Licensing Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 13 May 2003.

Standing Committee D

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I wish those members of the Committee who are awake a very good morning.Clause 101 Withdrawal of notice

Clause 101 - Withdrawal of notice

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 372, in

clause 101, page 57, line 18, at end insert

'or by the end of the last working day of the working week if the event period occurs at a weekend or during a period of public holidays'.

Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Gale. I shall be brief. The reason for the temporary event notice being withdrawn by the premises user, who has to give notice to that effect to the licensing authority

''no later than 24 hours before the beginning of the event period'',

would be to tell the licensing authority that the event was not going ahead, and that any arrangements, structures and communications that pertained to it no longer applied. If that notice were given on, say, a Saturday, the licensing authority would not be around and would not know that an event planned for the Sunday, for example, had been postponed or cancelled. Under the amendment, if the cancellation notice referred to an event that was to take place at a weekend or during a holiday period, the premises user who had the temporary event notice should tell the licensing authority by the end of the last working day prior to the weekend or holiday period.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's brevity, and I, too, shall be brief. A temporary event notice will count against the permitted limits under clause 105 if it is not withdrawn at least 24 hours before the event is due to start. Anything beyond that counts towards those limits. There is nothing of consequence for the licensing authority to do except to note the receipt of the withdrawal, whether that happened within or outside the permitted time—and it would not matter if it carried out that administrative function several days later. Nothing whatever would be achieved by making the time limit begin or end within the working week, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am happy with the Minister's explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102 - Objection to notice by the police

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 346, in

clause 102, page 57, line 24, leave out 'ten' and insert 'fifteen'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 347, in

clause 102, page 57, line 32, leave out '48' and insert '72'.

Amendment No. 373, in

clause 103, page 58, line 21, leave out '24' and insert '48'.

Amendment No. 377, in

clause 105, page 60, line 1, leave out '24' and insert '48'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The amendments relate to the time that the police will have to make objections to a notice. The clause gives the police 48 hours to raise an objection to an outdoor event. As we know, unless the Bill is amended according to our proposal, that could involve 500 people. Someone could submit an application at 10 o'clock on a Friday night and hold the event at 11 pm on the Sunday. Subsection (3) does not give the police anything like the time that they would need to look into the matter and make their views known.

It has been put to me that that could be a raver's charter; people who wanted to circumvent the law would use it to their advantage and put the police under pressure. If such a person were unknown to the police, how would the police find out who they were? Such people may, for example, live out of the area. The police are simply saying that they want a little more time. Amendment No. 347 is a probing amendment that would increase the time from 48 to 72 hours. We are not saying that 72 hours is spot on, but we do not think that 48 hours is sufficient. In fact, the police have said in some submissions to us that they would prefer seven days. The Minister has, no doubt, had similar representations. The argument is whether 48 hours is long enough.

Amendment No. 346 probes subsection (1), the current wording of which is:

''The premises user must give a copy of any temporary event notice to the relevant chief officer of police no later than ten working days before the day on which the event period specified in the notice begins.''

The amendment would change that period to 15 days, which would give the police a little more notice of what was likely to take place. Amendment No. 373 is related to that and deals with clause 103; it would change from 24 to 48 hours the time for a decision to be made on a counter notice.

The amendments relate to objections by the police concerning the counter notice that may or may not be given; they are based on submissions that we have received from the police, who say that if the legislation is to be meaningful, they need more time to make inquiries.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I agree with my hon. Friend. The time limits are very narrow. I accept that it is in everyone's interests for there to be some certainty, and I am sure

that that is part of the Government's thinking. Subsection (3) says:

''The objection notice must be given no later than 48 hours after the chief officer of police is given a copy of the temporary event notice''.

There is, however, a question about when that 48-hour period is triggered, especially in the age of electronic media, when e-mails and faxes are being sent through. Much of the raison d'être for the Bill is to improve the rights and responsibilities of local people in relation to nearby events, but such interests may yet be undermined if there is a sense that things are rushed through without local folk having any say. I appreciate the fact that the clause deals specifically with police objections, and that the police will tend to be on top of things, but in my constituency the sheer number and weight of licensing applications is so extensive.

Westminster city council announced yesterday that it had, for the first time, appointed a cabinet member to take account of licensing matters; it envisages that, as the Bill is likely to be passed in the next few months, licensing will become an important activity for the local authority and the local licensing authority. Local authorities and the police have realised that they will, from time to time, need to ensure that there is an infrastructure in place. Our only concern is that by having such narrow time limits—10 days for one purpose and 48 hours for the other—there is a risk that the system may be open to potential judicial review, or that there may be fractiousness among the population. Perhaps the Minister could give some thought to ensuring that more sensible and practical time limits are put in place.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that I would not have promoted the Bill if I did not think that it was already sensible.

This is a light-touch system, designed to benefit those who do not generally engage in the business of carrying out licensable activities by allowing them, for example, to hold a fundraising event in a hall with no premises licence. It will allow the landlord of a village pub to run a bar on a village green during a fête, and informal events will be able to take place at short notice. The time limits that the Bill sets out for the giving of temporary event notices and objection notices are therefore relatively short. We live in an age when the police can and do use computer systems to establish whether records are held in respect of any individual. The police are not being asked to carry out an investigation; they need consider only the location, the potential for disorder, and whether the premises user is known on their records. Remember that the police will know their patch well.

This group of amendments appears to have attracted the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in numbers. On amendments Nos. 346 and 347, I do not accept that the chief officer of police should require any more than 10 days' notice of an event. Such notices will be simple documents, and it should take no longer than 10 days for police to come to a judgment. I appreciate the potential pressures on

resources; indeed, we have recognised that in extending the notice period from the five days in the White Paper to the 10 days in the Bill. Ten days should be the limit, and any police authority that considered 15 days to be necessary would seem to have a lower opinion of itself than it deserved.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister explain why the Government saw fit to change the period from five to 10days? What representations were made by the police, and what arguments were put forward?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

They were the same as the arguments that the hon. Gentleman advanced earlier—which explains why he is arguing for 15 days. The police said to the Government that they thought that five days was too short, so we doubled the period. I have no doubt that the old adage of getting one's retaliation in first is applicable, and that the police might imagine that if they could stretch the period to 15 days, their job would be even easier. However, we must stick to timetables. The hon. Gentleman and I may not exactly have crossed swords about this, but we have disagreed slightly in the past about my belief that if a limit is set at, say, 10 days, the work will be done within 10 days, but if it is set at 15 days, the work will be done within 15 days. This is light-touch regulation. The situation is not as serious as the hon. Gentleman has painted it, and I am certain that the police forces can deal with it.

It must be remembered that 10 days is the minimum period of notice—the hon. Gentleman did not mention that. Many people will apply well in advance of that period, and there is nothing to prevent the licensing authorities from encouraging them to do so. Those who leave things to the last minute will leave themselves little room for manoeuvre with the police. The Government must decide what the minimum period of notice should be, regardless of whether most people will give significantly longer notice, as no doubt they will. With a 10-day notice period for the temporary event notice, it would not be realistic to extend the period within which the police can give an objection notice to 72 hours, because if such a notice is issued the licensing authority must hold a hearing and decide whether to issue a counter notice.

The time limits that we have set for notices are realistic, and properly reflect the temporary nature of the events to which they apply. The light-touch controls will prove of enormous benefit to many who do not wish to obtain premises licences.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister said earlier that the person applying for the notice might not be known to the police, and that there was sufficient time for the police to conduct their investigations into a person. However, the police tell me that in the case of so-called raves, many of the people involved are from outside the area and are unknown to the police, and it takes quite a while to track down the individuals, find out their intentions and learn who they are, perhaps by liaising with other police forces. Will the Minister give the Committee an assurance that in his opinion, the wording of the Bill will not give those who attempt to put on raves, illegal or otherwise, any means of circumventing the law in that regard?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I do not believe that the Bill gives such people any room to circumvent the law, and I believe that the police know their patch. The vast majority of events that do not wish to have a premises licence will benefit, as I have said. That is why we have kept to light-touch provisions, and why we think that time limits should be tight.

The hon. Gentleman has heard representations from the police that the time limits should be extended. I have come under no pressure of that sort, but I understand the point. Work expands to fill the time available. I am told that that is Parkinson's law—Parkinson as an American professor of psychology in the 1950s. I thought that I had invented that idea, but it says here in my briefing note, ''You didn't invent it.'' Anyway, it is a pretty good rule.

Amendment No. 373 would require the licensing authority to decide whether to issue a counter notice within 48, rather than 24, hours of the event, following a hearing to consider a police objection. Similarly, amendment No. 377 would require a counter notice issued because the limit on the number of temporary events notices had been exceeded to be given within 48, rather than 24, hours of the event.

As I have explained, the time limits have to be extremely tight. If we are to allow maximum flexibility to those giving temporary event notices, we have to let the notices be given pretty late in the day. Despite their best intentions, not all voluntary and charitable groups will be particularly well organised; however, those that are can be expected to give notice well in advance of the 10-day limit.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I acknowledge the Minister's desire for a light touch, and I understand that he wants applications to be processed quickly. However, I return to our arguments in an earlier sitting about the number of temporary event notices allowed in village halls, community centres and the like. We wanted to increase that number to 24—I think that that was the figure—and the Minister said that he would consider increasing the number from five. If leeway were given in that regard, the time scales for those who go beyond the time allowed could be made a little tighter.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. In many ways the figures are arbitrary; they are our best shots at what we consider to be the optimum period. We have considered the problem carefully, and we think that 10 days is ample, and that 24 hours, not 72 hours, is the right kind of period. There is a balance between providing that flexibility and ensuring that the police can respond in the rare event of someone's trying to circumvent the law. There will be organisations that leave giving notice to the last minute and do so on, or close to, the deadline. There is no question about that; it is bound to happen.

The police have no more than 48 hours to consider the notice, and if they need to intervene, a hearing must be arranged by the licensing authority. Those time scales are tight, and it would not be unreasonable for a final decision on a counter notice not to emerge until just 24 hours before the event. Notice givers who

find themselves in such a situation cannot blame anyone—certainly not the police or the licensing authority. They would be the people who had chosen to give the minimum notice allowed under the Bill.

It is important to remember that this is about notice givers as well as those who have to respond to that notice—which is only the police, in this instance. Sensible people will give notice well in advance, and if counter notices emerge in those cases, they will be given much earlier than 24 hours before the event. Therefore there is no justification for lengthening the period from 24 hours to 48 hours. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We have had a useful debate, and on the basis of the Minister's assurances—I am particularly happy with those in relation to the potential for organisers of so-called raves to circumvent the law—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 421, in

clause 102, page 57, line 31, at end insert—

'(2A) Where a chief officer of police who receives a premises notice under subsection (1) is not able to visit the premises because no reasonable time has been agreed by the premises user, he must give an objection notice stating that the premises have not been visited and why.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 422, in

clause 106, page 60, line 41, at end insert

'In this section ''reasonable time'' means a time agreed by the premises user.'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I, too, welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Gale.

I propose to address these amendments by beginning at the wrong end with clause 106. When I read that clause, I came across the expression ''reasonable time''. One person may form one opinion about what is a ''reasonable time'' and another person may form another. How can we ensure that both the police and the person who has served the temporary event notice come to a satisfactory conclusion as to the meaning of ''reasonable time'' and, more important, what are we to do if they fail to come to such a satisfactory conclusion?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the tension that has already arisen in the Committee as a consequence of his arguing that the person who has given the notice and the police must come to some sort of agreement? His party colleague the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has just made valiant efforts to point out that where there is an unscrupulous organiser of a rave, the last thing one wants is for them to come to some sort of agreement with the police as to whether there is ''reasonable time'' for them to be raided.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister is right: the advantage of a Committee is that one can approach arguments from both ends—so that, in this case, one can find out whether the Government have achieved a suitable

compromise between my position and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is called a left and a right hook.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

However, I have made provision for a failure of the police and the applicant to come to an agreement as to what is a ''reasonable time'': that is the substance of amendment No. 421.

It would be reasonable of Committee members to ask me to illustrate my point, and I will do so with reference once again to Mr. Chris Troup, of whom we spoke last week, and to what happened in Cowes in 2001 in the week of the Americas cup jubilee celebrations. The Americas cup is the oldest international sporting competition in the world: it was first engaged upon 152 years ago in Cowes and, regrettably, it has never been run in Cowes again because the English have never again won the Americas cup—which is what gives one the right to bring the competition back to one's own country.

Earlier this year, the Americas cup was won from New Zealand by Switzerland. The Americas cup is an ocean sailing competition, so Switzerland is having difficulty in finding a suitable place to bring the competition back to because—as some hon. Members know—it has no coastline.

The point of this excursion is to explain to the Minister that at the time of the Americas cup jubilee, insufficient hotel accommodation was available in Cowes for everyone who arrived there to enjoy that event. Mr. Troup was obliged to seek a temporary notice for a vessel on which temporary hotel accommodation was provided. He was applying for a licence to sell alcohol because it was moored just outside Cowes harbour. The vessel was the Black Watch, which, as many hon. Members know, is owned by Mr. Fred Olsen.

The Black Watch was not there within a period ending 48 hours after 10 days before the commencement of the licence for which application was being made. The ship was busily engaged on a Caribbean or a round-the-United Kingdom or some such other cruise. With the best will in the world, it would therefore have been difficult for the police to gain access to the premises at any reasonable, or indeed unreasonable, time so that they could inspect the premises to see whether they wanted to lodge an objection. That assumes the best will in the world and, as we know, there is not always the best will in the world on such occasions. The Minister has pointed out that that is so. The purpose of my amendment is to define ''reasonable time'' as a time that can be agreed by the applicant and the police, and to state what should happen in the event that no such reasonable time can be agreed. The police should have the opportunity to lodge an objection, stating merely that they had not been able to inspect the premises for their crime and disorder implications.

We can consider other situations that may or may not have arisen, but, to take the Minister's example, we are dealing with an applicant who does not generally engage in licensable activities, but has a job

of his own, and for whom it is none the less necessary to unlock the premises so that the police can gain access to them. However, if a person has a job of his own, it is sometimes difficult to open up the premises at a time that the police consider to be reasonable.

I do not know whether the police are required to give notice to the applicant of their intention to carry out the inspection, but it may be necessary for them to undertake it at a time that they consider to be unreasonable, because that is the time at which it is possible for the applicant to unlock the premises, especially if, for example, he lived some distance away. I have provided a definition of ''reasonable time'' and define a process in which the police can engage, if a reasonable time cannot be agreed.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I have no doubt that Mr. Troup will soon be invited on ''I'm a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here!'' so often has his name been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and by me in my responses to questions in Committee.

Most police objections will arise because, knowing their own patch, they will know that an event at a particular place for a particular number of people, perhaps involving alcohol, would have the potential for giving rise to crime. They may know that the premises user is a criminal, for example, a drug dealer or supplier, so no site visit would be necessary. However, I accept that on occasions a site visit may be necessary.

When a visit was needed, clause 106, as the hon. Gentleman has told us, already gives a right of entry to the police at a reasonable time to assess the likely effect of the notice on the promotion of the crime prevention objective. Therefore it is not necessary for them to have the agreement of the premises user about what constitutes a reasonable time for them to visit the premises.

Amendments Nos. 421 and 422 would constrain the police with the result that they would need to agree a time with the premises user, and where the premises user failed to agree a time with the police, an objection notice would be issued.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about a particular boat, the Black Watch. If the boat were not there during the 10 days preceding the event, the police would have to form a view on the information given in the notice about the premises user—the boat user. I am not sure whether the event was organised by Mr. Troup or by the boat owner.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Mr. Troup was merely the agent who served the notice on behalf of the boat owner.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information.

The amendment could be open to abuse. If the police did not like the idea of an event's taking place, but could not find a crime prevention reason to support an objection, they could sit on their hands and claim that they had not been able to agree a reasonable time with the premises user, and therefore they could not make the visit in the time available. They could simply fail to agree a suitable time with the applicant, create delay and then issue an objection notice—not

that the police would do such a thing. No reasonable time having been agreed with the premises user for a site visit, the objection would become automatic.

That approach is not sensible or desirable, and it could lead to serious unfairness. I have explained why the time limits are adequate to allow the process to be carried out. Amendments Nos. 421 and 422 cannot sensibly stand alone. Under clause 103, on receiving the police objection, the licensing authority could issue a counter notice only if it considered it necessary on crime prevention grounds. It could not therefore uphold a police objection based on the failure of the police to have time to visit the site. It would be a pointless exercise, creating bureaucracy for all concerned without purpose.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel reassured by that explanation. I cannot support the amendments and hope that they will be withdrawn.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I feel reassured that my group of amendments is defective, and have little alternative but to seek the Committee's leave to withdraw it.

