Licensing Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 10 April 2003.

Standing Committee D

Clause 10 - Proceedings of licensing committee

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 82, in

clause 10, page 6, line 17, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (2A),'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 83, in

clause 10, page 6, line 26, at end insert—

'(2A) Regulations made under subsection (2) may not make provision for—

(a) the public to be excluded from any meeting of a licensing committee or subcommittee, or

(b) the public to be denied access to the agendas and records produced in respect of those buildings.'.

Amendment No. 139, in

clause 10, page 6, line 26, at end insert—

'(2A) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall as far as possible have the effect of the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 deal with the power delegated to the Secretary of State under the clause, which may—I use that word judiciously—prevent the public from attending licensing hearings. Under current legislation, magistrates are the licensing authorities and the public are rightly allowed to attend the licensing proceedings, which ensures the openness and accountability of the system. The potential is there, through the instigation of the clause, for closed-door decisions.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform highlighted such matters as a cause of potential concern. Its recent report stated:

''Clause 9 enables regulations (subject to negative procedure) to make provisions about proceedings of licensing committees and their sub-committees. Matters such as public access and publicity for local authority committees are already provided for in primary legislation (e.g. Part VA of the Local Authority Act 1972). The House may wish to enquire what use might be made of this power as the regulations could not override primary legislations.''

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport responded by saying:

''Given the administrative nature of these matters and the fact that in many respects the proceedings of the licensing committees will be determined by local authorities' own standing orders, it appears sensible and appropriate for these matters to be left to secondary legislation, and for the negative resolution procedure to apply.''

The Government do not recognise the importance of such matters in their response to the Select Committee, especially in the light of their need to

provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to regulate the conduct of licensing committees. The Select Committee did not receive an adequate response about what use may be made of the Secretary of State's powers, given that the regulations are necessarily overridden by the primary legislation.

Why is the provision included in the Bill, when the powers delegated to the Minister by its inclusion cannot override the Local Government Act 1972 and other legislation? What use would such regulations be in that case?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I apologise to the Committee for having arrived after my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) had started speaking.

Amendment No. 139 has an objective similar to that of amendments Nos. 82 and 83, but its approach is slightly different. I want to ensure that as far as possible, regulations should be the same when applied to different local authority committees. I was surprised that the Minister felt it necessary to give himself the power to write regulations in respect of the conduct of what is, after all—if I may use this term—a bog standard local authority committee.

We already have licensing panels and planning committees, and they exercise quasi-judicial functions. I find it difficult to understand what additional regulation could be required. Is the Minister proposing a different regime, and would it be more difficult, for example, to require a licensing committee or sub-committee to have the same notice provisions as other committees? Is he proposing that public access to papers should be restricted on other grounds than those that apply to other committees?

I am concerned that members of the public might be confused about whether they have the same rights of access to information about applications for licences as for other proceedings of local authority committees. I am sure that the Minister will demonstrate that a range of different arrangements are necessary, but I have not yet seen anything to convince me of that.

There is another issue. It is not whether the Minister will detract from the general basis of local government legislation—for example, by restricting access to information, or by not requiring licensing committees to give the same notice or have the same quorums as other committees—but whether he will go further. I gently encourage him to do so in one respect—in defining the word ''urgent''. It is defined in regulations covering school governing bodies, but not in general local government legislation. It is important that we understand what ''urgent'' means, particularly as at our previous sitting the Minister prevailed upon me to withdraw my amendment about urgency. Perhaps he will be prepared to make such a provision himself.

At the moment, ''urgent'' can be—and, as I know to my cost, is—interpreted by committee chairmen in local government to mean that when officers cannot, for some reason, get a report out in time, they can say, ''We'll pop it on the table five minutes before the meeting, and that will be adequate, because it is 'urgent' ''. That denies the public, and councillors,

reasonable opportunity to scrutinise and question reports that come before committees.

One can imagine what would happen if the licensing policy were cooked up by the chairman and two officers five minutes before a meeting and then handed to the licensing authority. Those who drafted it might say, five minutes before the meeting, ''We've been drafting this for a long time, and this is the draft available now. We've got to get it all done within six months because the Government say so. Take it or leave it.'' That, I regret to say, is the approach of the ruling groups on some local authorities. That is why it is important to have a definition of urgency.

I will not give examples, because I do not wish to upset any member of the Committee, but it is a fact that the chairmen of ruling groups on some local authorities—and, indeed, some officers, following the rather poor example of their chairmen—tend to adopt that approach. In school government regulations, an urgent matter is defined as one that is so urgent that it would not be possible to call a further meeting of the committee of the governing body to consider an issue. In other words, something is urgent if it would be impossible to call another meeting before the time limit was up.

However, in local government more generally, it is possible for people to say, ''We're not going to have another meeting for three months''—or a month, or whatever—''We've got to cram this item into the agenda, despite the fact that notice wasn't given, that the papers aren't available and members of the public may not be able to scrutinise it.''

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, and I wonder whether he could give an example. When I, like many hon. Members, served in local government we were quietly governed by the standing orders and offers of advice from the chief legal officer, which would not have allowed us to simply bang such a thing on the agenda at the last minute without notice.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I only wish that the standards adopted by the hon. Gentleman and the local authorities with which he has been connected were general throughout the country, but they are not—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) says that they are, but they are not. Local authority officers allow such things all too frequently. I have said that I am not going to embarrass Committee members by talking about any political party—although the Minister himself pointed in the direction of a particular political party a moment ago.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

All too often, where there is a culture of allowing decisions to be made under delegated powers, urgent decisions are made and ratified at the next full committee meeting. That applies especially to planning committees now, and it could apply to licensing committees unless there is a tightening up along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I agree that matters can be considered under delegated powers. Of course, a decision made

under those powers before the introduction of the new arrangements for local authorities would have been a decision by officers, who tended to consult the chairman of the committee first, to see whether he could deliver a majority for that decision and ratify it in due course. The chairman would then make the decision and bounce it through the committee six months later on the grounds that it had already been made and it was all water under bridge, so it was too late.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am not sure in what strange councils Conservative members have been operating. Perhaps they could give an example of a planning application, or any controversial decision, being dealt with under delegated powers. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give an example of the things he mentions actually being done.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Small variations in planning consent issues are frequently made by officers under delegated powers, but that does not mean they have not consulted the chairman to check that he will, some way down the road, deliver a majority for a decision.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

In the lodge.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am not sure whether the lodge to which the Minister refers is a masonic lodge, or some kind of building.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

An NUM lodge.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am not familiar with such a building.

We need a framework that, on the one hand, does not depart so far from general local government law as to confuse members of the public—that is why I tabled my amendments in the form I did—but which, on the other hand, defines those things that are not defined in general local government law. Does the Minister intend to take advantage of the powers with which he intends to vest himself, and define urgency? That is one of the most important aspects that he might wish to define under the powers.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 seek to make compulsory public access to all meetings of the licensing committee and to all agendas and documentation produced in the meetings.

The approach taken throughout the Bill, which is accepted by the Regulatory Reform Committee, is to leave technical, procedural and administrative matters to secondary legislation—where appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) reminded us, those will, in some cases, be determined by the standing orders of local authorities. I assure the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that we take the Select Committee's words seriously. One does not get far with legislation in the House if one offends my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who chairs that Committee.

Our approach ensures that there is sufficient flexibility to respond to changes and act quickly in the light of experience, if necessary. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State may make regulations providing for, among other things, public access to meetings and records of meetings. The negative resolution procedure

will apply to the secondary legislation, which we aim to publish in the early summer. There may be some occasions when it might be inappropriate for the public to have access to meetings. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman hinted at that. For example, when commercial confidentiality is involved, public access could inhibit free and open discussion.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does the Minister accept that that is already covered by general local government legislation?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot allow a local authority to improvise on a theme, when he has just condemned that practice in some instances. He has made my point—there must be flexibility. That is precisely what we are trying to enshrine in the clause. The Bill is drafted to ensure that that the necessary flexibility in respect of licensing committees will be of benefit to local authorities and to residents.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

Perhaps I can help the Committee by asking a question. In the event of a conflict between the Bill and a council's standing orders, which would take precedence?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That would have to depend on the case in point, on the circumstances and on the representations that might be made to the Secretary of State on that issue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want central Government to determine matters that could often easily be handled by the local authority itself, and which are now handled by local authorities on a day-to-day basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those procedures will be made clear in the regulations.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

In a moment. First I want to respond to the points that were made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. The existence of the power does not mean that it will be used, or be used for all the matters described. In the absence of provisions in the regulations, and subject to provisions under subsection (3), it is clear that the licensing committee will regulate its own procedure.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Can the Minister assure the Committee that if regulations are made about public access to meetings and agendas, the presumption must be that those meetings will be held in public, and agendas will be publicly available? The Bill is trying to encourage more public involvement in licensing decisions. If we do not make that presumption, the danger is that people will feel excluded from the process.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, indeed; that is a fair point. The presumption must always be that we have as much access and openness in those matters as possible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, rather than see a drift towards secrecy and denying people access to something as important as permissions and the granting of licences, the presumption must be the other way.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I alluded to the fact that hearings in front of magistrates in respect of licences for alcohol

are open to the public now. Can the Minister confirm that? What has prompted his Department to include the subsection in the clause? Is it to do with licensing alone, or is there similar legislation that affects local authorities—not just their licensing committees—and the way in which they run themselves, and affects their standing orders?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman about other legislation affecting local authorities. I have lived and breathed the Bill, and I am not aware whether there are moves in the same direction in other Departments. I will make investigations if he wants, and I will give him anything that I come up with.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for offering that help and advice, but by the time it arrives we will have moved on from clause 10 and will not be able to continue debating this critical issue. If we are witnessing a Government move to try to slip something into the Bill, they may to do the same with other Bills. It is a fairly draconian move on the part of Government to give a Secretary of State of any Department the licence—if I may use that word—and the flexibility to intervene in all sorts of things that the Government feel that local government is not doing properly. That undermines, or could undermine, the basis of local government.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

There is no reason why the public should be excluded as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) suggests. Clause 6 places a positive duty on the licensing authority to consult representatives of local residents on statements of licensing policy. That is standard practice. There are situations in which some local government committees do not meet in public. I am thinking of social services meetings, where issues of a sensitive nature that involve individual families and children may be discussed, and to which the public are not admitted. We must bear that in mind.

Mr. Turner rose—

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I must make a little progress, but I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

The intention of amendment No. 139 appears to be to ensure that any regulations made under the delegated powers in the clause that relates to the proceedings of licensing committees are in accordance with existing local government legislation covering that area. The amendment does not specify which Local Government Act, or which provisions, it is referring to. That is important because the amendment should be resisted on that basis alone. However, it is also unnecessary. Any provision in local government legislation that impacts on committee proceedings will apply under the new system unless there are specific provisions to the contrary in the Bill. After those reassurances, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is a wholly unsatisfactory response, and I shall explain why. The Minister said that local government legislation would apply unless there were alternative provisions in the Bill. Those provisions are in clause 10(3):

''Subject to any such regulations, each licensing committee may regulate its own procedure''.

That is an alternative provision in the Bill. It means, in the Minister's own words, that the provisions of Local Government Acts do not apply, because alternative provision will exist in this primary legislation, which will allow each licensing committee to regulate its own procedures, and that of its sub-committees. Unless the Minister makes regulations, the licensing committee may meet in secret, without giving any notice of its meetings and without publishing any of the papers relating to its meetings.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I replied to the intervention by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) by saying that the Government would issue regulations—and those regulations will be clear on that point.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I accept that, but I am trying to understand why the Minister feels it necessary to demolish a whole set of local government legislation in subsection (3), which is about committee procedure, yet re-erect it by allowing, under subsection (2), regulations that may differ from normal local government procedure. That seems an entirely circular and time-wasting process. What is more, if the Government omit something that is in normal local government legislation, confusion will arise among members of the public as to what applies and what does not.

The Minister drew on my example of consultation before the statement on licensing was produced. I said that unless there was a definition of urgency, the local authority's officers could, having taken account of consultation, and in consultation with the chairman of the appropriate committee, amend the draft licensing statement and put it on the table five minutes before the authority met to approve the statement. I accept that I gave an extravagant example—

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman has accused me of doing that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have, because throughout the proceedings on the Bill, the Minister has taken the most extreme examples of bad behaviour by the promoters of public entertainment and used them as a reason to legislate them to death. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire describes this as a Sodom and Gomorrah syndrome.

My example of the foolish behaviour by local authorities that is possible under the Bill is no more extravagant than the Minister's examples, but still he chastises me. Unfortunately, extravagant behaviour is not limited to the promoters of public entertainment. It is occasionally found among local authority officers and members, especially in places where tradition is lax, and in my experience, there are parts of the country where that is the case. The further one goes from metropolitan areas—

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Watch what you are saying.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am not talking about Wales.

The further one moves away from a tendency to examine the detail of the legislation, the more likely it is that things drift and become lax.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the further we go from London into the sticks, the thicker the councillors are?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I accept that challenge, because it is sensible. I was talking about metropolitan areas, because I accept that near Newcastle, for example, there may be areas that are fairly metropolitan and influenced by metropolitan good practice.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Wait a moment, or I will forget what I wanted to say.

We find a tendency in some areas for people to be a bit more lax about the details of legislation. For example, morris dancing is not licensed in my authority area.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

It should be.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My local councillors and officers have adopted a sensible and sane approach by not bothering about every detail of the legislation concerned—but I would not recommend that, because they should ensure that legislation is applied properly.

I shall now give way to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight).

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is digging well enough on his own.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My point is that in some areas, application of the legislation is a bit lax. Given a loophole, councillors will occasionally sneak things through it—just as, in the mind of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), the promoters of public entertainment do.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

North Durham.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am sorry for that confusion; one Member here represents Devon and one represents Durham.

I hope that I have illustrated why the Minister's answer was inadequate. He has allowed for an escape route; he has demolished the whole of local government legislation, yet proposes, under subsection (2), to reinstate it. However, will it be reinstated in a manner that is confusing to members of the public? Regulations for the licensing committee will be different from those for other committees.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Select Committee gave us a clear steer on this when it said:

''The House may wish to enquire what use might be made of this power as the regulations could not override primary legislation.''

