mind for setting the numbers.

I confess that I was looking beyond the transitional phase when I drafted amendment No. 101. I felt that, in due course, and particularly given the additional duration of the applications, the normal flow of licensing applications, in the case of an authority which did not receive a huge number of applications, would not place such a huge burden on councillors that it would be necessary to have 10 trained councillors—of course, training would be necessary—on the licensing committee to administer that flow. Five would probably be enough. I am sure that that argument is right for small authorities.

I did not attempt to consider whether 15 was too small a maximum number, but I endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that there will be a huge burden for a short time during the transitional period. I find it hard to see why the Minister cannot leave that discretion with local authorities. In my experience of education, there is not a single area in which the size of education committees is determined by the Secretary of State or legislation. That simply does not happen. As far as I know, nothing in any other legislation requires local authorities to set a committee of a particular size—say, of more than three—and I find it hard to see what is magical about between 10 and 15. Can the Minister demonstrate what is magical about that?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

This has been an interesting debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not this time point the finger at me for snorting and grunting my disagreement with him during his speech. I would point the finger at my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, because he is a vigorous debater of such issues.

Similar arguments to those expressed by Opposition Members have been put directly to me by representatives of local government. However, as in so many matters, the Bill has to balance competing interests. In this case, it has to weigh the understandable concerns of local authorities on this score—they have been well articulated by hon. Members—against the industry's legitimate desire to see some consistency in the way in which licensing authorities will operate. The Bill therefore provides a framework that will give licensing authorities and by extension the industry the tools with which to process applications quickly and efficiently through the sub-committee system.

During the development of the Bill and the policy that underpins it, we have sought views from a wide range of stakeholders including representatives of local government at all levels. We have concluded that limits of not less than 10 and not more than 15 will ensure that licensing committees are not so small as to make decision making unacceptably slow because of a lack of members and not so large as to make the conduct of business unmanageable because of too many members. I want to endorse the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who has had a lot of experience here. As we know, north-easterners

can talk a glass eye to sleep at the best of times and I am sure that he has had many painful committee hearings.

We are still of that view. Amendment No. 81 would allow a licensing authority absolute freedom to determine the size of its licensing committee. Key to an understanding of the Government's point of view is a grasp of the principle that in the majority of cases we expect applications to be processed administratively at official level without the need for a hearing. In those circumstances, there will be no need for any member of the licensing committee to become involved at all. The policy behind the Bill has been designed to promote co-operation and collaboration between licensees and the licensing authority. Most issues should be ironed out by the applicant through dialogue with the licensing authority and the responsible authorities and through reference to the statement of licensing policy, before an application is even submitted.

Where relevant representations are received and a hearing is needed, members of the licensing committee will have to become involved, but I should make one thing absolutely clear at this point. The whole licensing committee does not have to—and, indeed, should not—consider and determine every application. The Bill provides for functions of the licensing committee to be delegated to sub-committees of three that may sit in parallel. Doing the sums, a licensing committee comprising the maximum 15 members could have five sub-committees sitting at the same time to consider the small proportion of applications that cannot be determined effectively at official level.

I do not want to keep highlighting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham above anyone else's, but he put his finger on it because we have spent a long time discussing such matters with central London authorities, which have voiced very special concerns. I should say at this point that when I met representatives of Westminster council recently, it transpired that the Bill as we have framed it reflects that council's arrangements for public entertainment licences. That system appears to work well in processing applications.

The licensing committee may delegate any of its functions under the Bill to a sub-committee established by it. The full licensing committee need meet only rarely. That said, to avoid large unwieldy committees, the Bill specifies a maximum size of 15. I recognise that local authorities vary in size greatly and that 10 members may constitute half the total for some authorities, as the hon. Member for Fareham made clear.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he enlighten the Committee as to the current rules of licensing committees? Does a provision in current legislation require licensing committees to be a certain size? It would be interesting to know whether such a provision exists or whether the proposal is another regulatory burden. Secondly, if there is a delegation to sub-committees of three, when is a sub-committee technically inquorate? What is the key number?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The sub-committee must have three members to be quorate. The hon. Member for Fareham talked about Fareham's committee having only seven members, which suggests—although I do not know for certain—that numbers can vary dramatically throughout the country. We are drafting new legislation on the basis of the consultation that we have undertaken with all of the stakeholders. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight is right: he referred to the size of the Committee as a ''magical figure''. There is no explanation for what makes a particular figure magical, but we think that we have chosen a sensible figure and a sensible range of members.

Everyone involved in the licensing regime will benefit from the ability to convene hearings, should they be required, in a timely fashion. The system set out in the Bill allows the licensing authority to respond quickly. By providing for a system of sub-committees to handle individual applications and an upper limit on the size of the full licensing committee, we can place the right emphasis on swift and efficient decision making. The Bill strikes the right balance.

Amendment No. 102 would prevent members of the local authority executive from sitting on the licensing committee. There have been suggestions of mistrust and the opportunity for ill feeling and so forth, but such arguments do local authorities an injustice. They have a difficult job to do.

The House strikes me as being like a medieval monastery—I am always finding hon. Friends and hon. Members ''cwched'' away, gossiping in little corners. There have always been cabals in this building and we are not above suspicion any more than local authorities, but we try to make things work, which is why we have rules and standing orders. We should be more generous towards local authorities about the way in which they deal with such difficult and sensitive matters.

Our arguments for limiting the size of licensing committees relate to the speed and efficiency with which applications are handled and nothing more. I do not see how the presence or absence of members of the executive affects that objective in any way. I hope that amendment No. 102 will be withdrawn on that basis.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Exercise and delegation of functions

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 100, in

clause 8, page 5, leave out lines 13 and 14.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 94, in

clause 8, page 5, line 19, leave out

'(unless the matter is urgent)'.

Amendment No. 93, in

clause 8, page 5, line 22, leave out '5(b)' and insert '5(a)'.

