Licensing Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2003.

Standing Committee D

Clause 175 - Prohibition of alcohol sales at service areas, garages etc.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I beg to move amendment No. 266, in

clause 175, page 97, line 14, leave out from 'classes)' to end of line 16.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 325, in

clause 175, page 97, line 16, at end insert,

'(save where the premises would be the only premises so authorised within (in the opinion of the licensing authority) reasonable walking distance of a settlement).'.

Amendment No. 489, in

clause 175, page 97, line 16, at end insert

', except where the garage combines the functions set out in subsection (4)(c) with those of a retail outlet offering a range of supermarket goods'.

Amendment No. 267, in

clause 175, page 97, line 24, at end insert 'and'.

Amendment No. 268, in

clause 175, page 97, line 29, leave out from 'class' to end of line 35.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I am sorry I was nearly late, Mr. Benton. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) will vouch for the fact that we were stuck in a lift that went down before coming up—rather like our opinion poll rating.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman has heard of stairs, no doubt.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I will take the hon. Gentleman's recommendation and use the stairs before the next sitting. I swore that as I came out of the lift.

Amendment No. 266 deals with the sale of alcohol at various locations. I ask the Minister to consider the many places from which alcohol can be purchased that are reached by a motor vehicle. The connection in the clause seems to be that motor vehicles and alcohol should not go together. The clause provides for the prohibition of the sale of alcohol at motorway service areas and garage forecourts.

When someone visits an off-licence, as we all do from time to time, they tend to drive there and park outside or close to it. When they go in to purchase the alcohol, the licensee does not say, ''We can't sell you any alcohol because you've driven here.'' Similarly, when a driver goes to a pub with others and buys a soft drink for himself and alcohol for his passengers, the bartender does not say, ''I'm sorry, I can't serve alcohol to your passengers because you all arrived in a car.'' The same is true of restaurants and supermarkets.

Is there a need for a connection between alcohol and driving, if the issue at hand is the emotive one of drink-driving? Will licensing forecourts encourage drink-driving? There is no evidence to prove that. When the Licensing Act 1964 was amended in 1988 to prevent the sale of alcohol from garage forecourts, the Government opposed a blanket ban on the sale of alcohol from forecourts because there was no evidence to link sales of alcohol from those sites to drink-driving. Had there been evidence, one can assume that a ban would have been enforced, but it is not enforced. Today, there is still no evidence.

The Government have published no evidence of a link between drink-driving and the sale of alcohol from garage forecourts. In response to a parliamentary question, the Home Office acknowledged,

''No studies have been undertaken on the commission of drink-driving offences relating to alcohol purchased from different retail categories.''—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 407W.]

Moreover, since the restriction was introduced in 1988, the number of licensed forecourts has increased. When that increase is compared with the fall in alcohol-related deaths, it is difficult to substantiate the claim that licensed forecourts have had any impact on drink-driving.

The purchase of alcohol and petrol often takes place in close proximity, for example, at supermarkets across the country. Thousands of people drive to the shops to buy alcohol every day with no adverse consequences. The Forecourt Stores Association is concerned about the issue; it represents about 600 forecourts in England and Wales that hold a licence to sell alcohol. New applications continue to come before licensing committees every month. An article in the The Grocer magazine estimated that at least 1,000 UK petrol forecourts have licences to sell alcohol. The ownership and management of forecourt retailing ranges from big businesses—the Tescos of this world—down to small family-run enterprises, which will struggle to stay in business should clause 175 remain in its present form.

In recent years, the forecourt convenience sector has expanded rapidly. All hon. Members can think of a forecourt in their area that has undergone refurbishment and is significantly enhanced in size and the range of goods in the shop attached to it. For many people, forecourt shopping has become a way of life. On returning from work, people may have to pick up milk or other provisions that they have run out of during the week. The forecourt is there to rescue people: anybody who smokes will know that the forecourt comes to the rescue when they run out of cigarettes at an odd hour of the day or night; forecourts have become a focal point for every community. Such stores are vitally important, especially in rural areas. There may not be a supermarket in a rural community—such a store may be many miles away. The forecourt with a convenience store attached has become a main part of the life and service provision of such a community.

When a convenience store closes, whether or not it is a garage forecourt, local residents often have no option but to travel further afield, even for basic goods, which further reduces competition. It is,

therefore, paradoxical that a Bill that seeks to enhance competition and reduce regulation contains a clause that inhibits forecourt convenience stores from competing on a level playing field with their high street or supermarket competitors. Forecourt convenience retailers are forced to go through a lengthy and costly licensing process, which is significantly more burdensome than for other convenience retailers and involves preparing detailed evidence on turnover, profit and customer demand. Small operators in particular bear substantial costs because they usually do not have the necessary till software. Even for larger operations, the preparation of such figures is time consuming, despite their development as proper convenience stores in which consumers expect a full product range.

Many forecourt retailers are concerned about schedule 2, which deals with the provision of late-night refreshment. The schedule proposes the formalising of licensing for all late-night premises that do not serve alcohol, such as sit-down cafés, fast food outlets and takeaways. The Forecourt Stores Association is concerned that the new form of licensing will impact on garage forecourt convenience stores. The 24-hour forecourt stores are an important source of food and refreshment for motorists travelling through the night. It is imperative that those establishments are allowed to continue to operate without further restrictions being imposed.

Garage forecourts are already heavily regulated and have tight security measures. Many rural forecourts stay open throughout the night to ensure that they remain viable. If they are included in the new regulation, many may be forced to close and the provision of essential services to passing motorists and local residents will be no more.

The Government have said they are concerned about shopping deserts, especially on large estates where shops have closed down and there are no viable businesses. The social exclusion unit has looked into that to ensure that facilities are available to people in such areas. In some areas, the shops that used to serve an estate have been replaced by a forecourt retailer. The Government ought to take that into account.

I have mentioned the serious consequences for rural areas of losing forecourt conveniences and of not allowing them to have the full range of goods and to compete. The bottom line for any serious look at joined-up thinking in government is that it is important to bear in mind both the Government's stated objectives on the environment and reducing car use and the danger of people having to make two journeys when they could make one, or having to make one longer journey.

John Grogan (Labour, Selby)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland's experience is instructive? In 1997, the law there was liberalised: forecourt stores now make applications to licensing boards in the same way as other convenience stores and, so far as I am aware, there is no campaign to bring back the restriction on forecourt stores that exists in England.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a good point that supports my argument. There is no call in Scotland to bring back the restrictions that were imposed.

On the environment, rural areas, competition and anti-regulation, this clause goes against the Bill's stated objectives and it could be going against some of the Government's other objectives. That is why we have tabled these amendments.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I entirely support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), but I tried to act in the spirit of the Government's objectives—so far as one can understand them from the drafting of this clause—when I drafted amendment No. 325. It is a much narrower amendment than that of the hon. Member for Torbay: it recognises that in some areas people would have to travel by car to obtain alcohol if it were not available on a garage forecourt. It simply states that where a garage forecourt is the only place within

''walking distance of a settlement''

that could be licensed for the sale of alcohol—or for licensable activities—the local authority may issue such a licence. I have purposely not extended that to cover motorway service areas because I do not believe that they fulfil a similar local function as garage forecourts in rural areas. I accept that my amendment would predominantly—although not entirely—cover rural areas.

As the hon. Gentleman said, no damaging connection has been demonstrated between the sale of motor spirit and the sale of alcohol. Large organisations such as supermarkets might have a garage forecourt and a supermarket on their premises, but I have no doubt that they will find a way of separating them when it comes to applying for a licence: they will say, ''It may all be Sainsbury's, but this is at one end and that is at the other, so we are entitled to a licence.'' The large organisations will overcome the restriction by designating their garage forecourt in a corner of the premises or, as they have done in Newport, the county town of the Isle of Wight, by having the garage forecourt just across the road from their premises. They will find a way around it by having additional staff.

Small garages, particularly those in rural areas, depend heavily on their passing trade as convenience stores. They do not have the turnover to enable them to have double staffing—one member of staff for the sale of petrol and diesel and others for the sale of convenience goods available in the forecourt's shop. Clause 175 therefore discriminates heavily against small traders—especially, although not exclusively, those in rural areas—who depend on the turnover from convenience goods. My amendment would enable them to sell alcohol, subject to the other provisions of the Bill and, by doing so, to maintain their trade and more importantly to serve those in the locality who can get there by foot and for whom a motor vehicle is not necessary for the journey.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I shall speak to amendment No. 489.

We allow people to purchase alcohol in supermarkets and to drive from the supermarket car

park to its petrol garage. I see little difference between that and allowing alcohol to be sold on the premises of garage forecourts in shops that sell a full range of supermarkets goods. The question is whether the Government see a clear distinction between the car, the petrol pump and the supermarket at Tesco and Sainsbury's, and the garage forecourts that might have an associated shop.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Good morning, Mr. Benton. I have great sympathy for the amendments. The arguments that we have heard are compelling and have ranged across a number of areas that illustrate that these outlets are important to some communities. The ability to sell alcohol is important to some of the businesses that we have been talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) drew a timely comparison with the situation in Scotland.

Clause 175 prohibits the sale of alcohol from certain excluded premises, such as those used primarily as garages. That is not a new prohibition; it was introduced some years ago at the behest of the police and road safety organisations. In the long process of the Bill's evolution, and following some useful debates on this issue in another place, we have looked again at the position. It will disappoint hon. Members to hear that we still believe that prohibition should remain for the time being. I shall try to explain why.

As the hon. Member for Torbay reminded us, previous Administrations have made considerable progress in reducing drink-driving. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, it is also difficult to understand our logic when it is possible to buy alcohol from a store that is 100 yd or less away from a filling station. However, despite such progress, there is a good deal of work to be done. Allowing the sale of alcohol from such premises would undermine our clear message and the message of the police and road safety organisations, which maintain their strong support for our view. We do not intend to go against their firm advice, which would be the effect of amendments Nos. 266 to 268.

I acknowledge, however, that that position may not seem entirely logical. It is true that one can drive to an off licence and fill up one's boot with super-strength lager—the off licence could be just 10 yd across the road from the garage. However, all of the advice from the experts in road safety points to the continuation of prohibition. Although drink-related road deaths have fallen, casualties unfortunately continue to rise. The day may come when drink-driving ceases to be a problem in this country and it might then be appropriate to lift the ban on alcohol sales at garages. The Bill provides flexibility for the Secretary of State to do that through secondary legislation. I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and Labour Members would acknowledge that there can be a big difference between motorway service areas, and the sale of alcohol there, and the types of establishment that we have been discussing.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that at motorway service stations

in France and Italy alcohol is sold not only in sealed containers, but with meals. Has the Minister discussed with his colleagues in Europe the perceived road safety implications of that practice?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, indeed. We have discussed that issue widely. I am still a little horrified when I pull into a service area in France and see people going up to the bar and drinking alcohol. The accident rates there are much higher than they are in this country.