A wink is as good as a nod. The Government regard subsection (2) as the thin end of a big wedge. We accept that there may be occasions when the public should not participate in certain meetings. The Minister cited an example of matters concerning social services. However, his Department wants to take powers to itself to determine how committees and sub-committees of local authorities should operate.

That is a whole new ball game. It takes us into all sorts of areas. Why does the Department consider it necessary to put such provisions into the Bill?

I accept that the word used is ''may'', but we all know that that usually leads to the provisions being implemented. The Minister and the Department say that such provisions are a light regulatory touch, designed to make it easier for things to happen. They say that they do not want them to be too onerous, and that they want a reasonable fee structure, but such matters are still left in the air. I accept that the Bill can be promoted as a positive social measure, but the words used could lead to problems and difficulties. They are so prescriptive that they leave me speechless.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Not quite.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The words in the clause run counter to the stated aim of the Bill, which is to give local authorities more power by making them the licensing authorities for alcohol. The Government are giving local authorities more power under one part of the Bill, yet at the same time they are saying that they do not really trust the authorities to do the job properly. A provision will be left in the Bill so that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can intervene and set down requirements and provisions that may run counter to the local authorities' standing orders.

It is no good saying that each licensing committee may regulate its own procedures and those of its sub-committees, subject to the regulations that the Government may impose. That is not good enough because if they wanted to, the Government could take over all the responsibilities. The Minister has not attempted to answer a fundamental question. If he will not do so, I shall have to wait for his written answer. These are probing amendments, designed to enable such crucial matters to be debated. If we do not receive satisfaction in Committee, we shall return to the matter on Report.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Clause 10(3) does not demolish local government procedure. Under the Local Government Act 1972, there is a presumption that the proceedings of local authority committees will be open to the public, but that is subject to specific provisions under other legislation that covers certain functions. When the hon. Gentleman asked about occasions when proceedings would not be open to the public, I referred to social services, but there could be other examples.

Exceptional circumstances might occur with regard to licensing—for example, if a licence were being reviewed because a serious crime had taken place on the premises. When I was in Manchester, the police told me of cases when drugs had been put into the glasses of young women and rapes had taken place near the premises. In one terrible instance, a rape had taken place on the premises. When a rape had taken place on licensed premises and the identities of individuals needed to be protected to prevent judicial proceedings from being prejudiced, a degree of security that is not normal in local authorities may need to surround the hearing.

It is precisely to counter the level of inconsistency in some circumstances that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to that we seek to regulate some aspects. We must remember that we are talking about a new licensing function for local authorities, and a new committee procedure. That is why we see fit to include the provisions in the Bill.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We still have not received the answers that we seek. I am pretty sure in my own mind that standing orders of my local authority allow it to go into closed session if that is deemed necessary and in the public interest.

The clause deals with more than public access to meetings. Subsection (2) could lead to a whole raft of interference in the standing orders of local authorities with regard to what they can and cannot do. One wonders why that applies just to licensing and not to all sorts of other areas of local authority responsibility.

I said that the amendments were probing, and there has been a good discussion, but we shall return to the matter because we are dissatisfied with the answers given so far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Sub-delegation of functions by licensing committee etc.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 84, in

clause 11, page 6, line 33, after 'officer', insert

'or a panel of officers'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 85, in

clause 11, page 6, line 38, after 'officer', insert

'or a panel of officers'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The amendments are fairly simple and short. They are intended to ensure that the decisions of licensing panels will be taken by the panel as a whole and not, as the Bill could be interpreted, by a single officer of the council. The amendments are intended to protect a status quo already established by some authorities, where the decisions on certain opposed applications, such as those relating to licences for street trading and door supervisors, are made by a panel of officers and not by a single officer. The system has proved successful and should continue after the legislation is introduced.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I support my hon. Friend. Given the genuine lack of urgency in relation to licensing applications, it is sensible safeguard to give a panel of officers from the licensing authority, rather than an individual officer, a say with regard to any of the variations set out in subsection (4). I appreciate that if great urgency were required, for whatever reason, it might be sensible to put powers into the hands of a single, very senior officer. However, in the circumstances that we are discussing, and given the fact that we will be in somewhat uncharted waters in the next few years as the legislation is introduced, the

safeguard is sensible. That is the case not least because, under the new regime, there will be great concern, not only from residents, but from businesses that will be subject to the legislation.

I hope that the Minister will accept the fairly minor amendment, which is, none the less, an important safeguard. The Bill provides for a sub-committee of elected councillors within the licensing authority, so it seems only sensible that great authority should not be placed on the shoulders of one unelected officer of an authority.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The amendments explicitly provide for a licensing committee to delegate its functions to a panel of officers of the licensing authority, as well as to a sub-committee and an officer of the licensing authority. Under the Bill, any function that may be delegated to an officer can also be delegated to a panel of officers. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.

The amendments would have the effect of allowing a panel of officers to discharge those functions that, under subsection (4), may not be carried out by an officer of the licensing authority. In that respect, the amendments are also undesirable. The functions set out in subsection (4) represent those functions where, after representations have been made raising the public interest issues reflected in the licensing objectives, the licensing authority ceases to act in its administrative role and instead steps into a regulatory role.

The provisions of clause 11 aim to ensure flexibility. It is the intention that licensing committees should delegate to sub-committees and, where appropriate, to officers, the day-to-day applications and administration to allow decisions on applications to be made quickly. As paragraph 4.46 of the draft guidance made clear, licensing authorities will want to consider how to ensure the speedy, efficient and cost-effective handling of decisions and functions when deciding their approach to delegation.

The Bill already allows for delegation to panels of officers, where that is appropriate, and that may well be the approach that licensing authorities will wish to adopt under a system where the majority of cases should be dealt with administratively. Given that the Bill already permits the delegation of administrative functions to panels of licensing officers, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Before we finish—I said that the debate would be short—perhaps the Minister could remind the Committee where the Bill refers to delegation to a panel of officers. That would be helpful.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The—no, this note does not tell me. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yet again, it will be too late to do anything about the matter. The issue is not vital, but it would have been helpful to have the answer when the question was posed. The amendments were probing, and I am reasonably satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister, particularly with reference to subsection (4) and those functions that officers are not

delegated to deal with. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - The relevant licensing authority

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 176, in

clause 13, page 8, line 4, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (3A)'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 212, in

clause 13, page 8, line 11, at end insert—

'(3A) Where the applicant or owner of the premises is the licensing authority in whose area the premises are situated, the Secretary of State shall designate another licensing authority as the relevant licensing authority in relation to the application.'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The amendments bring us back to our earlier discussion on amendment No. 99, and refer to the power of the local authority to be judge and jury of its own case.

During the last sitting but one, somewhat extravagantly, I accused the Minister of trying to rewrite the whole of local government procedure, but he accused me of trying to rewrite a good deal of local government legislation when we debated amendment No. 99. We are dealing with a tremendously important matter of natural justice. If one applies for a license in a quasi-judicial proceeding, one should not also determine whether that license should be issued. If I were arraigned for some unfortunate behaviour, such as driving with a defective rear light, I doubt that the Minister would be satisfied if I were then able to sit on the magistrates bench and say, ''You shouldn't have done it, but in the circumstances we find you not guilty.'' That would be an abuse of natural justice and a defective procedure, and it would be widely misunderstood.

Local authorities giving themselves licences, as is the case with local authorities giving themselves planning permission, will be widely misunderstood and mistrusted. I want the Minister to think of a better way to solve the problem. I have exercised my imagination in every conceivable manner. I tried amendment No. 99 and amendment No. 177, which you, Mr. Gale, found to be defective, and I appreciate why. I am now trying something different. If the Minister can come up with a route other than the one that I proposed in those amendments and in amendment No. 212, I would be very happy. I am sure that he wants to make me happy.

It is not ideal to give a power to the Secretary of State, but because on this one occasion I cannot think of anything better, amendment No. 212 would do that.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Is not it the case that if a local authority could give itself a licence, as it can under planning legislation, any objection to it could still be heard in a magistrates court? Also, if there were a case of maladministration, it could be reported to the local government ombudsman.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I shall deal first with the hon. Gentleman's second point, because there is a question about it, to which it is important that the Minister give a straight answer. The local government ombudsman denies that he has the power to act if there is an alternative tribunal.

Mr. Jones indicated dissent.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I shall illustrate my point by reference to special educational needs. The local government ombudsman has told people in my constituency that he will not consider cases of maladministration in the provision or otherwise of special educational needs statements because there is an alternative tribunal—the special educational needs tribunal. If the Minister denies that, I shall go straight back to the local government ombudsman, tell him that he is behaving incorrectly and ask him to deal with a host of applications by my constituents, who are unhappy about the way in which the local authority has dealt with their special educational needs statements. However, I suspect that the Minister will not be confident enough to deny it.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Is not the ombudsman correct to say that he cannot sit in judgment in special educational needs cases? However, he or she can deal with maladministration in the process if it has taken place, even for special educational needs.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The problem with that—I am trying not to forget the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the magistrates court—is that the local authority may have reached a perfectly justified and correct decision through the administrative procedure, but members of the public may believe that it does not take full account of the demands of natural justice. If the procedure set out by legislation denies natural justice, all that the local government ombudsman can say is, ''The authority followed the procedure and there is no maladministration.''

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I am warming to the hon. Gentleman's argument. The problem with the ombudsman route is that the local authority is not obliged to accept his decision in any case. The hon. Gentleman makes a debating point, rather than a point that is relevant to the Bill.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman brings us to the demolition of the argument of the hon. Member for North Durham. If I had been sufficiently astute, I would have thought of that. I confess that I did not, but I shall deal with the matter shortly.

The public may view the procedure in the Bill as defective. The local government ombudsman can do nothing if the correct procedure is followed and there is no maladministration, but the decision may be defective if it denies the objectors natural justice. However many magistrates court appeals provisions there are, if the procedure is correct, there is nothing that appeals tribunals can do about it.

I have tabled the amendment because I believe that the procedure is defective and should not be in the Bill. It is not right that one should be judge and jury in one's own case. I have used that phrase a number of times.

Mr. Jones indicated dissent.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman does not like it: he shakes his head, but he has been unable to demonstrate that in this case the licensing authority is not judge and jury. He may think that in North Durham things are done so spectacularly well that the licensing authority never has the opportunity to behave as judge and jury. He may think that his constituents do not mind the local licensing authority being judge and jury. I can tell him that my constituents mind a great deal about that.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

They talk of little else.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

They talked of little else in Fairlee road when the council was applying to give itself permission to hold a pop festival. My colleague, Drew Mellor, who is the councillor for that area—and of an age when one might expect him to be interested in pop festivals—was very exercised about the fact that the local authority was able to give itself permission.

Local electors do not like that, any more than they like it in respect of planning permission. It is allowed in respect of planning permission and it has been allowed since 1066 in respect of licensing provision, but that is no justification for it being perpetuated by the Bill. That is why I have tried, in my small way, to think of a better procedure.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Do not be modest.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

If the Minister can think of a procedure that is better still, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment, but if he cannot do so and we are not careful this will end up in a whole host of complaints, appeals, ombudsman cases and so forth, and eventually someone will wave the ghastly human rights flag, which they tend to wave when they cannot think of any other flag to wave.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

What about Europe?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I was going to mention that.

They will wave the human rights flag and some expensive human rights lawyer will take the matter to the House of Lords, which will say, ''Sorry, there is a failure of natural justice,'' and this legislation will be overturned because of that.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenious attempt to find a way around this problem, which is inevitable in any licensing or planning regulation, as we have seen in the past in a range of local authorities.

It is a difficult problem. My concern with the amendment is simply about giving the Secretary of State the power to designate an authority. All Committee members are aware that there are a number of narrow stress problems with the Bill. In my local authority in the City of Westminster, I would be reluctant for licensing matters to be determined by, for example, the London borough of Enfield or the London borough of Barnet—by mentioning them, I am not making any narrow political point as both of them are now Conservative authorities. However, Westminster's problems in that regard could probably be dealt with only by, for example, the

neighbouring authority of Camden. It may well be the case that there a number of local authorities where the neighbouring authority has an entirely different regime and it would be difficult for a Secretary of State suddenly to have the power passed on in this sort of way.

We must face this difficulty: it is inevitable that there will be accusations of conflict of interest. The hon. Member for North Durham rightly pointed out that where a planning authority is also the owner of land—as is the case in every local authority throughout the country—there is a prima facie conflict of interest. We do not want to go down the route of relying on the ombudsman. We must accept that the ombudsman can be used only in extremis. An ombudsman's inquiry is often a long-winded and time-consuming process that takes years to produce results.

There is something that we must consider. All Committee members—particularly those of us who were in local government before coming to this place—know that, all too often, where there are complaints, they are more about procedure than outcome. One need only consider the massive and time-consuming inquiry into terminal 5 at Heathrow. That was a tortuous procedure. It involved appeals, public inquiries and various other forms of public consultation. Even then, at the end of the process, there were still members of the public who said that they did not feel that they had had their say. The reality was that they had; they were simply unwilling to accept the outcome.

Local authorities have to be a little more robust about the issue, particularly in their roles as licensing authorities and in a planning context. I shall give a concrete example. When I was on a local authority, planning was my main area of interest. The Kensington and Chelsea Conservative Association decided that it wanted planning consent for its property and the planning committee went through a tortuous process. It looked as though every last Conservative member of the planning committee would, as a member of the local Conservative association, be disqualified from playing any part.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Hear, hear!

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I hear that, but I think that everyone will understand the sheer absurdity of that situation. Clearly, if an individual is a licensee or has an obvious conflict of interest, that should be declared and that person should step off the committee. That applies to local councillors and members of local licensing authorities. The real danger with this sort of provision is that all too often what complainants desire above all is what they consider to be the right result, rather than the right process.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

How would my hon. Friend tackle the conflict of interest that would arise if, to go back to the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, a council and a commercial promoter both sought to promote pop concerts? How would my hon. Friend do that if we left the framework as it is?