Amendment No. 95, in

clause 8, page 5, line 30, after 'unable', insert

'by virtue of conflict of interest'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I shall deal with the amendments in that order, Mr. Gale. Amendment No. 100 would remove from the authority the power to arrange for a committee that is not the licensing committee to discharge the licensing function, because there would be a potential conflict of interest on such a committee. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Devon, ever ready to ask the difficult question, says, ''How?'' I would have thought that the answer was quite simple: if a recreation committee is determined to put on a pop festival and the licensing authority delegates to that committee the power to determine whether to grant the licence for that entertainment, there is an immediate conflict of interest for the members of that committee, who are about to commit themselves to the pop festival enterprise—not financially, but as members of the local authority. They may be the executive members of that authority. An authority might delegate the licensing function to the executive of the authority, which had committed itself in principle to putting on a pop festival. Then, the executive could be asked to operate wearing its quasi-judicial hat, and might be asked to determine the licensing application that it had submitted for the running of that pop festival. I would consider that to be a profound conflict of interest.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Why?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I must cease to be taken in by every mouthed intervention that the hon. Gentleman makes; otherwise the Committee will last forever. There is a conflict of interest because someone who has set themselves a political purpose tends not to be in a judicial frame of mind when considering the law relating, not to that purpose, but to whether a planning application or a licence of that kind should be issued. It is important that the committee be in a judicial frame of mind.

A second argument is that members of licensing—and planning—committees will need to be trained to ensure that they approach issues in a suitably judicial manner. I have been advised on the subject by my local authority's head of paid service. If the licensing committee is to be trained, but people who can exercise the power but are not on the licensing committee are not, there may be defects in the decisions that the latter take. It is inappropriate to delegate a licensing decision to a non-licensing committee, first because of the lack of training—unless, of course, the Minister intends to write a requirement for training into the Bill—and secondly because of the danger of a conflict of interest.

Amendment No. 94 would allow certain things to be done in urgent cases. I recognise that things may sometimes be urgent, but it is easy for local authorities to leave the preparation and presentation of reports until they become urgent, and then they are not bound by the same rules as they would be if they had not left them. That is a loophole that needs to be plugged, not

only in this case but in a range of local authority business. Indeed, Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills have plugged similar loopholes with regard to governing bodies; there is now a definition of ''urgent''.

Amendment No. 93 would require a licensing authority to ask the licensing committee before handing its power to another committee. Of course, I understand why subsection (5)(b) is included, but I would have thought that subsection (5)(a) was rather more important, and that the licensing authority should consult the licensing committee before the committee gave up a power, or had a power taken away from it by the executive or by the recreation committee.

Finally, amendment No. 95 sets out the conditions in which it may be inappropriate for the licensing committee to discharge its functions. If it cannot discharge a function because many of its members have a conflict of interest, it is not unreasonable that the matter should be discharged elsewhere. Otherwise, however, it is not appropriate for something to be referred willy-nilly to other committees of the authority.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman is making a serious attempt to rewrite the way in which local authorities work, but it is beyond the scope of the Bill to do so. He is trying to create a model of excellence that could be replicated elsewhere. The trouble is that I am unsure whether many of us agree with his model.

Lying behind the amendments is a fear that local authorities cannot be fully trusted to discharge their licensing and other statutory functions properly. As I have made clear, I do not share those concerns and I am worried that the amendments would limit the ability of local authorities to carry out those functions in an efficient and timely manner, and in the best interests of the community that they serve.

As drafted, the Bill allows licensing authorities in respect of a matter to refer the discharge of licensing functions to other local authority committees where that matter relates to the discharge of another local authority function as well as to the licensing function. In addition, it allows licensing committees to consider matters that cut across other local authority functions. Furthermore, unless the urgency of a particular case precludes it, where matters that touch on licensing are referred to another committee, that committee must consider a report from the licensing committee before reaching a decision.

Those arrangements will ensure that the licensing committee will have the necessary input, while allowing authorities the freedom to decide how best to discharge their functions. Amendments Nos. 100, 94 and 93 would undermine that position, and could lead to unnecessary delays in the exercising of licensing and in other functions of an authority.

Amendment No. 95 would require that where there is a conflict of interest preventing a number of members of the licensing committee from discharging a function, it must be referred back to the licensing

authority. I acknowledge that our position has changed since the publication of the White Paper—I was waiting for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to say that, but he did not.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I did not notice.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for that.

In the White Paper, we suggested that any councillor representing the ward in which premises that are the subject of proceedings are situated should not participate in the licensing decision. The intention was to avoid the possibility of elected individuals coming under undue pressure. However, I assure the Committee that we have looked into the matter and we are confident that existing provisions under local authority legislation governing the way in which local authorities discharge the functions vested in them already ensure that where it is improper for an individual to be involved in a licensing decision, self-disqualification would take place. There is no need to amend the Bill to reflect the fact that where councillors have, for example, a financial interest in the outcome of a decision, they should not be part of any decision. Existing provisions would apply.

I have every confidence that local authorities will be able to discharge their many functions effectively and impartially and that existing standing orders governing issues of propriety offer effective safeguards. The system set out in the Bill will ensure that licensing decisions benefit from the participation of councillors with knowledge of the local area and from a joined-up approach that allows licensing to be seen in the wider context of other local authority responsibilities.

I hope that as a result of those reassurances, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw his amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the intent behind the amendment. I do not wish to re-engineer the whole process of local government in England and Wales—that would be too ambitious. I am not entirely happy with the hon. Gentleman's explanations, but I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in

clause 8, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

'(9A) Nothing in this Act shall detract from the right of an elected member of a council that is a licensing authority under this Act to address or write to the licensing committee or licensing authority in order to make representations to them on behalf of the residents of the ward or other electoral subdivision, or the authority which he represents.

(9B) No elected member making representations on behalf of local residents under subsection (9A) may participate in any decision made by the licensing committee or licensing authority concerning a matter about which he has made representations to them, either in public or in private.'.