I am not convinced by the Minister's point about the boat not being available for the police to visit. It is all very well if it is a boat owned by a reputable cruise company such as that of Mr. Fred Olsen, but what if it is a boat owned by an unknown person of middle eastern origins who happens to bring a large number of people to Cowes and wants to hold a party on board at which he intends to sell alcohol? That happened during the Americas cup jubilee.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I shall not comment on the hon. Gentleman's imputation that the owner should be middle eastern. There are plenty of incidences of wrongdoers of all sorts carrying out all kinds of nefarious activities from all over the world. I hope that he acknowledges that point.

If the police suspect nefarious activities at any time, they have a perfect right to undertake a raid, or do whatever they want, to ensure that criminal activities do not continue.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is a much more reassuring response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 348, in

clause 102, page 57, line 41, leave out 'each' and insert 'either (or any)'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 375, in

clause 104, page 59, line 12, after 'police', insert

'who received the notice under section 102(1)'.

Amendment No. 376, in

clause 104, page 59, line 12, leave out from 'section' to end of line 14.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Subsection (5) deals with the notice that the premises user gives to a

''relevant chief officer of police.''

Subsection (5)(a) defines that person to be

''where the premises are situated in one police area, the chief officer of police for that area''.

Subsection (5)(b) defines that person to be

''where the premises are situated in two or more police areas, the chief officer of police for each of those areas.''

The amendment would replace ''each'' with ''either (or any).''

The amendments were tabled in an attempt to reduce bureaucracy. Why should two event notices be given to two chief officers of police in different areas? That is a recipe for a breakdown in communication about who is doing what, where and when. We think that the premises user should have the choice of sending the notice to the chief officer of police of either area in which his premises are situated. Committee members have already agreed that the instances of premises straddling police areas will be small in number. We therefore want to tidy up a situation to avoid the unnecessary duplication of effort on the part of the premises user or the police.

Amendments Nos. 375 and 376 to clause 104 relate to the modification of a notice following police objection. Subsection (5) states:

''Where the premises are situated in more than one police area, the chief officer of police may modify the temporary event notice under this section only with the consent of the chief officer of police for the other police area''.

Again, we are getting into unnecessary bureaucracy. Confusion may arise on the part of all parties involved, and that may be to the detriment of the original application. Amendments Nos. 375 and 376 would mean that the chief officer of police

''who received the notice under section 102(1)''

could modify the temporary event notice under clause 104. The rest of clause 104(5)—

''only with the consent of the chief officer of police for the other police area''—

would be deleted by the amendment.

The amendments would tidy things up so that where a premises straddles two police areas the applicant would decide which police force to send his notice to, and it would then be dealt with by the chief officer of police, who could modify the temporary event notice under the appropriate section. I hope that the amendments would give to anyone involved, including the applicant and the police, a clearer steer in the direction of who is responsible for doing what.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, we have already debated this matter; I recall that we even had a vote on straddling premises. I hope that we do not have to vote on these amendments, because, as I explained when speaking to amendments Nos. 236 and 301, each relevant licensing authority area should have the right to object to a notice.

It is right that the police from all the areas that an event spans should be sent copies of the notice. If an event spans two or more areas, it is likely that the concerns of police on the grounds of crime prevention will apply equally across dividing lines. The police should at least be made aware of the proposed event and given the opportunity to object to its taking place in their area. For that reason, I cannot accept amendment No. 348, which would provide that

where an event is planned for a location that spans two or more police areas, a copy of the notice need be sent only to the chief officer of police of either or any of the areas. Amendments Nos. 375 and 376 would mean that only the chief police officer of one of the police areas involved could modify the temporary event notice under clause 104. It is right that the chief officers of police for all of the areas involved should be able to agree on modifications to the licence.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister has used the word ''agree''. Is it possible that there might be a difference of opinion between the chief officers of police of the two areas? One might say that everything is okay, the other might want to modify the notice, and the applicant would be stuck in between. Would the applicant have any rights of appeal? Can the Minister foresee that arising, and what would happen then?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Somewhere in the mists of possibility such a scenario might arise, but in the main we are talking about very small events, and about people who do not want to take out a premises licence holding what amount to harmless shows, and perhaps selling some alcohol. I really do not think that there will be a huge problem, with police chiefs falling out among themselves about an event. Most of the events will be inconsequential. When there are arguments, I have every confidence that our police forces will arrive at a sensible decision. They constantly co-operate across police boundary lines on all sorts of issues, so I am sure that they could do so on a relatively minor one such as this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

There is a contradiction in the Government's approach. They argue that the events are small in number and, to use the Minister's word, minor. They say that such events will not happen often, and that we are dealing with temporary event notices and, in the main, small-scale activities. They want a light touch, and want to make sure that people can hold events without too much aggravation and too many problems. If that is so, why not make it easier? As few cases will arise, why not simply allow the applicant to go to one police force rather than two? It would save two police forces having to be involved, and that would cut down on bureaucracy and regulation. There might well be some disagreements, but it seems fairly sensible to us to say that disagreements between two forces should be avoided by involving only one. Otherwise, who will decide whose view holds sway?

The provisions are an over-complication. However, I recognise the Minister's argument that the instances in which they will apply are few and far between. The Government cannot argue that they want a light touch and less bureaucracy on the one hand, and insist that things are done in duplicate on the other. I will not make an issue of the matter or divide the Committee, but it would be helpful if the Government's approach were a little more consistent. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 103 - Counter notice following police objection

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I beg to move amendment No. 343, in

clause 103, page 58, line 10, leave out 'crime prevention objective' and insert 'licensing objectives'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 374, in

clause 103, page 58, line 25, leave out 'those authorities jointly' and insert 'either of those authorities'.

Amendment No. 387, in

clause 106, page 60, line 29, leave out 'crime prevention objective' and insert 'licensing objectives'.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

These are relatively straightforward amendments. I shall speak to amendment No. 343, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will speak to amendments Nos. 374 and 387.

The clause restricts the basis on which a counter notice can be issued, so that it can be given only on the basis of the crime prevention objective. As we discussed in an earlier sitting, the licensing objectives are much broader than simply the prevention of crime. Clause 5(2) sets out the objectives as:

''(a) the prevention of crime and disorder;

(b) public safety;''

the prevention of public nuisance; and

''(d) the protection of children from harm.''

A police objection to a function or to a temporary event notice could be based on any of those four objectives, yet we are restricting the grounds on which the police can object to crime prevention. The licensing authority can issue a counter notice on those grounds only. It would be right to broaden that, so that we could take into account the full extent of an event's impact on the Government's licensing objectives.

I find it hard to understand why a counter notice should not be issued when there is a threat to public safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) referred to the Black Knight—

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Black Watch.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I meant the Black Watch. If there is a public safety objection to a premises or a vessel being used with a temporary notice, why could not a counter notice be issued? The Bill appears to preclude that from happening. We talk about licensing objectives, such as the protection of children from harm, but with the temporary event notices, it does not appear that those should be taken account of when an assessment of a counter notice is made.

We are considering temporary event notices too narrowly. Bearing in mind the light touch in the Bill, and also wishing to achieve the licensing objective, we should broaden clause 103 to take into account licensing objectives other than just the prevention of crime.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 387, which is worded in the same way as amendment No. 343 and is consequential to it, refers to subsection (1) of clause 106. My hon. Friend has spoken about amendment No. 343, and the same arguments apply to this amendment. If we are to consider broadening the licensing objectives from crime prevention alone, clauses 106 and 103 must both be amended.

Amendment No. 374 continues the discussion that we have just had about premises that straddle one area or more. Clause 103(5) says:

''Where the premises are situated in the area of more than one licensing authority, the functions conferred on the relevant licensing authority by this section must be exercised by those authorities jointly.''

The clause deals with counter notices issued after police objections. Under subsection (2)(a), the licensing authority must hold a hearing, consider the objection notice from the police and make a decision. My interpretation of the Bill is that where a premises straddles two licensing authority areas, there may be two sets of hearings and appraisals and two sets of judgments. Perhaps the Minister could clarify things and confirm that bureaucracy and duplication would not be allowed to go mad, and that a person would not have to attend two sets of hearings where, on the strength of a police objection, one would be adequate.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

My concern about the wording referring to a crime prevention objective, not to the fully-fledged licensing objectives, has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). As the Minister will be aware, the objective is not just crime prevention, it is the prevention of crime and disorder. That refers back to clause 5. Surely, the problem is that clause 103 suggests that disorder would not in itself provide suitable grounds for issuing the counter notice, but crime prevention would. Many residents would be concerned about that. They feel that although criminality is a feature of disturbance and is a worrying part of their everyday lives relating to licensing matters, disorder of various kinds is far more of a concern.

Why did the Minister decide to use different wording, instead of that set out earlier in the Bill in relation to one of the licensing objectives? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, who said that we should use the full licensing objectives. The wording of the objective in clause 5(2)(a) suggests that there is a distinction in between the prevention of crime and the prevention of disorder. Yet under the later clause, disorder would not in itself be a ground for a counter notice. Many of the letters I have received from my constituents have been fundamentally concerned with aspects of disorder, rather than with criminality.

I shall read part of a letter from a constituent, the illustriously named Mrs. Farquhar-Oliver of Marylebone. I can pronounce the names of most of my constituents, but that would not be the case for me in the Minister's constituency; I would quickly fall foul of the names of the residents of Pontypridd.

Mrs. Farquhar-Oliver wrote that the nuisances that she was concerned about included the following:

''light intrusion from pub floodlights . . . rowdy people at outdoor tables . . . nightly disturbance from putting away outdoor furniture. (This problem has become much worse in the last few years, with the trend for moveable, and very noisy, metal tables and chairs rather than fixed-down or wooden ones.)''

All those nuisances have the potential—depending on the extent of the disorder—to be serious, but they have nothing to do with crime prevention, so they would fall outside the confines of the counter notice. When my hon. Friend tabled the amendment, he was rightly suggesting that there should be consistency. I hope that the Minister will at least be inclined to include disorder along with crime prevention—and, if he feels particularly generous, that he will go all the way by taking on board the entirety of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

One of the dilemmas facing the Minister is that he wishes to provide a light touch, rather than a bureaucratic system, yet he must also provide the essential minimum protections for the public—or those protections that Labour Members described as such when we debated clause 5. I remember that they spent a long time talking about the public safety requirements for a robust licensing regime, particularly where live music is being played or dancing is taking place. Although Opposition Committee members advanced the arguments that most premises of the relevant kind require a fire safety certificate, so it was a duplication of effort to require them to be licensed as well, Labour Members confirmed that it was necessary for clause 5 to contain ''public safety'' as a licensing objective—along with

''the protection of children from harm.''

In support of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, I wish to refer the Minister to the licensing objective of public safety. All Members are familiar with the Marchioness disaster, which was caused by poor navigation, not by the Marchioness particularly, but by another vessel. The people aboard the Marchioness had no means of escape from a vessel that was in a relatively narrow waterway, where strong swimmers could easily have made the bank if they had been aware of the direction in which it was to be found. The Marchioness was regularly used for public entertainment, and would have required the full licensing procedure under this Bill.

A vessel of similar proportions that was not normally used for public entertainment might be used for such entertainment on one occasion; it might be the subject of a notice of the kind set out in these clauses, and the police might feel that there was inadequate means of escape in the event of a fire, a collision or something else of that kind. It might be merely a river-going vessel, or it might be a sea-going vessel.

It is fairly common for people to do unusual things with their vessels at unusual times of year, such as holding parties and selling drink, and holding dances and selling tickets. They may do so despite the fact

that it is necessary to use a lighter to get to the vessel because the vessel never moors—or, rather, it never moors at a mooring. It might drop anchor in the middle of a harbour or outside a harbour, yet it would be possible for someone to hold a disco or a rave and sell alcohol to members of the public on such a vessel. It might even be moored a mile offshore in difficult waters, and the police would have no opportunity to object on public safety grounds. That is a serious gap in the Bill.

Whatever the Committee thinks of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), which I endorse, such a gap could lead to the danger that hon. Members were so anxious to avoid when we discussed clause 5. I hope that the Minister can deal with such matters.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We have had an interesting debate. The hon. Gentleman has raised some important points. We are divided on light-touch regulation for temporary event notices. We are hearing arguments that would replace that light touch with bureaucracy. I shall explain why. The hon. Member for Fareham spoke about widening the grounds for objection—the thrust of the amendments. Under the Bill, the notice must be copied to the police only. I shall answer his question by asking him a question. Is he suggesting that, in addition to the police, the notice should be copied to the fire authority, the environmental health authority, the local planning authority, the health and safety authority or, in the case of the Black Watch, a navigation authority? That would undermine the light-touch nature of the temporary event notice system. It would place a huge burden on the local brownie troop, for example, the sort of organisation that would take advantage of such a system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that. Like so much of the material that we are discussing, it is a matter of balance.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the protection of children from harm. I am confident that most threats to children would constitute crime. For example, if the premises user were known to the police as a threat to the well-being of children, there is nothing to stop them issuing a prevention notice on crime prevention grounds. He asked about public safety, as did the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. Such issues are important. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Marchioness and said that there were differences between a vessel that is designed to carry people for such functions and one that might be used for a one-off purpose. For example, large barges are towed here from the continent, especially Holland, and adapted for people to live in. They might not have sufficient exits to enable people to escape. If a dance were held in the bowels of such big vessels, there could be a catastrophe.

We accept that usual fire safety and health and safety law would be adequate to protect the public at a small-scale event. However, that would not be acceptable on a permanent or longer-term basis. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a more comprehensive reply if he raises such matters on Report. It is not

something that I have thought about in respect of vessels. He has a point. If a vessel turns up in the bay and is used for that purpose, the police have a right to object if they believe that it is not a fit and proper place for such an event to be held. As the hon. Gentleman says, sometimes such vessels arrive and the police may not know about them. They may not know what the nature of the vessel is, and whether proper health and safety checks have been carried out by the required authorities. Of course, they could easily find out, but I will certainly check out that point.

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked whether a notice giver might be compelled to attend two—or three—hearings. I notice that he referred to two hearings and I could not see whether he—

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I never mentioned three.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman could have said that he or she could be compelled to attend three hearings. That is possible but, if the notice giver were confronted by two or three police chiefs objecting, surely he or she would give up—in those circumstances, I would give up. He or she would save themselves a lot of time and money if they did the same. However, the hon. Gentleman was right to raise that point.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked about the definition of disorder. Clause 190 defines the crime prevention objective as the first objective under clause 5, which is the prevention of crime and disorder. We are clear on that. I do not think that there is any room for ambiguity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured and that he will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The arguments that he used take us back to the start of the Bill and the balance between using existing legislation and relying on the measures set out in the Bill to regulate places where entertainment may take place.

I start with the Minister's objection that other agencies may need to be circulated with copies of the notice given by someone seeking to obtain a temporary event notice. Given some of the information that is within the notice to be given to the licensing authority, I should have thought that it would be feasible for the authority itself to consider whether any of the objections that could be raised on, for example, public safety, could apply in the situation.

For example, the notice giver must state in the notice how many people are likely to attend the event and give the name of the premises where the event will be held. If someone stated that up to 499 people would attend an event in a small village hall that perhaps could take only 30 or 40 people, that would give rise to concerns on the part of the licensing authority about the safety implications of the event. Perhaps in those situations the relevant licensing authority could be asked to undertake a wider function in assessing the suitability of premises and whether those premises would meet the licensing objectives set out at the start

of the Bill. It is a reasonable request to make of the relevant licensing authority.

The Minister then said that some of the licensing objectives could be linked back to the crime prevention objectives. Why are the licensing objectives in the Bill in the first place if they are covered in the prevention of crime objective? The hon. Gentleman said that he accepts that normal health and safety rules can be applied to premises used for a relatively short time, but in earlier debates he ruled out the possibility of using those rules, as a means of stating that there should not be a small premises exemption and schools should not be exempted from the Bill. The argument is being used whichever way the Minister likes, either to state that we can have temporary event notices and that we do not need to look at the public safety licensing objective for that part of the rules or to say that those rules are insufficient to regulate different types of premises. The inconsistency that lies at the heart of the Bill comes back again when we are talking about the application of the objectives to temporary event notices.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am not sure whether I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He must recognise that schools are special places where health and safety regulations affecting the structure, rooms, exits and so on are tight. I do not understand what he means about the need for those regulations to be tight during an event that can take place at a school under a temporary event notice. One can believe with some confidence that the health and safety measures in place to ensure the safety of the school will be adequate for a temporary event at the school.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

When the Committee discussed the exclusion of schools from the provisions of the Bill, the argument was that the health and safety rules that applied to schools were insufficient to argue in favour of their exemption.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that schools are not exempted. They are exempted from fees, but that is different.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

But, as the Minister will recollect, when the Bill reached Committee it included an exemption for educational establishments. The Government, by way of amendment, deleted that provision. One of the arguments used during the debate was that the existing health and safety rules were not sufficient to enable an exemption to stand under the Bill, so the Government chose to delete it from schedule 1.