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I accept that there is a lacuna and my hon. Friend has accurately pointed out that there would be an inevitable conflict of interest not only about the licensing, but about who should have the consent for such an event. I hope that the Minister will give some serious thought to finding a way around the problem, but the reality is that if we give the green light to the provisions as they stand, we would have to go down a litigious route that involves High Court injunctions and, potentially, human rights actions. Obviously, that would be a retrograde step. We have to accept that in some instances there will be a prima facie conflict of interest along the lines set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight.

I would be interested to hear feedback from the Minister on this skilful attempt to square a difficult circle on a problem that has applied to local government through the ages. The officers and Ministers of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport may prove me wrong, however, with their collective wisdom, and perhaps there will be genuine progress in the new, modernised local government of the 21st century.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting contribution—as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. On the human rights ''ghastly'' warning given by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) mentioned the issue, too—I am sorry to disappoint, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights has concluded that there are no implications, under any of the articles, arising from the arrangements that we are debating.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight, who is a veteran of several Committees, will probably know that all legislation has to be tested against strict criteria on the human rights issue. He asked whether residents who objected to anything had a route of appeal. They can appeal to the magistrates court if they made representations on the initial application as, of course, would be expected. Also, they may be able to challenge the decision by way of judicial review, albeit with all the provisos involved, and he is right to highlight them. Judicial review can be an expensive process. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster had an interesting and illuminating approach in comparing the construction of a multi-million pound international air terminal with a licensing application from the Dog and Duke—[Interruption.] My advice note states that it was the Dog and Duck. Whatever the name of the pub, it is interesting. I like Dog and Duke better, actually.

Amendments Nos. 176 and 212 would require, where the applicant or owner of the premises is the licensing authority for the area in which the premises are situated, that the Secretary of State designate another licensing authority as the relevant licensing authority. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight sums up on his amendments, he will give us some examples of that. I find it intriguing that Rhondda Cynon Taff council could be judged by Cardiff city council in that way. I should imagine that people would have to put on NATO uniforms for some of those sittings. The proposal is further

indication of the hon. Gentleman's strength of conviction that we should do everything that we can to avoid conflicts of interest.

On Tuesday, the hon. Gentleman cited some unfortunate incidents that took place in his constituency. As I made clear at the time, I have some sympathy with his views because we have all seen such things happen. I believe firmly that the amendments are unnecessary and would fly in the face of our drive to open up public venues, particularly where entertainment is concerned.

I am worried about some of the observations that have been made by some of the groups representing morris dancers, wassailers and others, who are not particularly interested in the sale of alcohol. Some of their dances or storytelling may take place in a licensed premises—in a car park or a garden of a pub, or whatever. Often, those activities take place on property that is owned by the local authority, such as a road or a square. It is important that local authorities should not have to go through a long process, which it could become, of handling applications of all types relating to premises that they own or control. They have dealt with public entertainment licensing for many years with few problems, as far as I can make out, notwithstanding the examples that were cited by the hon. Gentleman. A robust regulatory framework governs the conduct of councillors, which prevents the sort of conflict of interest that we have discussed a great deal.

I tried to tell the hon. Gentleman last Tuesday that the Bill is not concerned with re-engineering local government. If the rules are not strong enough—in his opinion—to deal with the problems that he described, perhaps he can make a case for the legislation using one of the many alternative routes open to him, but not necessarily the Committee. We will encourage licensing authorities to license venues that they own or administer for the purposes of making them available for public use and entertainment. That is part of our strategy to ensure that the Bill has a generally positive impact on cultural provision in England and Wales. Going through the rigmarole of getting the Secretary of State to nominate another licensing authority for such purposes would undermine that objective considerably.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whom I know cares about the encouragement of all sorts of cultural expression in his constituency and elsewhere, will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the Minister for his kind words. I recognise that the Bill is not concerned with re-engineering local government. It is only coincidental that under clause 10 he was trying to re-engineer local government, but never mind. We shall move on from that.

I accept that many of the applications that will be made by licensing authorities for their own premises will be minor ones. Indeed, it is questionable whether some of those applications would be necessary. Morris dancers argue that it would be necessary. I think that the Minister argued that it would not be necessary for the licensing authority to apply to itself for a licence

for morris dancing to take place in the square in Yarmouth because it happens to own the square. If it took place in Pier square in Yarmouth, which is adjacent, an application would be necessary—there is no barrier between the square and Pier square—because Pier square is owned by the harbour commissioners of the former borough of Yarmouth.

The Minister points out that many of the applications will be minor, which I accept, but some of them would be major. A councillor would not face a conflict of interest as an individual, but as a councillor—that applies to all councillors on the licensing authority. They would face a conflict of interest about a major application because they are part of the authority that is promoting the entertainment that needs to be licensed. I do not know about a domestic problem between Cardiff and Rhondda Cynon Taff, but—

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

It is based on rugby.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is an excellent reason. I know that my licensing committee would be happy to license what was going on in Westminster—indeed, it would be grateful for the opportunity to visit the city of Westminster at the expense of either Isle of Wight or Westminster council tax payers.

I recognise that investing this power in the Secretary of State may be controversial and I am glad that the Minister pointed out the route of appeal, under schedule 5, of the magistrates courts and the possibility of judicial review. That will be expensive and limited to those who have made a relevant representation; I think that will also be limited to interested parties in the context of clause 14(3). As we shall later discuss clause 14(3) and have an opportunity to return to this subject on Report if the conflict needs to be dealt with further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Authorised persons, interested persons and responsible authorities

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 178, in

clause 14, page 8, line 42, leave out from 'person' to end of line 45 and insert

'or a representative of a business or body whether incorporated or otherwise likely (in his opinion) to be affected by the grant or rejection of an application,'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

It may be helpful to the Committee, if I offer an explanation of the grouping of amendments under clause 14. Members will note that with Government amendment No. 11, I have grouped Government amendment No. 15 and the stand part debates on clauses 143 and 151. My antennae have picked up that one or two people have been wondering why those are so grouped. The answer is that Government amendment No. 11 deals, under the terms of clause 14, with matters relating to children, as does amendment No. 15, which applies to a later

clause. The two stand part debates also refer to matters specifically relating to children.

The Chair groups amendments to facilitate a broad debate on related subjects. As this is the first occasion on which such an issue has been introduced, the Clerk and I felt it appropriate to stimulate debate now rather than later; otherwise, it is clear that we shall have the same debate three times. What I am saying to the Committee is that this is its chance to talk about kids.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Can I confirm that if we later want to table amendments to clauses 143 and 151, we will be entitled to do so, or is now our one and only opportunity?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

It is in order for the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member to table amendments to relevant clauses, but at the end of the debates on those amendments there will not be a stand part debate because we are having it this morning.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Amendment No. 178 deals with the narrow description of an interested party. I shall furnish an example of an interested party that in my opinion, is not covered by paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3). It is certainly not covered by paragraph (e) and would be even less covered by it should the Minister achieve his objective of removing that paragraph. The example is a hospital. A hospital is not a person; it is not

''a body representing persons who live in that vicinity'';

or

''a person involved in a business'',

unless, of course, it is private hospital; or

''a body representing persons involved in such businesses''.

Neither is a national health service trust covered by subsection (4).

If someone—it might be not the Isle of Wight council, but a private individual—aimed to promote a pop concert or festival on land abutting a hospital, the representatives of that hospital would not be a relevant person or ''interested party'' in terms of objecting to the application. The subsection is drawn too narrowly and ought to include any body, whether an individual or a corporate or unincorporated body, that may be affected by an application.

I understand that there has been criticism from other sources of the use of the word ''vicinity'', because it does not mean a specific distance. Is the vicinity of the premises confined to the road or neighbourhood in which the premises are situated, or would it comprise the whole town or village in which they are situated? Is the vicinity the area over which one could hear amplified music, were the licence to be granted? If so, I understand from some of my constituents who were around at the time of the Isle of Wight pop festivals in the early 1970s that it was possible to hear the sound of the festival from Totland to Newport. For those who are not as familiar as the Minister with the geography of the Isle of Wight, that is a considerable distance. I understand that it took the Minister about an hour to traverse that distance by car last year.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am not familiar with the distances on the Isle of Wight, but I am familiar with the fact that the Isle of Wight is opposite part of my constituency. Could the noise from the Isle of Wight pop festival have been heard in parts of Fareham? Would Fareham be in the vicinity of such a pop festival?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The pop festival was held at Afton farm in Freshwater, so although the sound could have been heard from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and possibly even from that of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), it is unlikely that it could have been heard in Fareham. Had the pop festival taken place in the grounds of Osborne house, which is not something to which I think that the Minister aspires, it is certainly possible that the sound would have been heard in Lee-on-the-Solent, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the adjoining villages in the southern and coastal parts of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). My hon. Friend does have a coastal part to his constituency.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I do.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

He does.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. First, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that this cannot turn into a conversation. He is addressing a Committee. Secondly, although I am an ageing rocker and have an affinity with some of the things to which he is referring and a deep affection for the Isle of Wight, I have to say that he is going rather wide of the mark in defining the simple word ''vicinity''.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is my problem, Mr. Gale. How wide is the definition of that word?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

May I help the hon. Gentleman? The word ''vicinity'' can mean an area and a neighbourhood. We have chosen not to define that in the Bill to allow for flexibility and responsiveness to circumstances. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to let the Committee know his views on the matter. I am sure he understands the logic from the point of view of those who attempt to administer difficult situations, which are sometimes—exceptionally—like the one he mentioned back in 1971.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am pleased the Minister believes that the word ''vicinity'' may be interpreted flexibly by the licensing authority. I believe that the licensing authority will have to do that anyway. Certainly, it will have to err on the side of generosity to those making representations on the granting of a licence, rather than being unduly restrictive and determining that representations are not relevant under the Bill. That helps me considerably. I am also glad that we discussed the extent to which the sound—what some might call the noise—of the Isle of Wight pop festival could be heard on the mainland.

I have dealt with a side issue in my amendment and I revert now to its substance, which is that the Bill does not cover public bodies that are not businesses.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

This is intriguing, because I am not entirely familiar with the definitions. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman this: an NHS trust is in business. I assure him that hospitals will be able to make representations if they are in the vicinity and if members of the boards of hospitals happen to live locally there will be an additional means of representation. Perhaps that will help him in trying to understand that hospitals are incorporated in the Bill.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is helpful. Perhaps the Minister will also tell me whether Her Majesty's prisons of Parkhurst, Camp Hill and Albany are businesses for the purposes of the legislation and whether the proposed inhabitants of HMS Daedalus in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, who are likely to be asylum seekers, will be living in the vicinity.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the Committee that some of the expressions of contemporary culture, for example, Robbie Williams playing at a live concert on the Isle of Wight, could be considered as a form of torture by the inmates of the prisons he mentioned?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. We are not going any further down this route. Even my legendary tolerance is being stretched. It would be a good idea to come back to the point.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I accept your guidance, Mr. Gale. My concern was not whether that might be torture, but whether a prison, a camp established for asylum seekers or a children's home is a business and therefore entitled to make representations under the proposed legislation.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

My advice is that the same arguments apply to prisons as apply to hospitals. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to give me a list of establishments about which he is worried. Children's homes certainly would be included and if asylum seekers were housed in some accommodation, they would be able to make representations if an application were put forward for such an event or licence.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister has demolished the case for the amendment, but this debate has been useful because he has put his interpretation on the record and that will be relevant in any judicial proceedings. Therefore, unless he wishes to speak, I will not press the amendment.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The amendment is not moved.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in

clause 14, page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (e).

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 170, in

clause 14, page 9, line 1, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 2.

Amendment No. 179, in

clause 14, page 9, line 2, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 3 and insert

'local councillor of the local authority,

(f) the council for the parish (in England) or community (in Wales) in which the premises are situated.

(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3) ''local authority'' means the district or county (in England), county or county borough (in Wales), or London borough in which the premises are situated or the City of London or the area of the Council of the Isles of Scilly being the authority in which the premises are situated.'.

Amendment No. 180, in

clause 14, page 9, line 2, after second 'ward', insert 'or electoral division'.

Amendment No. 181, in

clause 14, page 9, line 2, leave out 'or ward' and insert ', ward or division'.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Clause 14 sets out those individuals and organisations that are the ''authorised person'', ''interested party'' and ''responsible authority'' for the purposes of the part of the Bill that deals with premises licences. It provides that ''interested party'' means any of the following:

''(a) a person living in the vicinity of the premises,

(b) a body representing persons who live in that vicinity,

(c) a person involved in a business in that vicinity,

(d) a body representing persons involved in such businesses,

(e) the Member of the European Parliament, the Member of Parliament and the local ward councillors for the constituency or ward in which the premises are situated.''

Members of the European Parliament, MPs and local ward councillors were added to that list by an amendment in another place. Government amendment No. 10 would remove them from the list. I note from amendment No. 170 that Conservative Committee members are almost but not quite of the same mind as the Government on this issue.

Under part 3 of the Bill, interested parties may make representations about applications for premises licences and may also apply to the relevant licensing authority for reviews of premises licences. Therefore, the amendment that was made in another place would allow MEPs, MPs and local ward councillors to make representations about applications for, and apply for reviews of, premises licences for any premises in their constituency or ward.

Hon. Members are aware that the Government strongly believe that the licensing system should be managed by democratically accountable bodies. That is why we are transferring responsibility for alcohol licensing from the licensing justices to local authorities. We also believe that local residents and businesses should be given the opportunity to have their say about the licensing of premises in their vicinity. That is why those groups are included in the list of interested parties. Any local business or resident living in the vicinity of the premises may use any representative to put their case. That could be a solicitor, friend or relative, an MP, a ward councillor, an MEP, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales or a body representing the amenity interests in the vicinity. However, why should any of those individuals have a say in their own right? In every case that I have cited,

''representative'' is the appropriate word. If no local resident or business in the vicinity wishes to exercise their right to make representations or apply for a review—they might be enormously pleased to see a new licensed premises opening nearby—who would the MP, for example, be representing?

