Policing and Crime Bill — Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

House of Lords, 6 July 2009.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

With Amendment 71, we are looking at the issue of the decriminalisation of associated workers in brothels. This is another step on our road to try to decriminalise as much of this as possible. In introducing these amendments, I commend the Minister for his versatility and energy. He had a lot more consensus, I think, on the Statement just now than he will find from any of us with this Bill. Nevertheless, I shall press on with the amendments in the hope that he will agree with us on some things.

Our first amendment is to decriminalise the associated workers. They are extremely important. The women who work as receptionists or maids are essentially there to keep the sex workers safe, to raise the alarm if something very untoward happens and even to provide company in extremely dull times when there are no customers. None of those should be criminal acts and their presence when they might come across violent clients is essential. Of all the things I saw when we were invited to visit some of the premises in Soho, one of the most shocking was the safe room where women go when they are threatened with violence. There is a steel door and several bolts. It is not used frequently but frequently enough. Something so real as that was, for me, a salutary illustration that these women often face violence. It can appear when they are at their most defenceless.

Amendment 72 concerns the definition of a brothel. I originally tabled this amendment to suggest that the premises should not be regarded as a brothel where there are no more than two prostitutes. The Minister will have noticed that I changed this late last week to four because I reread the Royal College of Nursing's submission on this subject. With all the experience of nurses as health workers, they felt that four was the right number, so I decided to go for their recommendation.

The Minister has heard me talk before about New Zealand so he will not be surprised to hear me say that, in New Zealand, the law makes a distinction between a small, collectively run brothel of up to four people working together and larger brothels which must be licensed. Reports from New Zealand say that the new legislation has increased the safety and security of women by enabling them to work in this way. By contrast, there is no evidence that it has made life more difficult for those hoping to license the larger brothels, that it leads to more disorder or anything of that kind.

We are simply asking in the proposed new clause for recognition of the reality that, as long as women work in the sex trade, they should be kept as safe as possible. We aim to give the Government a chance to honour their commitment made on 17 January 2006. Fiona Mactaggart, then Minister of State at the Home Office, launched the Government's Coordinated Prostitution Strategy. The strategy document said that the present definition of a brothel ran counter to the advice that the Government and others provide—that, in the interest of safety, women should not sell sex alone. It said:

"The Government will make proposals for an amendment to the definition of a brothel so that two (or three) individuals may work together".

With this amendment I invite the Minister to go back to the commitment made at that time. I beg to move.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

We support the amendments. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that nothing in this Bill would go against the safeguards that her new clauses seek to insert.

Amendment 71 raises an important point about those people working in incidental jobs in premises which are closed down. There is nothing to be gained by criminalising those who have done nothing wrong but work at a business that is later proved to be a front for an illegal brothel.

Amendment 72 rightly raises the concern that this new power will, if used inappropriately, drive prostitutes out of relatively safe brothels and on to the streets. We have all heard the statistics of violence and abuse against prostitutes. It would be entirely wrong to force prostitutes out of their private premises in order to expose them to more of these attacks. As the noble Baroness highlights, even the Home Office accepts that the current definition of brothel goes against common sense. Why have the Government continued with this harmful definition?

Lord Brett (Labour)

I resist these amendments and hope to persuade noble Lords why Amendment 71 will not achieve its aim and why the Government do not support Amendment 72. Amendment 71 seeks to amend the offence of keeping a brothel used for prostitution by exempting those who do not own the brothel, but are employed there not directly in the provision of sexual services. We do not believe this would be appropriate. However, the amendment could prevent the prosecution of someone who knowingly takes an active part in the running of a brothel. Existing case law already excludes people involved in purely menial and routine duties such as cleaning the stairs or answering the door. We consider it appropriate that someone can be prosecuted for managing or taking part in the running of a business where they have some control over it, even if they are not the owner. The classic example might be a man who has control and ownership of a brothel and employs his brother or friend to manage it. We are therefore not inclined to amend case law in this area by means of legislation.