An inconsistency exists: health and safety rules are prayed in aid for temporary event notices but ignored when it comes to exempting premises under the Bill. I am pointing out an inconsistency in the way that different premises are treated for different types of licensing, which underlines some of the inconsistencies that underpin the Bill. I am not at all happy with the Minister's explanation for opposing the amendments, but I shall reconsider the issue later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 - Counter notice where permitted limits exceeded

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We had a long and fairly fruitful discussion on this clause earlier. I used arguments put to me in particular by Action with Communities in Rural England. That organisation deals with local councils in rural England, the rural environment and activities that are conducted in places such as church and village halls. Its submission stated that it wanted greater flexibility in the number of temporary event notices allowed for occasions and activities in village halls and community centres. The Minister graciously said that he would reconsider the issue with a view to increasing the number of events from five to something in the region of 12—one of our amendments referred to 24.

Since that discussion, ACRE has said that it wants to take part in discussions with the Minister to put its case as strongly as possible. It does not think that the figure of 12 will be enough, and, although 24 might be over the top, a figure somewhere in between could be important. ACRE wants to impress on the Minister what it has impressed on his colleague at DEFRA, which stands for—

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yes, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. ACRE made its arguments successfully to the Minister for Rural Affairs, and the Minister alluded to the fact that his door continued to be thumped on by the relevant Minister who was trying to press the case.

Will the Minister write to ACRE, or tell the Committee that he would be pleased to see its representatives to discuss the implications of keeping five, and listen to their arguments that a figure greater than 12 is necessary and would be of great help to many of those communities that will be affected? Their arguments are powerful. They have at their fingertips the details of the use of village and parish halls; they know what goes on in those communities; and they are well aware of the range of groups and activities that take place.

Many village halls are now being significantly refurbished with the use of lottery funds, so that they are thriving enterprises. However, there is a difference between having the money for capital refurbishment or construction, and having the income to maintain those halls on an ongoing basis. The income derived from such activities, particularly temporary events, is vitally important to many of those institutions. Is the Minister prepared to discuss those details with the relevant authorities?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am happy to repeat my previous undertaking that I am going to take away the issue of numbers and consider it again. Whether I will have a chance to speak to representatives from Action with Communities in Rural England is another matter. I invite them to send me whatever information and arguments they can make.

However, remember that I have lived for a number of years and I know the old expression ''give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile''. I also know that the representatives are probably thinking, ''Well, he's backing off from a fight. Why limit our demand to 12?'' It is not a negotiation, but achieving the right balance between the protection of local residents and the rights of people to hold temporary events. It is a difficult balance to attain.

I hear the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has made on behalf of ACRE, and they are powerful ones. I repeat the undertaking that I will look at those numbers again.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107 - Duty to keep and produce temporary event notice

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 388, in

clause 107, page 61, leave out lines 8 to 18 and insert—

'(b) secure that the temporary event notice is kept at the premises in his custody or in that of a nominee'.

The amendment tidies up the unnecessary wording of the clause, which deals with the duty to keep and produce the temporary event notice. Subsection (2) states

''The premises user must either—

(a) secure that a copy of the temporary event notice is prominently displayed at the premises, or

(b) meet the requirements of subsection (3).''

Subsection (3) deals with having the temporary event notice in ''his custody'' or

''in the custody of a person who is present and working at the premises''

and so on.

The amendment cuts out paragraph (b) and subsection (3), and would say that the premises user must either display a copy of the notice prominently at the premises, or

''secure that the temporary event notice is kept at the premises in his custody or in that of a nominee.''

That covers the requirements of that section of the clause much more tidily and explicitly.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

At first glance the amendment seems sensible, and I am sure that it is. However, it would remove the requirement in the Bill that anyone nominated by the premises user to keep the temporary event notice in their custody must be present and working at the event premises, so anyone could be given custody of the notice even if they did not work at the premises or were not present. That would make it extremely difficult for enforcement officers to locate and access the temporary event notice quickly.

The provisions of clause 107 are important safeguards in a light-touch system. To amend the clause in the way suggested would hinder officers

charged with inspection and enforcement duties in carrying them out effectively, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I can now appreciate the defect in my amendment. I omitted the words ''working at the premises''—it is too late to put them in now—after ''nominee'', but there we are. It is not a perfect world and we all make mistakes. I still feel that the wording of subsection (3) is clumsy, but I accept the Minister's argument that the nominated person must be there, so that if the police turn up there is someone they can speak to. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 109 - Personal licence

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 238, in

clause 109, page 62, line 21, after 'alcohol', insert 'or provide regulated entertainment,'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 239, in

clause 133, page 73, line 10, after 'alcohol', insert 'or provide regulated entertainment,'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 238 inserts regulated entertainment into subsection (1)(b). As the Bill stands, personal licences refer mainly to the supply or sale of alcohol. If the amendment is accepted, a consequential amendment, amendment No. 239, relates to clause 133.

The clause defines personal licences as licences permitting an individual to sell alcohol only by retail or on behalf of a club, both of which are defined as licensable activities in clause 1(1)(b). Clause 1(1) also provides that

''the provision of regulated entertainment''

is also a licensable activity. Therefore, the definition of personal licences in clause 109 could perhaps be extended to include individuals providing regulated entertainment on the premises. As a licensable activity, it should perhaps be regulated under the provisions of personal licences.

The current definition of a personal licence does not provide for the effective regulation of individuals who supply an entertainment service at events where alcohol is not served. That, in turn, does not safeguard the interests of those attending the event, who may be teenagers attending a disco provided by an individual who may have previous convictions, possibly even one of indecent assault. Furthermore, the definition of regulated entertainment contained in paragraph 2 of schedule 1 outlines other occasions where young people may attend unaccompanied.

Although in many cases it is likely that the organisers, managers or owners of the event will ensure that adequate provision is made for the young people involved or will prevent children from

attending where necessary, it may still be possible for children to attend wholly inappropriate events that may jeopardise their safety. As we all accept, this is a far-reaching Bill that will have an impact on a vast range of different premises. The Government must consider the consequences of all aspects of the Bill and ensure that adequate safeguards are in place for what I might call the susceptible elements in our society.

Therefore, amendments Nos. 238 and 239 would safeguard children, prevent crime and disorder and promote safety by ensuring that the personal licence is not just applicable to events at which alcohol is served. Events at which alcohol is not on sale should perhaps be subject to the same licensing objectives as those at which it is, particularly in view of the fact that vulnerable people are likely to attend those events.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Amendment No. 238 would amend clause 109 so that a personal licence would, in addition to authorising someone to supply alcohol or authorising the supply of alcohol, authorise someone to provide regulated entertainment. Similarly, amendment No. 239 would amend clause 133 so that it would apply not only when a holder of a personal licence was on the premises to make or authorise the supply of alcohol, but when they were there to provide regulated entertainment.

The personal licence relates to the supply of alcohol only, not to other licensable activities covered by the Bill, such as the provision of regulated entertainment, for which no personal licence will be required. That is because the supply of alcohol raises issues over and above those associated with the carrying on of other licensable activities. That is why the Bill introduces the concept of the personal licence and requires that personal licence holders meet specified requirements, including the possession of an accredited licensing qualification or equivalent or being a person of a prescribed description. I should be clear on that point.

The system of personal licences represents a major improvement on the current vague ''fit and proper person'' test that relates to applications for justices' licences. However, a personal licence holder must still meet certain conditions. They will have to go through an application procedure and—save in the case of those who qualify for the fast-track transitional arrangements for the granting of a personal licence because they already hold a justices' licence—will have to attain a licensing qualification, unless they are a person of a prescribed description.

Only persons with recognised knowledge and experience of alcohol issues will be prescribed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as being suitable to be granted a personal licence in the absence of an accredited qualification. Those conditions are the minimum necessary to ensure proper and responsible control of the sale and supply of alcohol.

The aim of the Bill is deregulatory, so if there is no need for regulation, we do not intend to impose it. As I have said, the sale and supply of alcohol raises some special concerns that are not associated with other licensable activities covered by the Bill, including the provision of regulated entertainment. We have,

therefore, limited that additional but necessary requirement for personal licence holders to the supply of alcohol under the authorisation of a premises licence.

That is not to say that the provision of regulated entertainment raises no issues worthy of consideration; far from it. The hon. Member for Fareham has rightly just explained that it does. However, it is the holder of the premises licence who must ensure that the conditions attached to the premises licence are adhered to. That will ensure that those activities are responsibly carried on as is in the public interest, and with a view to promoting the licensing objectives.

Furthermore, the important practical effect and the application of the personal licence stems from the mandatory condition set out in clause 20, which says:

''Where a premises licence authorises the supply of alcohol . . . every supply of alcohol under the premises licence must be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence.''

Without similar mandatory conditions relating to the provision of regulated entertainment—for clarity's sake, let me assure the Committee that the Government have no intention of introducing such conditions—if the hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, the amendments are toothless. With that explanation, I hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It is a probing amendment. It is intended to flush out the Government's thinking on why personal licences are deemed to be, in the Minister's words, ''a dramatic step forward''. Given the Bill's framework for personal licences for the sale of alcohol and the need for training, which we have not questioned, personal licence holders might also deal with regulated entertainment. Furthermore, people without personal licences for alcohol might put on events, which may pose risks to young people in particular.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Earlier in Committee, he talked about the importance of village halls. I remind him that if the amendment were passed, village hall committees would have to find an individual to train to get a personal licence just to put on a pantomime or nativity play. If the amendment were passed the over-regulation would be nonsense.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am not sure that it would be nonsense. I said that it was a probing amendment to flush out the Government's thinking on personal licences for alcohol and why they had not extended the scope of such licences. I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, and it may well be that such events would not go ahead if everyone had to have a licence for regulated entertainment. It might be possible to get round that problem by giving village halls and community centres exemptions on fees and temporary event notices. I have not said that the amendment is all-encompassing or that we have foreseen all possible problems.

The Minister has argued the case for the status quo cogently. We are reassured because the explanation of why the Government have gone down the road of personal licences for alcohol sales only is on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 411, in

clause 109, page 62, line 21, at end insert

'in the area of that authority and its nearest authorities'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

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

No. 412, in

clause 109, page 62, line 25, at end insert—

'(3) In this section ''its nearest authorities'' means that licensing authority which in any particular direction is nearer than any other authority.'.

No. 413, in

clause 116, page 64, line 15, at end insert 'issued by that authority'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I should like to ask hon. Members to examine clause 118 while they consider the amendment. Whether someone should be issued with a personal licence depends on the discretion of the district council or the unitary authority—in other words, the licensing authority—and the competence of a police force anywhere in England or Wales. The Bill sets up a system by which most people will reasonably apply to their home licensing authority and rely on their good name being known by the home police force.

A shop-around system will spring up: those who have something to conceal will go to the least competent or least effective police authority—they may go to the smallest police force in the country—because they will know that that body does not do its job terribly well. Alternatively, they may go to the local authority that exercises its discretion in the most liberal manner, which can happen for good or bad reasons—regrettably, decisions are sometimes taken for bad reasons. The Government are establishing a shop-around system. People will shop around until they find the most liberal or least careful local authority and police force. Bingo! They will get their licence. From then on, they can sell alcohol, subject to a premises licence, in any part of England or Wales. That is the system that the Government have established. I believe that it would be far better were people to make applications locally.

Jim Knight indicated dissent.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) shakes his head. I guess that he has something to say on whether I am going down the wrong road, in which case I shall happily give way to him.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful for the invitation. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 118(2) set out clearly the basis on which a licence will be granted. The judgments there seem to be pretty objective, so the notion of people shopping around is—to use the word again—fairly nonsensical.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are indeed objective, but subsection (7) of clause 118 is by no means objective because it requires the authority to

''hold a hearing to consider the objection notice''

and then allows it, having regard to the notice, to exercise its discretion

''if it considers it necessary for the promotion of the crime prevention objective''.

So the authority can act on its discretion.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee where these terribly weak police forces and local authorities are? He must have some reason for stating that there are places in the country where rogue characters will be able to go to get a personal licence. Where are those places?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I will indeed tell the Committee. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary reported not so long ago that the Derbyshire police force was inadequately provided with information technology equipment to undertake its responsibilities effectively. That may have improved in Derbyshire, but that is not to say that every police force will provide the same standard. I should be surprised if the Minister thought that it was desirable for every police force to provide exactly the same standard in relation to all activities, although they all comply with the law.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Presumably, since Derbyshire is a soft touch—that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying—there will be a great rush to Derbyshire to obtain personal licences and, presumably, anyone who lives in Derbyshire and goes to their local authority to get a licence will suffer as a consequence of a substandard and less rigorous licence regime. What is the hon. Gentleman saying about police areas? It sounds to me as if he is making a dreadful slur on the police force in Derbyshire because of one inadequacy in one aspect of the operation of its enforcement infrastructure. Is he not being a little unfair?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I may have been unfair in quoting Derbyshire, but I did so because I know of it as an example. The Foreign Secretary, the former Home Secretary, recognised that it was an example of an authority with a known and documented weakness.

The measure will depend on the police force's ability to draw up information. If someone from the Isle of Wight applies to an authority in Northumberland, and has never been there, how is the Northumberland authority to know much other than that which is documented or that which it can obtain by applying to the Hampshire constabulary? Those are the two routes available. We all know that the police have more important things to do than to push pieces of paper around, make telephone calls and send e-mails. They find it difficult enough to respond to our constituents on serious matters such as burglary, crime and disorder without having to respond to apparently bureaucratic demands from other police forces in different parts of the country about things that appear to have nothing to do with them.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my discussions with the police, and my Department's discussions with them, show that they take this issue extremely seriously. They are well aware that deciding whether a person is fit and proper to have a personal licence is not a bureaucratic problem, given that so much crime appears to be alcohol-related and alcohol-based. The hon. Gentleman is not normally so flippant

in characterising police responses in such a way and he should not do that here.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I characterise police response on the basis of my experience of dealing with police forces. They believe that it is important to deal with local matters—with local threats of crime, local examples of crime and local reports of crime. However, Members' constituents often feel that the response is inadequate. I would be surprised if every police force provides exactly the same level of service: indeed, I would think that it was wrong if every police force were to provide the same level of service because they are required to set their own priorities at local level—taking account of the demands of their residents, among others. That is the first point: it is a strong point, and I hope that the Minister does not feel that I am being flippant about it.

Secondly, there is the question of how the authority exercises its discretion. We see throughout the country all the time that local authorities exercise their discretion in different ways. Some Members may regard some of the ways that they do so as wrong, and others may regard them as right. We come to the matter from different ends of the spectrum: some of us may say that a relatively liberal planning regime is good for business: others may say that a liberal planning regime is damaging to the interests of local people.

The same could be said with regard to local authorities under this legislation exercising discretion about the allocation of licences. They do that at present: some of them are relatively liberal—they take what the Minister described in an earlier debate about the licensing of morris dancing on village greens as a common-sense approach—and others are not and manage to generate thousands of licensing applications a year.

I am merely saying that the Minister needs to justify why it is possible for someone to apply for a licence in an area that is far from the area in which he intends to operate and in which he lives, and with which he has little if any past connection. The purpose of this group of amendments is to provide that one can apply for a licence that will be applicable in the area of the authority in which one is applying or its nearest adjoining authorities. The text of the amendments is not particularly important, but it is important that the Minister explains why this system—whereby one can live in Cornwall, apply for a licence in Kent and implement it in Cumberland—is more appropriate than one where local knowledge, and the local experience of local people and the local police force, are applied to personal licences, which I believe will be very valuable commodities.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Individuals make their initial applications to the licensing authority in whose area they are ordinarily resident. If an individual is ordinarily resident in the Isle of Wight, they have to apply to the licensing authority in the Isle of Wight. The police are used to sharing information between forces constantly: that is not new and it would be wrong to expect it to be problematic.

The hon. Gentleman's speech was extraordinary. If the Government's amendments to remove a modification that was placed upon them in another place to create a central licensing authority are accepted as we have accepted them in this Committee, so that it is replaced by the relevant licensing authority for personal licences, the Bill will revert to its original form. There will be no shopping around. If a person is ordinarily resident in a particular area, the local authority in that area is the relevant licensing authority—that is the case for all time, including for renewals. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. He must either continue to support the changes made to the Bill in another place or reinstate it as it was originally drafted, which he should do because it will stop shopping around. The application must be made in the local authority area in which the person is ordinarily resident and that local authority becomes the full-time relevant licensing authority in his or her case for ever—if I can use that expression.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

People are perfectly capable of establishing ordinary residence for purposes that have nothing to do with their desire to live in a particular place. None the less, I accept that the Minister is unlikely to accept my proposal and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I beg to move amendment No. 430, in

clause 109, page 62, line 23, leave out from 'alcohol' to end of line 25.