The hon. Gentleman's question is timely because it relates to striking a balance. How far can we believe that the progress that has been made to counter the culture of drink-driving has been successful and will be permanent? That is the only objection to the amendments. I could argue about competition and so on, but that is not as important.

The Government recognise that the garage shop, where it is the only shop for some distance, can and does play a vital role in rural communities. Some 546 garages are licensed for the sale of alcohol in England and Wales and most of them will be in rural areas. That is the situation that amendments Nos. 325 and 489 have been tabled to address. However, the Bill is drafted in such a way that the prohibition will apply only to premises that are used primarily as garages or form part of the premises that are primarily so used.

Use as a garage means use for the retail sale of petrol or derv, or for the sale or maintenance of motor vehicles. Whether a premises is used primarily as a garage is tested under current law by reference to the intensity of use by customers. I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Torbay in his amendments and undertake to consider the means by which tests are conducted to ensure that small businesses are not discriminated against by an overly bureaucratic approach. He raised an important point that I had not thought about, and I am glad that he did so.

The ''intensity of use'' test may take into account turnover, but criticism has been recorded judicially against sole reliance on a test of gross turnover. Therefore, in effect, the licensing authority will be able to take into account a number of factors when arriving at licensing decisions for a premises of that nature. The Bill will not sound the death knell for the only shop in rural communities. Indeed, it may be the case that what I have said and what is in the Bill indicate a clear recognition by the Government of the key role played by many garages as the only retail outlet in an area. Given that explanation and my emphasis on continuing to give a clear message on the effects of alcohol on driving, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I thank the Minister for his helpful comments on small businesses. The Government should consider the issue carefully. If they are convinced that there is a link between drink-driving and the sale of alcohol at garage forecourts, they need to think through the logic of closing down forecourts in rural areas and so making those who might drink and drive go further for their alcohol. There is an illogicality in that.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Is not the illogicality the fact that many licensed premises are situated on roadsides and they are not being closed down?

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

The hon. Gentleman is right. There are illogicalities everywhere. Most off-licences in towns are on main roads and are used by those passing by. The Government have to do a lot more work on the matter.

I am concerned about rural areas where the only viable business today is the forecourt. I can think of such areas in my county of Devon. The forecourt has replaced the village shop that closed down many years ago, because it has a diversity of business and a range —selling fuel, provisions, food as well as drink—that enables it to survive. Putting difficulties in the way of those businesses would be a retrograde step for rural areas. Having listened to the Minister's response, and as I may have the opportunity to return to the subject, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 175 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 176 to 178 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Appeals

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 264, in

schedule 5, page 122, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) A licensing appeal will be heard by a panel of justices elected by the bench at their annual general meeting, whose task will be to hear all matters of appellate jurisdiction.'.

Schedule 5 paragraph 9 deals with the appeal mechanisms in the Bill for those who wish to appeal to a magistrates court against a licensing authority's decision. Amendment No. 264 would protect the expertise garnered by magistrates under current procedures and legislation. As I understand it, licensing committees on benches are made up of no more than 20 magistrates. That allows them to develop what we would suggest is an unrivalled knowledge of the licensing laws.

Under paragraph 9, current practice will be overturned and any magistrate will be allowed to hear an appeal. That could lead to a massive strain on training resources and the development of expertise on the new licensing laws. The amendment would ensure that that would not happen by providing for licensing committees of justices numbering no more than 20 that are specifically delegated the task of dealing with licensing appeals. Those justices could be thoroughly trained to deal with matters relating to the licensing laws, and of course, they will frequently sit on licensing appeals thus furthering their knowledge and understanding. Unlike the Government's suggestion, ours would make for more efficient and cost-effective appeals, as the justices would acquire a real understanding of the laws and would therefore understand the issues raised more easily.

Without such an amendment, all of the average of 200 justices on the bench will be required to undergo costly training and will deal infrequently with licensing appeals, which will make it hard for them to develop an understanding and experience of the new laws.

The amendment would protect the successful practices associated with the present role of magistrates in licensing issues and is also in keeping with the role of magistrates justices as defined in the Bill.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Schedule 5 provides for appeals against decisions of licensing authorities. Paragraph 9 makes general provisions about appeals against decisions relating to premises licences.

The amendment would require the bench to elect a panel of justices at their annual general meeting, whose task would be to hear all premises licences appeal matters. In tabling the amendment, I believe that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has in mind that given the transfer of licensing functions to local authorities, we should preserve a role for licensing justices with all their experience and specialist knowledge of the present system as the appeal body under the Licensing Act 1964.

I have great sympathy with that approach. It is an interesting idea. I remind the Committee, however, that those same licensing justices will not have any experience of the radical and modernised new system set out in the Bill, which brings together five other licensing regimes as well as alcohol licensing. They would require training by the Magistrates Association and the Lord Chancellor's Department, in the same way that anyone coming new to the system to serve on an appeal body would.

Furthermore, the amendment would inject some inflexibility into the system. It was largely for that reason, as well as for reasons of cost and accessibility, that so many of those stakeholders and individuals who responded to the White Paper asked for a change in the proposal that appeals against licensing decisions would be heard by the Crown court. We were persuaded by the responses. We thought that it would be quicker, cheaper and just as effective for those appeals to be heard by a magistrates court.

The Government's efforts to consult and involve all interested parties in the development of the Bill have continued throughout the past two years and we have not heard calls for that change to be reversed—not until the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment. There appears to be no case for upsetting the usual approach to the constitution of a magistrates court. If only a certain number of magistrates were able to hear appeals, that could slow down the process and make it less responsive. For broadly the same reasons of speed and cost, I cannot accept the amendment and hope that he will withdraw it.

As the hon. Gentleman asked, we have certainly received no relevant correspondence on the issue.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I do not believe that I am the first person to have proposed such an amendment—something similar was tabled in the other place, where the same arguments were deployed. That amendment received quite a lot of support from lawyers and those who have had a career in the legal profession and have some working knowledge of the way in which the justices benches operate and could envisage problems

because of the amount of training that would be involved.

If the Minister is saying that those on the benches would have the discretion to decide whom, when and where, that underlines the argument to a certain extent. As long as they will have the discretion to allow them to approach the matter sensibly, we will not be loading costs on them and causing difficulties. In any event, the types of issues that would be raised in appeals when someone has had a licence application turned down would be similar to those with which the licensing justices deal at present—considerations to be given to the appropriateness of the person in terms of whether they are a fit and proper person to hold the licence and taking into account the impact on the local environment and local residents. The themes would be pretty much the same under the new legislation albeit that this is new legislation and it extends the range of issues that would have to be taken into account.

I am satisfied with the Minister's explanation. As long as the justices benches will have real discretion, I am more than happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 180 to 186 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 187 - Location of Sales

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 223, in

clause 187, page 103, line 16, leave out

'alcohol is appropriated to the contract'

and insert 'contract is made'.

Clause 187 deals with the selling of alcohol over a distance—for example, by mail, by internet or through a call centre. The clause is fundamentally flawed as it deems the premises where the alcohol is stored and is ''appropriated to the contract'', not the premises where the contract to sell the alcohol is made, to be the premises that require the licence. Indeed, the explanatory notes confirm that provision by specifying that once an order is taken for alcohol via a call centre or by mail order, for the purposes of the Bill, the sale is deemed to take place at the warehouse storing the alcohol, from where it will be delivered. That means that the retail operation where the sale of the alcohol is concluded can effectively operate unlicensed. The sale would take place under the authority of the designated premises supervisor within the warehouse.

The clause is another sign that the Government have not really consulted all the relevant sectors of the industry before drafting the Bill. It also displays a lack of understanding of the workings and structural make-up of many of the organisations that are involved with such arm's-length sales.

The Bill assumes that the business making the sale has control and influence over the organisation responsible for delivery of the product, which is not usually the case. The Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has declared a

particular concern about the provision because of the numerous companies and organisations that it represents that sell wine and other alcohol over distance. Indeed, the organisation has a designated distance-selling committee to represent members whose business is the distance-selling of wine via call centres and company offices or via the internet. In most cases, the wine is stored not on the company premises but in public bonded warehouses, whose control remains outside the company's influence and ownership. The system usually operates by the company that sells the wine requesting the required amount to be released from the third party—the bonded warehouse—which arranges for delivery as stipulated in the order. That contract is the only relationship between the company that sells the wine and the warehouse. There is no inter-managerial control between the two organisations.

Two primary causes for concern arise from the fact that the warehouses, which have no previous experience in or understanding of the retail operations of the companies, will be entirely responsible for the sale of alcohol as we understand it under the legislation. First, the organisation that makes the sale no longer has responsibility or control over the sale of the alcohol. Surely it is in the interests of the Bill that the individual making the sale must remain responsible and accountable until the transaction is completed.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

What the hon. Gentleman is saying is interesting. If a call centre is situated in another country and the warehouse that he has been talking about is in this country, as our jurisdiction cannot affect what happens in a call centre in another country, that warehouse would remain completely unlicensed. It would be able to distribute orders taken in a call centre in India—or anywhere else—and there would be no control over the nature of its sales or where they go. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is calling for?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I did not mention overseas call centres or retailing companies. They must be in the minority; we are talking largely about businesses based in this country.

It is up to the Minister to say that the fears and concerns of the Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are false and unwarranted. At the moment, this is the only example that he has given: if the retail centre is abroad, should we allow the warehouses and the bonded places to be unlicensed? I am not suggesting that they should be left totally unlicensed. A balance must be struck between the responsibilities of those retailing the wine and those releasing it from the warehouse. There is a contract of a kind between them; there must be a sensible way forward. It may not be through my amendments, but problems have been highlighted and the Minister must address them.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Like other hon. Members, I purchase wine by mail order, over the telephone and via the internet. My customer relationship is with the retailer rather than the deliverer. When I am not at home, the wine is delivered and it is left in the garage. The warehouse, or the deliverers, do not know anything about me as a customer; they are simply dropping off

the wine. That relationship will have to change as a consequence of this Bill.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend makes a good point: I will come to the problems associated with delivery later.

The individuals who will be liable for the personal licence are the bonded warehouse keepers, who are unlikely to have knowledge or experience in the retail and licensed trade. They are rightly concerned about the level of responsibility and accountability now placed on them.