Amendment 72 also seeks to amend the law in relation to brothels by amending the definition of a brothel to ensure that where one or two prostitutes—the amendment provides for up to four—work together at a premises, whether with or without a maid, the premises will not be considered to be a brothel as long as the prostitutes retain control of their earnings from that prostitution. This definition could apply to a number of offences in the Sexual Offences Act 1956 such as the offence of keeping a brothel. The question of the term "brothel" is defined by case law as a house,

"resorted to or used by more than one woman for the purposes of fornication".

This covers two or more prostitutes working together at a premises even if only one of the prostitutes uses the premises at any given time.

The noble Baroness referred to opinions expressed by a previous Minister, and it is true that our Coordinated Prostitution Strategy, published in 2006, sets out a commitment to amend the definition of a brothel so as to allow two or three individuals to work together. This remains part of the prostitution strategy, and during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill last year, we made a commitment to consult before any change to the definition was made. Following the publication of the strategy, we received considerable feedback about the negative impact such a move might have on the ability of enforcement agencies to identify and deal with prostitution involving trafficked victims, the under-18s or those who have been exploited, as well as concerns from communities about the impact on local neighbourhoods. Furthermore, the recommendations arising from the Government's review, Tackling The Demand For Prostitution, published in November 2008, make it clear that the priority of the Government should be to focus on measures that address demand. The Government fully accept the findings of that review, and Part 2 of this Bill includes measures to implement some of its specific recommendations. These measures, combined with the non-legislative recommendations made in the review, form the immediate priorities of the Government.

While we still accept that there are arguments in favour of allowing two women to work together in one premises, I am concerned that there could be problems with such a move. Instead, the Government intend to focus their efforts on tackling demand and reducing exploitation. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Monson (Crossbench)

Having listened to both sides of the debate, I concede that there is some weakness in Amendment 71 for the reasons advanced by the Minister, although it could be redrafted for the next stage so as to eliminate the aspects he mentioned. However, I do not think that the case he has made against Amendment 72 stands up at all. This is a thin Chamber at the moment and obviously there is no question of the noble Baroness deciding to divide the Committee, but the case she and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, have made for Amendment 72 is very strong. I hope that she will think seriously about bringing it back at the next stage.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Crossbench)

I was a little late for the start of this debate and had not realised that it would end as quickly as this. I very much support the amendment and I find it quite extraordinary that it is being resisted in this way. What is being asked for here is the introduction of safer ways for people in this trade of selling themselves, if you like—whatever it is and for whatever reason. It would at least be safer for them under these circumstances. I am not at all convinced by what the Minister has said and I hope that the noble Baroness will bring the issue back on Report, if not sooner.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I am certainly tempted to test the opinion of the House sooner, given the amount of informed support that I have had, but I shall resist that in the hope that the Government, having heard it, and the kind offer of help with drafting so that I can table a perfect amendment on Report, will encourage me to do that. I warmly thank all noble Lords who have spoken.

The Minister's only real argument in resisting Amendment 72 was considerable feedback from the enforcement authorities, but that is only one side of the equation. They are not concerned with health, and calling them enforcement authorities suggests that they are not concerned as much with women's safety in this instance either. I hope that between now and Report—it is getting ever further away because we have a Statement or even two every day and are making slow progress—the Government will have plenty of time to rethink. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 71 withdrawn.

Amendment 72 not moved.

Clause 20 agreed.

Schedule 2 : Closure orders

Amendment 73

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

73: Schedule 2, page 142, line 23, at end insert ", and

(c) that any persons identified under paragraph (b) have been consulted"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

Amendments 73, 75, 78 and 80 concern what happens when a closure order is issued against premises. Amendment 73 would ensure that at least if a closure order is offered, it is done fairly by consulting those who should be consulted. Amendment 75 refers to the authorising officer having regard to the views of those consulted, and Amendment 78 is concerned with other measures that could be taken but the police decide for their own reasons that it would be much easier to issue a closure order than to undertake the other more onerous and difficult measures. I invite the Minister to put on record where closure orders should lie in the system of priorities.

We believe that they should be a last resort, particularly when bearing in mind that such premises may be people's homes and children may be adversely affected. The closure order should be undertaken seriously. The Minister in another place talked about it being necessary to disrupt criminal activity and exploitation. Obviously there must be a level of evidence that serious criminal activity, such as violent pornography or class A drug-taking, is happening on the premises, but the Bill does not say that closure orders should be made only as a last resort, which is worrying.