I understand why many hon. Members might find the amendment that was made in another place attractive. When I read the initial drafts of the Bill, I exploded with self-important rage that I as an MP would not be able to come in on this, but a little later—after a full, frank and adult discussion—I saw the sense of what was being proposed.

I was interested in the different views that were expressed on this subject on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) said that he wanted to be able to do something about the representations on alcohol sales that he receives from his constituents. The Bill as originally drafted, and as it will stand, if amendment No. 10 is accepted, would allow him to represent them if they ask him to do so.

On the other hand, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) suggested that we should remove ''Member of Parliament'' from the list of interested parties and replace it with ''any peer of the realm living in the district in question''—which I thought was very witty. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not want to give peers a specific role in the new licensing system, but I hope that his suggestion shows that he agrees with our amendment.

The inclusion of councillors, MPs and MEPs makes sense. They are available if a local resident wishes to use their services, but they should not express views on a resident's behalf unless they have been consulted. We are given rights to make representations to protect those who are directly affected by the activities to be carried out on the premises concerned. It is not for others to tell residents that they know better.

I shall set out the Government's arguments on local ward councillors specifically, as they are the subject of amendment No. 170. The reasoning that I have already set out regarding MPs applies equally to ward councillors. They will be able to make representations if they live in the vicinity of the premises or if they are asked to do so on behalf of their constituents. However, they should not be able to exercise a veto over the wishes of local residents and businesses or to gainsay the views of experts on individual licence applications. There is also a danger that arming ward councillors with the power to make representations in their own right, even if they do not live near the premises concerned, would lead to a hearing in almost every application. That would significantly undermine the deregulatory gains and savings that the Bill is designed to deliver.

Similar arguments apply to parish councils and, in Wales, to community councils, which are the subject of amendment No. 179. Nevertheless, nothing in the Bill

prevents a parish council from becoming involved on behalf of a local resident or business if asked to do so.

Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 would increase the flexibility of the provision by incorporating the concept of the electoral division. I understand that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight tabled them to reflect the particular local authority arrangements in his constituency. In view of the Government's intention to remove ward councillors' ability to make representations, the amendments are unnecessary. I hope that they will be withdrawn and not pressed to a vote.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I shall speak to amendment No. 170, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say about Government amendment No. 10. We had a frank and adult discussion about it and I am persuaded of his case by the power of his argument.

As the Minister said, the Bill was amended in the other place. I understand that the circumstances in which the amendment was carried were not as would have been wished. I shall not go into details, but I believe that a break was required and, lo and behold, the vote was won during the break, although that was not necessarily the intention.

Conservatives certainly did not want MEPs or MPs to be directly involved, but we thought that ward councillors ought to be involved. As the Minister pointed out, if subsection (3)(e) is left in place, they will have the power to do that of their own volition rather than as representatives of local people. If, as the Minister says, ''a body representing persons'' in subsection (3)(b) covers ward councillors and MPs if they wish to become involved, we are happy.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I support Government amendment No. 10, and I am delighted that they tabled it. When my noble friends came with beaming smiles to inform me that they had amended the Bill so as to add subsection (3)(e), I thanked them less than profusely. The idea that MPs should make representations simply because they are MPs is entirely wrong. I am sure that many members of the Committee, like me, become involved with planning problems from time to time. If constituents come to me with a planning issue, I make it as clear to them as I can that I am willing to make representations on their behalf. Occasionally, they say that that is not what they want; they want me to make representations on my own behalf. I explain to them that I will not do that, because I do not consider that I have any locus. If the planning application were for the building next door to where I live, I would complain as a private individual, not as a Member of Parliament, so the Government's line on the matter is right. The same argument would apply to the local ward councillor, which is why Government amendment No. 10 is a better solution than the alternatives in the same group.

The idea that the Member of the European Parliament should get involved borders on the insane. MEPs in the south-west cover 51 parliamentary constituencies. That they should be bothering themselves with the entertainments and

alcohol licences of every establishment in that area is completely ludicrous. I am delighted to see amendment No. 10 and support it wholeheartedly.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I confess that the comments of the hon. Member for North Devon sum up the absurdity of a system of proportional representation. List systems of large numbers of our so-called representatives are a core problem, especially with the European Parliament. In London, we have 10 MEPs who represent, in my view, absolutely nobody and nothing. No one knows who they are and there is no link to a vicinity or constituency. That is a worry and the hon. Gentleman is right—an MEP who happens to live in Penzance could be lobbied by a lot of residents outside Taunton about licensing-related issues.

I have one concern. I was glad to hear the Minister say that local councillors will be considered an ''interested party'' under clause 14 (3)(b) because they should have a say. All Members of Parliament are lobbied from time to time and, dare I say, just before general elections we all feel a greater obligation to get stuck in. During the last two weeks before the last general election, the biggest single issue in my constituency was a licensing and planning-related matter in Mayfair. I was dragged into it, slightly against my will, but it was an important issue. I wanted to do what I could to stand up for local residents but, as Members of Parliament, we should divorce ourselves in part from some decisions, especially those made by the local authority. If licensing becomes a matter for the local licensing authority rather than a magistrates court, that is even more reason for us to explain to our constituents that decisions are in the hands of another body. None the less, we should continue to bring to the attention of the local authority cases involving a great strength of interest, when constituents have made representations to us.

Under the current proposal, one might be left with an absurd situation. For example—I am sure that hon. Members can think of legion others—a local councillor who lives in one ward but represents another will have greater standing than the local councillor for that ward under this rule, because that person lives in the vicinity of the premises. I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that local ward councillors will be considered under subsection (3)(b) to be members of

''a body representing persons who live in that vicinity.''

Otherwise, an absurd situation might arise.

I can think of another example, although I accept that my constituency is an exception. As a person living in the vicinity of premises, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), who happens to be a Soho resident, could object strongly to a licensing application. I am sure that the hon. Lady has more sense than to get actively involved in such a matter, but she would have more standing than I would as the constituency Member of Parliament, which would seem absurd to many local Soho residents. Also, it may put me in a somewhat invidious position.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the sane advice given by the hon. Member for North

Devon. There is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman representing his constituents if they have asked him to raise the matter because they are worried about a licensing application. The provision would not place him at a disadvantage compared with someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, who has a very nice house in Soho.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

It sounds as though the Minister has regularly attended the house on his fact-finding missions in Soho in the early hours of the morning.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

If only.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

It must be that cantankerous husband of the hon. Member for Stevenage who prevents new Labourites from coming through the door of Meard street.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. There is a certain amount of personal grief that is best not discussed in public.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Where do we start, Mr. Gale?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

We do not.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Or, indeed, where do we end?

I hope that the Minister will put on the record the fact that he will ensure that the interests of local ward councillors are taken into account, particularly those who happen not to live in the wards that they represent, or who work in larger rural areas, where living in the vicinity and living in the ward will be two separate things, compared with the situation of a councillor in central London. With that in mind, I endorse the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

For the sake of clarification, I am sure that the Minister can satisfy my worry about people living in the vicinity of the premises. They may not live in the area covered by the licensing authority. Under amendment No. 11, they would have to be recognised by the licensing authorities for that area for them to be considered as an interested party. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. We have not yet reached amendment No. 11.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I am on amendment No. 10, verging on amendment No. 11.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. No, Mr. Sanders, we are on amendment No. 10. We will come to amendment No. 11—which will be a major debate—shortly.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am happy with the Minister's introduction of his amendment. I understand that my amendments Nos. 179 to 181, now become redundant. However, I want to question one assumption that he makes. I suspect that the distinction may be too academic for most licensing authorities to consider that it is worth paying attention to. A councillor or for that matter a Member of Parliament, if he were so foolish as to become involved, is only representative of people if they have asked that representations be made. That seems to be the Minister's assumption, but it is one that I would question.

A Member of Parliament is ipso facto representative of his constituents. A councillor is ipso facto representative of his electors. That is the basis on which our representative democracy is established. It would be unfair and, indeed, invidious to say to a Member of Parliament, ''You must reveal the name of the person who has asked you to make representations on his behalf, otherwise we will not take account of your objection.'' I know that the Minister did not say that, but the only way to establish whether a Member of Parliament, or a councillor, is a representative of an individual or individuals, not the body of his electors, is to ask him in the remotest eventuality to reveal the name of the person who asked him to make representations. To determine whether a representation is relevant, such matters may be pursued in judicial proceedings

I accept the Minister's amendment, but my suspicion is that councils will tend to interpret the words

''a body representing persons who live in that vicinity''

as including councillors or Members of Parliament, even when they cannot say that they represent an individual or individuals, because their constitutional position is that they must represent their electors, regardless of whether those electors want them to do so on a particular matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 171, in

clause 14, page 9, leave out line 14.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Government amendment No. 120.

Government amendment No. 121.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The amendment would delete subsection (4)(e). Paragraph 6.61 of the guidance, on page 42, says:

''Licensing authorities may not initiate their own reviews of premises licences. It would be improper for the authority to lay allegations of its own and then determine the outcome of a hearing to consider them. Officers of the local authority such as environmental health officers, who are specified as responsible authorities under the Act, may however request reviews.''

Subsection (4) says that

'' 'Responsible authority' means any of the following . . .

(e) the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated'',

and clause 51(1) says:

''Where a premises licence has effect, an interested party or a responsible authority''—

and we know from clause 14(4)(e) that the local authority is deemed to be a responsible authority—

''may apply to the relevant licensing authority for a review of the licence.''

So the guidance notes tell us one thing and the Bill—in my humble interpretation—tells us another.

I am not sure what we are supposed to think. Is subsection (4)(e) the result of an amendment in another place? I do not know. It seems, from

Government amendment No. 120, that the Government recognise that they may have got it wrong.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to know that Government amendments Nos. 120 and 121 would restore the Bill to how it was prior to changes made in another place.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. The Government amendments are restoring the status quo. That implies that local authorities would be judge and jury in their own case and that, of course, would be unacceptable to the Opposition. We touched on that issue earlier. The Government have tabled other amendments on the issue in addition to No. 120 and no doubt we will have a protracted debate on the subject. We will have to wait and see what the Government have to say about their amendments, but as far as we are concerned, the guidance and the Bill contradict each other. Our amendment would change the situation so that the issue was clear to those interpreting the Bill and clear in terms of natural justice. Local authorities should not be judge and jury in their own cases.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I have a similar question, but on Government amendment No. 121. The premises to be licensed might be based in one local authority, while across the road—over a border—there was another local authority that had functions relating to the concerns clearly laid out in the Bill. In those circumstances, the first authority is a responsible authority, but clearly not for determining the licence application. However, it could have a right to make representation to the other authority, which is determining the application. I am looking for clarity on whether such boundary disputes will crop up from time to time, whether in relation to councillors who represent an area that is slap bang next to a ward where an an application, which will impact on that area, is being determined; or in relation to clubs and societies that have defined boundaries and will which have rights as interested parties under the Bill, but not in the area that is determining the application because they are adjacent to it. I wonder how such disputes will be dealt with.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The eagle eye of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire spotted the contradiction between the words in the Bill and those in the guidance. He is right: our amendment restores our former position by removing the tension between what is in the guidance and what is in the Bill.

On the Bill's definitions of responsible authorities, Government amendments Nos. 120 and 121 will restore the position prior to the changes accepted in another place. The responsible authorities described in clause 14 include the police, the fire authority, the enforcing authority for health and safety law,

''the local authority for the area in which the premises is situated'',

and

''any licensing authority . . . in whose area part of the premises is situated'',

including the one considering the application. Other authorities include various bodies relating to

applications involving vessels and other persons prescribed by the Secretary of State.

A responsible authority is essentially an expert body to be consulted on licensing objectives when an application is made. For example, the police will consider carefully the applicant's proposals for preventing crime and disorder on his premises. If they are adequate, the police will not need to intervene. If the police are dissatisfied with the proposals, they have every right to make representations to the licensing authority.

When the Bill was amended in another place, it removed the reference from the original text to environmental health officers. It is important that such officers are consulted because they have vital expertise, for example in noise nuisance. They need to scrutinise the steps an applicant intends to take to prevent nuisance, and Government amendment No. 120 would restore them to the list.

Amendments in another place also replaced environmental health officers with a description of the local authority in which the premises are situated. The local authority is the licensing authority and the effect of including it is to allow it to consult itself and therefore make representations to itself. Although I welcome the fact that amendment No. 171 would remove the local authority from the list of responsible authorities, it does not restore the important status of the environmental health authority and, given the effect of the Government amendments in this group, I hope that it will not be pressed.

A further amendment in another place duplicated our provision by including in the list all licensing authorities in whose area part of the premises is situated. The list originally included licensing authorities other than the one in receipt of the application only in rare cases where premises straddle local authority boundaries. Amendment No. 121 would restore those arrangements.

The amendments raise two important aspects of the Bill. The first is fairness. The local authority is the licensing authority and vice versa. If a licensing authority can make representations to itself, which means generating a hearing to consider those representations, the licensing committee would be prosecution, witness, jury, judge and executioner in the same court. That cannot be proper and it would no doubt generate an array of human rights issues, about which I know the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is concerned. But let us not get technical. In simple terms, it would not be right or fair. We are not hamstringing the licensing authority; where a local authority has a particular statutory responsibility for expert matters, which directly impact on the licensing objectives, it will be a responsible authority.

The environmental health authority is a functioning part of the local authority. The enforcing agency for health and safety is drawn usually from, and organised by, the local authority. The planning authority is a functioning part of the local authority. They are all responsible authorities for the purposes of the Bill. In those narrow and specialised capacities, offices of the local authority can make representations under the Bill

to the licensing authority. The licensing committee would then consider the representations fairly and properly and hear the views of the applicant on the matter. That is the appropriate way in which to proceed.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am listening with care to the Minister. Is the authority the one in whose area the premises are situated at a particular time, or the premises in whose area the vessel is moored and, thus, the licensing authority for the vessel?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

It is the premises in which the vessel is situated at any one time. It is a difficult issue in respect of vessels and, more importantly, trains, because they may go through many licensing authorities. We shall be discussing such matters. I suppose it depends on whether the driver is drunk.