Warehouses often take orders from a wide range of alcohol retailers. If one of those retailers—who, according to the Bill, can effectively operate unlicensed—participates in unlawful practice or sanctionable activity, the warehouse may be forced to surrender its licence, despite the fact that it has no influence or control over the practices of such retailers. Warehouses should not be made accountable for that.

The designated premises supervisor from the warehouse will be required to ensure that every sale of alcohol is in accordance with the provisions of the Act—for example, that alcohol is not delivered to children. How are they to know whether they are doing that? They might have an address and a name, but they will have no means of checking where an individual lives or how old they are. That area of the legislation must be tightened up.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I wish to follow up on the point made by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). The delivery companies will put on their instructions where to leave the product if there is no reply at the door. It would be easy for somebody who is not entitled to purchase alcohol to have a relationship with the company without anybody knowing their age or status. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I would also be interested to know how the existing law works.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister ought to respond to that question, because he must tell us whether the law works at present and justify his plans to change it.

I shall return to the argument that I was developing. In effect, the retailers will become subsidiaries of the organisations that do the warehousing and are contracted to make deliveries for them. The Wine and Spirit Association believes that severe and unacceptable restrictions on operations will be imposed on the companies that are predominantly involved in the trade. The association fears that the Government have not thought things through. In fact, it claims that there was no proper consultation with the Government before the Bill was drafted.

By imposing the provision the Government are defying their own claims that the Bill is deregulatory and designed to reduce bureaucracy and red tape. The industry already faces much of that, and this provision ensures that the distance-selling companies and public bonded warehouse operators will be subject to an immeasurable increase in administration and red tape.

It also jeopardises the fundamental objectives that are carefully crafted throughout the Bill.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I would like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that consultations did take place. I fear that we have another case of what we ought to call selective briefing. Lengthy and extensive consultation with all sections of the industry and other stakeholders took place over many years. Indeed, officials from my Department visited warehouses during the consultation. At its most recent meeting with the Department, the Wine and Spirit Association did not raise concerns about the present issue; it should get its act together. The lobbyists should tell the truth, whether they are talking to us or to the Opposition—they make a fortune out of their consultation business. Two messages are coming across that are designed to make the best possible case for their clients. However, those undermine the credibility of the organisations that seek to represent good honest businesses in this country. I imagine that such organisations would try to get the best possible legal and law-abiding arrangement for their clients.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister says that there was a consultation with the Wine and Spirit Association; when was the last meeting that he or his officials had with it?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I know, for example, that the Wine and Spirit Association had plenty of opportunity to contribute to the consultation process. There was the licensing review in 1998 and the White Paper in 2000; there were numerous meetings and much correspondence with officials and Ministers. If this was such a big issue, the association should have contacted me or another Minister in the Department directly to make its views clear; but it has not done that. I am wary of the passion that is suddenly generated by that group of people about the clause.

The Bill as it is currently drafted provides that if the place where the sale of alcohol takes place is different from the place from which it is supplied, the sale is treated as having been made from the place from which the alcohol is appropriated. For example, when alcohol is bought via mail order or a telephone call centre, the sale will, for the purposes of the Bill, have taken place at the warehouse from which the alcohol was delivered, rather than from the call centre where the contract for the sale was concluded. The warehouse, not the call centre, would require a premises licence.

I raised the issue of the call centre being located outside this country because that practice is increasing, often to the detriment of valuable British jobs. To ignore that or pretend that it happens in a minority of cases is nonsense. There is an increasing tendency for businesses to go to countries that offer an excellent service, but probably pay a quarter or a fifth of UK wages. That is an important issue, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister referred to call centres outside this country. I am not familiar with the geography of the Scottish borders, but how would warehouses outside this country be regulated?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

At the moment, clear laws determine how distance-selling can take place. The law on the subject emanates from the European Union, and regulates the relationship between the buyer and the seller in respect of distance sales. It is not concerned with the regulation of the sale, by retail, of alcohol. The clause will ensure that the regulatory controls bite when the alcohol is handled.

Scottish warehouses will, of course, be under the jurisdiction of the Scottish legal system. We would certainly talk to the Scottish Administration about that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that a major and extensive review of Scottish law relating to alcohol is going on. Our officials are involved in discussions with their counterparts in Scotland to ensure that the proposals in the Bill move in concert with what is proposed for Scotland; I can give him that assurance.

Of course, there will be occasions when Scottish websites or call centres offer alcohol for sale to the general public throughout the United Kingdom. The premises from which any alcohol so purchased is sent may also be in Scotland. Such sales of alcohol would fall under Scottish licensing law and would be subject to enforcement by the Scottish authorities, so the retailers are not getting away with things Scot free—if hon. Members will excuse the pun. I am not for one moment implying that that is what the hon. Gentleman meant. The Scottish authorities are considering the issue carefully.

The amendment would reverse the proper position, and would mean that the sale of alcohol was deemed to be made at the place where the contract was made—say, an office or a call centre—where no alcohol was stored. That would be different from the place from which the alcohol was supplied. The place where the contract was made would require a premises licence, and a warehouse or other premises supplying alcohol would not. I cannot support the amendment, because where the sale and supply of alcohol take place at different venues, it would remove from the scope of the licensing regime the places from which the alcohol is distributed, which are typically premises where alcohol is stored in large quantities.

Given that such premises would not be subject to the licensing regime, the amendment would also remove the requirement in the Bill for there to be a personal licence holder, designated as supervisor, who can be contacted when necessary. It would also remove the ability of the police and other responsible bodies to inspect or enter such premises when necessary. The amendment would have a big effect on other parts of the Bill.

In addition, hon. Members need to realise that a website or call centre could easily be established, as I have argued, under foreign jurisdiction, where it would not be licensable. It would not be the first time that websites had been sited abroad deliberately to avoid UK laws or tax regimes. Indeed, I am sure that we all recall the fierce debates in recent years about gambling and gaming. Companies went offshore to avoid paying tax in this country—to the detriment of many of the

games that received a percentage of the profits or receipts of gambling to further the sports in question.

By focusing on premises from which the alcohol is delivered, we can ensure that steps are taken to promote the licensing objectives, particularly with regard to the protection of children in this country. I appreciate that some people running such warehouses may think that the situation is unfair, but I am afraid that in this modern age of internet sales by credit card, this is the only means of ensuring that proper controls are applied. Those engaged in such sales must recognise that their responsibilities cannot be evaded. Those delivering the goods are profiting from such contracts, and they too must accept their responsibilities.

When the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000, which was the product of a private Member's Bill, was before the House, my predecessors gave undertakings to address concerns about internet sales when the main licensing laws were reformed. Clauses 144(1) and 187 fulfil that undertaking by making it an offence to sell alcohol to children anywhere, not just on licensed premises, and by ensuring that the premises from which the goods are delivered are licensed and subject to the loss of licence if they breach the law. Those were undertakings sought by the Conservative party and freely given by my party. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister sets great store by the idea of call centres being located abroad. I accept that some call centres have gone abroad—India seems to be a popular location—but I am not aware that the retail wine trade has suddenly moved offshore in a big way. Perhaps the Minister has statistics to prove otherwise, but I would have thought that most of the sales that we are talking about are made through mail order and, increasingly, the internet.

The Minister says that the way in which the Bill is drafted and the wording of clause 187 mean that the licensing objectives can be met. He repeated his point about the protection of children from harm. However, if the sale contract is made by mail order, the payment for wine and spirits is made by a credit card to the retailer and the message to the warehouse or store is to take so many cases of wine and spirits and deliver them to a certain address, how are children protected from harm? How on earth does the bonded warehouse manager know who the individual on the address sheet is—it could be a child under the age of 18 or someone else—when he has not been paid for the wine? Either the alcohol is either owned by the retailer and in bond, or the retailer will carry out a transaction with the warehouse company to pay for the wine once it has been moved out.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

A great many retail sectors that make sales by telephone or via the internet have in place guarantees to ensure that such transgressions do not occur. It is not rocket science for the alcohol retail trade to ensure that those safety measures exist, and that if the law is being broken, somebody can be nailed for it. At other stages of the Bill, the Conservative party called for much more stringent measures to ensure that the police could be certain that somebody would be responsible for ensuring that alcohol from a

warehouse would not be sold in an inappropriate way, whether to children or to anyone else.

The hon. Gentleman's point is that that guarantee could never be achieved, so let us forget it. However, it is not impossible; it happens in other sectors, and we are determined that it will happen in this one. After extensive consultation and debate, we have decided that the way to achieve it is via the place where the alcohol is stored and distributed. It is up to the managers of those places to make arrangements with the call centre or the retail face of the company or enterprise. That is not difficult.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I hear what the Minister says, but surely he recognises that there must be a responsibility for the retailer—the organisation that runs the mail order service, call centre or internet sales. He did not point to a part of the Bill that nailed the responsibilities of those people at the sharp end. We want the Bill to contain adequate safeguards to deliver the licensing objectives—particularly on the sale of alcohol to children, which we do not demur from. However, a balance must be struck between the responsibilities of the retailer—the person who does the deal for the sale—and those of the people who are in charge of the warehouse where the goods happen to be stored, and who simply act on instructions to ship it out. I am unsure whether we have arrived at the right compromise on that.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We believe that accountability should be at the warehouse where the alcohol is stored and distributed from. However, if the call centre—the front end of the operation—cannot get its alcohol to its customers as a consequence of the police or another enforcement agency moving in on that operation because it has detected wrongdoing there, or laws being broken in the way in which the product is being sold, it will not stay in business for long. That is a very direct connection. The front end of the operation must be able to have confidence that the orders that it sends through to the warehouse will result in proper distribution taking place. If at that warehouse the enforcement agencies say, ''You aren't going to distribute that, because we know that the law is being broken here,'' how can that mysteriously allow the front part of the operation to get away scot free, so that the blame and the consequences fall entirely on the warehouse? That is illogical.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am unsure whether I understood the Minister's logic, although I tried to follow it carefully.

I am saying that at the point of sale, the contract between the retailer and the buyer is crucial. If there is no onus on that retailer to make absolutely certain that the supply or sale of alcohol takes place within the remit of the legislation, the provision is at fault. He or she ought to be accountable in some way.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

In a moment.

I accept the Minister's argument that the initial problem may be detected by the police—or whoever—

at the warehouses, or between the warehouses and the addresses to which the alcohol is delivered, and they may end up with the retailers by following that trail through. However, when they get to the retailers, can they put the finger on the important ingredient, which is that they are the people who did the deal and did not make all the necessary checks?