That brings me to my last point, on proportionality. We should aim to ensure that only proportional action is taken. For example, a closure order was issued this year in Soho against premises, and it was thrown out of court. It was not found to stand up at all, and there was no good reason for issuing it. Had that gone through, the effect on the lives of the women would have been devastating, so obviously the courts came to a very sensible judgment. They looked at the evidence and decided that it would not stand up. We do not want to be drafting a Bill that would make that situation likely to fall the other way, so that people who have committed no serious crime but who have some hearsay evidence against them would face disruption to their lives and those of their dependants that would result from a closure order. I beg to move.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

Again, we have sympathy with these amendments. They would add an important requirement to ensure that the police operate with the safety of those working within the brothels in mind. As previous debates have highlighted, it is often unclear where the line of exploitation is to be drawn. As the noble Baroness emphasised, it is imperative that when considering a closure order the police should talk to and listen to those in whose interests they are meant to be acting.

Baroness Stern (Crossbench)

I support the amendments. The problem with these clauses brings us once again to the realities of work in the sex industry. While I am sure we all welcome the aim of combating trafficking and child exploitation, these provisions, once again, have unintended consequences. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that sex workers are safer inside than outside—the research suggests 10 times safer—and so measures that drive sex workers out of their premises and onto the street are not desirable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, mentioned the closure order that was taken out in Soho at the time we were visiting for meetings with the people who work there. Although in that case the order was not brought into effect, it is important to note that the women who lived there had prompt access to lawyers, who took action immediately. This is unlikely to be the case with many people in that situation. It is very important that the orders are used only for their avowed purpose of dealing with trafficking and exploitation.

It is worth putting on record the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that these provisions carry a real risk of violations of the right to family life and respect for the home under Article 8 of the ECHR, and the protection of property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 where the premises are privately owned. The Joint Committee on Human Rights corresponded with Ministers about safeguards on these provisions but was not satisfied with the assurances. The replies led the JCHR to say that when designing policy,

"the state is required, as part of the proportionality exercise, to take the least restrictive measures to achieve its aim".

This would mean that closure orders should be made only as a last resort when other methods have been tried and failed.

The JCHR also notes that there is no specific requirement in the Bill for the authorising officer or the court to consider whether an order would make someone homeless and, if so, if they could find alternative accommodation. That, too, leads the JCHR to feel that these measures need amendment. I very much support the noble Baroness.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Crossbench)

I shall not add much to what has been said because my noble friend Lady Stern and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, have put the case extremely well. Having had conversations with some of the sex workers who were here last week, it is quite clear that there is still huge concern about the actions that can be taken—and, indeed, are sometimes taken—under these circumstances. As we all know, children as well as the sex workers themselves can be made homeless, and it is important that the Government take this fully into account when proposing legislation of this kind.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for trying to expedite our procedures. We seem to have a single grouping now that previously was two groupings. I shall try to respond to all the amendments because, as the noble Baroness said, there is a certain logic in moving them en bloc.

Amendments 73 and 75 are the first of a number of amendments that relate to Schedule 2, which sets up the process for imposing the closure of premises to stop activities relating to certain pornography-related and prostitution-related offences from taking place. Indeed, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, Amendments 73, 75, 78, 80 and 82 have been recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has commented on the need for appropriate safeguards in these provisions to prevent the inappropriate use of closure orders. We take seriously the points raised by the committee, and I assure the noble Baroness that we share her aim of ensuring that these orders are targeted only at premises where serious criminal activity involving prostitution or child pornography has taken place.

We understand the reasons underlying the committee's concerns but we do not believe that its particular concerns relating to the closure orders are justified. While I also appreciate the points that the noble Baronesses have raised on this issue, I assure them that the amendments are unnecessary. We believe that the provisions already contain sufficient safeguards against the inappropriate use of closure orders.

It is important to reiterate why these new powers are so important. Currently, if the police suspect that premises are being used for activities related to prostitution or child pornography offences, the police may enter the premises and arrest those who are committing the offences. However, unless the premises are associated with the use of class A drugs, persistent disorder or nuisance, the police are powerless to prevent the premises from reopening once they have left. The provisions are intended to address that issue.