Amendment No. 86 deals with the functions of the licensing authority. It is an addition after clause 8(8), and would protect both the interests of local residents and those of the licence applicant by attempting to

ensure that local councils were transparent and impartial. The function of local councillors is, of course, to represent the views of local residents, who may, and will, object, and who may object in greater numbers, given some of the content of the Bill. Those people will object to their councillor about particular premises and applicants; that is their right and we would not want to undermine it. However, an individual councillor will represent the views of his local electorate to the licensing committee, to the full council, or simply to the officers in the first instance, to talk the problems through. Councillors may find themselves in a rather difficult position if they are also members of the licensing committee or sub-committee that would make a final decision.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the guidance given to local government some years ago by Lord Nolan? He examined the issue in great detail in connection with planning, but there are parallels with the current debate. Lord Nolan made it clear that a member of such a committee must balance the heed he must take of statutory guidance with the views of his constituents. That contradicts the advice, referred to by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, that certain planning officers were sending out.

Some people are elected to councils on a ''Stop the so and so planning application'' ticket, and in the context of the current debate, that may be a licensing ticket. If someone is elected because of a position they have taken, they cannot be debarred from putting forward the wishes of their electorate to a committee. Nolan was clear about that. There must be a balance. Someone should not be ruled out just because they have previously expressed a view.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I know from experience that individuals on the planning committee of one of my local councils were told by the council's solicitor not to take part in a discussion at all, because something was happening in the area in which they lived. We have gone to ridiculous lengths to prevent elected councillors from speaking their mind on all sorts of issues. I am simply highlighting yet another potentially compromising situation for those who may be approached by local residents on a big local issue. If councillors wanted to retain their seats, they might be pushed into representing strongly held views.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Does not clause 14(3)(e) state that local ward councillors are interested parties? Therefore, they can make a representation according to the established practice of, and quasi-judicial functions carried out by, the local authority, which means they must approach a decision with an open mind. If a local ward councillor, or any other councillor, had previously stated their position they should not take part, because they would not be going into a decision with an open mind.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am not sure that I read it that way. Our amendment acknowledges the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, which is that councillors have a duty to represent those views—I would not stand against that. However, we are also saying in our proposed new subsection (9B) that having made such a representation, those councillors should absent

themselves from any decisions on a licence for fear of their participation being perceived in a certain way. This is all about perception; Nolan is about perception. All the rules and regulations that come flooding down relating to the conduct of councillors, and even Members of Parliament, are about how people are perceived by the general public. We all have to be whiter than white.

The proposed new subsection is simply an attempt to say, particularly to those who have opposed the switch from magistrates to local authorities, that there was in the main a trust that the magistracy would be impartial, and a belief that it had a good record of judging things on their merits and not being influenced politically—with a small or a big ''p''—as it did not rely on votes from local electorates to keep someone's place on the council.

This morning I referred to a situation that might arise just before an election, when a group of people would get together and make a big fuss about something. The local councillor would then be put in a difficult position. He might be on the side of the publican—the licence holder—but because of the fuss that had been caused, he might feel obliged to represent other views. Our proposed new subsection states that he should absent himself from the decision making related to such a case. That is clear cut. Having quickly read clause 14(3)(e), I am not convinced that the Bill means what the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) thinks it does. The Minister will no doubt clarify that in his response.

Amendment No. 86 is not new. It was tabled in a similar form in the other place, and was rejected by Government. We have returned to it because it addresses something that to date has not been properly answered; it has also been raised with Conservative Members, and we believe that it ought to be registered in the Bill for the sake of impartiality.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The amendment would provide that nothing in the Bill would detract from the right of an elected member of a council that was a licensing authority to address or write to the licensing committee to make representations on behalf of their constituents or the authority that they represented. It then goes on explicitly to disqualify the elected representative from sitting on the licensing committee and judging the issue on which they have made representations on behalf of constituents. That constraint would not apply to representations on behalf of an authority.

I shall deal with representations made on behalf of constituents first. The Government have tabled an amendment, which we will discuss later, that will, if accepted, overturn an amendment made to the Bill in another place. It will make Members of the European Parliament, Members of Parliament and local ward councillors interested parties in respect of the part of the Bill that deals with premises licences. Having the status of interested parties will enable them to make representations, as defined for the purposes of that part of the Bill, about premises licences, and to request a review.

We will attempt to overturn the amendment that was made in another place because we do not consider that such persons in their own right should have the ability to make representations. I stress the words ''in their own right'', as the Government accept that local councillors, MPs, MEPs, solicitors, friends, relatives or anyone else should be able to make representations on behalf of a local resident if asked to do so. There was nothing in the Bill as originally drafted to prevent that.

The effect of the provision does seem remarkable when first encountered. When I first read it, I thought, ''Hang on, I'm the MP for Pontypridd, and if I want to say something about an aspect of life in the constituency, I shall''—and I usually do, although the local authority does not often like it. I shall therefore try to explain why the provision is not quite as it seems. The subtle difference with amendment No. 86 is that in allowing representations to be made on behalf of constituents it would allow them to be made even when no constituent had asked for them. It cannot be right that such representations could be made without any request from the individual who would be directly affected by the issue in question. That would allow a councillor to challenge an application in a part of his ward even if those who lived around the premises in question were in favour it.

For example, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that he lived in the middle of Cowes, and if licensed premises in his street or near his back garden were directly detracting from the quality his life and that of his neighbours, he would have a perfect right to object or to ask for a hearing. That is not the same as someone who may live many miles from such premises away grumbling about a licence application or wanting the licence to be modified. He may have been influenced by a lobby organisation. All of us in the Room are subjected to approaches by national lobbying organisations.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am not sure that I heard the Minister correctly. Referring to a local ward councillor covered by clause 14(3)(e), I think that he said that the way in which we worded the first part of amendment No. 86 would mean that an elected councillor could make representations to the licensing committee of a council on behalf of local people who had not approached him to do so, and that he could take such action off his own bat if he personally objected to what was happening. A person cannot represent local people unless there are views to be represented.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Absolutely; I have no beef with that argument. I have tried to make it clear what the position would be if there were no representation and no objection to a licence application. That is where the provision kicks in. If the local councillor who does not live in that part of town and is not directly affected by the problem decides off his own bat to object, even though no one has asked him to, that is the difference. I am not sure that there is a difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself on that matter, but I hope that I have made the position clear. We shall discuss MPs and MEPs later.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