A balance must be struck between the retailer and the warehouse. According to our reading of the Bill, at present the call centre or other retail centre gets away scot free, and the onus of responsibility is on the management of the warehouses. They are simply given an address, and they package the goods and send them off. Is the Minister saying that they must check and double-check with the retailer to ensure that everything that must be done has been done?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

May I explain—but I am sorry, I am jumping the queue; my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) has already asked to intervene.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The Minister has a right to speak first, as he is a Minister.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The answer to all the questions that have been asked is yes—but this is a serious matter. Clause 144(1) makes it an offence for anyone anywhere to sell alcohol to children. Under that clause, there is an onus on the retailer to ensure that there are no sales to children. Therefore, there is no reason why—if it is necessary—the trail of responsibility cannot be followed to the retailer who made the initial sale.

However, it will often be the case that the retailer will own the warehouse. There is nothing to prevent that from happening. It may be exactly the same company.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is not a problem.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I agree. In some circumstances, however, where for whatever reason a different arrangement is in place, we must be able to ensure that the enforcement agencies have a place or body to which they can go, where there is a person responsible for the supply of alcohol to customers.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister has argued robustly and is obviously not going to give any ground. However, as recently as early March I had discussions with the Wine and Spirit Association. The amendments were tabled even more recently. At that time some concern was still being expressed. The Minister's meetings with that body may predate that meeting and it may, perhaps, still be concerned about the issue. I suggest that contact be made to ensure that everything has been covered. I understand that the association still has some doubts about the efficacy of the provision and it would be helpful for all parties concerned if those could be resolved.

I urge the Minister to consult that part of the industry one more time. However, in the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 187 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 188 and 189 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 190 - Other definitions

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 429, in

clause 190, page 104, line 30, after 'effect', insert

', and includes the area within the curtilage of those premises'.

This is a probing amendment. We have had lengthy discussions in earlier debates about the definition of a licensed premises. The amendment seeks to define clearly what we mean by licensed premises, including their various parts. For a pub, for example, that might relate to its garden and car park areas. We want to ascertain whether, with the wording of the Bill as it stands, the Government are content that areas contiguous to what we consider to be the premises in the ownership or curtilage of the club or pub will be included in a full definition of the premises in a licence.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I would like to add some further questions to those asked by my hon. Friend. Mr. Chris Troup has raised another issue. He provides a marquee at Bembridge airport, which is the subject of occasional licenses.

The Isle of Wight is an extremely entrepreneurial place. The only deficiency in the entrepreneurial activities of my constituents became apparent over the weekend, when I undertook a short stretch of ''Walk the Wight''—a charity fundraising walk from Bembridge to the Needles. I was surprised that nobody had applied for an occasional licence for some of the spots along the route, where we were refreshed with Lucozade and water but not, alas, with alcohol. Even my constituents can improve their entrepreneurial skills.

Mr. Chris Troup, however, is a master of entrepreneurship. Like my hon. Friend, he asks what the licensable area is. If someone provides a marquee at an airport, or an aerodrome being used for microlight flying or a fly-in day, for example, over what area is the licensee expected to exert control?

My interpretation of the legislation is that what matters is the point at which the licensee sells the drinks for consumption on or off the premises. If the drink is consumed on the premises in a glass—or, as is unfortunately more frequent these days, a plastic beaker—the licensee is responsible. He is responsible within the marquee, but how far does the purchaser of the drink have to venture along, say, the grass adjacent to the runway, before he ceases to be the responsibility of the licensee? Does the licence apply merely to the area within or just outside the marquee, or does it go further afield, perhaps for the mile or mile and a half of the length of the runway?

In case there should be any mistake about it, I must emphasise that am not advocating that people should purchase alcohol and then pilot aeroplanes; however, like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, I would like to know what the extent of the curtilage is in such circumstances.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

As the hon. Member for North-East

Cambridgeshire told us, this is only a probing amendment; however, it is interesting, and I have learned a great deal about this subject since considering it. I see that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is interested in it, too.

Clause 190 provides definitions for a number of terms used in the Bill. It states:

'''licensed premises' means premises in respect of which a premises licence has effect''.{**w34**}

The amendment would add to that definition the words:

''and includes the area within the curtilage of those premises''.

That is fascinating.

Clause 18(3)(b) requires an application for a premises licence to be accompanied

''by a plan of the premises to which the application relates''.

The Secretary of State will prescribe the exact form of the plan. It will have to show clearly the extent of the premises, and which parts will be used for which licensable activities. Anything that is not on the plan, and is not described as the premises in respect of the application, will not be part of the licensed premises, and licensable activities could not be carried on there.

Under the Bill, ''premises'' can of course mean any place. The word is not limited to a building or any land that attaches to it. It can include a beer garden, a car park or a pavement, even where the pavement does not belong to the premises owner. The use of the term ''curtilage'' in the amendment is therefore a red herring. The term is defined in the ''Shorter Oxford English Dictionary'' as

''A small court, yard or piece of ground attached to a house and forming one enclosure with it''.

It is most commonly used in conveyancing, and is taken to mean the space immediately around a building.

Under the current licensing regime, a court might consider the curtilage of a building in reaching its decisions, but as ''premises'' is given its widest possible meaning under the Bill, we fully expect that there will no longer be any reason for the court to do so. A piece of land will either be part of the premises, as described in the application and shown on the plan submitted with it, or it will not.

Hon. Members might be trying to ensure that problems that take place a short distance from the premises, rather than on them, can be addressed. I assure them that that can be done without the amendment. If people standing in the street outside the premises cause a noise nuisance, for example, that could be grounds for local residents to ask for a licence to be reviewed. Similarly, the police might request a review if fights took place just outside the premises between customers leaving to go home. In addition, the interpretation would distort the ordinary meaning of the word ''curtilage.''

We do not intend to change the meaning of the word ''premises'' to include anything other than the place where licensable activities are conducted, and, under the system that the Bill will introduce, there is

no need to do so. If activities are to be carried on within the curtilage of the building, that extent will be the premises for which the application for a premises license is made. It would not therefore include the mile and half of runway at the aerodrome to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred, but it would include the area within the marquee and, if the effects of drinking in the marquee became an obvious nuisance, the immediate area outside. The amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that in light of my explanations the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

As the Minister said, this is a probing amendment. He has given an assurance that the guidance and regulations relating to the application for a premises licence, which have yet to be set down by the Secretary of State, will cover all angles. There might be grey areas in respect of some activities: for example, people might buy beer in a pub and stray into the car park to drink it, which is when problems arise. If the regulations and guidance made it clear to the applicants that they must include every possible area in their plans, that would address what we were attempting to achieve through the amendment. 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. 491, in

clause 190, page 104, line 36, at end insert—

'''protection of children from harm'' includes protection from harm to the aural system caused by excessive noise;'.

My amendment is designed to establish whether the licensing authority has, in protecting children from harm, responsibility for protecting them from the harm caused by exposure to excessive noise such as the sound of particularly noisy band recordings on licensed premises.

The organisation Hearing Concern tells me that the statistics for noise-induced hearing loss are getting worse because of a variety of environmental, occupational and leisure-related factors. Today's 18 to 25-year-olds are putting themselves at three times the risk of hearing loss experienced by those in the same age group just 10 years ago. My amendment does not cover 18 to 25-year-olds, but children—I assume that those over 18 are capable of making decisions for themselves. Hearing Concern says that with the increasing exposure to noise throughout people's lives come acceleration of hearing loss and a population that is increasingly hard of hearing.

Employers are required to take action to assess the level of noise exposure where it is likely to exceed 85 dB, and to review that in the light of circumstances that might alter the noise level. They have a duty to minimise noise exposure where it exceeds the first action level so that it reduces the risk of hearing loss to their employees. It is my contention that children should be at least as well protected from excessive noise as employees.

I can give some indication of what 85 dB means: it is somewhere between a shout, a doorbell or a vacuum cleaner and the point at which a road drill reaches the

level of discomfort. That seems to be a broad range. A shout, a doorbell and a vacuum cleaner can reach 80 dB; a road drill reaches 90 dB. A football crowd or a concert reaches 110 dB—I do not know whether we are talking about the Allegri string quartet or Steeleye Span—[Interruption.] Steeleye Span was just an example; I cannot help it that is the only noisy group whose name I can remember. The hon. Member for South Dorset is in mocking mood, but I am sure that that example is good enough for most members of the Committee.

My question is simple; will the clause enable licensing authorities, which have a responsibility to protect children, to take account of the damage caused by excessive noise?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

This is another interesting amendment. I am convinced that in years to come, the generation now aged between 18 and 30 will be seeking the services of expensive lawyers to chase compensation for leisure deafness caused by the technology that allows such massive amplification inside cars and other enclosed spaces. The volume in some cars is extraordinary, and would put Steeleye Span all into their hat.

Jane Griffiths (Labour, Reading East)

All around their hat.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, ''All around my hat''. Was that their only hit? I cannot remember.

People who were aware of the risks but for whom the lure was too great are now chasing cigarette manufactures and tobacco companies for compensation; it will be interesting to see whether the same happens with noise. I recognise that the amendment is probing, and I shall try to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.

The amendment would make protecting children from harm include

''protection from harm to the aural system caused by excessive noise''.

That is an important issue, and not only for children, although I accept that the risk might be higher for young people. I confirm that the licensing objectives of public safety and the protection of children from harm would provide an opportunity for this issue to be raised. However, we need to keep the risks in proportion, and we should not deny children access to particular forms of cultural entertainment. At previous sittings we discussed the fact that children under the ages of 18, or 14, attend discos that would drive me insane were I to say there too long; but the kids appear to love them.

Research makes it clear that the risk of harm to the aural system depends on the level of noise and the length of exposure. Indeed, the Musicians Union publishes a helpful information sheet, albeit directed at the protection of performers rather than audiences, which makes that very point. Exposure to a symphony orchestra, at about 94 dB, or a rock band at 125 dB, should not necessarily raise a great deal of concern if it is of limited extent and frequency. I hope the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will agree that we need to be sensible about the issue, and not venture too far

towards the nanny state; I am sure that he is no more fond of that than I am.

We should also bear in mind that every application for a premises licence, club premises certificate, variations and so on, will need to be copied to the responsible authorities, including the Health and Safety Executive and the environmental health authority. If an application raised genuine issues of public safety or the protection of children from excessive noise, we would expect those authorities to make representations to the licensing authority to that effect. The licensing authority would be required to hold a hearing to consider those representations, and it could impose such conditions as were necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

I hope that those reassurances will be sufficient to answer that viable probing amendment, and that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 190 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 191 to 197 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 198 - Short title, commencement and extent

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in

clause 198, page 108, line 33, leave out subsection (6).