Amendments 73 and 75 would oblige the police to ensure that consultation has taken place with and that they have regard to the views of people identified as having an interest in the premises before they issue a closure notice. There is already a requirement for the authorising officer to be satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to identify such people. While clearly well intentioned, these amendments could prevent such orders from working effectively. The point of a closure notice procedure is to ensure that premises can be shut quickly without tipping off those responsible for the prostitution-related or pornography-related offences that the notice is about to be served. Closure notices may well be used following covert surveillance on particular premises. It would therefore be inappropriate to go in beforehand and try to consult interested parties, albeit that some of those people may be victims rather than the perpetrators of the offence. Aside from disrupting the covert operations and the potential to obtain evidence to convict those who have committed the offences, it could also allow those involved time to organise themselves and take action to make it more difficult for the police to enforce closure notices.

I emphasise that within 48 hours of a closure notice being served, a magistrate's court must hold a hearing to decide whether a closure order should be made. Any person who resides at the property or who has control of or responsibility for it or any other person with an interest in it may make representations to the court at the hearing. The court may also adjourn the hearing to allow such representations to be made. Such people also have the right to appeal against the making of a closure order and can apply for it to be discharged at any time. In addition, the schedule allows for compensation to be paid to those who incur financial loss as the result of a closure order or notice in appropriate circumstances.

A point was made about the offence in Soho, but that offence seems to prove the point. There was a closure order, it went to a court, the court did not accept the argument and the case was dismissed. That is what courts are supposed to be doing. I do not see that there is any need to be fearful; rather, it is reassuring.

Amendment 78 seeks to ensure that closure orders can be imposed only in circumstances where no other measure will prevent activity relating to the relevant child pornography or prostitution offences taking place. The fact that the order needs to be necessary should be sufficient safeguard to ensure that they are not used where other reasonably practicable steps could be taken by the police to prevent the use of premises or activities relating to specified prostitution or child pornography offences. There may be other measures that could be taken to prevent the use of the premises for such activities, but these may be within the power of the owner or the occupier rather than the police. Equally, measures that the police could take may not be reasonably practicable. For example, putting a police officer on the door of premises 24 hours a day may deter criminal activity but would clearly be very costly and could prevent the police dealing with other priorities in the area. However, we will make it clear in the guidance that police should consider what other steps they could take to prevent the premises being used before issuing a closure notice.

The purpose of Amendment 80 is to ensure that before authorising a closure order, a court must consider the effect that making such an order would have on the human rights of any person who owns or resides at the premises, or anyone likely to be affected by the order. We do not feel that that is necessary or appropriate. The police have to take reasonable steps to establish the identity of who resides in the premises, has control of or is responsible for the premises or has an interest in the premises. It is difficult to see how this would not involve them giving consideration to who could be affected by the order. A closure notice would have to be served on these people, who would have the opportunity to make representations to the court as to why the order should not be made. While we understand the desire to see safeguards in the Bill, it does not appear that this amendment provides a more structured approach to the requirement already imposed on the police and the courts as a public authority under Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act in a way which is compatible with convention rights. Therefore, I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness not to pursue that amendment.

Amendment 82 would omit the proposed new Section 136Q of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This section gives the Secretary of State order-making powers to extend the power to issue a closure notice to persons other than police officers. That has not been referred to, so although it was mentioned in what I might call the supergrouping, it may be something to which the noble Baroness wishes to return and perhaps I should not proceed.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I invite the Minister to say why the Government would like to give that power to a wider range of people than police officers?

Lord Brett (Labour)

I accept that invitation. As I have said, the power in proposed new Section 136Q gives the Secretary of State order-making powers to extend the power to issue closure notices to people other than police officers. Although we have no current intention of extending these powers beyond the police, it will be necessary to review the situation on the basis of operational experience once the orders have been implemented. If the Secretary of State should decide to exercise the power provided by new Section 136Q, Parliament will, of course, have the opportunity to scrutinise the order exercising the powers; as such, the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, I hope, although I do not expect, that the noble Baroness will be reassured that any attempt to widen these powers will receive sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and will be content not to press her amendments.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, spoke about off-street prostitution and about providing a safer environment. In the Government's view, it is not necessarily a safer environment. Operation Pentameter, a national police operation targeted at trafficking for sexual exploitation, identified 167 adult victims located in different types of premises. This has highlighted the nature of the conditions in which some people are involved in off-street prostitution. In terms of safety, the difference between off-street prostitution and street prostitution can be exaggerated.