There may not be a difference between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire on the Front Bench, but that is not to say that there is not a difference between the Minister and his hon. Friends on the Back Benches. A councillor, like a Member of Parliament, is a representative, not a delegate. He is entitled to form a judgment on what is right or wrong for his area, even if no representations have been made to him. That sometimes happens. If, for example, elderly people's housing, or a home for those who are mentally infirm, adjoins a pub, it is possible that none of the residents will object, but that does not invalidate the idea that a councillor can act on their behalf. It certainly does not invalidate a councillor's ability to make representations on their behalf.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am not for one minute arguing that we should prevent a councillor from making representations on behalf of residents who object to a licence application. I have made that clear time and again. We object to members of the council that sets up the licensing authority stepping in and objecting to an application, even though they would not be affected by it and not one objection has been made about it. Indeed, support for it may have been expressed. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said from a sedentary position that he was not objecting to that. I am trying to clarify the distinction between a councillor who acts on behalf of someone and a councillor who takes it on himself or herself to object to a licence application.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am delighted that the Minister agrees with proposed new subsection (9A), in amendment No. 86. It is explicit. It does not refer to any elected member of a local authority, but to an elected member of council who makes representation

''on behalf of the residents of the ward or other electoral sub-division, or the authority which he represents.''

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, I have made that clear.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

So you knew that?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I should not conduct a conversation like that across the Room, Mr. Gale—nor shall I.

The amendment would not make such persons interested parties for the purposes of the Bill, but it would achieve that effect indirectly. We cannot accept it, because such people are not professional experts in respect of the licensing objectives, or entitled to act in the capacity of an elected member of the council, a local resident or someone who is in business locally. As I have said, if the person is a local resident, that is a different matter.

The amendment would also expressly prevent a councillor making representations on behalf of constituents from being involved in decisions about the matter in question. One aim of the amendment may be to address specific fears that councillors might be involved in decisions about premises in their wards, as those are the premises that they or their constituents are likely to be worried about.

I expressed in a previous debate the Government's confidence in existing measures and mechanisms in

respect of the way in which local authorities discharge the functions vested in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney reinforced that argument when he referred to the Nolan rules, which are clear and specific. The amendment would also allow the elected member to make representations on behalf of the authority that he represents, a point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. We shall be discussing a relevant amendment later and, if accepted, it will overturn an amendment that was made in another place, which makes a licensing authority a responsible authority under the Bill.

The intention of that amendment is that a licensing authority in which the premises is situated should be able to object to an application for the grant of, or a variation of, a licence and complain about certain premises and thus give rise to a review of the licence. Amendment No. 86 would not make the licensing authority a responsible authority but, by allowing an elected member to make representations on its behalf, would give it a similar status by the back door.

The licensing authority itself will fulfil the role of deciding the merits of the application to grant or to vary a premises licence. In doing so, it will need to weigh the merits of any representations. If no representations were made about an application to grant or to vary a premises licence, the application must be granted in accordance with the proposal by the applicant. The licensing authority's discretion is engaged only when relevant representation has emerged. That allows there to be a considerable reduction in bureaucracy. It means that only potentially problematic premises would be the subject of more detailed scrutiny at a hearing. The others would be dealt with simply and administratively.

However, the proposed amendment would leave the system open to substantially more bureaucracy with the licensing authority, through its elected members. It would be able to challenge every application even though professional and expert bodies, such as the police and fire authority, and local residents were perfectly content. The licensing authority would also effectively be making representations or complaints to itself and then judging the merits of the representation. That is not ideal. It would disturb industry, which is concerned about the overly zealous behaviour of some local authorities.

Under the Bill, specialist local authority officers, such as environmental health officers, can make representations to the licensing authority on the basis of their expertise. Although they will form part of a local authority, their views and the capacity in which they make representations in fulfilling a separate statutory function to licensing functions are both technical and expert on, for example, noise penetration. It is entirely proper that their expert views should be engaged.

The amendment would broaden the approach to general issues, which is not appropriate in the context of the regulatory role that the local authority as the licensing authority will perform. In exercising its regulatory role when it is engaged, the licensing authority will have all the tools that it needs to reach

a decision on the competing interests in the overall public interest, being fully informed by the input from responsibilities authorities and interested parties. With that reassurance, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The amendment has generated a fair amount of debate. I thought at one stage that the Minister agreed with the first part of the amendment. However, he rescued himself by saying that the words ''or the authority'', by allowing local councillors to represent the views of their electorate in the ward or the electoral sub-division that they represent, not the views of the authority, would compromise its main thrust. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that the words ''the authority'' might enable a councillor to speak on behalf of his authority, without the representation and support from local residents to challenge various licence applications.

If the Minister were content with most of the amendment, why has he thrown it out on the basis of a couple of words? I am surprised that he did not draft a Government amendment to say that such a proposal was fine, apart from the words ''or the authority'' that we have unfortunately left in the amendment. We shall be returning to clause 14(4)(e), which gives local authorities, as responsible authorities, the power in some respects to challenge certain decisions and become the arbiters of their own judgments.

I take on board the hon. Gentleman's argument about ''the authority''. On the basis of his ministerial response, unfortunately I shall have to retire, licking my wounds. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Requirement to keep a register

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in

clause 9, page 5, line 37, leave out from 'and' to end of line 38 and insert

'and all relevant contact details that the Secretary of State may by regulation require.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 9.

Amendment No. 167, in

clause 9, page 5, line 45, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 168, in

clause 9, page 6, line 3, at end insert

'except such as is necessary to cover the costs of providing access or making available a register'.

Amendment No. 169, in

clause 9, page 6, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Government amendments Nos. 12, 13, 46, 47 and 14.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The clause is important, not least because the Government are wanting yet again to overturn an amendment that was introduced in another place, an amendment that was well debated

at the time, and that had considerable support not only from those on the Conservative Benches, but people throughout—I use that word wisely—the industry that will be affected by the Bill.

Amendment No. 87 has been overtaken somewhat by our lengthy debate on clause 4 stand part on a central licensing authority. We debated whether there should be a central register or database and received a concession from the Government that they will now begin to honour the White Paper's intention, which stated clearly that a central database or register will be established.