The amendment removes the privilege amendment made when the Bill left another place. I understand from my vast experience of Bills that this procedure must be followed. The Bill places a charge on public funds, in so far as it reflects our intention to exempt village halls, church halls, parish halls and other community buildings, and schools from the fees associated with the aspects of the new licensing regime that relate to regulated entertainment. I do not intend to detain the Committee in further debate of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 198, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8 - Transitional provision etc.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 265, in

schedule 8, page 156, line 28, at end insert

'and the day so specified shall be no earlier than the date on which expires the period of nine months beginning with the date on which section 5 of this Act comes into force.'.

Schedule 8 deals with the transitional arrangements before the superseding of the existing 1964 Act by the new Act. The time limits imposed on the transitional period for instigating the new law could put undue pressure on the licensing authorities to deal with all the necessary conversions of existing licenses. In some cases the process will be very straightforward—a simple conversion, with the licensee seeking nothing additional to the existing arrangements. However, in

many cases licensees will wish to take advantage of the new opening hours, which may lead to opposition from local residents or other interested parties. In those cases, the granting of a premises licence will not be a single and straightforward issue for the licensing authority to deal with. In particular, licensing authorities operating in areas with a high density of licensed premises may find the time restrictions imposed on them far too onerous. A large number of licensing hearings will take place during the transition period, and it is not reasonable to assume that all those can be completed within the six-month time limit that the Government have determined.

The amendment preserves the six-month period from the date that the law commences, but licensing authorities would be granted a further nine-month period from the date of commencement of clause 5, which deals with the general duties of licensing authorities. That would allow for the licensing authorities to develop licensing policies before putting them into practice, and ease the considerable burdens that they will inevitably face in adopting their new status and acclimatising to their new role.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I, too, wish to question the transitional arrangements, although I appreciate that they will be of limited importance in many parts of the country. I have spoken a number of times on behalf of my local authority, the city of Westminster, so, to ring the changes, I shall mention a briefing that I received from the licensing department and senior officers of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea—of which I was a member until last May—and its deputy leader, Mr. Daniel Moylan. They are concerned about the time limits in the schedule, especially the notion of a first appointed day. That would not allow a significant number of licensing authorities, particularly in areas such as central London, enough time to deal properly with the applications that came before them.

Although the problem is specific to one London authority, which is not necessarily typical of the country, I should like to go into some detail about it. The royal borough has approximately 1,200 licensed premises. In February the licensing offices sent a letter to all of them asking, among other things, whether licensees would apply for extended opening hours during the proposed transitional period. Of the 311 responses—that is a high rate; most of us would be happy with a 25 per cent. response to our round robins—some 178, over 60 per cent., indicated that they would apply for additional operating hours. Assuming a similar rate of return from all the licensed premises, there will be some 700 applications to extend opening hours during the transitional period. The royal borough has a large number of well organised and vocal residents' associations that who work vigorously to protect their local environmental amenity. I know what that is like for its Member of Parliament, as the city of Westminster is similar.

Without taking into consideration any of the representations from the responsible authorities defined in the schedule, it is expected that Kensington and Chelsea will receive from residents

and their representatives up to 600 relevant objections to applications to vary existing licences, all of which will require hearings before the licensing committee. Many of those applications could arrive in a large group during the early stages of the transitional period, leaving the licensing committee with the impossible task of hearing all the contested applications within the permitted two-month period. We have discussed before the period to be prescribed by the Secretary of State within which interested parties and responsible authorities may make representations to the various applications. I believe that the period mentioned in the first draft of the guidance notes was 28 days. If that period were ratified in regulations, the licensing authorities could only have another 28 days to set up licensing hearings. That would be impossible, given the numbers that I have quoted.

Applicants would then have two slightly unpalatable choices—to lodge an immediate appeal with a magistrates court against the deemed refusal, on the basis of the clogged-up system, or to make a further application to vary the premises licence once the transition period had ended. My fear, above all, is that if the new regime is to have credibility among both applicants and residents' associations—and all other interested parties—it will be fatal for it to be undermined by the entire procedure being log-jammed in the way that I have described. I appreciate that we might have to return to the matter on Report, as the Minister has received other representations.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The amendment relates to ameliorating the obligations of the licensing authority by extending the time before persons may apply for the grant of a premises licence under the transitional arrangements. The Government have a duty not only to the licensing authorities, residents and the industry—the three groups that have been the subject of the most detailed debate in the Committee—but to the vast majority of ordinary people in the country, who wish to be treated as adults and are looking forward to the reforms.

Most people think change is long overdue, and they would not thank us for the further procrastination that would result if the amendment were accepted. It would mean that the transitional period could not begin until nine months after clause 5, which relates to the general duties of the licensing authorities, had come into effect. Incidentally, I think that the amendment cites clause 5 in error and that the reference should be to clause 6, which relates to the statement of licensing policy; however, we can argue about that another time. It is clear that the licensing authority will have had to develop its licensing policy before it can determine applications, and also determine the assiduity with which some local authorities pursue their obligations to consult.

Clause 6(7) allows provision about the determination of the policy and the preparation of statements to be made in regulations. However, there is no reason why it should take anyone nine months.

Nor is there any reason why responsible licensing authorities cannot start as soon as the guidance has been issued. We expect licensing authorities at least to have prepared draft statements of licensing policy well before the beginning of the transitional period. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will understand why the Government must resist the amendment.

We have discussed timing matters with a standing group of stakeholders, including representatives of the local authorities and of the industry and I am grateful for the additional information that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has provided in that respect. Both sides in the debate have been obliged to compromise, but the view of that group is that a period of six months would be sufficient for a licensing authority to prepare a draft statement of licensing policy, complete the consultation required by the Bill, analyse the results of the consultation and publish the statement. We expect the first appointed day to be immediately afterwards.

Local authorities already handle the processing of large volumes of applications across a range of areas. Some of the licensing functions will be new to licensing authorities, but they already process about 9,000 permanent and 37,000 temporary public entertainment licences under the current licensing regime. They are used to the work and the Government believe that in the vast majority of cases they should be able to cope. In addition, applications for the conversion of existing licences to premises licences are expected to be largely administrative and capable of being dealt with by officers of the authority rather than the licensing committee or sub-committee. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.

The local authorities have been vocal in their calls for the transfer of licensing functions to them. In return for those additional powers, it should not be forgotten that many people throughout the country are looking forward to the increased diversity of entertainment provision, the broader demographic profile of the late-night economy and the reduction in binge drinking and antisocial behaviour that its provisions will introduce. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear those people in mind, accept my assurances and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yet again, the Minister seeks to strike a balance between the wishes and desires of those who want a liberalised licensing regime, some of which we share, and the new requirements and burdens that will descend on the local authorities as licensing authorities. In certain circumstances, the transition period envisaged by the Government and set out by the Minister may not be sufficient. We tabled our probing amendments simply to ascertain whether the Government were truly satisfied that they had got the timing right and that there would be no problems in implementing the transition period. The Minister gave us an assurance that he had got the timing right, and time will tell. Some authorities and chief executives have told us that the time scale is too short and will give rise to problems, and the last thing any of us wants is to put on the statute book legislation that cannot be implemented according to the time scale that we have agreed. However, given that the Minister

has put on record his belief that the time scale is adequate and deliverable, we shall leave it at that. 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. 297, in

schedule 8, page 156, line 44, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 298, in

schedule 8, page 156, line 45, after second 'to', insert 'existing'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The amendments deal with what one might call grandfather rights for two in a bar and we have approached the issue from two angles. Amendment No. 297 would delete paragraph 1(2)(a), which refers to performers and to section 182 of the 1964 Act, which deals with the

''relaxation of law relating to music and dancing licences''.

Amendment No. 298 would interpose the word ''existing'' in sub-paragraph (2)(a), which would then refer to section 182 as being ''disregarded so far as it relates to existing public entertainment by way of music and singing provided by not more than two performers''.

Unless the Government have a massive change of heart, or agree to some of the amendments and new clauses that we may table on Report, the generally accepted view will remain that the Bill requires live musical entertainment to be provided in line with licensing objectives and irrespective of the number of musicians involved. However—we have been over these arguments many times—if such entertainment takes place regularly and without problems, there is no reason why it should not continue under the principle of keeping current permissions. In other words, we should give premises—and, indirectly, the performers involved—grandfather rights if they have two-in-a-bar provision at present and there are no problems. The Government should give some thought to allowing such premises to continue in the same way. Anything new would have to come under the new licensing regime.

The amendments would certainly take some of the heat out of the situation with the Musicians Union, and if the Minister is looking for a way out, they might provide him with one.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Indeed, the parts of the Bill to which the amendments refer have generated huge controversy. Many very colourful stories have been peddled about the Bill. Some have caused great upset and many performers have come close to undermining the Bill's positive effects on the provision of entertainment.

The tale that takes the top prize, however, is the one about the two-in-a-bar rule. I am glad that we have had an almost nationwide debate on the issue, at least among music aficionados because, to paraphrase Michael Caine, not a lot of people knew about it. Yet, it was there, and it determined much of the shape of live music in this country. I will try to explain the case for doing away with it and removing that distortion in live music in England and Wales. It

might be helpful if I also set out what the two-in-a-bar rule is, what we are putting in its place and why that will result in a vast increase in the opportunities for artists of all types—not just one or two musicians—to perform.

The two-in-a-bar rule is an exemption in the Licensing Act 1964 that allows two performers—two all night, not two and then another two and then another two—to perform live music in licensed premises such as pubs without needing a public entertainment licence. That is the current system.

It is easy to see why the rule is popular with some musicians and publicans. There are inconsistencies in the ways that local authorities set fees for public entertainment licences. We have heard that there are a variety of reasons—some more credible than others—why in some areas, particularly in London, those fees can rise as high as many thousands of pounds. They are the reasons why many pubs are put off from applying for an entertainment licence: their fall-back position is to rely on the two-in-a-bar rule.