Baroness Stern (Crossbench)

Does the Minister accept that there is a considerable difference between those who have been trafficked and are held against their will and the vast number of people who, for various, multifarious reasons, have decided to take up this work because that is how they can best make a living? We are in no way trying to reduce the importance of the numbers of those who are under coercion when talking about the effects that these measures might have on the large number of people who have chosen to do this work and are trying to do it as safely as possible.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I know what the noble Baroness is saying but I will avoid a temptation that will lead me into an argument that proved so unfruitful the other evening when we argued about statistics. I have offered to try to provide some information. There are parallels to an extension of the powers, which would be subject to an affirmative resolution. For example, local authorities already have the power to issue closure notices in relation to premises associated with persistent disorder or nuisance. Although we have no intention yet of so doing because circumstances do not suggest that it is necessary, we ask for this power so that the necessary view, based on operational experience, can be taken once the orders have been implemented.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Crossbench)

I would be most grateful if the noble Lord could give a little more help. I heard what he said in reply to the points raised but the indication was that the 167 people who were found in the premises were being exploited. How many of them were trafficked? Does the Minister have the figures? That would be helpful.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I do not have the information in my brief, but I will certainly try to find it and reply to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. The Government will get a strong message from the joint opposition to these clauses. The Minister made a comment about the relative safety of women working on or off the street. There have been about 60 murders of sex workers over the past 10 years. Of those 60, can the Minister tell the Committee how many were murdered while working on the street, and how many were murdered while working in brothels? As the Minister knows, I was not immensely happy with the replies to many of my points but I am afraid it went from bad to worse. The idea that we would want something of the nature that he suggested before this House by affirmative resolution is, given the breadth of problems that it might produce, something that we will be likely to resist very strongly. Before I finally withdraw the amendment, I invite the Minister to inform the Committee, if he has the figures.

Lord Brett (Labour)

No, I do not have the figures. I was seeking confirmation that the 167 persons mentioned in respect of Operation Pentameter were all victims of trafficking, indicating that brothels are not necessarily safe places. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that there is perhaps a distinction to be made on occasion between those who are forced and those who are not forced. I do not have the statistics on the number of murders, but I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, may have them, since she collects them with an avid interest. I will, of course, endeavour to look at them. The noble Baroness comes from a position that favours decriminalisation, which is not shared by the Government, so it is not surprising that there is not a meeting of minds on some of the amendments.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister. I do not have the figures for the division; it was not a trick question. Perhaps the Minister will find the figures easier to get than I would. I certainly would not want to suggest with any of our amendments that we underestimate the destructive, terrible and appalling nature of trafficking. Obviously, where that is the real reason for a closure order, it might be a substantial reason for issuing it. However, we still have doubts regarding the way the measure is drafted and the assessment of its impact on the lives of the people involved. A woman who is suspected of having committed one of the specified offences and whose premises are closed cannot even enter them to pick up her spectacles. The premises are closed there and then. She cannot collect her belongings and is excluded, as are any of her relations, dependants or people with whom she works. The English Collective of Prostitutes has called it a very violent psychological experience. The women who underwent such an experience recently in Soho had to withstand mutterings from hostile neighbours in addition to undergoing violent psychological trauma. This issue needs to be handled correctly. I hope that we can discuss it before Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.

Amendment 74

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

74: Schedule 2, page 142, leave out lines 24 to 27

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

Amendments 74 and 79 are probing amendments to find out what this schedule is intended to achieve. These provisions are very similar to those relating to closure orders for anti-social behaviour and drug offences. It is particularly important that they are proportionate. I share the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in relation to the previous group of amendments that the Bill's wording is pretty wide. For example, new Section 136B(8) states that,

"it does not matter whether the officer believes that the offence or offences in question have been committed or that they will be committed".

That is extraordinary wording to have in a Bill in relation to an offence. All the officer has to have is "reasonable grounds". I would like the Minister to tell us what constitutes reasonable grounds. If it does not matter whether the officer believes that the offence has been committed or will be committed, what would constitute those grounds?