The amendment is relatively straightforward. We discussed such matters earlier in a clause stand part debate when we established that, because of the governance arrangements of a club, no one at a club is required to hold a personal licence to sell alcohol. The Minister made that point well in response to my argument, and I accepted his reassurance and explanation. It came as a surprise to find under subsection (2)(b) of the clause a reference to

''supplying alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club.''

That seems redundant when a personal licensee is not needed to sell alcohol in a club. I should have thought it would be to the benefit of the Bill to remove that apparent ambiguity. It would be a sensible amendment for the Government to accept, although I suspect that the Minister will not.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Clause 109 defines a personal licence as a licence that permits an individual to sell alcohol by retail or to supply alcohol by, or on behalf of, a club. Amendment No. 430 would amend the clause so that the licence only permitted an individual to sell alcohol by retail. The problem with the amendment is that there are instances when clubs may want to engage in the sale of alcohol by retail to the public as much as supplying alcohol to club members and their guests. In such circumstances, the club would require the authorisation provided by a premises licence and under which all such sales would have to be made by, or under the authorisation of, a personal licence holder, which is not what occurs usually inside a club.

The club may choose to obtain a premises licence and to use it to authorise the sale by retail to non-

members as well as for the supply of alcohol to members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that the reason why money changes hands inside clubs is that my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), who has done such a valiant job of whipping the Committee, might drink 12 pints of beer a night whereas I only drink one. The provision introduces equity into the club arrangements. I know that my hon. Friend could not drink 12 pints of beer a night in a club or anywhere else, because he would not able to get up and whip the Committee the following morning. The personal licence would permit an individual to supply alcohol by, or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of a club.

Clause 109 is so drafted for the reason that those who require authorisation should have a choice of the way in which they wish to proceed. If a club that fulfils the conditions to be a qualifying club none the less takes the view that it will frequently admit the public to its premises, it may decide to apply for a premises licence and not a club premises certificate. If the amendment were accepted, the club would have to obtain both a premises licence and a club premises certificate. That would be unnecessary when a premises licence can provide the necessary authorisation. However, if the choice is a premises licence, a personal licence holder will be required for the premises. We must therefore provide for the supply of alcohol by a club, as well as its sale. After that explanation, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

It will require some hours of study, with a cold towel and a copy of Committee Hansard, to understand the intricacies of the Minister's argument. I was flummoxed by what he had to say. I still cannot understand why a personal licence is needed to sell alcohol to a member of a qualifying club. I will retreat on this occasion and study Hansard. Without having the benefit of any intake of alcohol from a qualifying club—I will give way before I slip up.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I share my hon. Friend's difficulties in interpreting what the Minister is getting at. Great play was made earlier of the distinction between supplying alcohol in a club and retailing or selling alcohol in other licensed premises. Surely the clause muddies the waters in relation to that distinction.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The clause muddies the waters and the Minister's explanation does little to unmuddy them. The clause strikes me as ambiguous. It provides an opportunity for those members of the Bar and the Law Society who specialise in licensing law to make great play of the matter. I hope that the Minister has a more straightforward interpretation of the clause to offer.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Am I making a speech now, Mr. Gale?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

This is an intervention.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Oh, I will be brief then. Sometimes clubs will have only a premises licence and no club

premises certificate. Nevertheless, they may still supply alcohol to members, rather than sell alcohol to them.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

If a club does not want to have a premises certificate—

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Club premises certificate.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

If a club does not want to have a club premises certificate, is it a club under the terms of—

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, it is.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am assured that it is still a club. Well, I will retreat and study the Minister's answer with more care than I can study it at this time in the morning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110 - The relevant licensing authority

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

If I understand correctly, there is no longer a clause 110. [Interruption.] Oh, it is amended.

When we had the discussion about the central licensing authority, the Minister assured the Committee that in lieu of taking out the amendments that were made in the other place, he would set about putting into the Bill, or into regulations, the setting up of a central register. Perhaps this is an opportune moment to question the Minister as to how far he has got with that, whether we can expect any more detail on how the register will be established and operate, and whether he has had discussions on the matter in the intervening period.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I will invite the Minister to respond to the hon. Gentleman's inquiry, but I must point out that the matter was debated with amendment No. 25. If the Minister wants to refresh the record briefly in view of the comments that have been made, I will permit him to do so.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

On a point of information, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we have a seminar with local authorities, police and industry planned for this coming Friday. Details will certainly be released when available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Personal licence: relevant offences

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 275, in

schedule 4, page 119, line 7, at end insert—

'( ) section 107(3) (public performance of a work, knowing that it will infringe copyright);'.

This brief amendment would take account of copyright infringement and other intellectual property-related matters. As the Minister will be aware, it is a criminal offence for a public performance of a musical work or a sound recording to take place if it is known that that will infringe copyright. In other words, there has to be intent, rather than its being done accidentally. That appears alongside other criminal offences such as the public exhibition of pirate videos and films that have already been accepted by the Government as relevant offences in the Bill. Schedule 4 refers to this wording in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

''Where copyright is infringed (otherwise than by reception of a broadcast or cable programme)—

a) by the public performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work, or

b) by the playing or showing in public of a sound recording or a film, any person who caused the work to be so performed, played or shown is guilty of an offence if he knew or had reason to believe that copyright would be infringed.''

My understanding, having spoken with several people who have lobbied us from the industry, is that that provision is rarely used, but provides a fairly effective deterrent.

If a music user persistently fails to obtain a copyright licence, that provision makes a possible course of action open to the various licensees, such as Phonographic Performance Ltd., the Performing Right Society and Video Performance Ltd., and the trading standards officers. It can be used against a pub operator who is knowingly using a jukebox supplied and filled with counterfeit CDs. It would also assist the film industry in actions against pub operators showing pirate films, which is obviously more prevalent with the number of specialist bars now in many big cities, such as sports bars.

We should add to schedule 4 the list of relevant offences to complete the list of criminal copyright offences. Those offences would trigger a review of the alcohol and entertainment licence, thus integrating the entire system. I hope that the Minister will reassure the licensed trade that such copyright offences cannot be committed negligently or in ignorance, which would be a great concern for many in the licensed trade. The trade requires a demonstration of knowledge that copyright would be infringed. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some thought to that. I am sure that he, too, has been lobbied by various interest groups on the matter. In view of the fact that the Bill is intended not only to introduce a new regime, but to codify many of the rules already in place for licensing, it would seem sensible that the infringement of copyright should be added as part of schedule 4.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I briefly add my support to my hon. Friend, who tabled the amendment. The amendment adds the words,

''section 107(3) (public performance of a work, knowing that it will infringe copyright);''

to those offences already listed in schedule 4(12) under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The amendment would simply add to the list of relevant

offences that have to be taken into account in relation to a personal licence application. We have received considerable lobbying from people who say that there are people who have knowingly transgressed that section of the 1988 Act over a period of time, and they would like to see the addition to the list of offences in paragraph 12.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Copyright and intellectual property rights-related offences are very serious. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for reflecting the concerns of the music and film industries in tabling the amendments.

In response to concerns from industry, the Government have amended the Bill to make certain offences under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relevant offences for the purpose of the Bill. One can tell that I was once a Department of Trade and Industry Minister by my pronunciation of the word ''patents'', which was drummed—beaten—into me. Such offences include those in section 198(2), which covers the broadcast of a recording of a performance made without permission, and section 297(1), which covers the fraudulent reception of a transmission. As the hon. Gentleman hinted, the matter will become more serious as digital projectors become more available and cheaper and as it becomes possible to broadcast films by satellite. The film industry is very worried about piracy.

The offences that were included deal with particular concerns of the industry. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am grateful to British Music Rights, which, I believe, was keen to add an offence to schedule 4, for stimulating debate on the issue.

I am not yet ready to accept the amendment, but I shall consider it further and return to the matter on Report. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

It has been a sensible, albeit brief, debate. It is clear that the Bill goes beyond licensing into the regulation of entertainment, in particular live and recorded music. The amendment was tabled with the latter category in mind. I hope that after giving the matter consideration the Minister will be able on Report to go some way towards alleviating the concerns that the Music Business Forum has expressed. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 112 - Spent convictions

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 436, in

clause 112, page 63, line 3, at end add

'or, where it is a foreign offence which is not covered by that Act, if a similar offence under English law would have been spent.'.

The amendment is designed to find out what the Minister thinks the clause means. If he says the right things, it will be withdrawn. The clause provides for spent offences under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, but clause 118(5)(b) provides for

''a foreign offence which the chief officer of police considers to be comparable to a relevant offence''.

I am seeking to find out why there is provision in clause 118 but not in clause 112 for a comparable offence. My amendment would provide for a foreign offence that is not covered by the 1974 Act, if a similar offence under English law would have been spent.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Amendment No. 436 would provide that if a foreign offence is similar to an offence in what the hon. Gentleman calls English law—those of us who are Welsh should not worry about the amendment—that would be treated as spent under the 1974 Act, the foreign offence should also be treated as spent. Although I understand and commend the sentiment, I believe that this is a slightly dangerous road to follow.

The 1974 Act focuses primarily on sentences—for example, the length of a sentence of imprisonment. It does not simply list offences. Therefore, it becomes enormously difficult to achieve what the hon. Gentleman would like to achieve. Comparisons of offences and sentences with those given in other jurisdictions are notoriously difficult.

Under the Bill, individuals with convictions outside the jurisdiction will be unable to show that their offences are spent for the purposes of the 1974 Act. The days of the empire and imposing our law outside our jurisdiction are long gone. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who is an expert in that field, could tell us whether those days had disappeared entirely from the world; perhaps they still apply in some areas—Lundy, maybe. I shall withdraw that statement: he is clearly not an expert. It is appropriate that the police should have the opportunity to examine the convictions and decide whether to raise an objection based on their experience. That is the appropriate way to go and although I recognise that that may not be ideal, we must err on the side of public protection.

The police will, if they think it is necessary, contact their counterparts in foreign jurisdictions to check on the offender's history. However, there will be times when they are not able to do that and they will have to make a judgment on the basis of the individual's account of his past convictions. This is not an area in which we can lightly afford to be generous, so I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw his amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

As I understand it, the police will take account of foreign offences and, on the basis of those, they are permitted to object; but they do not have to do so and they would accordingly exercise their discretion. I accept that and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The police have made some representations about the clause. I shall share those

with the Committee and ask the Minister some questions.

All hon. Members agree that the police's ability to object to unsuitable applications for licences assists in the crime prevention objectives set out in clause 5(2)(a). However, the police have put it to us that the wording of clause 112 would severely curtail that ability. Indeed, there would be no police involvement in the process at all if the licensing authority considered irrelevant and unspent convictions. A decision made about an application by a licensing committee would be made without police intervention.

An applicant for a licence may have many convictions which, although spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, cumulatively amount to their not being ''fit and proper'' to hold a liquor licence in the view of the police. Clause 112 and other parts of the Bill have changed the definition of a ''fit and proper person'', as contained in the 1974 Act. Relevant offences might include various minor assaults, drug or drink-related convictions, or sex offences, and those may have been accumulated over many years. In such cases, the police might argue that a person's conduct over a long period would show him or her to be unfit to hold a licence.

Sections 6(3) and 7(3) of the 1974 Act allow proceedings before a judicial authority, which includes a licensing committee, to consider convictions that are otherwise spent. Furthermore, case law has established the process to determine the relevance of those convictions to the application. Adamson v. Waveney District Council in 1997 provided for a three-part procedure that has been used successfully with regard to door supervisor, hackney carriage and private hire appeals before local authority panels. The police would like the provisions of sections 6(3) and 7(3) of the 1974 Act and the case of Adamson v. Waveney District Council to continue to be used, so that objections to unsuitable applicants can still be raised. Changes to the clause would enable that to happen. We have not tabled any amendments to the clause. The police tell us that they would like it to be entirely removed. I am simply telling the Minister that those are arguments that we have heard, and they require consultation and investigation with the police authorities so that we can make absolutely certain that the police are on side with regard to the proposals.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman may table amendments on the issue at a later stage if he wishes, but perhaps I can reassure him. This is a definitional clause; it sets out the meaning of ''conviction'' for the purposes of part 6. The clause states that a conviction for a relevant or foreign offence, as defined in clause 111, must be disregarded if it is considered spent for the purposes of the 1974 Act.

If the clause were not to stand part of the Bill, it would mean that a relevant or foreign offence could never be disregarded for the purposes of part 6. That cuts across any concept of rehabilitation, and would certainly give rise to human rights questions. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has just tested the water on

an important part of that issue. He asked whether, if we accepted that there can be spent convictions in the United Kingdom, we could also accept foreign convictions as spent. I tried to explain that it might be up to the police to decide whether to raise an objection because of a conviction abroad some time ago, but that we could not incorporate that into the Bill, because we have to err on the side of caution.

A person convicted of assault at 21 might well turn 51 without having committed an offence in the intervening period. In fact, he or she may be a totally reformed character—many of us are—and an upstanding member of the community. If clause 112 did not stand part of the Bill, we would be writing such people off without any consideration of the merits of their case, regardless of the efforts of the person, and of the probation service and the Prison Service, whose staff work with offenders during, and sometimes after, their prison sentence. That would be detrimental, and would be a big loss to the Bill.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I hear what the Minister says, but I am not sure that he has addressed the concerns of the police about the implementation not only of clause 112 but of other clauses in this part of the Bill. If he cannot give the Committee an assurance here and now, I ask him to take up the offer by the police to discuss the matter. I am relating their concerns, and it is they who have to implement the law.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I assure the hon. Gentleman, and the rest of the Committee, that we meet the police regularly, and are open to their latest thoughts on the clause or any matter relating to it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that there is ongoing dialogue between him and his officials and the police. It may well be that the police who made representations to us have not yet been able to put their views to the Minister directly. I will go back to them and say that there is an open door policy, and access would not be barred.

At the base of the police concerns lies the removal of the definition ''fit and proper person'' from the Bill. The police think that their past assessments of whether someone was an appropriate person to hold a licence have now been undermined by the Bill. The Minister and the Government must explain fully that in their opinion, the police will still be able to intervene and object where they believe that people are not, in the words of the existing legislation, ''fit and proper'' to hold licences. That is at the core of their argument and their concern, and it must be addressed.

Clause 112 may not be the appropriate place, and we do not want to undermine the purpose of the 1974 Act, which attempts to get people off the path of crime and so on by rehabilitating them. As the Minister rightly points out, it seems grossly unfair that a conviction obtained a long time ago should stand on a person's record for ever and prevent them from doing all sorts of things, including applying for a personal licence. However, I do not believe that that is behind what the police are saying, which is that a whole list of minor offences will not be recognised under the Bill. Yet over a protracted period, those offences could add up to contribute to an assessment by the police that

someone is not an appropriate person to hold a licence.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

This is an important point, and I should reassure the Committee. We have discussed these matters at great length with the police. To turn the coin over, I would expect the police to be wary of individuals who may not have any convictions, but whom they know to be organised in criminal gangs or undertaking nefarious activities, and to make that information available to the licensing authority in the form of an objection by them as one of the responsible authorities.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for that assurance from the Minister that he hopes and expects that the Bill will enable that to happen.

To return to the main thrust of my argument, under our interpretation of clause 112 and allied clauses, a minor criminal, if one can call him that—someone who has had lots of minor convictions and has no spent—

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

No spent convictions.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yes, absolutely. That person could be an individual who, over a period of time, had something that showed them to be an unsuitable person to be involved with the sale, or particularly with the supply, of alcohol.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does my hon. Friend recall that over the weekend it was reported that the police have found that clamping down on those who have committed motoring offences is an effective means of clamping down on those with a propensity for other criminal activity?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am sure that that is right. It seems to me that it is the same individuals in our society who perpetrate almost all the crime, and that locking them away reduces crime dramatically—although I shall not pursue that argument now.

The Minister has listened carefully and has given us the important assurance that ongoing dialogue takes place with the police authorities. Representations have been made to us on this matter and, as he says, they must be taken seriously. No doubt he will see that they are. Perhaps, before Report, some thought will be given to wording the Bill in such a way that the police concerns are adequately taken care of. A good starting point would be to refer back to the case that I mentioned earlier this morning, which was put to me by the police as a useful vehicle to enable them to make a challenge in various situations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 113 - Period of validity of personal licence

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 349, in

clause 113, page 63, line 7, leave out 'ten' and insert 'five'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 350, in

clause 113, page 63, line 9, leave out 'ten' and insert 'five'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

These are, obviously, probing amendments. The Government have set down in the Bill that a personal licence will initially be granted for a period of 10 years. We simply want them to explain that 10 years. The amendment suggests five years. Might not some individuals who have been granted licences get up to all sorts of activities that are unhelpful to their role during that 10 years, which is a long time? Perhaps a five-year period would provide an opportunity to reassess how individuals are conducting themselves with regard to the responsibilities under their personal licence. Why did the Government decide on 10 years?[Mr. Mark Field in the Chair]

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The system for grant and renewal of personal licences has been designed to benefit the industry by eliminating as much bureaucracy as possible, while providing safeguards, through the application of open and transparent but robust criteria. That should protect the public interest and drive up standards.