The Bill will abolish that rule for a number of sound reasons, none of which are to do with a wish to restrict opportunities for performers to perform—indeed, the opposite is the case. The effect of the rule is restrictive: it drastically restricts the forms of entertainment that may be carried out in licensed premises where a justices' licence is in force—only entertainment consisting of one or two performers of live music is exempt. I hope that Committee members can immediately see that the perverse effect of the rule is that many types of music and other forms of entertainment are discouraged. Furthermore, that means that the range of cultural experience available to the general public is severely narrowed—what about two guitars, a drum and bass, or a chamber quartet? Under the present rules, the licensee must have an entertainment licence and that can be very expensive.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I have been closely following the Minister's argument and it seems to me that he is saying that the Bill will open up opportunities for musicians and the music industry rather than discourage them. ''Discourage'' is the word that he used, but why will they be discouraged if the two-in-a-bar rule is retained under grandfather rights? It is a concession that has worked well. Why would others—three in a bar—be discouraged if that is not in the Bill? They would be discouraged because they would have to apply for a licence, with all the associated costs.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is a good point and I will try to deal with it soon. I wrestled with this matter for a long time. The basis of my argument is that businesses—particularly small businesses—often feel more comfortable with retaining what they have than with exploring the possibility of something new. I hope that I will be able to explain my reason for resisting the hon. Gentleman's good argument.

We are not alone in wishing to see an end to the two-in-a-bar rule. On 8 April, the Association of British Jazz Musicians issued a briefing note—the tone of which, I must admit, is critical of the Bill. I believe

that it was sent to a number of Committee members. It states:

''The current legislation concerning live music in pubs, bars and other liquor licensed premises, commonly referred to as the 'two in a bar rule', already makes it extremely difficult for musicians to find work''.

That is where I have started from on this matter. The problem is how to proceed. We believe that the right way forward is to abolish the two-in-a-bar rule. We are putting in its place a simple, cheap and streamlined licensing system that should encourage—if industry makes full use of the reforms—a huge opening up of the opportunities for performing many sorts of regulated entertainment. To encourage pubs and other venues to take maximum advantage of the new system, we have agreed to work with the Musicians Union and other organisations representing performers and artists to develop a leaflet that their members can hand out to local licensees to persuade them to apply to put on live music. That is an important undertaking. There will be a steep learning curve for many of us, including the Musicians Union and other organisations, which realise that we must engage with the holders of premises licences to ensure that they know that they can put on live entertainment and that they do not have to pay the earth for it.

Let us focus on pubs, as that is where the current exemption applies. Pubs will need a premises licence to sell alcohol. They will have to go through the application procedure and pay the fee applicable if they want to sell alcohol. It will cost them nothing extra to seek at the same time authorisation in the premises licence to put on regulated entertainment in any of its diverse forms. The situation is as simple as that. Where no relevant representations are received on the application, it will be granted automatically.

Let us compare that with the current system, in which huge fees for a public entertainment licence—many thousands of pounds in some areas—act as a considerable deterrent to pubs obtaining such licences. The Government are firm in our belief that the combination of the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule with the much simpler and cheaper licensing system under the Bill should open up opportunities for entertainers to perform.

Amendment No. 297 would allow the continuation of a form of the two-in-a-bar rule in the converted new licences issued during the transitional period. Automatically permitting the provision of entertainment in the form currently exempted by the two-in-a-bar rule would simply perpetuate the current restrictive framework by placing a disincentive on businesses to apply to vary their existing licences on transition to extend the range of entertainment that they are permitted to provide.

Amendment No. 298 appears intended to have the same purpose as amendment No. 297. It, too, is flawed and would fail to provide any benefit to performers. Again, the intention appears to be to perpetuate the exemption for two in a bar by converting schedule 8,

so that the existing provision of live music, albeit in a slightly amended way, would appear as an authorisation on the new premises licence. However, the amendment would not achieve that. Paragraph 1(2)(a) of schedule 8 provides that the exemption in section 182 of the 1964 Act is to be disregarded in determining what existing licensable activities can be converted. Adding the word ''existing'' before the words ''public entertainment'' would do nothing to change the fact that the activity is to be disregarded.

I hope that the Committee accepts that the amendments pose a threat to amateur and professional musicians of all shapes and sizes. I trust that the amendments will not be pressed because I have great hopes that the regime that we are putting in place will mean a great change for the better in the organisation of live music.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We seem to have had this argument several times already. The Minister repeats his case that this is simply about a tick in the box. That has been said to the representatives of the music industry more than once in the past few months, if not years, but they are not reassured that this is simply about ticking the box at no extra cost. They accept that there is a simple procedure to go through at the time of application. However, they say from their experience, which admittedly is of the current regime, that when the local authority gets involved in applications for entertainment licences it all starts to go wrong. As the Minister said, unless there are representations, the application will go through fairly smoothly. If the Government set the fees for the application—we still do not know what those will be—we may see that it will not be terribly onerous in some or even many cases. I accept the Minister's argument that if there are grandfather rights, licensees or publicans may say, ''I'm not going to bother extending the licence; I'll just keep to two in a bar'', and the opportunities for more musicians to take part will be reduced.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Thinking about the transitional period, does the hon. Gentleman accept that a temporary event notice would be a useful way for those who felt some reluctance about taking risks, in terms of ticking a box, to test out entertainment with more than two in a bar? They would have much more flexibility and far less regulation at a nominal cost. A temporary event notice is a useful form of transitional arrangement to encourage people to go the whole hog with public entertainment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is an interesting idea that will perhaps be explored. Of course, the limit in that case is 499 people. There may well be representations when such applications are made on the basis that the number of people attracted to a certain event would be far too great and the restrictions would then come in. We are still not getting away from representations. The people making them, whether concerned with health and safety or fire, will say that unless certain changes are made to the premises, the licence should not be allowed. That is where the problem arises.

I have been to pubs in my constituency and have talked to my local brewer. My local authority has told that brewery, as well as local publicans and tenants, what they would have to do to gain a public

entertainment licence, and it would cost a lot of money. Those changes involve, for example, making structural changes to the premises for obvious fire and health and safety reasons. One would not say that that was unnecessary; however, it is slightly misleading to harp on about the tick in the box and the fact that there are no costs. There are real costs, particularly for the many old pubs that lend themselves to a small combo in the corner, but where there would be fairly serious implications if they wanted to extend beyond that.

As the hon. Member for South Dorset said, TENs—temporary event notices—may provide a way around that problem for the transitional period. Although the limit of 499 people would give room to manoeuvre to some, there is no way that the local police or whoever will allow 499 people into a couple of bars in a pub. There will be obvious restrictions that we must not overlook.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

May I give the hon. Gentleman and the Committee some reassurances? Under the Bill, the local authority, as the licensing authority, would be operating under a different regime. That regime would include checks and balances designed to ensure that an authority could not impose conditions, other than those necessary to promote the licensing objectives, without breaching its statutory duty.

I want to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined to ensure that under no circumstances will frivolous conditions be imposed on licensees, such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, who want music or other entertainment allowed at present to continue. We want to ensure that that will not require the addition of another fire door or whatever.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that if there is to be a huge change—if a big band were to play at the premises, or if many more people were to be attracted—then of course the authority will have to take cognisance of that and must require the premises to make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that public safety is paramount and is maintained.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I do not disagree with the Minister; obviously, even if the music is incidental in the final analysis the safety of the public should be paramount. It is all a matter of scale. In the majority of pubs and clubs, there are small groups of musicians—more than two, but not in many cases an orchestra—and fewer than 499 people are attending. How can we ensure that such events and opportunities take place? I hear the Minister saying that he wants a system that encourages greater participation, with more musicians involved. We concur. However, can we be certain, in the light of the Bill's wording, that that will happen?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being patient and giving way to me again. We have convened a working group that includes representatives from the local authorities and the performers to explore what might or might not constitute appropriate conditions for various scales and various kinds of music. The statutory guidance, to which the licensing authorities must have regard, will contain model conditions.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is a positive way forward. I thank the Minister for alerting the Committee to it.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the limited role of the licensing authority in terms of the licensing objectives—it cannot go beyond its remit. However, the authority may receive an application for an entertainment licence and make that known to the fire officers locally. If a fire officer returned a report to the local authority insisting that major changes had to take place, that would surely have a bearing on whether the licence was issued and on the cost implications for the premises licence holder. That is true, is it not?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

All those things would, of course, be costs. However, the hon. Gentleman would have to concede that in most cases there would not be great changes. He talked about two musicians becoming three, for example, or two becoming four. I hope that the model working practices in the statutory guidance will not involve much expenditure for those who own or maintain the venues. As the hon. Gentleman has hinted, my saying that that will not happen is, in some respects, a statement of faith. That is, however, a consequence of my extensive discussions with all the parties involved and my saying that that is the best way forward, if we are to change the way live music is staged.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying some of those issues. It is a pity that we do not have the guidance—I do not suppose that it will be available before Report and Third Reading. I know, however, that there is still concern out there that will not go away. Perhaps when the Bill returns to another place there will be a strongly defended rearguard action to tackle the issues yet again.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am looking at the draft guidance the Committee has received. Section 4.45 says:

''In determining what conditions should be attached to licences and certificates . . . licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid measures which deter live music, dancing and theatre by imposing direct costs of a substantial nature''.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the fire authority imposing substantial costs. Those would be imposed for public safety. I am sure that none of the applicants would want to put on events that were unsafe. There is, however, a concern that unnecessary conditions would be placed upon them, and the guidance suggests that that should be avoided.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The key word there is ''substantial'', as in substantial costs. Costs of any degree are unwelcome, particularly for people running small businesses. We heard what the hon. Gentleman and the Minister have said. We take on board his assurances that he is working closely with the people involved to find good working practices. The Minister used the word ''model'', which is a useful one. We need clear guidance on those matters so that the fears that are still being expressed are fully allayed. We shall return to the matter on Report and I am sure that it will be returned to in the other place. The sooner that the Minister can issue his detailed guidance and have his consultation

the better for all concerned. We wish him luck in that and hope that he achieves it sooner rather than later. 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. 224, in

schedule 8, page 157, line 16, leave out first 'the' to end and insert

'applicant for a premises licence has served a copy of the notice of application on the last known address of the existing licensee or licensees.'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 315, in

schedule 8, page 157, line 16, at end insert

'or

(c) it is made by or on behalf of a person having an interest in the premises registered under section 32(1) or (2) of the Licensing Act 1964, who shall produce written evidence of such registration.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

These amendments refer to paragraph 2 on applications for conversion of an existing licence. The industry has been to see us and has expressed concern about having to obtain the consent of the licence holder for an application to convert an existing licence, as set out in sub-paragraph (3)(b). Amendment No. 224 is designed to protect businesses from unscrupulous or malcontent individuals who leave their employers with massive costs and uncertainty for the security of their licence. Even when precautions have been taken to ensure that one store has numerous licensees on site, in a trade with high staff turnover, some may find that only one individual remains when the Bill comes into effect. Furthermore, that is not an option for many smaller businesses. Therefore, the Government's previous assertions—I believe in the debate in the other place—that internal disciplinary procedures will sufficiently ensure that on-site managers approve all applications may prove to be wholly inadequate.