The amendment has also been overtaken by events, because the details issued by a local authority should not be on a central register, although the local authority will be required to put on a database information that is deemed important by the Secretary of State and made by regulation. That may have to follow as a result of the Government's concession to set up the register. We shall await their proposals about what they intend to include on it.

Through the clause, the Government are yet again seeking to centralise their influence and power, and have included some fairly unnecessary rules and regulations pertaining to the decision making of the local authorities involved.

We accept the need to impose the obligation to maintain a register, but detailing exactly how a local authority should keep that register seems unnecessary and unacceptable. If central Government desire of local authorities that they use some ingenuity or initiative in doing what they are supposed to, they should trust them to be capable enough of keeping a register, and credit them with some responsibility.

Amendment No. 168 ensures that the cost of implementing the requirements of the provisions will not be too onerous for the local authorities that will be assuming the role of licensing authority. The costs incurred by local authorities could be fairly substantial. Recent representation from the LGA has reflected some disquiet on its part that the costs of implementation are going up by the minute as we proceed through the Bill.

We would like to see changes made to the legislation so that those costs are minimised and, if at all possible, have a neutral effect on the issuing functions that local authorities will take up. Subsection (3) demands that all licensing authorities make necessary arrangements and provide facilities for the inspection of the register by any person who turns up during office hours. We believe that that particular measure is unnecessary and is an unnecessary cost imposition.

The local authority will probably have to make a room available for such facilities and have someone on tap to look after people who want to examine the register, and we feel that there are other ways of doing that than the ways suggested in the Bill. In any event, if that provision remains, local authorities ought to be reasonably remunerated in some way for providing that facility. It could be carried out through the

council's IT system as part of its website. That would not cost the council very much, and would be accessible to quite a lot of people. Some consideration should be given to the unnecessary bureaucratic and regulatory burden of the provision.

Amendment No. 169, which I referred to during this morning's sitting, removes the word ''may'' in subsection (6) and inserts the word ''shall''. We have asked for the amendment to be considered to give a clearer indication of the Government's intention to ensure that the Secretary of State will arrange for the central database register to be set up—a move that is supported throughout the industry, and by local authorities. Such a register seems a highly desirable and pragmatic way of ensuring that references that need to be made to the details on personal licences will be held centrally and kept up to date. That will obviously have a financial implication, which, as the Minister said in an earlier debate, will be less than the implementation of a central licensing authority. Nevertheless, it will cost a lot of money. The question of appropriate computer systems must be thought through and, in the Minister's words, that may be delayed for some time until the problems can be overcome.

Government amendment No. 9 would delete subsection (1)(d). That subsection was carried in the other place after a lengthy debate in which many speakers supported it. In deleting it, the Government are seeking to remove ''the name and address of any person who has an estate or interest in the premises'', which are the subject of the licence. There is an existing right to register interests in section 32(2) of the Licensing Act 1964, and the question why that right is not being maintained in the Bill obviously arises.

The Government have to explain why they deem it necessary not only to ignore that point in drawing up the first draft of the Bill, but to remove a sensible amendment from the other place. They have attacked subsection (1)(d) once in a negative way by not including the right, which is in the 1964 Act, in the Bill and once in a direct and obvious way by tabling a Government amendment indicating that they want nothing to do with it. The right already exists and should be preserved and linked to all situations in which the investment of the party with the superior interest is potentially threatened by actions by the designated premises supervisor or the premises owner, or in any other circumstances that may arise.

An owning company will often be in a position to promote licensing objectives through its contractual agreement with the tenant or lessee, which is support for the Government's licensing objectives from an important party with a vested interest. It seems sensible that the Government and that interest should be drawn into the licensing objectives, which were set out and discussed earlier. The ability to register an interest would enable the owning company to meet its reversionary interest in the event of the demise of a tenant, which could be useful to both parties in the event of death or incapacity. It would also be beneficial where a tenant suddenly disappears leaving a serious problem behind. It would mean that,

by virtue of its interest, the owning company can step in, quickly appoint a new personal licence holder and continue trading without too much of a hiatus.

The beneficiary of the superior legal interest, which is protected, is entitled as a matter of natural justice to seek to ensure that its interest in the property—the value of which is linked to a significant degree to the possession of the premises licence—is indeed properly recognised. Over the past decade, we have seen the growth of companies with hundreds, if not thousands, of pub outlets—we will not name names. That has been a feature of the past few years, and many of those companies rely on their quotations in the City and on their share price for running their businesses and further expansion. In that regard, Opposition Members think it important to recognise that the City will look at the legislation relating to those businesses. If they can see a situation in which the so-called owner of the business does not have legal backing or the ability to solve local problems with its tenants and managers, the value of that business might not be deemed to be as high as perhaps it should be.

This is a very practical measure. No matter which way one looks at it, it makes sense. It makes sense from the industry's point of view—and we know that its representatives have consistently and seriously lobbied the Minister and his Department. It has not met with any objections that I am aware of, from any serious and involved quarter. There may well be a question mark over the individuals who run or manage such enterprises and outlets. Some may fear that if this overriding, overarching interest is too closely set out and detailed in the legislation, their security of tenure and position will be in some way undermined, in which case, that must be considered. However, it is my understanding that the people involved have looked at the matter carefully and are happy for the amendment made in the other place to stand. They are totally against the Government's intention, in amendment No. 9, to remove it.

I know that many other Committee members want to speak to the amendment. This is a very important point, which has been alluded to on many occasions, not least in the other place. We shall oppose the Government's intentions.

John Grogan (Labour, Selby)

I intend to try the patience of my silent and good friend the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), by following the line of argument of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and expressing a little scepticism about the need for amendment No. 9. I try my hon. Friend's patience for two reasons: first, it briefly makes me feel alive on a long Tuesday afternoon in what the Minister called this mediaeval monastery; secondly, amendments Nos. 9, 12 and 13 fall a little below the standard of perfection of other amendments that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has come up with.