Reducing the period of validity of a personal licence from 10 to five years, which would be the effect of amendments Nos. 349 and 350, would upset the balance that we have struck and is unnecessary in view of the safeguards already provided in the Bill. The Bill currently requires a personal licence holder to notify the licensing authority of any change in name and address and of any relevant offences or foreign offences of which they have been convicted during the period of the licence's validity. Failure to do so will be an offence.

In addition, where a personal licence holder is charged with a relevant offence, they must notify the courts that they hold such a licence. Again, failure to do so will be an offence and the courts, on becoming aware of such information, have a duty to notify the licensing authority of any convictions of relevant offences by that personal licence holder.

Such obligations in the Bill provide the safeguards necessary to ensure that all information relevant to the licensing authority for the consideration of applications for the grant or renewal of a personal licence is before it and is up to date. In addition, a sentencing court may order the forfeiture or suspension of a personal licence whose holder is convicted of a relevant offence during its validity.

Reducing the period of validity would not only put an unnecessary burden on law-abiding personal licence holders but place considerable administrative burdens on licensing authorities. It is difficult to see what benefits a shorter period of validity would offer, particularly given the safeguards that I have mentioned.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am listening carefully to the Minister's argument, and I accept that to reduce the period would involve more bureaucracy and regulation. However, to turn his argument on its head, if he is saying that there are already plenty of safeguards in the system, why limit the licence period to 10 years? Why not have 20?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is a very good question. My only answer can be that it is a question of balance. A period of 20 years seems like a lifetime for some of us, compared with 10 years. There is a judgment to be made. There is no monopoly of wisdom on the point, and we have chosen 10 years, after speaking to the people involved, as a convenient period that would not be too much of a burden for the personal licence holders or for the authorities that will have to process the applications for renewal.

It is also a fact that an application for a renewal will involve only the question of whether the applicant has been convicted of an additional relevant offence or an equivalent foreign offence since the grant of the licence or its last renewal. As the new regime is intended to be self-financing, any additional cost in operating the system will be passed on to the industry in increased fees. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not really want to double the costs of the personal licence system for the industry at a stroke, which is what the amendments would achieve.

The 10-year period of validity has been agreed after extensive consultation with the various stakeholders. It is consistent with periods of validity for other important forms of identification such as passports and driving licences. Ten years provides the right balance of acceptable administrative demands and appropriate security. Altering the period would upset that balance. It has been suggested that a period of 20 years, as opposed to 10, would mean that many of us would have to have more photographs taken, as appearances tend to change dramatically over 20 years, if not over 10. Anyone who has taken as many Bills through Committee as I have will know that it is possible to age dramatically in a very short time.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Ministers usually receive important information while they are on their feet, but I am not sure about the relevance of photographs. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I was simply making the point that the appearance of a holder of a driving licence or passport may change a certain amount from that on the photograph over 10 years, and dramatically over 20 years.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115 - Application for grant or renewal of personal licence

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 433, in

clause 115, page 64, line 2, after 'or', insert 'a copy thereof, or'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 437, in

clause 115, page 64, line 6, at beginning insert

'Save where the licence has been surrendered,'.

Amendment No. 389, in

clause 115, page 64, line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.

Amendment No. 390, in

clause 115, page 64, line 7, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

Amendment No. 438, in

clause 115, page 64, line 8, at end add—

'(6A) Where a licence has been surrendered under section 114 an application for renewal may be made at any time.'.

Amendment No. 439, in

clause 117, page 64, line 17, at beginning insert

'Save where the licence has been surrendered,'.

Amendment No. 391, in

clause 117, page 64, line 23, at end insert—

'(1A) If the application has still not been determined three months after the licence expired the licence holder will be entitled to compensation from the relevant licensing authority.'.

Amendment No. 440, in

clause 117, page 64, line 23, at end insert—

'(1A) Where an application for renewal is made in accordance with section 115 relating to a licence which has been surrendered, the licence shall have effect from the date of determination of the application.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

A personal licence holder may be asked to produce their licence, for example, under clause 133, which states that an authorised officer or constable may require the licensee to produce the licence for examination. The licence holder could face a fine if they are unable to produce the licence, having previously sent it to the licensing authority. Amendment No. 433 would ensure that a copy of the relevant licence would suffice for the purposes of clause 133 and the relevant subsections of clause 115.

Amendments Nos. 389 and 390 relate to clause 115(6). Amendment No. 389 would alter the first time period referred to in the subsection from two to three months, and amendment No. 390 would alter the second period from three to four months. They are probing amendments to elicit from the Government their reasons for setting those time periods.

Amendment No. 391 would insert a new subsection (1A) in clause 117. When a licence is pending renewal, if the licensing authority has not determined an application after three months, the applicant should have recourse in law to compensation, because an application should not take that long to sort out and a person's livelihood could be jeopardised in the meantime. A licensing authority that is prejudicing an individual applicant's chances of earning a living should be liable to pay compensation.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I particularly support amendment No. 391. If someone loses their livelihood because of

bureaucratic delay, they should have the opportunity to claim compensation. I do not suppose that compensation would be payable on many occasions, but it would be a useful incentive for local authorities to ensure that they complied within the period set out in the Bill.

My amendments are designed to elicit the Government's understanding of the legislation. They relate to the distinction between the process for the grant of an application and the process for the renewal of an application. If someone has surrendered a licence—they may be going away for a couple of years or may be out of the business because of maternity, or bringing up children—they should not necessarily have to go through the same process as someone who has never obtained a licence before.

I hope that the Minister can help me on that difference in the process and tell me whether the renewal process contains such benefits. If it does, why should those who surrender a licence not benefit?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The clause establishes an individual's right to apply for the grant or renewal of a personal licence. Where the application concerns renewal, it may be made only during a two-month period beginning three months before the date on which the licence would normally expire. That means that the latest date on which a person may apply for renewal is one month before the licence would otherwise expire.

Amendment No. 433 would permit a copy of the licence to be provided rather than the original. I presume that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has in mind clause 124, which permits the licensing authority to issue a replacement copy following the theft, loss or destruction of a licence. Amendment No. 433 therefore makes complete sense, but it is unnecessary because clause 124(5) states:

''This Act applies in relation to a copy issued under this section as it applies in relation to an original licence.''

That means that a copy issued under clause 124 may be submitted for renewal as if it were the original licence. With that reassurance, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 389 and 390 would allow applications to be made during a three-month period beginning four months before the date on which the licence would normally expire. The latest date on which a person could apply for renewal is one month before the licence would expire, so there would be no change there. However, it would mean that the applicants could apply one month earlier than the Bill currently permits. Although that might make life easier for the applicants, it would increase the possibility that a person may apply for a renewal and have their application determined before being prosecuted and convicted for an offence.

The Bill has built-in safeguards where convictions come to light only after a grant or a renewal, but the process is time-consuming, complex and best avoided if possible. It therefore makes sense to have a fairly tight time frame in which applications can be made. The question is, yet again, one of balance.

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 115 - APPLICATION FOR GRANT OR RENEWAL OF PERSONAL LICENCE

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following:

Amendment No. 437, in

clause 115, page 64, line 6, at beginning insert

'Save where the licence has been surrendered,'.

Amendment No. 389, in

clause 115, page 64, line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.

Amendment No. 390, in

clause 115, page 64, line 7, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

Amendment No. 438, in

clause 115, page 64, line 8, at end add—

'(6A) Where a licence has been surrendered under section 114 an application for renewal may be made at any time.'.

Amendment No. 439, in

clause 117, page 64, line 17, at beginning insert

'Save where the licence has been surrendered,'.

Amendment No. 391, in

clause 117, page 64, line 23, at end insert—

'(1A) If the application has still not been determined three months after the licence expired the licence holder will be entitled to compensation from the relevant licensing authority.'.

Amendment No. 440, in

clause 117, page 64, line 23, at end insert—

'(1A) Where an application for renewal is made in accordance with section 115 relating to a licence which has been surrendered, the licence shall have effect from the date of determination of the application.'.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Benton. Before we suspended this morning, the Committee was riveted by my words. I was speaking to amendments Nos. 389 and 390. I said that we thought that the time frame was pitched correctly and struck the right balance. I pointed out that, as a consequence, I cannot support those amendments.

Clause 117 provides that when an application for renewal of a personal licence has been made in accordance with clause 115 and the application has not been determined before the time when it would normally have expired, it is automatically extended until such time as the application is withdrawn or determined. That means that the individual can

continue to sell alcohol and conduct his business, and cannot therefore suffer because of the inefficiency of a licensing authority. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) is looking a bit perplexed; I am dealing with amendment No. 391 now.

The amendment is important because we anticipate that during transition more than 150,000 personal licences will be issued during a period of about six months. Accordingly, 10 years later there will be a large number of applications for renewal in a similar period of about six months. That will be a significant task for the licensing authorities and delays will not always necessarily be their fault. That is why we propose a system that protects applicants caught up in such a delay.

Amendment No. 391 would put huge pressures on licensing authorities for no reason whatever. It would establish an applicant's right to compensation if his application were not determined within three months of his applying. As he cannot suffer because of any delay since his licence would automatically be extended beyond its normal expiry date, what would that compensation be for? I cannot support the amendment because it seems pointless.

Before I address amendments Nos. 437, 438, 439 and 440 it would be helpful for me to explain a little about clause 114. It allows the holder of a personal licence to surrender it by giving notice to the relevant licensing authority. That is the individual's choice. He might do that on retirement or following a change of career. His advantage in doing so would be, for example, no longer to have to notify changes of address. He would be under no compulsion to surrender the licence in any circumstances. For example, he would not have to surrender it when he was out of a job. When he makes that decision of his own volition, the licence ceases to have any effect. I do not intend to rehearse Monty Python's dead parrot sketch to explain the impact of that, but the licence has ''ceased to be''. We cannot renew something that does not exist. The appropriate course would be to apply for a new personal licence.

The wording of the amendments would mean that an applicant for renewal who had surrendered his licence 30 years earlier could apply to renew it without any need to undergo a test of current licensing law and social responsibility. That is not a desirable approach, because things have changed. Some people coming to the subject find it difficult to set aside the existing licensing regime when considering the provisions of the Bill. At present, every time a licensee leaves a pub or an off-licence, the justice's licence lapses and a new one must be sought when the individual takes up his next posting. That will not happen under the Bill. The personal licence will be mobile and can be used in any premises covered by a premises licence or where temporary activities are permitted. Under the new arrangements, the surrender of a personal licence will only ever arise by choice, and the individual must weigh up all the factors before committing himself or herself to the act of surrender.

Against that background, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will agree

that this group of amendments is neither desirable nor necessary, and will not press them.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Benton.

In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116 - Individual permitted to hold only one personal licence

Clause 118 - Determination of application for grant

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I beg to move amendment No. 431, in

clause 118, page 64, line 31, leave out

'is a person of a prescribed description'

and insert 'relevant experience'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 432, in

clause 118, page 64, line 36, at end insert—

'(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations define ''relevant experience'' as referred to in subsection (2)(b) above.'.

Amendment No. 416, in

clause 118, page 65, line 30, after 'Secretary of State', insert

'or under the Higher and Further Education Acts'.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I welcome you to the afternoon sitting, Mr. Benton. Let me set out why I have tabled probing amendments on the issue set out in subsection (2) of clause 118.

The Bill states:

''The authority must grant the licence if it appears to it that . . . he possesses a licensing qualification or is a person of a prescribed description''.

The introduction of qualifications to cover various activities is an issue that concerns me, and it has been the subject of correspondence in my postbag. I have received letters from gas heating installers among others, saying that although they have undertaken their job with exemplary skill and ability for many years, at the age of 55 they have been told that they must take a qualification to continue to do what they have done day in, day out for the past 30 years.

The Bill requires someone to possess a licensing qualification as a precondition of having a personal licence.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I have some information for the hon. Gentleman. That is the case only if the licensee has not inherited grandfather rights that enable him or her to continue a profession.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I was about to turn my attention to grandfather rights. I hope that the draft regulations make it clear that grandfather rights apply, and that people working for licensing authorities do not focus on the possessor's licensing qualification as being the only way in which somebody can be qualified to run a pub. Can the Minister give some assurance about the nature of the regulations that will provide guidance for the relevant licensing authorities?

I am also aware that people in the trade who have been involved in running bars—although not as personal licensees—may by virtue of their experience possess the qualifications to run a pub, and to have a personal licence. We might be in danger of setting out qualifications that lead to people being reliant on book learning rather than practical experience to gain the necessary skills to become a personal licensee. We should offer an alternative route to people who seek to pursue a career as a personal licensee, so that they can become one not only by possessing a piece of paper but by having hands-on practical experience of running a bar: that should stand them in good stead when they want to obtain a personal licence. My amendments are designed to probe the issue of relevant experience being preferable to paper qualifications as a criterion for the granting of a personal licence by the licensing authority.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I, too, am pleased to see you in the Chair again this afternoon, Mr. Benton. It was raining a moment ago, but it seems to have stopped now, so Committee members on the Opposition Benches may soon have the opportunity to enjoy the sun beaming down across our faces.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

As one who likes to get my bearings, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that for at least the next 12 hours the sun will not shine through those windows—if it does, we are in big trouble.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister is obviously much more on the ball at a quarter to 3 in the morning than is appropriate—[Interruption.] I meant a quarter to 3 in the afternoon.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), and I hope that when the Minister winds up this debate he will describe the nature of the prescription, which he is going to provide by regulation, that will enable a person to get away with not possessing a licensing qualification.

My amendment addresses the nature of the licensing qualification. The fact that I have tabled such an amendment does not mean that I think that a licensing qualification is necessary or appropriate. However, the Bill contains a qualification, so we have

to deal with that. It suggests that the qualification should be one that

''the Secretary of State certifies is to be treated for the purposes of this section.''

That is a quotation from subsection (8)(b). Subsection (9) says:

'' 'accredited' means accredited by the Secretary of State''.

What qualifications does the Secretary of State have to accredit qualifications? Many bodies in this country have the power to accredit qualifications, mostly under the Education Acts. Why does the Minister feel that in England or Wales it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to start to move towards accrediting qualifications ab initio than to rely on qualifications that may already be available?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Many accreditations are required throughout industry, and not all of them are recognised—or accredited—by a Government Department. Almost all the accrediting bodies work with the education authorities, as the hon. Gentleman implied in his question, to ensure that there is proper accreditation. They also work with sectoral training bodies and so forth, to ensure that those accreditations are the most relevant ones at any given time. I will try to address that question in the context of the Bill.

In response to the hon. Member for Fareham, I should explain that the arrangements for rights in relation to personal licences are set out in part 3 of Schedule 8; he may care to look at them. He also asked about licensing qualifications. Licensing qualifications are not new. For years it has been the practice of many licensing justices to demand evidence of such a qualification before deciding whether an individual is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Bill reflects that increasing practice by following the trend established by the licensing justices, and provides consistency.

Amendments Nos. 431 and 432 would amend the criteria to the effect that possession of ''relevant experience'', which may be defined by the Secretary of State by regulation, will be acceptable in lieu of an accredited licensing qualification. I hope that that helps the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to understand what I am getting at.

I shall explain why the Bill is drafted as it is, and why I must resist amendments Nos. 431 and 432. During the debate we have talked a lot about balance, and the Bill provides many safeguards for local residents and for the community at large. It removes many of the barriers of cost and bureaucracy that limit the opportunities for musicians to perform. At the same time, it clarifies the position for the hospitality and leisure industry. One of the most important elements of that clarification is the personal licence.

The system of personal licences that the Bill sets out replaces the current vague ''fit and proper person'' test with a set of open and transparent criteria in clause 118. One of those criteria is that the person must be in possession of an accredited licensing qualification, or must be of a prescribed description. The idea behind the licensing qualification is that it

provides a recognised standard against which people can be measured in a fair and accountable way. There cannot be much argument about that so I shall not dwell on it, but rather focus on the second half of subsection (2)(b), which refers to

''a person of a prescribed description''.

The Bill provides the option for the Secretary of State to describe by regulation specific classes of people who would not need to possess a licensing qualification to obtain a personal licence. Members of various organisations—admittance to which would already signify sufficient fitness to sell alcohol—would not have to obtain a licensing qualification in addition. The hon. Member for Fareham spoke about the difference between book learning and work experience. We certainly do not want someone with years of experience in a specialised trade being put out of work because they do not possess what the hon. Gentleman called a book-learned qualification.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I hope that the Minister will go on to give us an indication of the type of person he is talking about. Can he confirm whether existing legislation covers persons of such a prescribed description?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, in the main it does. It is intended that the Secretary of State will prescribe, for example, the freemen of the vintners of the City of London, from whom the Bill removes the archaic and anomalous privilege of being able to sell wine without a licence in defined port and thoroughfare towns—many of which are situated in the constituencies of hon. Members here today, although not, alas, in my own.