I said earlier that two important aspects of the Bill would be affected by the amendments, and the second of those is deregulation. One of the ways in which savings in red tape can be generated is by reducing significantly the number of hearings to which licensing currently gives rise. Almost everything in the six licensing regimes generates hearings in one way or another. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that only disputes give rise to hearings.

Under the Bill, a hearing will be necessary only if one of the expert and professional bodies, a local resident or a local business is dissatisfied with the proposals in the operating schedule. If everyone is content, the application will be granted.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

In those circumstances, must the resident be a resident in the local authority area or will the hearing accept a resident who lives in a neighbouring local authority area that is responsible for the area most affected by the granting of the licence?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We will be issuing guidance stating that a protocol must exist throughout local authority boundaries. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise such matters. An extreme example is that of the Isle of Wight festival in 1971. We are not sure whether it could be heard in the neighbouring constituency. I bet that many people cannot remember whether it was heard there. Even if they did not hear it, they would probably claim that they did. I would claim that I heard Bob Dylan in 1971.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The Isle of Wight festival took place in 1970, or Jimi Hendrix would have been playing on a posthumous basis.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

There is nothing like history!

Clause 13 makes provision for the clarification of the relevant licensing authority in relation to an application for a premises licence. If those premises straddle more than one authority, only one authority is the relevant licensing authority under the clause. The other authority or authorities are afforded the status of the responsible authority, so that they can make representations about the licensing objectives to the relevant authority. The role of the other authority or authorities is not to determine the application. That is the responsibility of the relevant licensing authority, so

no dispute with the other authority or authorities and the relevant authority will arise. If the determination of the application does not uphold the representations made by the responsible authority, it will have a right of appeal to the magistrates court against the determination.

However, if a licensing authority can generate hearings whether or not the expert bodies and local residents are content, we will have opened the door to the old bureaucracy and red tape. We know that some—not all—local authorities could use the provision to generate hearings at which they would seek to vet applicants. They would revert to the old time wasting and subjective ''fit and proper'' test. If they did not like the applicant, they would immediately look for an excuse to reject the application. The deregulatory benefits of the Bill to industry could be swept away in some parts of the country if such authorities vetted everyone to find one bad apple. That is the old way.

The new way will focus on likely problem premises and target resources there. If the operating schedule is likely to generate problems, interested parties and responsible authorities could be expected to intervene. People not likely to cause problems in relation to the licensing objectives could be left to get on with their business. For two important reasons that I have set out—fairness and a desire to reduce red tape—I ask the Committee to welcome this group of Government amendments.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Minister for clarifying the issues relating to the relevant sections. In the light of the Government amendment and the explanation supporting it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 120, in

clause 14, page 9, line 14, leave out

'for the area in which the premises are situated'

and insert

'by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in

clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) a body which—

(i) represents those who, in relation to any such area, are responsible for, or interested in, matters relating to the protection of children from harm, and

(ii) is recognised by the licensing authority for that area for the purposes of this section as being competent to advise it on such matters,'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 15.

Clause 143 stand part.

Clause 151 stand part.

As I have already indicated to the Committee, this is the opportunity for a fairly wide-ranging debate on matters relating to children and licensed premises.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. That is an important element of the Bill, and I know that we shall have a good debate on it.

As hon. Members know, the protection of children from harm is one of the four licensing objectives of the Bill. No one would want to deny children access to a village shop that also happens to be an off-licence, nor would we want to deny children access to a supermarket, Pizza Hut, the cinema or the theatre, even though all are licensed premises. None of us would want to see children in lap dancing clubs, gaming clubs or seedy bars, which are associated with nefarious activities such as drug dealing or underage drinking. Between those two extremes, however, are many shades of grey where, in given circumstances, we anticipate that children should be given access to licensed premises.

Part of the problem in this regard is that few people understand the current regulatory framework, and even when they do, they cannot comprehend the logic of it. I admit to the Committee that when I was made aware of existing regulations and laws on the admission of children to licensed premises, I was at first disbelieving, then incredibly surprised at how complicated they are. It is especially amazing when one hears that a child of five in some parts of a licensed premises can be given whisky if it has bought by an adult, but we shall come to that later.

A framework that allows a five-year-old to drink spirits, provided the drink is bought by an adult and consumed away from the bar area, is a topic on which we ought to focus. It is a framework that allows clubs to provide alcohol for children and allows a child of seven to enter a nightclub at 2 am and stay there, provided the child keeps away from the bar area. It is time to change that framework, and the only question is how we do that.

On Report in another place, the Opposition moved two amendments, now included in the Bill as clauses 143 and 151, which seek to achieve what we all want: to ensure that children can enjoy access to appropriate licensed premises as conducive environments for them. However, I do not believe that those provisions will have the desired effect, and they do not provide a flexible and responsive framework, which is what we want to achieve. Among other things, clause 143 raises a raft of issues about the definition of licensed premises in subsection (2), and clause 151 raises issues of practicality and the interpretation of

''premises . . . licensed principally for the sale by retail of alcohol''.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been keen throughout the development of the Bill to take into account the views of organisations with an interest in the protection of children from harm, and to consider how these can best be reflected in the legislation and in guidance to achieve the right environment for children.

We have consulted a range of bodies including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children's Society, the Methodist Church, the Salvation Army, Turning Point, Alcohol Concern, the Association of Directors of Social

Services and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The outcome of that were the proposals outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 24 March. Those represent a balanced package that will ensure access, where appropriate, for children in a family-friendly environment, whilst providing them with protection.

As I said earlier, the protection of children from harm is a key licensing objective, and to ensure that licensing decisions have expert input on that objective, amendments Nos. 11 and 15 will add local area child protection committees, or their successor bodies, to the list of responsible authorities that are notified of, and can make representations on, all licensing applications—new or variations—and that can raise concerns relating to any of the licensing objectives through the review provisions. That will be a positive and welcome addition to the process.

The organisations that we consulted also took the view that it was not appropriate for the Bill to refer to age limits in relation to access by children to licensed premises. We concur with that view, and we therefore propose to overturn clauses 143 and 151. I shall expand on our concerns about those clauses.

Clause 143 is an attempt to focus our efforts on limiting unsupervised access by children under the age of 14 to premises where alcohol consumption is the primary purpose. There are a number of problems with that proposal. How does a licensee ensure the age of a child—what proof of age is robust and not open to forgery? When emphasis is placed on an accompanying adult, are we sure that that they will provide sufficient supervision for the children? We also have concerns about trying to define an establishment

''whose primary purpose is the consumption of alcohol.''

I noted earlier the many shades of grey between the extremes of licensed premises in respect of their suitability for access by children. How do gastropubs fit in with that? There are many good and respectable institutions, especially in rural areas, which increasingly find that the majority of their business—on Sunday certainly—is from the sale of food, which is consumed in a relaxed atmosphere where alcohol is also available for retail. Is their primary purpose food or alcohol sales—particularly as such businesses can generate more earnings from food than from alcohol sales, although perhaps only on certain days of the week? We need to ensure that our new licensing system is responsive and flexible.

Similarly, Clause 151 places a responsibility on a licensee not to sell alcohol in the presence of someone under the age of 14 unless they are accompanied by someone who is 18 or over. That throws up a range of questions, not least about what will happen in an off-licence, since such premises are licensed principally for the retail sale of alcohol. In addition there are questions of practicality—for instance, about whether a licensee always see children, particularly in a crowded bar area, and how to confirm proof of age.

The measures in the Bill and in guidance provide a package of measures that will provide adequate safeguards. I have already indicated what is in the Bill. In statutory guidance, we will cover factors that

indicate a licensed premises' suitability for access by children, ranging from those where it is felt that the risks to children, regardless of whether they are supervised, are too great—for example, on premises in which it is possible that children may be exposed to drug taking, drug dealing, gambling, adult or sexual entertainment, or alcohol illegally sold to minors—through to premises to which unsupervised children under 14 should be permitted access.

I stress that where any access for children is permitted, the licensee will still have to demonstrate clearly in their operating schedule the steps that they propose to take to promote protection from harm. My officials will continue to work with the child protection organisations and take their views into account in preparing the final version of the guidance. The balanced package that we propose offers the best way forward.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We queried the inclusion of a stand part debate on clauses 143 and 151 at this juncture, because we intended to table amendments to those clauses later. I am pleased, Mr. Gale, for your direction that we may still do that.

The Minister mentioned the amendments from the other place, which are included as clauses 143 and 151. There was a lengthy debate in the other place in Committee and on Third Reading. Real concerns and fears were expressed and many of those who contributed to the debate felt that the Government had not got it right on the control of children in licensed premises.

I listened carefully to the Minister on clauses 143 and 151 and I have some sympathy with the arguments he put forward. As many questions are raised by the clauses as are solved by them. An arbitrary age of 14 is difficult, although not impossible, to ascertain, particularly when the persons involved carry no evidence to determine their age. There is also the question of whether children between the ages of 14 and 18 will be allowed unfettered access without control, which is not acceptable either.

The Minister has not reassured me—nor, perhaps, my hon. Friends—that the Government have got it right, and that after the two clauses are removed what is left will work. Certain clauses refer to the sale of alcohol to children under 18 and others refer to knowingly selling alcohol to someone who would supply it to children, or who would make it available to under-18s in club premises. Am I correct in thinking that if we leave the Bill as it is, it will allow children of any age to wander around in licensed premises with or without adults in charge or control?

Although there are penalties for selling alcohol, another question arises. Many licensed premises welcome children and are family friendly. I have no compunction in taking my seven-year-old grandson into many such establishments—it is important that he is part of a family in that context. How do we prevent young children in certain areas and establishments simply going into licensed premises—social environments—where they should not be without an adult? Indeed, I am not sure what they would buy

there. I am not sure whether the Minister answered those questions and whether the Bill deals with them. I recognise that this is difficult.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow. This is a complicated issue. He will be aware that four levels of supervision will be set out in the guidance: no access, access only for specific purposes, such as an under-18 disco, supervised access for children under 14 and unsupervised access. It is the last of those categories that worries me. As this is an intervention, I will not speak at length. The situation at the moment is complex. One of the great mainstays is that the licensee can say, ''Right, out of here, you're not coming in.'' The licensee's role in exercising discretion is still fundamental under the new arrangements. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman a little confidence. The situation at the moment is open to abuse, but is largely contained because the licensee has that power.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, which has helped to clarify the matter. It is the last issue that he highlighted that concerns me. I recognise that the present law is inadequate and confusing. It is extremely difficult for those at the sharp end to make proper judgments because the law is unclear. It is all right to say that that will be in the guidance, but what weight does the guidance have in law? Should we not look at ways in which we can put those strictures in the Bill, so that it is clear to everyone what the law is saying, rather than—

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I did not intend to intervene in the middle of my hon. Friend's sentence. I understand that such matters are not yet in the guidance. The Minister knew that this matter was coming up, so it is a pity that he was unable to issue a page on what the guidance might state before we reached this point in Committee.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who will enforce such measures are likely to be the police as local authority licensing officials? Licensing officials will issue the licence and they may take account of, and issue conditions according to, the guidance, but the police and for that matter the public will need certainty when they are enforcing it. If the guidance contains four different levels and it is not clear how these relate from one premises to another, there is likely to be great difficulty in enforcing the provisions on the protection of children.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have not read the guidance from cover to cover. I think that I am right in saying that the four points that the Minister alluded to are not in it at this stage. It would have been helpful to the Committee to have had them in good time for this discussion, but we will be returning to the matter later.

The key issue is a clear, unequivocal position in law that everyone involved is confident and clear about. People living in the vicinity of a pub may see children running around and using it as a meeting place for all sorts of activities that are not associated with alcohol consumption, but it could cause nuisance and so forth.

I am sure that local people will use that as a reason for asking the licensing board for a review of those premises. The licensee might say, ''Hold on a minute, the law allows that to happen. I cannot do anything about it and yet you are using it as grounds for a review and some enforcement.'' The police will be involved, as they are at the moment, but the Bill also allows local people of all shapes and sizes to become involved if they feel that they have grounds for asking for a review of the licence. We will return to that later.

There are worries surrounding the removal of clauses Nos. 143 and 151. It is a vexatious area that does not work at the moment. We have to be sure that we are not giving a green light. I am sure that we can all imagine certain activities in pubs to which we would rather not expose children, especially the pre-teens. I am not convinced that we have a comfort zone in the Bill and until we see the written guidance, there will not be one. Guidance is not justifiable in the same way as primary or secondary legislation.

The Minister will have plenty of questions from the Opposition to answer at a later stage. There is disquiet about whether the Government have got the matter right and whether we are sending completely the wrong signal out to the community, especially to those children who will abuse the system one way or another.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

In his opening remarks, the Minister was right when he said that we are discussing two ends of a spectrum. There are family-friendly pubs that no one is likely to take exception to children going into and there are nightclubs and various dens of iniquity where we would not want smaller children to go. However, most premises fall into the shades of grey in the middle to which the Minister referred. I doubt whether hon. Members disagree about the objectives and the need to protect children from harm: the debate is entirely over the mechanisms by which we provide that protection.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said today and what he and the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. It is important that we see the guidance before the Committee proceedings finish so that we can see the detail of how the Government will approach the issue. I would not go as far as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and say that all the detail should be included in the primary legislation. Issuing the guidance, which will be statutory, and having individual operating plans for premises working within that guidance, is probably the right way to go. I would be happier if I had seen the detail of what the Government plan to do.

People have tended to react with horror and say, ''No. Children should not be allowed to go into pubs unaccompanied'', but I challenge that view. I represent a rural constituency and live in a rural community and I am very aware that village shops, garages and businesses have all become less viable and are vanishing at an alarming rate. Prince Charles has advocated that village pubs, as the one thing that has kept going, should increasingly provide a community focus. It is not unimaginable for a village shop to be sustained inside the pub, or for post offices to be inside pubs. In my constituency, there are pubs that serve as

polling stations, parish meeting rooms and so forth. We should leave ourselves enough flexibility to think about what pubs will become in years to come.