As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, a right to register interests already exists in the Licensing Act 1964. Why is it a bad thing to have a register including not only the

designated premises supervisor but, perhaps, the company that owns a pub and so on?

The reason for my scepticism about the amendments is not primarily the interests of the pub companies, although clearly there is a legitimate interest for them in overseeing their estate and there are effects on employment and the community if, for example, someone absconds and the licensing authority does not know with whom to get in touch. However, my primary reason is that a register of interests would enable the licensing objectives to be more speedily enforced if there were a problem. If there were a problem with a licensed premises such as a pub or its landlord and the licensing authority needed to take action, it would surely be a good thing to have a register of interests, so that the pub company could be told of the problem instantly by the licensing authority and could probably nip it in the bud.

When I have spoken to Ministers about that and about the reasons why the Government oppose the amendment passed in the other place, the arguments come back that the interests of big business dominate the amendment and tenants do not want it, and that it is overly bureaucratic and the Local Government Association does not want it because it would cost too much to enforce.

I spent my lunchtime doing two things: trying to establish whether Saddam Hussein had indeed been killed earlier this morning and also over my ham sandwich ringing the relevant people to determine their attitude to the measure. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to have a quick word with the Minister before speaking this afternoon—I arrived just as the Committee began.

I first rang the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations, which represents tenants, if anyone does. It faxed a letter to the Minister today noting that as long ago as September 2002 it had reached an agreement with the British Beer and Pub Association that

''the immediate landlord should have the right to his interest being recorded in the register''.

To be fair, it did want various assurances. I shall not go through the entire letter for reasons of time, but, basically, it wants to ensure that the

''registration of an interest does not entitle the landlord to any additional rights over the holder of the premises licence beyond that already enjoyed under present legislation.''

I do not see why it would, because that clearly comes under contractual law and is completely distinct from the provision. The FLVA noted that it wants to be involved in any consultations on the subject and ended its letter to the Minister by stating:

''The FLVA would be happy to enter into discussions with the LGA, the Government, the industry and the police to further progress this issue.''

That was the view of the tenants. Clearly, they are not violently opposed to the measure.

I then rang the Local Government Association. Again, I shall not read the full text of its reply. Incidentally, it was sent as an e-mail to me not the Minister, but I would be happy to forward it. The LGA stated that it

''would be happy to support the proposal of a register for property owners to be able to record their interests on a premises licence where their property is leased to a separate personal licence holder''.

The e-mail lists various matters that the association would like to discuss, such as the cost of registering an interest. I contacted the British Beer and Pub Association, which said that it would be prepared to talk to the LGA positively about marginal extra costs. So it appears that the tenants and the LGA are not opposed in principle to the measure.

Finally, I consulted one of the big, evil pub companies in whose interest the amendment supposedly was passed. Simon Townsend, the customer services director of Enterprise Inns, wrote to the Minister to explain his company's position. I shall try the patience of the Committee for just a few more seconds and read a couple of paragraphs from the letter:

''As the owner of a large number of licensed premises operating under leased and tenanted agreements, we feel that it is hugely important for us to be able to maintain and manage our interests in the premises licence, not just in order to protect our commercial interests, but also to be able to play our full part in the accountability of the licence holder to the local community, and our belief in the importance of a local pub at the heart of its community.

We believe that the interests of local communities, local authorities, law enforcement officers and individual licensees will be best served if we are required to be informed of any specific threats or proposed changes to a premises licence . . .

As regards proposed changes to a premises licence, we believe that the concerns for additional administrative burden are quite misplaced. If anything, the process of informing us as owners of the business, would ensure that a consolidated approach to proposed changes could take place . . . We believe that the administration involved would be little more than 'ticking the appropriate box' at the time of an application.

We have received the support of trade representatives of tenants and lessees for this course of action, and were heartened to see an amendment''

passed in the House of Lords.

It is not entirely clear that the world is against the amendment that was agreed in another place. The LGA made a happy suggestion. It said that it would be happy to participate in any discussions to further the issue. The LGA, the tenants and the British Beer and Pub Association agree to do that.

The civil servants in the Department were convinced that everything in the Bill about churches and music was right. Like us all, perhaps they make the occasional mistake. Our discussion this morning on the database provided a model by which all the parties get together to reach an agreement. That would have been unthinkable even six weeks ago when the Bill was in another place. I commend a similar approach for this clause.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I shall also speak briefly against Government amendment No. 9. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made a good case for why we should resist it, but that was as nothing compared with the tour de force that we have just had from the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), whose misspent lunch hour will not have done anything to endear him to Her Majesty's

Government or improve his chances of a Government position, but I fancy that he probably did not entertain great hopes in that department in any case.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

It is well known that, outside the remit of the Committee, my hon. Friend is a rising star and on his behalf I certainly want to criticise the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I entirely share the Minister's appreciation of the hon. Member for Selby. I am just disappointed that it has not yet resulted in the hon. Gentleman's call to office. I await the next reshuffle with interest.

The hon. Member for Selby made a good point. The owners of premises, who in some cases are chains, have a legitimate interest and that should be recorded, both from the practical point of view of their being able to help when problems arise and because not allowing them to have that interest registered strikes at the heart of the Government's decision to separate premises licences from personal licences, which in a sense was a laudable aim but one that the Government have rowed back from slightly since they set out down that path.

The premises themselves, as opposed to who is running them, should be viewed separately. If we are to do that adequately and meaningfully, we must maintain on the central register the vital information about who the owners of the premises are. Whether premises should be licensed and whether the current tenant or licence holder has been doing a good job of running the establishment are separate questions. The Government are making a mistake in trying to undo the amendment. In the light of the information that we have received that all the relevant parties appear to be content with what was done to the clause in the other place, or with some variation on what was done, and are interested in discussing it further, I urge the Government not to reject the provision as they seem to intend to do.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I, too, shall speak briefly. I certainly would not want to usurp the role of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) as the careers adviser for the hon. Member for Selby, but from his comments this morning I assumed that his decision to become an officer of the all-party beer group was made very much with his long-term career prospects in mind. Given that Selby is a target seat of my party, perhaps I should have said ''with his short-term career prospects in mind.'' Who knows?