The difficulty with the amendments is that they would revert back to the ''fit and proper person'' test. Notwithstanding amendment No. 432, which would allow the Secretary of State to define ''relevant experience'', there are two major problems. The first is the burden that would be placed on the applicant to prove that he or she possessed the relevant experience. That might be difficult to prove. Would applicants have to acquire validated career histories and references from their employers, including payslips, P60s and affidavits? Compare that with the provision as drafted, with its reference to being a person ''of a prescribed description''. One either is or is not a person of a prescribed description; it is a matter of fact, not judgment.

Secondly—and while we are on the subject of judgment—who would decide whether after all the CVs and details had been sent in, the applicants measured up to the relevant experience test? I can think of no one but the licensing authority, and I suspect strongly that publicans up and down the country will be concerned at the prospect of a licensing authority poring over their backgrounds to decide whether they are fit to hold a licence to sell alcohol.

I understand the intention behind the amendments, but I do not think that they will do anything to reduce the burden on prospective licensees—quite the reverse, in fact. I remind the Committee that under the transitional arrangements set out in schedule 8, all those who are holders of a justice's on-licence on the first appointed day will qualify automatically for a

personal licence without the need for any accredited qualification. That is subject to police intervention in exceptional cases, such as when a case is outstanding against the individual concerned. In the light of what I have said, I hope that amendments Nos. 431 and 432 will not be pressed.

There is no need for the change proposed in amendment No. 416. That amendment would change the definition of ''accredited'' to read: ''accredited by the Secretary of State or under the Higher and Further Education Acts''. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I am convinced that the amendment was intended to refer to the designation or specification of institutions under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is a factor that the Secretary of State will take into account when considering the general accreditation of a licensing body or a qualification.

However, we do not believe that such designation or specification is by itself sufficient to ensure that personal licence holders have undergone the level of training required to deal with the special issues raised by the sale or supply of alcohol. There is one reason why: the 1992 Act is, obviously, not concerned with licensing the sale and supply of alcohol. Some qualifications awarded by institutions designated or specified under the Act may relate in some way to the sale and supply of alcohol, and I am sure that those of us with further education colleges in our constituencies have some idea of what those courses and qualifications are.

However, to ensure that a particular course fits the Bill, the Secretary of State would in many cases need to take advice from interested parties, including the industry, local authorities, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in England, and the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales. That expert advice will not have been relevant to designation or specification under the 1992 Act. We will take into account designation or specification under the Act, but that is not sufficient by itself. I hope that amendment No. 416 will not be pressed.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the principles underlying subsection (2)(b), but in one sense that explanation made me slightly more nervous. Let me set out why I am concerned. When I became a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants I had passed three years' worth of exams, but prior to admission, which was not simply based on passing those exams, I had to complete a period of professional experience. Also, someone in the firm who knew me well had to say whether I was a fit and proper person to become a chartered accountant. That process takes into consideration factors such as people's integrity, professional behaviour during their training contract and so on. That is quite a rigorous process, considering all the the exams, the professional experience and the ''fit and proper'' sign-off from someone already in the institute.

My concern is that although someone can have ticked all the boxes—they might have a qualification, be 18 or over, not have forfeited a licence and not have been convicted of an offence—and so get a personal licence, nothing in those conditions says that that person will be a good licensee of a pub, or that, by nature of their behaviour, they will be aware of the issues that could face them if they had a personal licence for, say, a pub, a nightclub or other premises where regulated entertainment or the sale of alcohol could take place.

We are taking away the licensing committee's ability to exercise judgment about the people to whom it grants a personal licence; it will simply become a bureaucratic process by which, so long as a person fits the criteria in subsection (2), he will receive a personal licence not necessarily because of who he is, but because it is simply issued. That will be a rubber-stamping exercise by the licensing authority. Surely proper regard should be given to someone's experience. There is nothing wrong in requiring someone who applies for a personal licence to have references and so on.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that much of what he is discussing becomes part of the contractual arrangement between the personal licence holder—whether he or she is aged 18, 20, 24 or whatever—and the company for which he or she is to work?

If a licensed premises is in a difficult situation, for whatever reason, those involved will make sure that the person whom they appoint will make a success of the business. They are hard-headed business people; they will not appoint someone who does not have enough experience to run the place properly. We can leave much of that to the industry. After all, it has been taking such action for a long time.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

The Minister has made a persuasive point—but if we follow through the logic of his argument and consider the slightly mechanistic approach taken to being granted a personal licence, we could ask, ''Why have a personal licence at all?'' There will always be a contractual relationship between the person running the premises and the person who owns it. We have a process by which there is probably an obligation for both the company that owns the premises and the licensing authority to be comfortable about the fact that the person with the personal licence is equipped, both technically by qualifications and personally, to undertake the responsibility of being a personal licence holder. We are in danger of creating a process driven by the ticking of boxes, which does not take into account the personality, the experience, the background and the track record of the potential personal licence holder.

I shall not push the matter to a vote; I just want to place on record our worry that we are in danger of setting up a procedure as a result of which people will place great confidence in the person with the licence, but in reality, so long as a person ticks the boxes, he will receive the licence. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 295, in

clause 118, page 64, line 33, leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 291, in

clause 118, page 64, line 38, leave out from 'meet' to 'subsection' and insert 'any conditions in'.

Amendment No. 292, in

clause 118, page 64, line 39, leave out subsections (4) to (7).

Amendment No. 241, in

clause 118, page 64, line 42, leave out 'its area' and insert

'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.

Amendment No. 245, in

clause 118, page 65, line 1, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 4.

Amendment No. 247, in

clause 118, page 65, line 10, at end insert

'subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit having regard to the licensing qualification possessed by the applicant'.

Amendment No. 246, in

clause 118, page 65, line 17, after 'so', insert

'or if it appears that the applicant fails to meet the condition in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) and it is not satisfied that the granting of the licence would not undermine the crime prevention objective'.

Amendment No. 248, in

clause 118, page 65, line 18, at end insert

'subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit having regard to the licensing qualifications possessed by the applicant'.

Amendment No. 250, in

clause 119, page 65, line 37, leave out from beginning to second 'to' in line 39 and insert

'The relevant licensing authority must give notice of the application'.

Amendment No. 249, in

clause 119, page 65, line 40, leave out 'its area' and insert

'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.

Amendment No. 251, in

clause 119, page 65, line 41, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 44.

Amendment No. 252, in

clause 119, page 66, line 4, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 254, in

clause 119, page 66, line 7, at end insert

'subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit having regard to the licensing qualifications possessed by the applicant'.

Amendment No. 253, in

clause 119, page 66, line 13, leave out from first 'it' to ', and' in line 14 and insert

'is not satisfied that the renewal of the personal licence would not undermine the crime prevention objective'.

Amendment No. 255, in

clause 119, page 66, line 15, at end insert

'subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit having regard to the licensing qualifications possessed by the applicant.'.

Amendment No. 256, in

clause 120, page 66, line 22, leave out 'its area' and insert

'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.

Amendment No. 257, in

clause 120, page 66, line 28, leave out 'its area' and insert

'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.

Amendment No. 258, in

clause 122, page 67, line 11, leave out 'its area' and insert

'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.

Amendment No. 259, in

clause 122, page 67, line 12, leave out from 'Where' to third 'the' in line 16.

Amendment No. 261, in

clause 123, page 67, line 43, at end insert

', and the conditions subject to which it is granted'.

Amendment No. 293, in

clause 127, page 69, line 40, leave out from 'court' to end of line 42 and insert 'must—

(a) order the forfeiture of the licence, if the sentence given is one of imprisonment exceeding 30 months; or

(b) in all other cases, order the suspension of the licence for the duration of the rehabilitation, as defined in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53).'.

Amendment No. 296, in

clause 132, page 72, line 40, at end insert—

'( ) Where, under section 123, details of relevant offences and foreign offences are contained in the licence, these must be removed by the relevant licensing authority at the request of the personal licence holder once they have become spent.'.

Amendment No. 394, in

clause 132, page 73, line 1, leave out '14' and insert '21'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

This group is Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, Mr. Benton. It is a complex series of amendments, and although I should like to explain them piece by piece, we may become confused when the Minister responds to them. I shall speak to them in the groupings that make sense to me—and, I hope, to the Committee. I shall begin with amendment No. 295, which is a probing amendment.

We have been approached by people in the industry who have said that the five-year period within which someone who had forfeited their licence would be precluded from reapplying is too long. Thus the amendment suggests three years. An amendment tabled in the other place said that if the period was kept at five years, there could at least be a review after three. That suggestion was rejected. Surely the important thing is not that the licence was forfeited, although that is important, but the reasons for the forfeiture and the seriousness of the transgressions that led to it. There must be a gradation between serious offences and those that are not so serious—not life threatening, for example. The five-year period is a little harsh on people who might have forfeited their licence for minor misdemeanours. Those people should be able to get back into the trade within a reasonable time.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman is going over ground that we have partly covered in debates on previous amendments. There is no compulsion for any personal licence holder to forfeit their licence; they could be forced to do that if they committed an offence, but apart from that they can continue to hold the licence. They should surely weigh up and balance

in their own minds whether to forfeit a licence or hold on to it in case they want to return to the industry.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I hear what the Minister says: it would be up to individuals to balance things. However, perhaps he will reveal why the Government decided on the five-year period, rather than any other. I said at the start that the amendment was intended to probe the clause.

Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 pertain to clause 118, and amendment No. 293, which is consequential on those, relates to clause 127. They were suggested by the Association of Chief Police Officers, although perhaps more informally than formally, and they express police concerns about the implications of the issuing of personal licences and police involvement with the applications.

Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 would remove the discretion of the licensing authority to grant a personal licence if the applicant had an unspent conviction for a relevant offence; in fact, under the amended subsection (3) it would have to reject the application. That would give many advantages. First, if the element of discretion were removed, the administration would be simpler and the licensing authority would either grant or reject the application. Secondly, the need for the police to lodge objections, and for the authority to hold hearings, could be removed. Thirdly, it would be more straightforward for the applicants; they would know where they stood and the Bill would make it clearer what would happen if they did not measure up to the requirements in subsection (2).

We believe—as do the police—that that would be a fair system. The amendments would provide a fairer approach than what currently appears in the Bill. A person is only effectively disqualified from obtaining a personal licence while the conviction is unspent, as the rehabilitation period—that is, the time that the conviction is unspent—is related to the sentence that was passed by the court, which in theory is directly related to the seriousness of the offence originally committed. We hope that the worst offenders remain disqualified for longer periods.

The amendments would not constitute a bar to employment for such people, just a bar to their obtaining the responsible position of personal licence holder. We are not saying that they could not have a job in the industry—working behind a bar, for example—but they could not be personal licence holders because of their personal situation.

Amendment No. 293 is the consequential amendment to clause 127, and follows on from earlier amendments. If an applicant is convicted of an offence that would have disqualified him from receiving a personal licence in the first place, he should lose his licence if he already holds one. The amendment would remove the court's discretion to

''order the forfeiture of the licence'',

and require it to suspend the licence for the duration of the rehabilitation period—or, if the sentence exceeds 30 months, to order its forfeiture. We know that such convictions are never spent.

Amendments Nos. 241, 249, 256, 257 and 258 deal with the area within which the applicant lives, and the area where the licensing authority has jurisdiction over him. The amendments deal with whether the relevant licensing authority for a personal licence should be the authority that originally issued the licence regardless of whether the licensee has moved away from that original authority, as is currently proposed in the Bill. That could lead to problems.

The licensee may have moved to the other end of the country, and all the personal information will be kept with the original licensing authority. Therefore, when the licence needs to be reviewed, the original authority must process the application, despite the fact that the applicant no longer lives within its area. It makes much more sense that the relevant authority for the personal licence should move with the licensee, as his area of residency changes. The amendment would leave out the words ''its area'' and insert

''the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident''.

The amendments would also make life easier for local police authorities. If an applicant or licensee seeks the granting or renewal of a licence, he should consult the relevant police force in the area where he resides. Under the Government's proposals, the individual will refer to the police force in the area that originally granted the personal license, which may not know the current character or situation of that individual. That could impose a large bureaucratic burden on police forces throughout the country, as they pursue inquiries regarding an individual who now resides at the other end of the country.

Under the current provisions, large pub companies may seek to register all their licences under the same authority. That could mean moving those individuals into a local authority area for a limited period, in order to apply for personal licences from that authority. Consequentially, certain local authorities would be issuing a number of licences disproportionate to the number of licensed premises in their region, thus upping the excess cost of that practice.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a company that owns 300 or 400 pubs would contemplate moving its personal licence holders temporarily to a particular part of the country while they registered? What would be the point of that?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister has homed in on a small mistake in my presentation. I do not mean that the company would physically move everyone, but it might submit all its people's applications to a particular licensing authority, which would create a big burden for that authority.

The amendments are particularly pertinent in light of the Government's reluctance to commit itself to a central licensing authority. We have now been told that a central register will be introduced, but we have yet to see the detail. Not only does that lack of commitment leave the law open to abuse from unscrupulous individuals seeking to cheat the system, it means much more administration and bureaucracy for local authorities.

Amendments Nos. 251 to 253, which would affect clause 119, are consequential on amendment No. 245 to clause 118. The Opposition are concerned that if an applicant satisfies all the conditions of clause 118—that he is 18 or over, he possesses the licensing qualification and he has not been convicted of any relevant or foreign offence—the licensing authority must grant an individual licence, regardless of the opinion of the chief officer of police of the area, even if that chief officer believes that granting the application would undermine the crime prevention objectives. In that case, it is right that the relevant licensing authority should listen to and take account of the views of the police; it is free to reject those views, but it should be required to take heed of the recommendations of the chief officer before making a decision.

Amendments Nos. 247 and 248, with amendments Nos. 254, 255 and 261, would amend clauses 118, 119 and 123. For the purposes of granting a personal licence, the Bill fails to recognise the wide range of possible ways of selling alcohol. For example, selling alcohol from a small convenience shop is different from selling it from a nightclub with a capacity of hundreds of people, where there might be different bars and numerous employees for the licence holder to oversee.

The amendments attempt to achieve some semblance of recognition of the nature of where and how the personal licensee will be supplying and selling alcohol, by ensuring that the local licensing authorities attach conditions to the personal licences issued. That makes sense in the light of the varying responsibilities associated with selling alcohol; some premises will require the licence holder or manager to have more qualifications or training to cope with the tasks afforded by their position.

Amendment No. 246 relates to clause 118, and amendment No. 250, which is consequential, relates to clause 119. They deal with the application for a personal licence by an individual with a conviction for a serious offence. As the qualifications that must be met to obtain a personal licence are already listed in clause 118, we would like to highlight again the fact that if all those conditions are satisfied the licensing authority is obliged to accept the licence application, regardless of the opinion of the police, even when that opinion is that granting the application would undermine the crime prevention objectives. If a police officer expresses objections to the granting of a licence, it is imperative that that is taken into account by the licensing authority before a decision is reached, regardless of whether the applicant satisfies all the criteria outlined in clause 118.

Amendment No. 246 deals with a change in the burden of proof where the applicant for, or holder of, a personal licence is convicted of a so-called ''relevant offence''. The burden of proof ought to be on the applicant to satisfy the relevant authority that if it granted their application, or chose not to revoke their existing licence, the crime prevention objectives would not be jeopardised. The Bill merely provides that the police must be satisfied that the granting of the application, or failure to revoke the licence, will not

undermine the crime prevention objectives; it should make the applicant accept the burden of convincing the police and the authorities that the application will not do that.

Although the rehabilitation of convicted criminals can be entirely successful, that is not always the case. Any conviction carrying a sentence of more than 30 months is necessarily a serious offence, and that should be recognised in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 296 and 394 relate to clause 132. The Bill contains no provision for what we might call ''endorsements'' to be removed from the personal licence. The industry has approached us in an effort to get the Government to move on that. An analogy can be drawn with the driving licence and the endorsements that go on that over a period; at some point in time they can be wiped clear. It has been put to us that any endorsements on a licence ought to be removed after about three years, and we are now putting that case to the Minister. That is the purpose of amendment No. 296.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

This is a very large group of amendments: I will not necessarily follow the order in which the hon. Gentleman has spoken to them, but I will try to answer all the questions that have been raised. I will deal first with the amendments that address the issue of relevant offences and foreign offences

The hon. Gentleman constructed a scenario in which a pub company might seek to register all its personal licence holders—or at least a tranche of them—in a particular local authority area. Applications for personal licences must be made to the licensing authority for the area in which the applicants are ordinarily resident. It would not be open to pub companies to apply en masse to one licensing authority for the personal licences of employees. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman a degree of comfort on that point, but no doubt we will come back to it.