Current practice deems that applications for interim authorities and protection orders require the service of notice only upon the court and police. No notice is required to be served on existing licensees as it would be redundant to do so. The new system of transfer of justices' licences will require notice to be served on the licensee. That is understandable. If granted, the transfer application has the potential to deprive the licence holder of their right to sell or retail alcohol. So the licence holder ought to have the opportunity to appear in court to oppose the application, although there is no legal requirement for the consent to transfer the existing licensee. In the example given in the Bill, the transfer will not deprive the licence holder, who will be granted a personal licence under the transitional provisions. Service of notice of application upon the existing licensee can be proved by providing a simple signed certificate to the licensing committee, asserting that the licensee was served notice at his or her last known address.

The amendment provides that only the applicant for a premises licence serves a copy of the notice of application on the last known address of the existing licensee. There are 25,000 independent grocers and

shops representing half of the off-trade licences. They are responsible for about a tenth of the sales. Is the Government expecting that in all circumstances disputes can successfully be dealt with by normal disciplinary procedures? It is likely that in some cases the manager may have disappeared, walked out or, under the powers invested in him in the new law, is able to hold the business owner to ransom by withholding his consent. Businesses cannot be expected to relinquish power over their own future in such a manner.

Amendment No. 315 deals with the operation needs of multi-site retailers. For example, in the pub sector where premises are managed, the manager, who is an employee of the company that owns the premises, holds the licence. Under the new system, it is highly likely that companies that own or have a significant business interest in the premises might want to hold the premises licence, while the pub manager will be the personal licence holder. Under the transition provision in the Bill, the application to convert the licence can be made only by existing licence holders or with their consent.

It is unacceptable that companies running managed pubs, supermarkets, off-licences and so on will not be able to apply for their premises licence without the consent of all their managers. In the case of the pub sector, that means obtaining the consent of thousands of individuals, which is likely to prove difficult. It would be more effective if provision was made for a company to register its interest as a superior landlord. The amendment clearly indicates the existence of a registrable interest, which already exists in legislation.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

As the hon. Gentleman has informed us, the intention of amendment No. 315 is to protect the interests of companies that have disagreements with licence holders at the time of transition, which result in the licence holder either refusing to co-operate or leaving without providing a forwarding address. In those circumstances, the consent of the existing licence holder would be impossible to obtain and the conversion of the licence could not take place. The Government do not accept that the wording of the clause will present any problem in most circumstances. I am sure that it is not being suggested that an employee will do anything other than what his employer requires. For instance, the owner of a pub chain can take action in respect of the individual under his employment contract if the employee acts against his instruction, or actively seeks to damage his employer's business by refusing to give consent.

I remind the Committee that the Bill will not prevent applications for justices' licences or for their transfer during the transitional period. A pub company with a licensee who will not give his or her consent to an application for a conversion of a licence would be free to recruit a new licensee and seek their consent to conversion. Committee members may consider that to be an onerous process, but I remind them that the provisions are for preserving special rights and are based on judgments that have already been made about individuals who have satisfied the licensing authorities or licensing justices on any points of concern. It is therefore right that they should either

make conversion applications, or give them their consent.

Amendment No. 315 would add to the list of those eligible to apply for conversion any person who has registered an interest in the premises under the terms of the Licensing Act 1964. We are talking only about justices' licences and breweries and pub-operating companies that do not hold the licence themselves. In most cases, an employee—a manager or a tenant—will hold the licence. It should be noted that the amendment would provide that the consent of the licence holder would not be needed if a person or business decided to apply. That is a recipe for confusion. What if both the licence holder and the person with a registered interest applied? How is a licensing authority to decide which applicant should be given precedence? Is the intention that it should be first come first served and are we expecting licensing authorities to decide disputes between tenants and landlords? I think not.

Confusion aside, grandfather rights are being afforded because, in the case of justices' licences, particular individuals—the licence holders—have shown themselves to the satisfaction of the licensing justices to be fit and proper people to sell alcohol. It is therefore unnecessary to ask them to go through the tests set out in the Bill. Those with registered interests under the 1964 Act have not satisfied any licensing body of their fitness to sell alcohol, and the right therefore belongs to the individuals holding the licences. We have been flexible by providing that where the licence holder is prepared to give his or her consent another individual may apply. That prevents confusion and would allow a person with a registered interest to make an application for conversion, but there can be no automatic right for such people.

With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am still not convinced that there will not be problems for the industry where there is a dispute between the current licence holder—who may be a tenant or a manager—and the company involved. The Minister seems to be saying that the Bill should not interpose itself between the contractual obligations between them, but I can envisage situations arising in which consent will be withheld, to the detriment of the business. That is a bargaining chip that ought not to exist in the transitional period before the new licences are introduced.

I accept part of what the Minister says and our amendments might not solve the problem, but it is unreasonable in all instances to leave the consent in the hands solely of the current licence holder and for the balance to be tipped in their favour. I admit that on the appointed day, or in the transitional period leading up to it, there will be few disputes between managers and tenants and their employers or the companies involved. Companies will be out on a limb if consent is withheld by an individual who is in dispute with them or who, under the new licence arrangements, ought not to have a licence because of transgressions that they have committed.

I will happily withdraw the amendments if they do not fit the bill, but we might look at this matter again on Report. At present, the benefit is totally tipped in the direction of the current licence holder and it lacks balance. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 322, in

schedule 8, page 160, line 21, at end insert—

'( ) the purposes embodied in those undertakings of a permanent nature relating to the licensing objectives which have been offered by the licensee and which attach to the relevant existing licence,'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 323, in

schedule 8, page 160, line 24, after 'the', insert 'permanent undertakings and'.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Undertakings are an important matter. I understand that several interested parties have lobbied the Minister about it, and I have no doubt that we will return to it on Report. I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns that have been expressed and deal with them when he replies to this brief debate.

Those concerns predominantly involve central London—my own City of Westminster. However, they also involve the London borough of Camden, and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has made detailed representations. I wish to take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to Matthew Bennett and David Bieda for their briefings to me: they are hard-working local activists in the west end and they have expressed some of the grave concerns.

I will talk about the amendments together, and I will subsequently say a few words on staggered timing, which is one of the centrepieces of the law and order aspect of the Bill.

The undertakings offered by a licensee are generally a non-statutory set of conditions or agreements that are read in conjunction with the liquor licence and then attached to it. Under the current regime, non-compliance with those undertakings is a matter that the justices can take into account when determining whether to renew a licence.

Until now, undertakings have often been used to cover matters that have been subject to objection or complaint from neighbours or other interested parties. Under the future regime, we would like local representatives and councillors to be such interested parties in their own right, rather than as part and parcel of the local licensing authority. Undertakings have been widely used by many licensing justices' committees to resolve problems about licensed premises, rather than simply to revoke the licence. It provides a flexible touch.

One of our concerns is the notion that undertakings will be done away with and that the Government will end that more flexible regime. Often, undertakings have been attached at the request of the police or other law and order authorities. The Bill, if unamended, could sweep away all the undertakings, including those put into place at the request of the police as an

alternative to revocation. Clearly, revocation is an important step; however, the current regime allows for strict undertakings and if they are done away with, some of the more unsavoury operators, who have been able to get away with quite a lot in the past, will be seen to get away scot free.

Many licences, particularly in central London, have detailed undertakings. They may deal with double-glazing, numbers of customers or staff, the fitting of noise limiters, the need for doormen to encourage customers outside premises to disperse quickly and quietly, the restriction of music-playing hours, or the request that there be no off-sales—there is a whole range of conditions. A premises may have some 20 or so undertakings. There may have been an accretion of undertakings over time, because of particular circumstances, the concerns of residents or the fact that an area has subtly changed. There is no doubt that all the areas in central London that I have referred to, and particularly Soho and Covent Garden, have changed immensely in recent decades.

Undertakings are almost a patchwork or network of protection, not only for residents but for the better operators, who deserve to be able to ensure that the tenor of the area is not undermined. The great worry is that if the Government simply sneak the regime of undertakings away, the lowest common denominator will, as ever, be played to.

In another place, Baroness Blackstone said:

''these undertakings do not have any legal force. They may be considered now by licensing authorities when licences are being renewed. If the undertakings have been broken, that could lead to renewals being refused. But they cannot of themselves lead to a criminal prosecution as would be the case with licence conditions.

Therefore, should it be mandatory for applicants for licence conversions to provide information on these non-legal obligations? There is one key reason why I do not believe that it should. Under the Bill, interested parties and responsible authorities can request the review of any premises licence on a ground relating to the licensing objectives. This gives ample opportunity for residents, for instance, to seek recourse if any premises give rise to problems of crime and disorder or public nuisance.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2003; Vol. 645, c. 780.]

What sort of message does it send if a premises operator who has run premises in such a way that the licensing justices required many undertakings of them does not even have to provide information about those undertakings to the new licensing authority to get a transitional licence? Is that a satisfactory position in which to put residents and neighbours?

We fear that the new Bill will sweep away all the protection offered by undertakings, which may well be the result of months, if not years, of nuisance, distress and bureaucratic wrangling. That would be very much to be regretted. I am not entirely sure how the regime works outside central London, but from my experience in central London, it is clear that a patchwork or network of undertakings has provided a sort of protection.

Perhaps the Government do not want to be seen as being anti-liquor trade. I do not think that they would have anything to fear on that score if they accepted my

amendment; it simply ensures that the conditions in the new licence embody the purposes of the undertakings. Those are the conditions under which licence holders have willingly decided to operate their licence at present. Let us face it, undertakings are not simply bureaucratic nonsense that can easily be swept away and dismissed as red tape; they have been given only because there have been, or might be, problems in the area.

I appreciate that there has been a lot of lobbying from other Members of Parliament outside this Committee, and I understand that the Minister may well come back to the matter on Report.

Briefly, on staggered closing hours, there has been some misapprehension about them by the Government in these debates. We shall return to the matter on Report, but I should like some guidance from the Minister as to what he understands the notion of staggered closing to mean. Ministers seem to have given two quite distinct meanings at various times. Either it should mean dispensing with all controls over opening hours or it should mean that effectively there will be a larger number of people on the streets, but over a longer period of time—there would not be a witching hour at 11 o'clock , 12 o'clock or even at later times within a number of bars in central London, to which I have already referred.