I entirely agree with the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. It seems perverse that the Government are going to such trouble to row back from the sensible amendment that was agreed in the other place. Given the Government's views, I can understand why they wish to reverse some of their nine losses in the other place, but this change seems perverse. Really, there seems little point in having a register without knowing the name and address of the person who has an estate or interest in the premises.

When we were discussing the previous group of amendments, the Minister mentioned that he had considered the expert views of environmental health officers. I always get worried whenever expert views are mentioned. Expert views are often to be questioned, rather than to be given yet more credence. As a practical proposition, it seems odd that the Government wish to overturn the proposal from the other place. I hope that the Minister will be able to give robust reasons why he feels that a complete and comprehensive register should exclude what one might imagine would be basic information.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Before I deal with the Government amendments, I want so speak about amendments Nos. 87, 167, 168 and 169. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby who came charging on to the battlefield like the fifth cavalry. The Committee will remember what happened to them. I must tell my hon. Friend that the LGA is an interesting body because it seems to hold different views simultaneously. It is a democracy, but if it changes its mind from hour to hour we shall have something to say about that.

On cost, I must ask my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire what difference it would make for the BBPA to talk to local authorities about costs. They will be permanent and ongoing throughout the years and not one-off, as those for registration will be. The costs are, therefore, unlimited and would have to be paid from the annual charges paid by tenants, not landlords. If I were cynical, I would be worried that there was some confidence trickery going on—I am not implicating my hon. Friend—but we shall come to that in a moment or two.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No.

Amendment No. 87 is not necessary and would have undesirable effects. It would add to the list of information to be kept in the licensing register set out in the Bill all relevant contact details that the Secretary of State may set out in regulations. The amendment is unnecessary because clause 9(1)(e) provides that the Secretary of State may set out in regulations such other information as may be prescribed.

Leaving the detailed contents of licensing registers to secondary legislation provides for a degree of flexibility. Should it be necessary to amend the list of prescribed information to be contained on the register in the light of experience or future developments, we will not have to wait for the opportunity to amend primary legislation, which is an important consideration. Furthermore, by prescribing such further information in secondary legislation, we will ensure consistency and transparency throughout all licensing authorities.

Amendment No. 87 would also remove the requirement for licensing authorities to keep a record of personal licences issued. For reasons that I set out in detail when speaking to Government amendment No. 44, I ask that amendment No. 87 be withdrawn. When discussing amendment No. 44 and the amendments grouped with it, we had a useful debate

about the provisions in the Bill to establish a central licensing database. Although the drafting of the Bill is flexible so that implementation of the new regime can go ahead in the absence of a single, central system, the Government are committed to setting up such a system. That is why I cannot accept amendment No. 167, which would remove the power to make regulations as to the form and manner of licensing authority registers.

If we are all committed to a central database, as the Government are and as I feel Opposition Members are, there will come a point when data held severally by individual licensing authorities will need to be transferred under the central system. That process will be made considerably easier if licensing authorities record the same information in the same way. Amendment No. 167 would undermine that sensible objective and I hope that it will not pressed.

For similar reasons, I cannot accept amendment No. 169, which would remove the flexibility that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to determine when it would be appropriate for details to be recorded on the central register.

Amendment No. 168 would allow the licensing authority to charge people to view the licensing register. I thought that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire over-egged the pudding. I understand completely that licensing authorities may wish to charge when, for example, they provide photocopies of information in the register. Surely it is too much to ask people who may be concerned, such as local residents, to pay just to see the information. Putting that information on the local authority web site is a useful suggestion, and there may be ways of considering that, but we cannot accept the amendment as it stands.

The Government certainly think that local residents, for example, should be able to see such information in the register without having to pay. That is why we resist the amendment. This is supposed to be an open and transparent system. Charging people for access to information in that way will place a barrier in the way of local people and I hope that amendment No. 168 will not be pressed to a Division.

On the Government amendments, the issue of registered interests had a good airing in another place. The purpose of this group of Government amendments is to restore the Bill to its original position following changes accepted there. The amendments would remove from the Bill references to persons having a registered interest in the premises affected. The changes were pressed for by some parts of the pub industry—we have heard all about that—and we have discussed the matter with it at great length. Although we are offering the pub industry considerably more flexibility and less red tape, we have not been able to agree with it on the subject. I shall try to explain why.

The Government believe that a licence holder's responsibility in respect of his licence is to the licensing authority, and that if a tenant is in dispute with the owner or lessee of the property, that is not a matter for licensing law. The Bill is about the carrying on of

licensable activities, not regulating interests in land. The Bill will improve on the current situation by providing a clear focus on matters that properly concern the licensing regime. Under the current system, which ties alcohol licences to the individual running the business on any premises, it makes more sense for those with an interest in the premises, often pub companies and breweries, to be able to register an interest.

If a pub manager leaves, the old licence must be transferred by the justices to the new manager, with a full hearing before the justices and decisions on whether the new manager is a fit and proper person. However, under the new system set out in the Bill, which splits the personal and premises licence, any pub operating company will be able to hold a premises licence itself and designate a manager as the premises supervisor. The Bill does not require the managers or tenants to hold a premises licence. When the premises licence holder wants to change the premises supervisor, there will therefore be no need for any hearing, just a simple notification—unless, exceptionally, the police elect to intervene. That is a significant reduction in red tape.

Notification of matters relating to licensable activities can be a requirement of the contractual relationship between the operating company and the manager, or the landlord and the tenant. Those with an interest in premises may avail themselves of protections in property law, such as registering a caution against dealings with premises, but those matters are properly outside the sphere of the regulatory regime, and are properly matters of private law. Before the Bill was amended, it set out quick and easy procedures to deal with transfers and changes of premises licences.

An interim authority notice can be given following the death, insolvency or mental incapacity of a licence holder. That reinstates the licence for two months, during which time an application for transfer can be made. Clause 47(2) sets out who can give such an interim authority notice. I would like to emphasise that, with a view to providing for continuity of business, it is intended that clause 47(2)(a), which refers to a person who

''has a prescribed interest in the premises concerned'',

will capture pub operating companies and owners of premises. At least one of the changes made in another place would therefore replicate provision for some of those whom it is already intended to cover.