Amendments Nos. 291, 292, 245, 246, 250, 251 and 293 deal with relevant offences and foreign offences—

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

One could construct a scenario in which all or most of the employees of a pub chain were deemed to be based at head office, wherever that might be—in Burton, say, or some other brewing town, or even in a small village in the middle of nowhere—so that all the personal licences had to be granted by the nearest licensing authority, which might be fairly small. That is our concern. Such an arrangement would not in any way be seen as an attempt to bypass the rules; indeed, it might be a logical thing to do. If the head office were deemed to be the ordinary place of business for all the employees, how would that affect the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I must say that I have not heard of any company coming up with that scenario—but it is fair enough for the hon. Gentleman to suggest it. However,

personal licence holders are not like ships, which may be licensed in, say, Liberia; they will generally be licensed in the area in which they work, and where the licensed premises are. In all the briefings and all the lobbying that I have heard, no organisation has put the hon. Gentleman's idea forward as a realistic scenario. Clearly, if he believes that it is a distinct possibility, he is right to raise it; it is just that I cannot see it happening. If he comes to me with stronger evidence that it is likely to happen, I will try to take the idea seriously. Just to reinforce the point, I must add that the provision refers to the place where applicants are ordinarily resident, not to where they are based. They must be habitually resident, for several purposes, in one place, from which they may apply.

Amendment No. 291 would require the licensing authority to refuse to grant a personal licence if the person had been convicted of a relevant or foreign offence as defined in the Bill. Read in conjunction with an unamended clause 112, that would continue to exclude any conviction if it were spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. However, that does not mean that we can forget the issue of rehabilitation, because offences that lead to prison sentences of 30 months or more can never become spent under the 1974 Act. Under amendment No. 291, hon. Members are arguing that for the purposes of the Bill, that arrangement should apply even to lesser convictions. Amendment No. 292 appears to be consequential, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire told us.

Hon. Members' starting point would be to remove any discretion on the part of the licensing authority to recognise rehabilitation as the years go by. A conviction for a relevant or foreign offence would mean automatic refusal of an application for the grant of a personal licence for the remainder of the life of the person concerned. Such an individual will be banned for life from ever having the authority to sell alcohol by retail. In addition, amendment No. 293 proposes that, on a personal licence holder's conviction for a relevant or foreign offence, and his being sentenced to imprisonment for 30 months or more, the courts would be obliged to declare the licence forfeit.

What kind of message does that send out about rehabilitation? We discussed the matter earlier. We strongly question whether such a provision could sensibly be regarded as a proportionate approach, and it would certainly give rise to human rights questions. We also have serious difficulty with the idea that the sentencing court should have no discretion in deciding whether the notice should be forfeit. No doubt in many cases the court will decide that it should be; still, each case should be judged on its merits, together with the circumstances that gave rise to the new offence.

We should not be attempting to settle arguments about mandatory and discretionary sentencing in a Bill focused on licensing. We have gone a long way down the road of ensuring that the public are properly protected by accepting amendments in another place that removed the thresholds over which the police needed to be notified of the existence of the offences

concerned. Indeed, it was after discussions with the police, especially in Manchester, that I decided that the limits set were too high. They were difficult to square with sentencing policy, and I was worried that as a consequence people who may have received shorter sentences for very serious crimes might somehow escape the sort of examination required by the licensing authority and by the police. Any convictions for offences listed in schedule 4 were thereby caught, not just those that had resulted in a prison sentence of 30 months or more. However, the amendments go too far, and we cannot support them.

Amendment No. 293 would also require the courts to suspend a licence for the period of rehabilitation laid down in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, when the sentence was for less than 30 months of imprisonment. Again, that cuts across the courts' proper discretion. It is for the courts to make decisions on the individual merits of each case. That is why we have magistrates and judges, and we should let them do their job.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister mentioned that he had had discussions with police in Manchester, and my understanding is that the Association of Chief Police Officers has centralised operations with one officer there, who has staff working for him. If I say to the Minister that the amendments were suggested to us by the same source, we shall be back to the age-old problem of people saying different things to different sides. The police have expressed concern, but the argument may hinge on the ''fit and proper person'' test that they consider gives them strength. They feel that the Bill undermines their ability to make representations about people whom they do not believe should have personal licences.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being candid about the amendments and their source. I do not want to repeat myself, and I am sure that the Committee does not want me to, but when one is briefed by various organisations, sometimes they will brief harder if they think that there may be an opportunity to make life easier for them—or, as they see it, to make them more effective in looking after the public. I can only give the hon. Gentleman an idea of the briefing that my officials and I have received during many hours of discussion with the police on those issues.

The police may well be lobbying hard, but that does not mean that I have to agree with them. This is a matter of balance. We have to balance people's right to be judged later in life after they have committed a series of offences, or a single offence that might be serious or not so serious. The courts and the licensing authority must be given the discretion to judge whether that person should be granted a personal licence. The police will have ample opportunity to comment on an individual's application for a personal licence in those circumstances.

As the hon. Gentleman has explained to us, amendment No. 245 is an attempt to return to the old subjective ''fit and proper person'' test that governs the existing system. That would mean that innuendo and rumour could play a part in the proceedings—although I am not saying for one moment that that

would determine the decision of the licensing authority. I do not believe that innuendo and rumour can be a proper part of a modern system. An individual in this country is innocent of a crime until proven guilty in a court of law: that is a fundamental protection for all citizens.

Amendment No. 245 would open the way to a form of punishment or sanction without any proper conviction or due process. It is wrong. It would also meddle with people's right to have the opportunity to seek gainful employment in one sector—the leisure and hospitality sector—in a way that is not reflected, as far as I am aware, in any other sector of industry.

Amendment No. 251 follows a similar line in the case of applications for the renewal of a licence. Amendment No. 246 would duplicate the effect of amendment No. 291, and follows the theme that we have discussed.

The second identified theme is the idea that conditions should be attached to personal licences. Amendments Nos. 247, 248, 254, 255 and 261 pursue a course that is alien to the Bill, which is based on the premise that the sale of alcohol, a legal drug, should take place only under the authority of people who have achieved a special status and are permitted to make such sales. It does not matter where the alcohol is sold; its impact on the community as a drug is unchanged by circumstance. Any individual selling alcohol, whether in a supermarket, pub, theatre or nightclub, must understand the law concerning such sales and their social impact—on young people, for example. The licensing qualification will test just that. It will not test business competency—that is not a matter for licensing law.

The attachment of conditions to personal licences is alien to the Bill and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the split licensing approach; it also represents fear of change. We cannot support that. Conditions will be applied to premises licenses through the premises licence holder, ensuring that the carrying on of licensable activities is in accordance with the relevant provisions. Such conditions will often follow representations by responsible authorities—the police, the fire brigade, and the environmental health and planning departments of the local authority—and interested parties, such as local residents.

The third theme in the group promotes the idea that the police force of the area where the individual is ordinarily resident should be consulted prior to the issue or renewal of a personal licence. Amendments Nos. 241, 249, 256, 257 and 258 would require the licensing authority dealing with an application for the granting or renewal of a personal licence to consult the police in the area where the individual was ordinarily resident, rather than its own police force—if those were different.

The amendments would cause some technical problems. Under clause 115, as amended by the Committee, if an individual is living in England and Wales, the police forces must be one and the same. The amendments would place an obligation on licensing authorities that they are incapable of fulfilling if the

individual lives outside England and Wales. On those grounds alone the amendments cannot be accepted.

Let me turn to the general thrust of the proposal. As we have discussed at some length, the Bill will not initially rely on the existence of a central licensing database, which could take time to bring into being. Each personal licence holder must have a home licensing authority to which all records concerning him over the years are sent. That would allow a single, coherent record about the individual to be developed and held in one place. Any enforcing agency would have just one place to look and inquire when it needed details. The Bill makes that possible, with or without a central licensing database.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Would the Minister speculate on why someone who is ordinarily resident outside England and Wales might apply for a personal licence to a licensing authority in England or Wales?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Because the Bill covers England and Wales only and no other part of the country. It pertains to what happens here, not to what happens in Scotland or Northern Ireland. That is why the strictures were placed in the Bill.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister has not taken my point.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is talking about a Scot working across the border.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister said that a licensing authority would find it impossible to implement the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire on an applicant who is ordinarily resident outside England or Wales; I assume that that is because they would be unable to contact the police authority in that area.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I see what he means. I am sure that such arrangements could be made. I assume that he means that someone might live in Scotland or Northern Ireland; they may live in the Pas de Calais, or the Nord, in France and come through the tunnel every day—indeed, they may live in the Isle of Man, or Jersey. He must have a notion about where that person might live.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It was the Minister who mentioned it.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am talking about England and Wales, which is what the proposed legislation is about. It would not make sense for a whole series of licensing authorities to maintain such details about all personal licence holders, particularly those who are not designated premises supervisors. It follows that theme to give to the police force of the home licensing area the responsibility for making objections about such individuals. They can only object in relation to a matter of fact—the existence of a conviction for a relevant offence or foreign offence as defined in the Bill.

If the police are applying consistent standards, what difference does it make on renewal of the licence that one force or another makes this judgement? The conviction is a matter of public record that could be checked by the force in question. Indeed, if the police had in mind bringing into the equation other information about the individual, they would be going beyond what is established in the Bill. In other

words, that is a connection to the second theme in this group that I mentioned earlier.

I now want to discuss the three amendments in the group that fall outside the three themes that I have discussed so far. Amendment No. 295 would reduce the period for which an individual would be prevented from obtaining a personal licence because of a forfeiture of a previous personal licence from five years to three years. I completely understand why the industry would favour that less severe constraint, but I think that it is a question of balance.

The forfeiture of a personal licence is a significant act undertaken by the courts on sentencing an individual after assessing the individual merits of a case. It will not be the mandatory act that Opposition Members have proposed—at least, it will not be if we do not accept their amendments. It will, therefore, be an important decision carrying appropriate respect and weight. In addition, the courts' sentencing powers and their impact must serve as a deterrent to those who might otherwise lightly transgress the licensing laws that the Bill will establish. The Committee should note that offences committed under the Bill will become relevant offences. Against that background, I cannot accept that a reduction from five to three years would be appropriate.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I understand the Minister's argument about balance—that goes without saying in the context of the whole Bill—but he has not really made the case as to why the circumstances are significantly changed by the two-year difference between the five years in the Bill and the three in our amendment.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman and I have had several conversations about those arbitrary figures, as I suppose we may call them. We have arrived at five years after discussing the matters with stakeholders, and we think that that is an appropriate length of time. The hon. Gentleman, possibly reflecting the lobbying of one part of the industry, seems to think that three years would be better. I am afraid that there is no science that determines the matter, but I would have to disagree with him. Five years offers a better balance than three. I have no better argument to make than that.

Amendment No. 252 would remove the important clarification contained in clause 119 that when determining an application for renewal of a personal licence, it is not relevant whether a conviction for a relevant or foreign offence took place before or after a personal licence was last issued or renewed. That is an important safety net because offences that had occurred prior to the issue or last renewal may only have come to light when a renewal is being considered. The Bill ensures that all offences can properly be considered and none escape scrutiny. The amendment would remove the safety net and could only produce confusion and argument as to whether such convictions could be considered or not.

Amendment No. 253 would lower the test or standard for refusing to renew a personal licence

following the hearing of a police objection to a renewal. The licensing authority would merely have to be satisfied that removal would undermine the crime prevention objective rather than—as the Bill currently requires—having to consider it necessary for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to refuse to renew it.

The Committee should remember that the individual affected has already been sentenced and convicted by a court for the relevant offence. The Bill then imposes a further constraint on his life. It would potentially restrict his right to engage in a legitimate business activity: the sale of alcohol. In terms of human rights, such a restriction should occur only if it is proportionate and necessary in the public interest. It is not therefore appropriate to lower this test and I must resist this amendment.

Under clause 112, a conviction for a relevant offence or a foreign equivalent must be disregarded if it is spent—or should be treated as spent—under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Let us suppose that a personal licence holder is convicted of a relevant offence soon after receiving his licence and that there are no police objections to his keeping the licence. The offence is not so serious that it results in a sentence that can never be spent. In due course, the conviction becomes spent, so it follows that, when the licence holder comes to renew the licence, the authority must disregard the conviction.

What useful purpose would be served by requiring the authority to amend the licence in the meantime? The authority's records will show a sequence of events, and rightly so. Amendment of the licence will not have any bearing on the renewal decision and, as I have explained, clause 112 requires spent convictions to be disregarded. Of course, the police will also be aware of the previous convictions of personal licence holders, whether or not spent. It is an important consideration that convictions are not excised from police records when they become spent.

Furthermore, a personal licence has no general use as an identifying document. It is not like a driving licence, which a holder may have to produce in a wide range of circumstances, including at banks and post offices. Under clause 133, the licence holder has to produce the personal licence only to police officers and authorised persons. By virtue of clause 126, the licence holder is also under a duty to produce or notify it to a court when charged with a relevant offence. As I have explained, the licence will not carry information about its holder that it would not otherwise be entitled to have. For those reasons, we do not support the change proposed under amendment No. 296.

Amendment No. 394 would provide that a personal licence holder, who was required to produce his licence to the licensing authority for it to be updated, would have 21 days to do so rather than 14. There is no need to provide a personal licence holder with more than two weeks to provide his licence to the licensing authority to have it updated. In some cases, of course, the reason for the updating will be perfectly innocent, such as the renewal of the licence, but in other cases the licence holder will have been convicted of a

relevant offence and his licence might have been suspended or forfeited.

In those situations, a reasonable time should be provided for production, but that must be balanced against the need for the licence to be as up to date as possible to ensure that those who are charged with enforcing the system have up-to-date information available to them. The amendment would simply extend the time during which an unscrupulous licence holder might be able to keep working following conviction for a relevant offence, but it would provide no real help for the majority of honest licence holders who are capable of producing their licences with 14 days, when necessary.

I must resist all the amendments. I hope that I have set out fully why each of the identified themes are unacceptable to us and that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw them.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The problem with the clause, which justifies many of the amendments, is that the Government are straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel. They have taken a highly mechanistic approach to the provision of licences, which reduces the very discretion that should lie with the licensing authority on one hand and with those who advise the licensing authority on the other. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire argued earlier, surely it must be a fact that someone who is using a personal licence for the purpose of selling drinks occasionally in a village hall is undertaking an entirely different activity from someone who is possibly doing so voluntarily.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Is the hon. Gentleman talking about temporary events or the clauses that refer to the granting of a personal licence to sell alcohol?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I confirm that I am talking about those clauses that enable someone to have a licence to sell alcohol. The problem is, however, the standard nature of the licence, which is unrelated to the type of environment within which the alcohol will be sold. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire mentioned that when he spoke to the amendments. As I said, someone who voluntarily supervises the sale of alcohol at half a dozen or 20 events a year in a village hall and is, perhaps, unremunerated for doing so is undertaking an entirely different activity from the manager of a massive nightclub—regardless of whether it is situated in my hon. Friend's constituency or the Minister's—who is, perhaps, paid handsomely for the experience that they bring to that job, and who might sell thousands, or even tens of thousands, of units of alcohol in one evening. The Bill fails to address that difference. [Interruption.]

The Minister may groan but the Bill is highly mechanistic, and in responding to some of my hon. Friends' amendments I fear that he has been even more mechanistic. He has talked almost of an entitlement, and he has referred to human rights on numerous occasions. I conclude from that that he believes that people are entitled to be granted a licence

unless specific mechanical objections to that can be raised.

I do not greatly object to the principle that people should be free to do anything they like in society, unless it impacts dangerously or dramatically on their fellow citizens. However, the Minister's approach with regard to the Bill is not that people should be entitled to do what they like but that if the local authority uses, or can be persuaded to use, common sense, people might be able to get away with morris dancing on the village green without serving even a temporary notice. That is not an approach of freedom: it is one that says, ''We will allow you an escape route to undertake this activity if you really press for it,'' in the manner that my hon. Friends and I have done—and as have the morris dancing industry and others, in the past.

The Minister is arguing on one hand that this is a matter of entitlement, and on the other that people must jump through dozens of hoops to achieve the nirvana of entitlement, even if they only intend to sell drinks in a village hall. That is why the legislation is disproportionate.

My hon. Friends' amendments attempt to finesse that by allowing—for example—a local authority to grant a licence with conditions. That is a sensible proposition. The people who might be granted such licences are not training to be general practitioners, and they do not need their level of knowledge of the impact of alcohol on young people in order to know that it is unlawful to sell alcohol to them. One does not have to be a paediatrician to realise that if someone who is patently under the age at which it is legal to sell alcohol to people tries to purchase alcohol, it would be inadvisable to sell it to them: one has to be a normal, law-abiding citizen who is doing their best to undertake their responsibilities, having due regard to the law.