There are pubs in my constituency with games room in the back that have pool tables, table football, skittles and so forth. If a landlord allows children to use those facilities or outside play areas and is prepared to take responsibility for ensuring that they are consuming only soft drinks and crisps, those kids are probably safer than if they were marauding around the streets. So, we should not get too fundamentalist about it or start saying, ''No kids in pubs on their own.''

Allowing children in will not be right for every pub—it may not be right for most pubs—but if individual landlords are prepared to do that and take on that responsibility, they are providing a service to the community. Think about school holidays and kids' clubs and so on. If we rule pubs out because somewhere on the premises they sell a dreadful substance called alcohol, we will be denying many small communities use of the one viable facility that they have got.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman will have spoken to many of the same agencies concerned with the welfare of children that I have spoken to. Such agencies have often told me that children are in greatest danger in their homes, when alcohol is involved, from drunken parents. They are in second greatest danger out on the street, as the hon. Gentleman has just told us. Very often they cluster around licensed premises, hoping that somebody will go in and buy some alcohol for them. That will be dealt with later in the Bill. There have also been instances of bar staff saying, ''Hey, I know what this Bill is about. It is about making me into a child minder. I am going to be looking after children and I don't want to do that.'' The balance is difficult, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

The Minister's last point is interesting and I want to discuss it. Some publicans to whom I have spoken have reacted with horror to the very suggestion that they would want to do any of what has been mentioned. I have stressed that there is no obligation and that it is entirely up to them to devise their own operating plans. They have responded by saying—I am aware that some of the national industry groups have said the same thing—that if they submit operating plans that do not indicate an interest in having children on the premises or a willingness to do so, they might jeopardise their whole licence because it will look as though they are not fulfilling one of the licensing objectives: namely, the protection of children from harm. That argument does not commend itself to me, but I have heard it several times and some words of reassurance from the Minister would be helpful. I am interested to hear what he will say about the matter when he sums up the debate.

I appeal to the Government to keep as flexible a framework as possible, to put the necessary protections in the secondary legislation, but to remember rural communities where pubs are often

the only community facility, and not, as I can imagine the Government inadvertently doing as a result of loud lobbying from people thinking about the whole thing in an urban context, to draw up the regulations so tightly that they prohibit the use of pubs in the way I have described.

Amendments Nos. 143 and 151, as moved in another place, were tabled for the right reasons and with the right objectives in mind, but I am not at all unsympathetic to the Government's idea that there might be another, better approach. However, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, the Committee really needs to see in detail what the Government propose.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I shall touch briefly on the entire issue of children as part of the stand part debate. The Government have been driven into introducing the Bill by the understandable and, to an extent, desirable wish for clarity and the modernisation of what have been described as our old-fashioned, or Victorian, licensing laws. Many of the laws date back to a pre-Victorian period, although many of the great concerns arose in that era and during the first world war and its aftermath. It is no coincidence that there was prohibition for 14 years from 1919 in the United States. That was very much the tenor of the time.

It was interesting listening to the hon. Member for North Devon talking about pubs in his constituency, because an old acquaintance of mine, and of his, the late Chris Trethewey, who was the president of the Liberals in Devon, once told me that when he was a candidate for the Liberal party in the 1960s the great traditional Liberal and Methodist link meant that it was not the done thing even to have meetings in rooms above pubs, which shows how attitudes about drinking habits have changed and people have joined the modern world. Habits do change and it is regrettable that there has not been a clearer view in the Bill on children and licensed premises. I accept that many provisions will be in the guidance notes that will be published, but I regret that we have not seen more from the Bill. I am sure that the Minister has more to say on that.

There is no doubt that young children need to be protected. Perhaps I am being wistful, but I should like society's attitude towards the consumption of alcohol fundamentally to change. We must realise that the lure of the forbidden is one of the things that makes alcohol so attractive to many teenagers. I accept that there is a different culture in continental Europe but, contrastingly, children there are introduced to alcohol at a much younger age and within the family. Although there are understandable concerns about the idea of allowing children to run riot in licensed premises, a slightly more sensible approach that enables children to be introduced to alcohol consumption gradually must be the right way forward.

I was in the United States this summer and was impressed by what I saw. There, licensing is state-run, and there is a prohibition in most states on alcohol consumption for those under the age of 21. I spoke with several local Congressmen in various parts of the US and referred to our own drinking culture, which crosses class borders. For all 17, 18 and 19-year-olds

here, whether they are in employment or still students, there is a culture of going out drinking, often to excess. That contrasts greatly with the US. However, I suspect that a prohibition on alcohol for those up to the age of 21 simply delays the problem that we have outlined.

I hope that the guidance notes from the Government will be sensible and that the Minister can give us an indication of what is proposed. Although a modernisation of our licensing laws is important, we need to balance the protection of children against ensuring that they do not see alcohol as forbidden fruit later in life, but as something that should be part and parcel of everyday social life.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I think that clause 151 is unworkable. I am disinclined to vote against clause 143 stand part in the absence of something better. I hope that the Minister will offer something better, which is supported by the draft guidance notes. I am not satisfied that Government amendments Nos. 11 and 15 are that something better.

I am concerned that the situation is clear both to the enforcers and to tourists—it is important to recognise that one of the Bill's purposes is to benefit the tourism industry. The Bill should also take account of the points raised by the hon. Member for North Devon, which are just as true for my constituency as they are for his. We should also know where we are going to end up. Leaving judgments to individual

licensing authorities may be the only possible route, but it will be extremely difficult. That is why clarity is necessary.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I have just been reading the relevant section of the guidance—chapter 4—and it refers to licensing policy, which would be the local authority's licensing policy. That provides a steer. Is it not likely that licensing policy will vary from authority to authority? There may be completely different interpretations.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That could indeed be the case, which is both a benefit and a disadvantage. I hear someone asking, ''Is that such a bad thing?'' It is not such a bad thing on the Isle of Wight because one knows whether one is on the island—or, at least, most people do. It may be more difficult, when walking through the streets of central London, to know whether one is in the City of London, Westminster or Camden.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Not for me.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am sure that it is not difficult for my hon. Friend.

It is essential that the different needs of different areas are taken into account. I see no alternative other than having that established in the guidance.

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

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

Standing Committee D

Clause 14 - Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

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

Government amendment No. 15.

Clause 143 stand part.

Clause 151 stand part.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I was about to sum up. I shall be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) wants to get to other business on the agenda. I apologise to the Committee for not making available the guidance that several hon. Members have requested. I assure them that it will be issued soon, as the latest meeting of the working group on children's interests took place yesterday afternoon. We are working hard on such matters.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the Bill is silent about the access of children to premises. In the first instance, the applicant for a licence will have to decide whether he wishes to allow children on to the premises. That will be shown in his application. The application will then be notified to the responsible authorities, and the experts—which, if our amendment is accepted, will include child protection agencies and the police—will make representations. The licensing authority has a statutory obligation to have regard to the guidance, and it must provide written reasons for departing from it that can be challenged.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Can the Minister tell us when we will receive the guidance notes, so that we can use them as a basis for drafting amendments for clauses 143 and 151?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date, but I assure him that it will be as early as possible. Yesterday afternoon's meeting with the working group on children's interests was very

productive. I shall try to get him some information shortly.

An hon. Member asked for examples of premises to which it is reasonable to expect children to have access, such as cafes, restaurants, certain pubs and some hotels. A wedding between two 16 or 17-year-olds could pose the problem of newlyweds being barred from their own wedding reception. Cinemas and theatres are also important.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) spoke about children and operating schedules. If a licensee does not wish to admit unsupervised children, he or she will not have to say anything about the steps that they would take to promote the protection of children from harm. All that they will need to say in the operating schedule is that they do not propose to admit children. It is as simple as that. We have had a fair discussion on the matter, so I hope that the Committee will accept the Government amendments.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that short but helpful contribution. We look forward to receiving the guidance as soon as possible—at the end of the recess would be perfectly acceptable, so that we have time to work on the matter when we return. Some issues need further discussion, but we can approach those from a different angle. This is a vexed subject, but we must attempt to ensure that children are protected at all times. We shall not oppose the Government's amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 122, in

clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) the principal litter authority for the area;'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 182, in

clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) the health authority responsible for ambulance services for the area in which the premises are situated;'.

Amendment No. 183, in

clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) the authorities responsible for safety and rescue at sea (where the premises are a seagoing vessel);'.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Amendment No. 122 adds to the list of responsible authorities

''the principal litter authority for the area''.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the city of Westminster won the title of Britain's cleanest city at the annual awards ceremony of the British Cleaning Council, which was held in Birmingham a fortnight ago. That will undoubtedly elicit great congratulations from him. Westminster city council has overall responsibility for cleaning, although it contracts out its refuse collection function.

The Bill as it stands—following consideration in the House of Lords—will allow local authorities to consider the impact of a licence application on matters such as public order, noise, health and pollution, but those are by no means the only

impacts of licensed premises on local quality of life. A street cleansing authority should be able to make a relevant representation on or objection to a licensing matter under clause 14.

I had hoped that the Government amendment allowing the local planning authority to make representations or objections would extend that far, but it encompasses only matters covered by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In other words, a local planning authority would have quite a narrow focus for its objections to a licensing application, and that would not include the full range of activities undertaken by a litter authority. That is the main reason for our amendment.

Let me put the matter in context. The level of night-time activity in the west end of London has increased significantly over the past decade or so. That is clear to anyone who was familiar with London's nightlife in the 1980s. The Minister may slightly predate that period, as I recall his heyday in the Hornsey college of art during the great student unrest of 1968, so he would not recognise the current state of matters in the west end of London.

As recently as 1986—merely 17 years ago—there were only 17 licensed night cafes in the city of Westminster. By 1992—barely a decade ago—that figure had risen to 80, and today there are 158 licensed night cafes. There has also been a significant growth in the number and capacity of premises that are licensed for liquor and entertainment. As I mentioned, centres of night-time entertainment such as Leicester square and parts of Soho are thronged with people well into the early hours of the morning. As a consequence, far more night-time litter and refuse is generated, and at the same time the environment has become one in which it is harder to provide cleansing and refuse collection services.

I spend a lot of my time in my constituency—and I have rather more excuse than the Minister for doing so. At 8.15 last Saturday morning, I decided, partly with duty in mind, to head over to Soho and Covent Garden. The clean state of the streets was very evident. Five or six hours earlier, they would have been full of litter—general refuse such as bottles, cigarette packets and containers from fast food outlets. Westminster city council and, more importantly, the contractor do a terrific job as the local litter authority.

The standards that the city of Westminster aspires to achieve are set out in the leaflets published for every ward. They stipulate the hours during which street cleansing is carried out on a street-by-street basis. During those hours, the contractors are supposed to maintain the streets to what is described as a grade A standard—in other words, to keep them entirely free of litter. If the condition of a street falls below that, the contractor is obliged to attend within an hour and restore it to the full standard. That standard applies in much of the west end 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a level of service that is considerably in excess of what is required under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

That standard is probably replicated in many other large towns and cities that experience stress problems, particularly during the summer time. I accept that there are some practical limitations on the achievement of consistently high street cleansing standards in a busy metropolitan area. It has long been recognised that, in certain parts of Westminster at certain times of day, the sheer density of people is such that it is physically impossible to maintain a thorough cleansing regime. It then becomes especially important that the contractors can return to the scene, once the density of people decreases, to restore an acceptable standard of cleanliness.

Those conditions, long recognised in some of the busier shopping streets, are now also experienced in parts of the west end at night. At certain times of the year, parts of the west end, including Leicester square, and the busier streets of Soho, are so thronged with people that it is difficult or impossible to maintain them to grade A standard. Moreover, given the narrowness of some of the streets and courts in central London, it would be inappropriate to use mechanised equipment there.

Manual sweeping is rendered more difficult by the crowds at late hours of the night or, more accurately, the early hours of the morning. There are difficulties in using brooms on pavements crowded with people, many of whom may be in an inebriated, or perhaps a semi-inebriated, state. At such times, the most that can realistically be expected is that litter is picked up, to maintain the levels of street litter within reasonable bounds. I hope that, from what I have said, I have convinced the Minister that the litter authority has an important role to play as one of the responsible authorities.

We have considered other provisions that cover the chief officer of police and the fire authority. It is clear that cleansing contractors have to deal with large quantities of waste deposited on our streets during the hours of darkness. The operations required to clean London streets at the end of an evening entail sweeping, flushing and pressure-washing, which cannot be carried out when the streets remain busy with people. It would not be reasonable to expect Westminster council or any other authority to complete cleansing arrangements of that nature without a window of opportunity—a few hours—between the end of the night's entertainment and the beginning of the next working day.

That is part of the reason why we want the principal litter authority to become a responsible authority for the purposes of the clause. Obviously, it is authorised to do its day-to-day work, but it should be regarded as an interested and responsible party for the purposes of the planning application. It is sometimes argued—by a number of applicants in the city of Westminster, at least—at licensing hearings that the state of west end streets has less to do with the activities of licensed premises than with the efficiency of the city council's cleansing operation. However, it is clear from what I have said, and anyone who visits those streets in the early hours of the day will confirm, that the city council does a terrific job, albeit by passing on that

authority on a day-to-day basis to contractors under the usual legislation.

The street cleansing and waste collection service, rather than the city council itself, holds a charter mark. For that reason, it is all the more important that it is the principal litter authority, rather than the city council, that should be the responsible authority for the purposes of clause 14. The growth of the night-time economy has added a significant burden to the council's cleansing services over the past decade or so. The present construction of the contract in Westminster, which is replicated in various London boroughs, puts the bulk of the additional financial burden on the contractor. It is therefore in the contractor's interest to ensure that the state of the streets is satisfactory and that there is a sensible regime, given their real concerns and constraints during their day-to-day business.