We have grave concerns about central London and precisely how the system will operate. Undertakings have been an integral part of ensuring that there is a balance that all of us wish to maintain between the residential population and the interests of business—particularly the interests of long-standing local businesses, which have not only been the life-blood of many of our inner cities but have provided the commitment to ensure that the tenor of many of our inner cities is maintained. A vibrant resident population is the prerequisite to ensure that our inner cities can be lived in and that the objectives of law and order, of which the Government rightly make much play, can be maintained.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman gave us come compelling arguments for continuing with the kinds of undertakings that he has described. I acknowledge that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have expressed views about the continuing beneficial effect of undertakings and what the Bill will do to them. The words of my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone in another place are the words that he shall more or less hear from me, because of the difference between undertakings and the statutory obligations that we seek to impose.

Amendments Nos. 322 and 323 would require that a premises licence must be granted under the conversion provisions in schedule 8, subject to such conditions as reproduced the effect of the undertakings subject to which the existing licence or licences—for example, a justices' licence—had been granted or renewed. The Bill addresses comprehensively the attaching of existing conditions to a new premises licence under the conversion arrangements.

Undertakings are a very different matter and it is important that the Committee should understand

what they are. I chose the example of a justices' licence because that is the area of licensing where undertakings are often mentioned at present. Undertakings that are sometimes sought by licensing justices do not have any legal force unless they themselves form conditions on the face of existing licences. I think that the hon. Gentleman repeated the words of my noble Friend in another place to reinforce the assertion. They may be considered by licensing authorities when licences are being renewed. If the undertakings have been broken, that could lead to the renewal of licences being refused. However they cannot themselves lead to a criminal prosecution, as would be the case with licence conditions, and they cannot be enforced. In essence, they are entirely voluntary undertakings and they do not, as such, attach to a licence. They amount to no more than a personal promise by the applicant for a licence or its renewal under current legislation.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Surely the Minister must appreciate that although he was talking about the distinction made by his noble Friend in another place, none the less undertakings are very powerful—particularly within a local area. If an operator deliberately flouts those promises, those personal undertakings, that has a major effect upon future licence applications, both for that premises and the other premises within the same area.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, indeed. I acknowledge that—

It being twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), deferred adjourning the Committee.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Thank you very much, Mr. Benton. That is a wise decision. I shall try to be brief—[Hon. Members: ''Get on with it.''] Right, I will.

The question is whether it should be mandatory for applicants for licence conversions under paragraph 2 of schedule 8 to provide information on non-legal matters and whether we should give those undertakings new legal force. However, there is one key reason why it should not be mandatory.

Under the Bill, interested parties in responsible authorities can request the review of any premises licence on grounds relating to the licensing objectives. That gives ample opportunity for residents and others to seek a remedy if a licensee does, or fails to do, something that was previously the subject of an undertaking, provided that the act or omission is relevant to the licensing objectives. I hope that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster accepts that. I assure him that the Bill provides ample protections and it provides more opportunities than exist at present for residents and others to seek a remedy if a premises causes a particular problem. There is nothing to be gained from transferring undertakings to premises licences. I therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I must confess that I remain unhappy, but I appreciate that the Minister has been clear and we shall return to the issue on Report. I hope that he will be open enough to take on board some of the concerns that have been raised in Committee.

The concern that I have above all is that the Minister said—I paraphrase—that the undertakings should be in keeping with the four key objectives under clause 5. Surely, those undertakings in accordance with the Bill's objectives would be covered under the licensing matter anyway. The sorts of undertakings that take account of localised factors require protection for residential populations or other traders, but they will fall foul of the provisions and probably will not be covered by the main objectives. With that in mind, we have expressed our grave concern that the whole patchwork of undertakings can be done away with. That gives a further weapon in the armoury of those unscrupulous operators whose plan is to run roughshod over the interests not only of the residential population but of the smaller, independent family operators in central London—for whom in many ways I have greater concern—many of whom provide brilliant service in wine bars, restaurants and a range of other licensed premises.

My concern is that the next time that there is an economic upturn, it will be all too tempting for operators in my constituency, such as those in Soho, to sell out because they realise that the ambience of the area is diminishing. No choice will be left for the residents or any other users of our central London entertainment industry and only large operators will remain, appealing to the lowest common denominator. I do not suggest that all large operators are like that; many have sensible policies. There is a concern, however, that we will see a McDonaldisation and Starbuckisation of the whole district to the detriment of the charm that we retain in many of our inner cities. I appreciate that the Minister has not been persuaded by my words on the amendment or, dare I say it, any of my words during the past six or seven weeks of the Committee.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seriously consider this matter because we will return to it on Report. I hope that in the interim—during the next two or three weeks—he will try to find some means whereby we can at least retain the best of the undertakings regime. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 33, in

schedule 8, page 166, line 9, leave out 'section 73' and insert

'sections (club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises) and 73'.

No. 34, in

schedule 8, page 166, line 14, leave out 'section' and insert

'sections (club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premise) and'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 299, in

schedule 8, page 167, line 25, after

'licence', insert ', or a person who within the last 12 months prior to the appointed day has held a justices' licence which has not been subsequently revoked,'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 300, in

schedule 8, page 168, line 39, after 'licence', insert

', or is a person who within the last 12 months prior to the appointed day has held a justices' licence which has not been subsequently revoked,'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Thank, you, Mr. Benton, for using your discretion to extend our proceedings. I am sure that we can finalise things quickly. I shall be brief.

Under the current proposals, only those actively holding a justices' licence on the appointed day will be entitled to receive the new personal licence. Anyone who has been in the trade without being specifically responsible for a premises will not get that benefit. We believe that that would be grossly unfair on those who, through no fault of their own, are not at present listed as a licence holder. There could be various reasons for that. A company may have gone into receivership and a manager may have lost his position; a supermarket manager may be in between positions and a tenant may be in the process of acquiring a new tenancy.

The industry and the trade organisations have long argued that transition should allow people who are for whatever reason temporarily without a licence on the appointed day to obtain a new-style licence without the need to get a qualification. Some of those affected may have many years' experience in the trade and it would be more than insulting for them to have to sit an examination. Indeed, many of them would already have obtained all the necessary qualifications that are available.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The amendments would go beyond the rights given to an individual currently holding a justices' licence, even if the law did not change. It cannot be assumed that a person who has been considered fit and proper in the past can automatically be considered fit and proper now—that is the same as the current law. We do not know what the justices would make of those people. The grandfather right as a privilege should be applied only to those who are considered fit and proper by the justices. Those who fall outside the privileged group will have to apply for a personal licence during the transitional period and must meet the qualifying tests in part 6 of the Bill.

Hon. Members will no doubt argue that that approach is harsh or unfair. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire hinted at that. We are, however, obliged to draw the line somewhere. The hon. Gentleman did just that in choosing a limit of 12 months. I ask hon. Members to remember that under paragraph 23(2), any individual in the kind of circumstances that were described would have at least six months—the so-called transitional period—in which to obtain a justices' licence if they had recently surrendered one. If they were successful, they could, within that period, use the licence to secure a grandfather right. The justices will still be functioning throughout that period and an application will carry appropriate eligibility as long as it is made in the transitional period. That arrangement is not unreasonable or rigid; it is pretty fair and I hope, with that undertaking, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for a way forward for those who seem to be caught in this in-between situation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

New clause 1 - Club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I thank you, Mr. Benton, for your expert chairmanship and I hope that you will also convey the Committee's thanks to Mr. Gale. Both of you have excellently chaired all of the sittings, even though our consideration of the Bill has been long and, in many ways, difficult. I also wish to thank the following people: our excellent Clerk, Mr. Sandall, for offering you, Mr. Benton, and Mr. Gale advice throughout the proceedings, which has been passed on to all Committee members; our expert and long-suffering Hansard staff, who have made immortal our mostly pedestrian words; and, most importantly, all Committee members, who have performed brilliantly, and especially the Labour Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), for his steely calm and clear hand in ensuring that we made good progress, and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who has conducted himself with a great deal of aplomb and presented arguments clearly, as a consequence of which we have had some good debates. On Report, the Bill will be much stronger as a result of the Committee's deliberations. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Torbay and his colleague the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) for the way in which they conducted themselves. This has been a good Committee: I have learned a great deal and my hair has gone a lot greyer.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I associate myself and my Conservative colleagues with the Minister's remarks, especially those on your excellent chairmanship, Mr. Benton, and that of Mr. Gale—I hope that you will pass them on to him. I also thank the Clerk, Mr. Sandall, who has given me a great deal of help and guidance in the

past few weeks and the Hansard staff who have faithfully recorded our words of wisdom and indiscretions for posterity.

It has been a good Committee. The atmosphere has been good and the Minister must take a great deal of credit for that. He has answered our questions firmly and honestly, and where he has had doubts and concerns he has promised to go away and think about them. We can ask for no more than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that he has been unable to persuade the Minister about anything so far, but I advise him not to give up hope, as I expect that it will be surprising how many Government amendments that look very similar to some of the ideas and points that we have expressed suddenly appear on Report. Further consultation must take place in the intervening weeks. I will not list all the people the Minister has promised to have a chat with, but some problems can be resolved quickly and adequately if consultation takes place with the concerned bodies.

I have had considerable help from a young researcher who is studying politics. I am unsure whether she will become a politician, but it will look good on her CV if I mention her in dispatches: her name is Katherine Clifford, and I thank her for having done a terrific job for me. We have not got the power of Government behind us: I was going to refer to two men and a dog, but it would have been a bit insulting to have done so. It is a salutary lesson to try to go through such a wide-ranging Bill with so few resources.

I thank everyone who will be affected by the Bill for having helped us prepare arguments, table

amendments and carry scrutiny to the heart of the Government's proposals. We look forward to the Bill moving on to the next stage, which will happen fairly soon. When it does, may horns be locked yet again.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

May I briefly associate myself with all the kind words that have been said about everybody present?

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon is absent today. He is getting married on Saturday. The reception is at his home. The marriage is taking place this weekend, before the Bill is enacted and the various licences that he may have had to apply for are introduced.

I thank hon. Members for the kind way in which debate has been conducted and I thank you, Mr. Benton, for holding off a bit when I was a little late arriving this morning: that was very kind of you.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I will convey the Committee's thanks.

I endorse everything that has been said about the learned Clerk, the Hansard reporters and everybody who has helped the Committee. I want the hon. Member for North Devon to be assured that we will not be turning up in force at his wedding—although I kind of sensed an invitation—and would like all our best wishes for a good day and a long and happy marriage to be conveyed to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.