The Minister criticised the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that the licensing authority should give notice to the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant is normally resident. I recognise that the Minister is in a bit of hole on that because of the system that he has set up. A person who attends the Isle of Wight school of food and wine to train to be a licensee could get his first job on the Isle of Wight, so he might apply for his personal licence where he is training at the end of the training course—or he might do that because the school helps him to apply for it, as he is being trained there. He achieves his personal licence, which is excellent. He then looks for a job, and perhaps he will never use his personal licence in the area that the licence was granted. He may go off to look for jobs elsewhere, and find a job in South Dorset, in North Devon or, if he is especially unlucky, in North Durham. That is what will happen, and for evermore the Isle of Wight council will be responsible for issuing the licence, and consequently the Hampshire constabulary will be the ''home constabulary'' to whom the Isle of Wight turns to find out about a chap who has not lived on the island since the age of 21, although he might have been undertaking licensable activities for 40 years. That will be the consequence of the Bill some 40 years hence.

It is patently absurd to set up a paper chase around the country whereby the Isle of Wight is the responsible authority for people who, perhaps at their loss, do not visit the Isle of Wight as frequently as the Minister. It is even more absurd that they must go not to the police force that covers the area in which they are ordinarily resident, but to the police who cover the area in which they were resident when they first acquired the personal licence. That is bonkers.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered some of the implications of what he is saying. Is he arguing that when an individual licence holder moves from one part of the country to another—perhaps he works for a big pub chain that has asked him to take over a new premises elsewhere—the paperwork held by the authority with which he registered should move with him to the new authority? That will create a paper chase that makes the scenario of which he talks look like small meat indeed. The hon. Gentleman should think about what he is saying, because the implications are incredibly unwieldy and bureaucratic.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thought that the Minister was going to set up an electronic system for access to an information database.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

A database is being set up, and I have already informed the Committee of a seminar on Friday, which will be the first of a series of discussions about how we do that. The database will collect information no matter where it is in the country. We will not have to move files. A police or licensing authority will be able to access information immediately, and it will easily be replenished if a change takes place as a consequence of action taken against or by the licensee. The hon. Gentleman is painting a spurious scenario, and he knows it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I certainly do not know it, or I would not have painted it.

Let us forget about the licensing authority—I realise that we have passed clause 110, and that there is nothing we can do about the licensing authority at this stage. We can do something about the police authority, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire proposed an alternative. The police authority in whose area someone is living is far more likely to have relevant information about an applicant than the police authority for the place where the applicant happened to live when they first obtained a personal licence. That is why my hon. Friend's amendment is sensible, and so overwhelmingly so that I am surprised that the Government find it so difficult to accept.

It is because the police do not act mechanistically, because policing is an intelligence-led business and because the police tend to find out things that might not necessarily end up with a conviction in a court of law that it is so important that the police have the authority to present information to the licensing authority, even if it is 500 miles away. The licensing authority is then able to exercise a measure of discretion in the granting of licences.

As the Minister has said, someone who is granted a licence has—I quote—''achieved a special status''. He has achieved the status of being trusted to sell alcohol to a large or small number of people in any part of England and Wales. It is not disproportionate or unfair—and it is certainly not an infringement of their human rights—for the police to bring forward such evidence as they have about their good character, and whether they are a fit and proper person, instead of relying on a mechanistic series of tick boxes; that seems to be the way that the Minister has framed the clause.

I can see that we shall not get very far in advancing this argument.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

No.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Hon. Members say no and suggest that I sit down. I have no intention of doing that.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

You cannot sit down.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister will be pleased to know that I will eventually sit down.

The problem is the shape of this set of clauses, and the fact that the police are not trusted to do their job. They are required to tick boxes rather than to do their job, and that is wholly unsatisfactory. I am not surprised that the police have pressed for more rights in this matter, and I am very sorry that the Government are unable to offer them the recognition that they should have for the trustworthy and sensitive way in which they conduct themselves to enable us to be safer.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We have had a good debate on this complex list of amendments and I commend the Minister for making a good fist of the themes and for his responses to the thrust behind the amendments, some of which seem to conflict with others. The debate has been an attempt to flush out from the Government their reasons for the way in which they set out this grant application.

I accept the argument that we do not want to add to the burden of bureaucracy and the conditions attaching to licences. The aim of the amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 246, is not to add to that, but to give some flexibility to what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has described as a mechanistic system.

The key amendments are those that we have tabled on behalf of the police. At this juncture it would be sensible for the Government to go back to the source that I have been talking to, and ask: ''Have you had the opportunity to discuss these matters? Are you satisfied with what we have discussed so far? What are your concerns? Is there anything that we should take on board before Report?'' It is obvious to me that the Bill does not fulfil the requirements of the police who have to administer part of it. If it makes life more difficult for them, we should take that on board.

The Minister is right to say that it is all a matter of balance. Of course we should not just go down the road of what the police want; we accept that there are other issues to take on board. But the police are still expressing concerns about the types of individual who will be presenting themselves for personal licence

applications. I am sure that their concerns stem from the removal of the ''fit and proper person'' definition. The Minister alluded to its being loose and difficult to tie down, but at least the police are familiar and comfortable with it, and it means that they can intervene when they have some evidence against someone whom they believe not to be an appropriate and proper person, who has a personal licence at the moment, but would not under the current legislation.

The Minister should make contact again with that section of the police and test out why they are still expressing concerns, but I concede that any lobby group will push all the way for its vested interest.

However, we are talking about striking a balance in the Bill between the rights of people to enjoy drinking and the ambience that goes with it, and the rights of those living in the localities in which that takes place. There is also the need, stressed repeatedly in the licensing objectives, to ensure that there is no disorder, nuisance or even crime attached to the activities that we are debating. However, we would need to think about the matter again if the police still thought that there was a chance that inappropriate people would slip through the net because of the Government's attempt to be not just flexible but ameliorative towards certain individuals.

I am happy to withdraw the amendment. We have tested the Government on the clause and other clauses relevant to it, but I urge the Government to make further contact with the police and talk the matter through to ensure that the police believe that they have a workable system that they can police adequately and properly. That, of course, is the intention of the Bill in any event. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I have a question on applications for personal licences. It occurred to me during the preceding discussion on the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. The Minister has said two or three times that a person applies for a personal licence if he is ordinarily resident in the area covered by the relevant licensing authority. If someone lives in Scotland, in the Borders, and works in England, is he precluded from getting a job that requires the holder to have a personal licence?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that, because I scribbled down some questions and got answers to them myself. A person might live in Scotland but work in Newcastle or Carlisle, and could travel there every day. If they did not possess a personal licence and wanted one, they could apply for one to any English or Welsh authority. If they already were a licensee, they would enjoy those grandfather rights that we spoke about earlier. However, they could not apply for a personal licence in Scotland. Nor can the authorities ask the Scottish police about the kinds of records that we have been discussing, because

the Scottish police would not have knowledge of the law that obtains in England and Wales—well, they might know about it, but they would not have the expertise or the processes to deal with it.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I should like to push him a little on the final part of his answer about seeking information from Scottish police forces. There is a weakness there; if someone is ordinarily resident in England or Wales, the licensing authority can apply to the appropriate police force for information about that person, but if someone is living in Scotland and applying for a personal licence in England, there is no way that the relevant licensing authority can apply to the Scottish police for that information.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

There is nothing to stop the police anywhere in Britain contacting the Scottish police about background information on criminal convictions, and so on, if they felt that that was necessary—no less than if they applied to any country. The Bill deals with other countries outside the United Kingdom by referring to foreign crimes or convictions. There would be nothing to stop one police force contacting another elsewhere, but the individual would not be registered as a personal licence holder elsewhere, so that would not apply in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 119 and 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 - Duty to notify licensing authority of convictions during application period

Clause 126 - Duty to notify court of personal licence

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 392, in

clause 126, page 68, line 38, leave out from 'must,' to end of line 39 and insert

'within one week of being charged'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 393, in

clause 126, page 69, line 1, leave out 'court' and insert

'magistrates' court which is to hear that offence'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

There is a slight problem with amendment No. 392: someone anticipated that the word ''changed'' should read ''charged''. There was perhaps a misprint or some illegibility in our communication to the usual channels, which was not as good as it should have been.

The amendments deal with the personal licence holder being convicted of a relevant offence and the requirements on them subsequent to that conviction. Amendment No. 392, which refers to subsection (1), says that his licence should be sent to the relevant court

''within one week of being charged'',

rather than

''after his first appearance in a magistrates' court in connection with that offence'',

as in subsection (2). The relevant court is dealt with in amendment No. 393—a consequential amendment—that defines the court as the

''magistrates' court which is to hear that offence''.

That would be the same magistrates court that sent out the various particulars.

If there is information on a personal licence that helps the court to arrive at its decisions, the sooner it is obtained the better. It should be obtained well in advance, rather than on the morning or the day before the personal licence holder comes to court, so that it can be scrutinised and used appropriately during the court appearance. It would be more sensible to do that than to leave it until the eleventh hour. I am sure that people might attend having forgotten their licence, so it makes sense for them to be given notice to send it in beforehand.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

A personal licence holder charged with a relevant offence is required to notify the court that he holds such a licence, because if he is convicted of a relevant offence the court may, pursuant to clause 127, order the forfeiture or suspension of the licence. Under clause 129(2), the court must notify the relevant licensing authority of that conviction. If clause 129(1) does not apply or the personal licence holder is convicted of a foreign offence, the personal licence holder is required to notify the licensing authority himself, or he commits a separate offence under clause 130.

For the most part, therefore, the point at which it is relevant for the court to consider the fact that an individual is a personal licence holder is when, after conviction, the court comes to consider whether to order forfeiture or suspension of the licence. There will also be cases in which the fact that an individual is a personal licence holder is relevant to the offence itself. However, in those cases, the prosecution will be aware of that fact, and will make it known to the court at the appropriate time. It is therefore unnecessary for the personal licence holder to produce his licence to the court prior to the time that he appears in court. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 127 to 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Unauthorised licensable activities

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 441, in

clause 134, page 73, line 29, at beginning insert

'Save as provided in subsection (2A),'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

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

No. 434, in

clause 134, page 73, line 34, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

No. 442, in

clause 134, page 74, line 5, at end insert—

'(2A) No offence shall be committed where the licensable activity is of minimal duration or impact on the local community.'.

No. 435, in

clause 134, page 74, line 6, at end insert—

'(3A) Where the licensable activity in question is the retail of alcohol, a person does not commit an offence under this section if his only involvement is to consume alcohol sold on the premises.'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The amendments test the Minister's convictions—not the convictions of which we spoke earlier, but his confidence in the convictions that he expressed at our proceedings last Thursday afternoon, when we were talking about morris dancers. The hon. Gentleman said at one point, referring to performances that take place in public at the sides of roads and so on:

''Such activities are not licensable. They will not be affected.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 443.]

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I will indeed, but I was about to qualify what I was saying. To be fair, the Minister then was careful to say that the onus would be on the local authority. Later in the debate, at the point at which I accused him of drifting back towards his brief, he said:

''There is nothing to stop the local authority from licensing large stretches of public space such as streets, roads or greens, so that entertainment can be performed there.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 447.]

He then went on a bit along those lines. At the time, I was left with the impression that it depended on the common sense of the licensing authority and that the hon. Gentleman was relying on licensing authorities to exercise common sense. I hope that that is not an unfair representation of what he said.

However, the problem is when something turns into a crime. As far as I know, it is not only the licensing authority that is able to bring a prosecution for an offence under this legislation. Therefore, the licensing authority may hold a common-sense view of the activity but someone else—who has not read the whole of the Minister's contribution to the debate on Thursday afternoon—may take a different view. For example, they may report the morris dancers to the police and tell them that they have committed a crime. The police will examine section 134, which is what this clause will become when the legislation reaches the statute book, and they will say, ''Well, yes, I am sorry but the morris dancers have committed a crime,'' because they have carried on or attempted to carry on

''a licensable activity on or from any premises''

—the village green, in this case—and they have done so

''otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorisation,''

as they did not have a licence. If the local authority had knowingly allowed them to carry on dancing without a licence, it would also have committed a crime. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) talks about the spontaneity of morris dancing. If a local authority official appears in the middle of a dance, and although he did not know in advance that the dance was going to take place, he now realises that it is taking place, he has a duty to stop the dancing; otherwise he would be knowingly allowing a licensable activity to be carried on. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave me the opportunity to consider that example.

I do not want any confusion about this—[Interruption]—and I can see that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) does not want any either.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Member for Torbay wants to go home.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

With bells on.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is clear that there is a lot of morris dancing in Torbay.

The amendment makes the situation absolutely clear, and it is also in line with the Minister's wishes as expressed on Thursday. It simply states:

''No offence shall be committed where the licensable activity is of minimal duration or impact on the local community.''

I am sure that that will make it crystal clear to the police that they are not expected to take too seriously an allegation that a local authority has neglected its duties by not bringing a prosecution, or by not preventing a licensable activity from continuing, in those circumstances. With that, I conclude my argument.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Amendments Nos. 434 and 435 would delete subsections (2) and (3) from the clause. They are probing amendments to help us to understand the rationale behind the two subsections. Under subsection (2), if a person performs in a play, takes part in an indoor sporting event, boxes or wrestles, performs live music or plays recorded music or something similar, and those activities have not been licensed, he can be exempt from being found guilty of an offence of unauthorised licensable activity.

The defence, which is provided by subsection (1), is that of due diligence, whereby a person has taken reasonable steps to assure himself that the event has been properly licensed in accordance with the Bill. I should have thought that that would be sufficient to cover sensible participants in boxing matches, wrestling, indoor sports and so on. Why have the Government chosen to go one step further to say that

even if people have not taken sensible measures to check whether the activity in which they are participating has been licensed, participation in the activity still does not give rise to an offence? I suspect that the topic was discussed in another place, and it would be useful for members of the Committee if the reasons underlying subsection (2) were put on the record.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Amendments Nos. 441 and 442 would amend the Bill so that no offence would be committed when the licensable activity for which no authorisation was in place was of

''minimal duration or impact on the local community.''

The amendments would be completely unworkable. They would offer the opportunity for people to ride roughshod over the licensing laws in the hope that they could persuade people, after the fact, that there was nothing to worry about. Their effect would be a little like saying that it should be legal for people to drive their cars at 100 mph for 20 minutes, so long as they had not killed anyone.

Who is to decide on the duration or impact of the licensable activity? We must not forget that what may seem reasonable to some may be a serious nuisance to others. The amendments would risk allowing any old Tom, Dick or Harry to set up a bar on the street, sell a large amount of alcohol for an hour—generating a significant profit and giving rise to all sorts of problems of crime and disorder—and then claim afterwards that because he had sold alcohol for only an hour, the activity was of minimal duration and he was not committing an offence. That is clearly absurd. It would be a serious anomaly, and I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw his amendment.

I shall move on to amendment No. 434. The Government are absolutely committed to providing a regulatory environment within which entertainment can thrive. The Bill is a key tool to help us achieve that aim. However, we have brought forward a range of concessions designed to deal with the worries raised by many performers. My tables were aching with piles of correspondence on such matters. All members of the Committee are only too familiar with the themes. One of those concessions was to make it clear in the Bill that entertainers would not be committing an offence if they simply took part in the provision of regulated entertainment, unless they had also had a hand in the organisation of that provision, in which case they would be responsible. Amendment No. 434 would reverse that concession. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press it, because if he does our postbags will be once again straining with letters.

Amendment No. 435 is designed to make it clear that

''Where the licensable activity in question is the retail of alcohol, a person does not commit an offence under this section if his only involvement is to consume alcohol sold on the premises.''

I hope that I can put the minds of Opposition Members at rest. The consumption of alcohol is not a licensable activity. No offence will have been committed if individuals consume alcohol that has been sold to them by retail without suitable

authorisation. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I hope that it will not be pressed either.

The hon. Gentleman asked who would bring prosecutions. I have written down in front of me ''prosecution/common sense''. Proceedings for any offence under the Bill may be instigated by a licensing authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions or, in rare circumstances, the local weights and measures authority. Despite the nightmare scenarios painted by the hon. Gentleman, I am confident that all of those bodies and authorities can be relied on to exercise good common sense in the public interest.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am mildly comforted to learn that prosecutions can be brought only by the licensing authority, the DPP or the local weights and measures authority. I understand the problem of interpreting the phrase ''minimal duration or impact''. I am not sure that an hour counts as minimal, and certainly the courts would have no difficulty in reaching the interpretation that an hour that gave rise to all sorts of crime and disorder problems was of more than minimal impact. I also understand the difficulties that the Minister faces in accepting my amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135 - Exposing alcohol for unauthorised sale

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 395, in

clause 135, page 74, line 16, leave out 'exposes' and insert 'offers'.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.