I hope the Minister will give considerable thought to our amendment, because it reflects the fact that many of the duties are now contracted out. It is not enough simply to say that environmental health officers may object under the current terms to the pollution and harm done to children's health, and that they therefore have some locus standi under clause 14. It is not clear whether local authority street cleansing services would be able to make such strong representations. Representations could be made to the local authority, but surely such services should have the opportunity to object in their own right, so that the streets of our main cities can remain clean.

I consider that to be in the interests of residents, but also in the interests of any commercial quarter. Without a regime that allows for the proper cleansing of our streets in central London and if the state of those streets becomes increasingly bad, we shall soon find that much of the income from tourism, which goes into so many parts of our economy, will be diminished. If that happens, the hotel businesses, and much of the other business in the west end, would quickly think about moving away.

I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to ensuring that among the responsible authorities there could be a principal litter authority. I do not expect that that would be a grave concern, or that it would add more bureaucracy to the Bill, and I suspect that only in a relatively small number of cases would a litter authority want to have the locus standi.

The situation in the streets of central London may not be unique, but it is fairly unusual. We are now ensuring that there is compulsory competitive tendering and such facilities are contracted out, away from the local authorities' environmental health departments. Thus it makes sense that environmental health departments should be extended to become litter authorities. That would make sure that they had their say in protecting the general quality of life, and ensuring that commercial facilities were maintained.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. Is he aware that clause 117, or thereabouts, of the Local Government Bill, which is currently in the other place,

will do what I suggest in my private Member's Bill? It will allow local authorities to keep the revenue from fixed penalty fines to use in the enforcement of the litter laws. If authorities concentrate on enforcement, the burden of clearing up litter that is currently placed on them might be lessened. The hon. Gentleman ought to take that into account when making his case.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I accept that, and I wish the hon. Gentleman all the best with his private Member's Bill. However, we are thinking about this Bill, and considering who should have some standing as the responsible authority. That is why I have put forward the case for ensuring that a principal litter authority should have some standing in relation to licensing applications.

As I have already said, there must be a properly timed window of opportunity to ensure that the streets are cleaned. It is always amazing to see how quickly streets can be cleaned, considering how many people are around until the early hours of the morning. However, there should be some gap. With the London Underground, it is recognised that a certain number of hours should be set aside every day for maintenance. We may talk about the desirability of having 24-hour train services, at least for some of the week, but that is a debate for another time. It is recognised that some gap is required, and I worry that a regime with concentrated saturation 24-hour licensing would have no gap. It would be in the hands of the local litter authority to make representations about that.

The practical consequences are that unless the Bill is amended, we fear that the local street cleaning authorities will be unable to clean up to an acceptable standard before the beginning of the next working day. At the very least, street cleansing and flushing operations would have to take place later, to the great disturbance of local residents and significant numbers of ratepayers and businesses in the area. The measure may result in a general worsening of standards. I hope that the Minister will consider those comments, and that even if he cannot fully accept our amendment, he will suggest how we might improve matters.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I welcome you back to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. Benton.

I tabled two amendments, Nos. 182 and 183. The first requires that

''the health authority responsible for ambulance services''

be included as a responsible authority. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), I will illustrate the reasons for that by referring to my constituency.

As some hon. Members will have gathered, the Isle of Wight is detached from the mainland by a stretch of water.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Separated is a better word.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I think that detached is a far better word.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Might I suggest that my hon. Friend is an appropriate Member of Parliament for his constituency?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that.

If a major event such as a pop festival were to be organised in my constituency, or in some of the more distant parts of the constituencies of other Committee members, it would be essential for the safety of local people to know that adequate facilities were available for transferring cases to accident and emergency units or the appropriate hospitals.

We have a limited fixed number of ambulances on the island, because it is difficult for my health authority to obtain assistance from adjoining ambulance authorities. Indeed, there are none. When a major cardiac arrest happens, it is sometimes necessary to use a helicopter to transfer the patient to the mainland. If the population of the island doubles, as happened in the 1970s at the time of the pop festival, the limited number of ambulances available—[Interruption.]

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. The noise levels are too high.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Forgive me, Mr. Benton, if I encouraged that by introducing an air of levity. The matter that we are discussing is tremendously serious, as I am sure the Minister recognises. If the population of an area doubles, it is at least likely that the number of ambulances needed in that area will increase. In the case of a detached constituency such as mine, or a distant part of the mainland, it is difficult to bring those ambulances in on demand—arrangements have to be made in advance. I contend that the health authority responsible for the ambulance service should be included as a consultee.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but does he not accept that it would be the responsibility of the applicant for a licence to demonstrate that he or she had taken adequate steps to protect public safety? The Glastonbury festival organiser always has to ensure that the health authority has adequate controls. If one were to hold a pop festival on the Isle of Wight, the licensing authority would make a judgment as to whether there had been proper consultation and provision to satisfy concerns about public safety. Does that not answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman is—rightly—asking under his amendment?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am not sure. I remain to be convinced by the Minister. I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I think Portland is the relevant example in this case.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

That is also an island, but is attached by a causeway.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I appreciate that.

We should examine whether it is necessary for the ambulance authority to be a ''responsible authority'' that is entitled to be consulted, or whether to leave it to the promoter of the entertainment to put that forward. We could then rely on the licensing authority to check that sufficient arrangements for public safety have been made. Of course, not all aspects of public safety are within the control of the promoter. If someone has a heart attack for a reason not associated with the entertainment, that would not necessarily be within the control of the promoter.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I have no wish to extend the

argument—we have important matters to discuss, and we all agree that we need to move as quickly as possible. However, there have been deaths at the Glastonbury festival. A large city is temporarily created during that event. It is the responsibility of the promoter to ensure that adequate measures are taken to guard against such deaths and to make sure that proper provision is made for transporting people to Frenchay hospital and the other key acute hospitals in the area. The Bill offers the solution that the hon. Gentleman is rightly looking for.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am pleased to hear that. If the Minister can confirm that, I may ask leave to withdraw the amendment in due course.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I can confirm that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That deals with amendment No. 182.

Amendment No. 183 is slightly more interesting. The involvement of sea-going vessels has not been widely considered, either in the Bill or in the White Paper. I am interested in subsection (4)(g)(i), which mentions ''a navigation authority''. Does that authority include a harbour authority? There are four harbour authorities that affect my constituency—Southampton, Cowes, Yarmouth and the Queen's harbour master. The latter voluntarily accepts requirements made of other authorities by legislation, but in fact its primary responsibility is for the security of the Queen's port of Portsmouth.

My amendment considers problems arising on or off a sea-going vessel. According to Lord Justice Clarke's report on the Marchioness disaster,

''An additional power would provide for a police officer . . . to be able to order any boat . . . on grounds of disorder . . . and public safety to return to its home berth and the disembarkation of all passengers.''

I wonder whether a police officer has responsibility outside his police area, and I would be interested to know when a police officer's responsibility relates to the high seas. A vessel might clearly be navigating within a police authority's area. For example, if a vessel were navigated from Portsmouth to Gosport, nobody would question whether the chief constable of Hampshire had responsibility in that area. If a vessel were navigated from Portsmouth to the Isle of Wight, the chief constable might have authority within that area. But what if the vessel were navigated from Ryde to Bognor Regis? One end of the journey is in one police authority, one end is in another, and part of it may be outwith both police authorities.

I propose that we make that the responsibility of the authority that is responsible for safety and rescue at sea and give it the status of a responsible authority within the meaning of the Bill. Safety issues remain primarily the responsibility of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In effect, it is the Health and Safety Executive of the sea. It is responsible for enforcing legislation on the safety of ships, including hovercraft, their crew and work equipment supplied by ships, and the safety of passengers on board. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency should be included

in the Bill and defined in more general terms by the inclusion of amendment No. 183.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

First, I congratulate Westminster council on winning the award. It is an important one and the matter is something about which I feel strongly. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will be interested to know that litter is a problem that does not only affect inner cities. It affects everywhere. I went out on my pushbike on Saturday, and even up in the mountains in a very remote part of my constituency there was litter along both sides of the road for the whole length of my ride. The filthy individuals who throw stuff out of their cars as they pass ought to think more often about their actions.

The Government cannot accept amendment No. 122. The Bill cannot deal with the behaviour of customers after they have left the vicinity of the premises. It would be neither practical 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 premises licence holder. Those must be within his or her control, so that failure to comply can properly result in prosecution. It must be clear to the licence holder and to enforcement officers when the holder has transgressed the law.

It is easy to see how a licensee might encourage responsible behaviour as individuals are leaving premises, even when they are getting into their nearby cars and driving away. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave us examples of neighbourhoods that suffer a good deal of noise pollution, especially in the early hours of the morning.

A condition attached to the licence could reasonably require the licensee to do that, by placing litter bins and signs at exits, for example. However, that influence quickly becomes attenuated. Once 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 be focused.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I fully appreciate the worries that licensees will have. They will say that they cannot and should not be made responsible for individuals who have left their premises. In the case of narrow streets that cannot otherwise be cleaned, there should be a principal litter authority that can argue for a curfew time, even if only for two or three hours during the night. It would have the standing to argue a forceful case—at least, its side of the case—that a 24-hour licence should not be granted because it would otherwise be impossible properly to cleanse the streets. We are not talking about placing any further burdens on the licensee.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I can imagine a situation in which a licensing authority would see it fit and proper to discuss matters with whichever department arranges and controls street cleaning. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of trying to clean using brooms when streets are crowded. I am sure that he will recall that one of the things that the Government are aiming for in the Bill is to prevent those spikes

when people are thrown out of pubs at a certain time. If that is successful, there should be more space on the pavements.

To add the principal litter authority for the area to the list of responsible authorities and to make it a body that must be consulted on every application will add to the bureaucracy. Litter is generated by thoughtless and inconsiderate individuals; not by licensed premises per se. It seems rather unfair to single out licensed premises, as the amendment does. Litter may derive from a variety of sources, such as fast food outlets, schools—all sorts of places. Where education and persuasion are insufficient to tackle the problem, statutory powers are available to local authorities. Section 93 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that councils may issue to the occupiers of certain types of commercial or retail premises a street litter control notice, with a view to preventing the accumulation of litter or refuse around streets or open land adjacent to any street in the vicinity of those premises.

The types of premises that are specified in the Street Litter Control Notices Order 1991, as amended, include those used for the sale of food, drink and lottery tickets, petrol stations, betting shops, places of entertainment and premises with automatic telling machine—ATMs—on outside walls. For example, an authority can specify reasonable requirements in relation to a maximum length of 100 m along a street in either direction—I understand that it is 10 m for ATMs. Furthermore, local authorities may issue persons with fixed penalty notices for leaving litter in breach of the 1990 Act.

A few months ago, Cardiff city council—it is nice to be able to mention a council other than Westminster during the debate—issued fixed penalty notices for those breaking environmental laws under the council's tough policy on litter. Here is what Westminster Conservatives had to say on their website on the subject of litter: ''Adequate enforcement''—they may not have said it in this accent—

''is another aspect of clean streets. Last year, Westminster issued over 7,300 litter fines—more than every other council in the country combined.''

I am not sure whether that is good or bad. I suspect that it is good, and it is a remarkable fact. That council has gone a long way in trying to tackle the problem of litter.

Powers clearly exist and they are being used. The 1990 Act includes the general offence of leaving litter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made clear, many such issues are being dealt with in the Local Government Bill. His own Bill—I had the pleasure of listening to him introducing it in the House last Friday—paid specific attention to these issues. That was a good initiative.

It is unfair to single out licensed premises as the main culprits. Local authorities have wide powers to take action where it is merited and where voluntary engagement by individual businesses does not achieve results. Amendment No. 122 adds nothing to the Bill and I hope that it will not be pressed.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Can the Minister confirm whether under the Bill the environmental enforcement notices to which he refers, which already provide powers for local authorities such as Westminster, will ensure that authority is given to local licensing authorities to utilise orders that go back over a decade? I hope that the Minister understands that there is no question of trying to single out licensed premises, and he is right to point out the concerns about fast food outlets that are open 24 hours a day. Can he confirm that the orders to which he referred will be able to cover the concerns that I have articulated?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I cannot speak for any other Government Department or Minister but I would have thought that, given the length of time that this legislation has been in place and the example set by authorities such as the city of Westminster, local authorities would know that they have the right to do these things. Whether they have the political will to do them is another matter.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that under the new local government legislation local authorities will be able to keep the fines rather than return them to the Exchequer, which was the case under the previous Conservative Government, which introduced legislation?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is true.

Amendment No. 182 would add

''the health authority responsible for ambulance services for the area''.

I am unsure whether the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) moved that amendment, or if he wants me to say something about it.

Mr. Turner indicated assent.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Although I should check with my Whip about what I should do in these circumstances, I will keep going.

I do not accept that this amendment would achieve anything except an increase in bureaucracy and red tape. Ambulance call-outs to licensed premises arise almost exclusively from incidents of disorder. As a result of our antiquated system of permitted hours, thousands of people are turfed out on to the streets at the same time, having left licensed premises and frequently having consumed large quantities of alcohol in a very short period. Some of them—mostly young men—enter into a debate that is considerably less gentlemanly than the way in which you, Mr. Benton, allow us to debate matters in this Committee, sometimes with disastrous results.

We are tackling that problem at source. The Bill gives the police considerable powers to control disorder, which supplement their existing powers: they will be notified of all licensing applications; they will be able to make representations; they will be able to call for a review of existing premises licences on the grounds of crime and disorder; they will have powers to close any licensed premises on the spot for 24 hours where they are giving rise to issues of disorder; and, of course, the abolition of fixed and artificially early closing times will reduce the lager guzzling that so often leads to violence on the streets at closing time.

Adding the ambulance service to the list of responsible authorities does nothing to deal with disorder and everything to increase bureaucracy. I hope that the amendment will not be agreed.