Alternatively, in the case of death, insolvency or mental incapacity of the premises licence holder, or when a licence is surrendered, if it is known who will take over the business, a transfer of the premises licence may be applied for with immediate interim effect. Although the pub industry wants the concept of registered interest, that, of course, applies only to the big players in the industry. Many of the licensees in our constituencies will be tenants, and I am confident that several of those would not like that kind of control given to their landlords, some of whom may be

banks or property developers, not to mention pub companies.

Indeed, the big companies would expect to pay a few pounds for registering their interest, but the cost and bureaucracy that flow from the scheme, which sees large numbers of modifications and consents flying backwards and forwards between the companies and the licensing authorities, would not fall on them. Additional costs would have to be recovered by increasing the main fees for premises licences and annual charges. The tenants who hold the licences will have to pick up those costs and will probably pass them on to their customers. Notice of any surrender would be recorded on the licensing authority register, and could be accessed. Furthermore, there is no requirement to notify a landlord of surrender of a justices' licence under the current regime. If the Government amendments are accepted, the Bill will still offer protections for business, provide quick and simple procedures where changes are needed and require licensing authorities to record and make available information about all authorisations and notices.

The Bill must remain focused on matters that properly relate to licensing. However convenient it may be to the pub industry, the Bill cannot become a means of addressing issues that are the concern of contractual arrangements between parties, which are subject to private law. We must therefore restore this part of the Bill to its original form.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

There we have it. The Minister has said it all, and not an inch has been given. There was not even an acknowledgement that all these good people have got together over lunch—today or yesterday—and agreed that there is not a problem. The Minister has just said that in his opinion the licensed victuallers are totally against the Government, but that is not the case. The hon. Member for Selby made that point after having spoken to them by telephone today—and, no doubt, having been in contact with them regularly during the past few weeks. The industry certainly wants the provision in the Bill, and nowhere in the arguments that I offered to the Committee did I hint at serious problems between the owner and the tenant or manager.

The provision could be helpful to the police, for example, if they turned up at premises where there were serious problems, the designated premises licence holder was not around, and the personal licence holder had disappeared. It would be in the interests of the police to know exactly who to approach to say, ''Your interest here in this location is in serious jeopardy, and it's up to you sort out the situation.'' I had a constituency case some months ago in which there were complaints about the state of a pub car park. A representation to the landlord or tenant bore no fruit, but I was able to contact the owner of the premises—it was a brewery—and within two days I had an answer, and action. If the public knew who had a vested interested in the premises it would be helpful in more ways than one in tackling some of the key objectives that we have been discussing, in particular those relating to law and order and public nuisance.

The Minister talked about flexibility, but I do not think for a moment that the Government's intention will render greater flexibility. He talked about a case in which the designated premises licence holder had been changed by the premises licence holder. He said that a simple notification to that effect would suffice. However, our understanding of the Bill is that such a change would be a variation, so a whole new licence would have to be applied for. Perhaps the Minister could clarify what he meant. It is not our understanding that such changes can be effected easily by simple notification. We thought that if there were a fundamental change of licence holder, that would constitute a variation and a new application would have to be made. That is not decreasing the bureaucracy; in our opinion, it is dramatically increasing it.

We believe that if the interest of the owner of the premises is noted in that way, owners will take a greater interest in their pubs and outlets. Given all the other provisions in the Bill that may militate against their interests, licence holders will want to ensure that the individuals on the ground running their enterprises are complying with the law, and are doing so in a way that will not attract the type of opprobrium, problems, objections and complaints that could make their businesses suffer if licences were withheld for any reason.

Licence holders therefore have a vested interest in knowing what is happening in the various outlets—for some chains, that means in hundreds of different outlets. With the best will in the world, and perfect management, there will always be problems. The provision simply highlights the fact that licence holders have an interest and can act positively to fulfil the Government's aims and objectives if they are encouraged and brought on board. The amendment introduced by their lordships strengthens rather than weakens the legislation.

I am happy to withdraw my amendments. I have already said that amendment No. 87 has been overtaken by our discussion on an earlier clause. However, we shall oppose amendment No. 9, because we believe that clause 9(1)(d) has almost universal support. There is support from Back-Bench Labour Members and from the Conservatives. I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats, but no doubt they will pipe up in a moment to say that they are in favour of retaining that provision. Perhaps they have already done so. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for North Devon; he already has said that.

The provision also has the support of the trade—the British Beer and Pub Association. If representatives from the Local Government Association are listening to our deliberations, they should reconsider what they are telling component parts of the Committee and the Government, because we seem to be getting mixed messages. However, my understanding, which was corroborated by the hon. Member for Selby, is that the LGA is happy for the provision to remain in the Bill. As for the Licensed Victuallers Association, although it expresses concern about interpretation and wants a guarantee that the provision will not undermine its rights under present

legislation, it is happy to see the provision stay in the Bill.

At no time did the Minister attempt to justify this fundamental shift. He did not explain the necessity of changing the right enshrined in the Licensing Act 1964, why that provision has not worked, or why it is working against the public interest. Why is the right for those involved in the trade being removed?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I apologise; I should have explained that the existing right in the 1964 Act makes sense because managers hold the only licence and their employers do not. Under the new system in the Bill, the employer—the business—would normally hold the premises licence, so the two arguments cannot be properly compared. It is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am not sure that I agree. Why else would those who have an interest in the premises argue for the retention of the provision in the Bill? The Minister shrugs his shoulders; he does not know. I shall move on. We shall oppose the amendment, and I suspect that the subject will return on Report if we are defeated and the Government get their way today. The issue is important, it seems that there is universal agreement on it—[Interruption.]

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The only people who do not agree are the Minister and his officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Opposition, and many people with a vested interest in retaining the provision, think that he and his Department have set their face against it. Hitherto, no powerful arguments have been brought forward to justify its removal by amendment No. 9.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 9, in

clause 9, page 5, line 41, leave out paragraph (d).—[Dr. Howells.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 5.