Amendment No. 183 adds

''the authorities responsible for safety and rescue at sea (where the premises are a sea-going vessel)''

to the list of responsible authorities, which is also unnecessary. First, the Bill exempts all vessels engaged on an international journey—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight told us that—which immediately places the vast majority of sea-going vessels outside the licensing regime altogether. Secondly, those sea-going vessels engaged in journeys in coastal waters will come under the jurisdiction of the relevant navigation authority, which is already specified in the Bill. I hope that that amendment will also be withdrawn.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked about hovercraft. We have Sir Christopher Cockerell to thank for their ingenious propulsion method.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Off Cowes.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I do not think that cows have much to do with this, but they have given us a lot of milk.

Hovercraft occupy their own particular position in legislation because of that ingenious method: they are neither boats nor aircraft, but something in between. Regulations regarding the operation of hovercraft are made through Orders in Council. They are detailed and include strict safety requirements and responsibilities on owners and captains. That is why the Bill's provisions do not apply to such craft. Other legislation may be applied to hovercraft through Orders in Council, but for the purposes of the Bill it is considered to be correct to treat hovercraft in the same way as we deal with other aircraft that are covered by the relevant requirements. If the hon. Gentleman needs further information, I would be happy to write to him.

Mr. Turner rose—

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I will not give way for a moment, because the hon. Gentleman asked many questions and I will try to answer them.

Under clause 172, a vessel that is engaged on an international journey is exempt from the provisions of the Bill—such a journey is defined in 172(6)—and vessels that are not engaged in an international journey are covered by the Bill. That meets the undertaking that the Government gave to Lord Justice Clark after the Thames safety inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. Pleasure trips and so forth on inshore coastal waters would be in the UK, so they are in the scope of the Bill. Certain merchant supply legislation or local authority byelaws would apply, depending on the kind of vessel. However, Lord Clark was led to make his recommendation because vessels to which the Bill shall apply were not regulated in relation to the sale of alcohol.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is given the status of an authorised person in clause 14(2)(e). However, with regard to the ability to make

representations, although not inspections relevant to the enforcement role, the Secretary of State is included as the appropriate authority for MCA officers. The hon. Gentleman also asked about harbour masters. The reference in 14(4)(g)(i) on navigation authorities includes harbour authorities.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I am not entirely convinced by what the Minister has said, but that does not mean that I am not convincible. I hope that serious consideration will be given on Report to whether the list of responsible authorities under clause 14(4) is broad enough and whether it would be prudent to increase that to include litter and ambulance authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight suggested. However, on the basis of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 121, in

clause 14, page 9, line 15, leave out

', including the relevant licensing authority,'

and insert

'(other than the relevant licensing authority)'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Meaning of ''designated premises supervisor''

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in

clause 16, page 9, line 36, leave out from 'being' to end of line 37 and insert

'registered with the relevant licensing authority in that capacity.'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 143, in

clause 16, page 9, line 39, leave out 'in the licence'.

Amendment No. 144, in

clause 18, page 11, line 10, leave out from 'form' to end of line 15.

Amendment No. 145, in

clause 18, page 11, line 25, leave out paragraph (e).

Amendment No. 146, in

clause 19, page 12, line 29, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment No. 147, in

clause 19, page 12, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment No. 148, in

clause 19, page 13, line 8, leave out subsection (9).

Amendment No. 189, in

clause 19, page 13, line 10, leave out from 'situated' to end of line 14.

Amendment No. 149, in

clause 24, page 15, line 3, leave out paragraph (e).

Amendment No. 199, in

clause 33, page 19, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 200, in

clause 33, page 19, line 16, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 201, in

clause 33, page 19, line 19, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment No. 150, in

clause 34, page 20, line 5, leave out subsection (4).

Clauses 37 to 40 stand part.

Amendment No. 202, in

clause 41, page 23, line 31, leave out

'may give the relevant licensing authority'

and insert

'must give the relevant licensing authority, the chief officer of police for the said area and the owner of the premises licence (if that is a different person)'.

Amendment No. 155, in

clause 41, page 23, line 33, leave out subsections (2) to (6).

Amendment No. 156, in

clause 41, page 24, line 9, leave out from 'section' to end of line 10.

Amendment No. 157, in

schedule 5, page 119, line 35, leave out subparagraph (c).

Amendment No. 158, in

schedule 5, page 121, line 1, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—

'Revocation of registration of designated premises supervisor

5 (1) This paragraph applies where an application to revoke registration of a designated premises supervisor in respect of a premises is refused under section (Registration of designated premises supervisor) in a case where a chief officer of police gave a notice of objection under subsection (1) of that section (which was not withdrawn).

(2) The chief officer of police may appeal against the decision not to revoke the registration.

(3) Where registration of a designated premises supervisor is revoked, the applicant may appeal against that decision.'.

Amendment No. 159, in

schedule 8, page 157, line 20, leave out subsubparagraph (b).

Amendment No. 160, in

schedule 8, page 157, line 36, leave out subsubparagraph (d).

Amendment No. 161, in

schedule 8, page 160, line 26, leave out subparagraph (7).

Amendment No. 162, in

schedule 8, page 161, line 1, leave out subsection (a).

Amendment No. 163, in

schedule 8, page 161, line 4, leave out 'other'.

Amendment No. 164, in

schedule 8, page 161, line 5, leave out

'an application within paragraph (a) or (b)'

and insert 'such an application'.

Amendment No. 165, in

schedule 8, page 161, line 7, leave out '(a) or (b)'.

Amendment No. 166, in

schedule 8, page 161, line 10, leave out '(a) or (b)'. New clause 2 Registration of designated premises supervisor

New clause 2 - Registration of designated premises supervisor

New clause 3 - Revocation of registration of designated premises supervisor

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I did not think that you were going to come to an end as you read out those amendments, Mr. Benton. That is a testament to the importance and significance of the clause—it is also contentious. At the start of our proceedings I said that we wanted to help the Minister to formulate pragmatic, practical and workable legislation, and this is his one big opportunity to do just that. We know that the Minister's fame—perhaps even his notoriety—has gone far and wide because of his criticism of modern English art, but he has other talents, too. I hope that he is listening carefully to the powerful arguments from all the parts of the industry that will be involved in this area.

Clause 16 begins by defining the ''designated premises supervisor'', and it is followed by a host of other clauses, some of which we will debate in their own right, and others under schedule 8. It is a wide-ranging clause, as once the role of the supervisor has been defined, we can move on to all sorts of other areas.

The way in which the Government have drafted the clause is incredibly bureaucratic and over-regulated. We know how the clause began. Presumably the police, having considered the White Paper in negotiations with Government, said, ''If there's a problem on some premises and we send the boys along, they need to be able to ascertain quickly and without too much fuss and bother who's in charge.'' No one would disagree with that. However, then the civil servants got a hold of the idea, and the draftsman got hold of what the civil servants had done. We have ended up with about 10 clauses, two schedules and all the rest of it, just to tie in the simple concept of having a designated premises supervisor.

Let us begin with where the industry stands on the clause. The British Beer and Pub Association, the British Hospitality Association, the Restaurant Association, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, Business in Sport and Leisure and the British Retail Consortium, as well as the various licensed victuallers associations throughout the country, support our amendments to the procedures and obligations surrounding the designated premises supervisor.

Members of the Committee will, I am sure, be aware that the list I read out represents a large and diverse part of the leisure and hospitality market. Those organisations have discussed the issues involved with the Local Government Association—we had a spat in Committee the other day about exactly what the LGA had said, to whom and when. The LGA is saying, however, that it too believes that the procedures outlined in clause 16 and beyond are unnecessary.

As I said, the police have expressed their concern that the personal licence holder should be known to the premises licence holder. That is not a problem, because we believe that we have covered that requirement in new clause 2, which requires the consent of the premises licence holder to be obtained before a notice is served.

We are told that the industry has discussed the salient issues at length with the Government. However, it is disappointed that its arguments have not yet received a sympathetic response from the Government. Letters have been written, and some responses are still outstanding. Only the other day a letter from the Licensed Victuallers Association was suddenly produced out of a hat to the Minister's left, and he did not know anything about it. There may well be other letters that he has not seen. I suggest that he insists on seeing every letter that has been written on the subject to date.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I never see another letter on this issue, I shall be more than glad.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I do not consider that to be a very sympathetic response.

The industry has long agreed to the split in licensing; if we go back far enough, we shall find that it probably suggested the concept in the first place. It also recognises that the personal licence holder would need to be known to the authorities, and

that the information needs to be registered somewhere. It therefore has no quarrel—nor do we—with the need to identify and register the premises supervisor.

We disagree with the Minister about the support of the linkage to the premises licence through the requirement to regard the change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence, and, following on from that, the requirement to write the name of the designated premises supervisor into that premises licence. That is incredibly bureaucratic. Has the hon. Gentleman had any communication with the Better Regulation Task Force? Has he written to that organisation? Did he ask its views? If it has responded, perhaps he will share its views with the Committee—or if it has used its own initiative and made its views known, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what they are?

What are the views of the Small Business Service, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry, about the regulations that are required? The premises licence should be a stand-alone licence. It is concerned primarily with the suitability of particular premises to provide alcohol and/or public entertainment at the times and under the conditions granted to it. That must stand irrespective of the personal licensee, who we accept has the duty and responsibility to uphold the terms of the licence and the law.

The consequences of the linkages that the Government have set out in the Bill can be seen as a series of obligations. The name of the designated premises supervisor must be given at the time of the application for a new licence. That person will not always be identified at the time of the application. For example, a supermarket chain that wants to obtain a licence may not even appoint the relevant manager until near the opening day. The identity of the person who will be responsible for the licence should make no difference to the application for a premises licence, so long as he or she is qualified professionally under the Bill to undertake such duties. When the new licensee is ready to commence business, it would be a simple matter to notify the police and the licensing authority of the identity of the personal licence holder, who is designated as the premises supervisor. Such matters are set out in new clause 2.

The second problem is that under the Bill, the premises licence must be altered each time there is a change of manager. That can happen frequently in larger businesses where managers move around constantly for career development and other reasons. Currently, about 155,000 premises hold an alcohol licence. In many of those businesses the turnover of staff is high—much higher than in many other businesses. Even if we pluck out of the air a 10 per cent. turnover figure, it means that in 15,500 cases a variation in the premises licence will be triggered by a movement of personnel, which means a rigmarole of applications to the local licensing authority, and the associated costs.

The industry, and most other people, were happy with the White Paper when it was drafted. For the purpose of my argument, I shall read out the relevant

paragraph to the Committee. Paragraph 43, on page 23, states:

''On arrival in a new licensing area a personal licence holder intending to work in new premises would be required to notify the police and the licensing authority of his or her arrival. This would enable the police to check details against the central database''—

as we mentioned in a previous debate, that was dealt with in the same chapter of the White Paper—

''and maintain a closer eye on certain licence holders whose history might demand it. We have considered whether the police or the licensing authority should have a right at this stage to refuse to permit a licence holder from elsewhere to become responsible for premises in their area. On one hand, there is a danger that this could undermine the basic principle of allowing a fully transferable licence and encourage the application of different standards in differed parts of the country. The normal presumption must therefore be''—

this is critical—

''that any personal licence holder will be acceptable.''

A little later, paragraph 44 says:

''In these exceptional cases, problems could sensibly be avoided by personal holders giving the police advance warning of their impending arrival, thereby allowing issues to be resolved prior to the transfer and avoiding the need for premises to be closed for a temporary period.''

Whoever wrote that was offering a practical and sensible way forward. The industry accepts that advice, as do we, so why on earth, in the gestation period between the publishing of the White Paper and the coming to fruition of the Bill, has there been such a huge increase in bureaucracy? [Interruption.] The Minister scoffs, or perhaps laughs—I am not sure which. We are talking about deregulating, yet here is what we will be doing under parts of the Bill—I am sorry, the markings on my Bill look like a St. Andrew's cross; I did not mean any offence to any Scots here.

New clause 2 would take away whole clauses on this subject, to replace them with a couple of subsections that simply say what was intended in the White Paper: that when a change occurs, the new personal licence holder will notify the various authorities. We have set that out in new clause 2, and for the Committee's delectation, I shall read it out:

''A holder of a personal licence seeking to become the designated premises supervisor for premises shall serve a notice in the prescribed form, together with the signed consent of the holder or the premises licence''.

That leaps over the police's objection that they need to know that the premises licence holder knows who the designated premises supervisor is. Such a licence should be served

''upon—

(a) the relevant licensing authority,

(b) the chief officer of police, and

(c) the person previously designated as premises supervisor, at his last known address''.

The new clause then goes on to cover other aspects.

We believe that the requirement to serve notice achieves all the Government's aims in bringing forward the concept of a designated premises supervisor. We accept that that concept was not in the White Paper, and that the police want a named person—but new clause 2 gets round that difficulty. We also suggest in the new clause that the name of the

supervisor should be displayed prominently on the premises, so that if the police turn up they know exactly who that person is, and can take action pretty well immediately.

It is time that the Government took notice of the arguments on the subject. I hope that the Minister will make at least some movement towards our position—although the fact that he would lose some six clauses and two schedules might make him think that doing so would not look too good on his record.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is nothing.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am delighted to hear it.

I am aware that Labour members of the Committee, too, particularly the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), are interested in the clause. Perhaps he has had a session of ringing round this lunchtime, as he did earlier in the week, or perhaps he has had lunch and moved up a rung on the ladder this time? Undoubtedly he will speak on those matters himself.

We understand that representatives of the police, who are in regular contact with the Minister and his team about these matters, are also happy with the proposals. Therefore, all this extra legislation and bureaucracy is unnecessary. The police are now satisfied that a way forward can be found that is sensible, practical and does away with all this bureaucracy, and cost, because it is costly to business and the licensing authorities to have 15,000 or 20,000 variations to deal with in any given year.

We are interested to hear what the Minister has to say and we reserve our right to press this amendment to a Division if that is necessary.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I endorse the case that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made. He did so in sensible terms. He is right that the formula in the Bill is unnecessarily bureaucratic, that it cannot serve the interests of deregulation or better regulation, and that the original intention as laid out in the White Paper was a better way of handling these issues. There is no point in elaborately rehearsing that case because the hon. Gentleman has done so more than adequately. He is right and I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.