Amendment 79 seeks to remove the words in new Section 136D(10),

"it does not matter whether the court is satisfied that the offence or offences in question have been committed or that they will be committed".

That is incredibly wide drafting. I beg to move.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

The noble Baroness has tabled important amendments with which we once again have considerable sympathy. I, too, invite the Minister to agree that, as drafted, the Bill gives great power to police to close brothels on nothing but speculation and rumour. We agree with the noble Baroness that brothels should not be closed without good reason, with all the associated danger for prostitutes working there, which was highlighted in the debates on previous clauses.

Lord Brett (Labour)

Amendments 74 and 79 relate to the issuing of a closure notice by a constable or a closure order by a court. As has been said, they would remove new Sections 136B(8) and (10), which Schedule 2 inserts into the Sexual Offences Act 2003. These subsections are intended to ensure that premises can be closed where the offences have not yet been committed as well as where offences have been committed.

The conditions for issuing a closure notice or making a closure order focus on whether activities related to the relevant prostitution or pornography offence have taken place on the premises rather than whether all the elements of the offence have yet been committed by a particular person. This means, for example, that where premises are being used for controlling prostitutes for gain, it is enough that the officer reasonably believes that sexual services are being provided at the particular premises. It is not necessary for the police officer to have reasonable grounds to believe that all the elements of the offence of controlling a prostitute for gain have yet been committed, so for example, they will not have to believe or prove that the controllers have yet received a gain from their activities. We believe, therefore, that these subsections are necessary to clarify the meaning of the conditions governing the issuing of a closure notice or the making of a closure order.

We share with the noble Baroness, and no doubt many of your Lordships, the aim of ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect individuals from their premises being closed arbitrarily. However, given the important issues that these orders aim to tackle, we also need to ensure that the police have the necessary powers to respond rapidly when they have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to close premises to avoid future offences occurring. On that basis, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I think that I have defined "reasonable" as it is seen in the Government's eyes.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I will read the Minister's reply and before Report ask my noble and learned friends' advice about whether the Bill as drafted should pass into law, given the reservations I expressed when moving the amendment. I hear what the Minister says but I still have considerable doubts. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Amendment 75 not moved.

Amendment 76

Moved by Baroness Hanham

76: Schedule 2, page 142, line 39, leave out "regularly"

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

In moving this amendment I, too, want to make it clear that we would be very concerned if the police did not know that somebody working in a brothel had been trafficked. However, none of us is talking about those people. We are talking entirely about people who voluntarily and willingly exercise this trade. We may not particularly like it, but that is not our job; our job is to ensure that legislation does not target people unnecessarily.

This is a probing amendment. New Section 136C(1) states:

"A closure notice must—

(a) state that no-one other than a person who regularly resides on, or owns, the premises may enter or remain on them".

I am not sure how anybody is going to identify whether somebody is regularly on the premises. We need to establish what inquiries will be made to find out whether somebody is on the premises continuously, every night or whether they use the premises occasionally but are still part and parcel of what is going on there. How will those inquiries be made? The Minister said earlier that inquiries would be made to ascertain who the people were, whether they were connected with criminal activity and whether such activity was taking place.

As I say, new Section 136C(1) says:

"A closure notice must—

(a) state that no-one other than a person who regularly resides on, or owns, the premises may enter or remain on them".

Therefore, under this provision some people may be entitled to stay on the premises. To whom would that apply? Would people not engaged in illegal activity be allowed to go back; for example, prostitutes who are voluntarily there and are not acting illegally? Would they be able to return or would everyone be pushed out and made homeless? Will other agencies be able to help people in that situation? However, new Section 136D(2) states absolutely categorically:

"A closure order is an order that the premises in respect of which the order is made are closed to all persons".

It cannot be both; either some people are allowed to remain for legitimate purposes or nobody is allowed to remain. It is not unfair to ask which this will be. I would certainly feel more comfortable with all this about the closure order if I felt that illegal activity, which we are all against, was being closed down.

All of this, as we have said, is about the voluntary aspect of this, and people being thrown out of their business or work premises, or whatever, for at least three months, and having to go to court as a result, because they are doing something illegal—which they may not be. We need to be clear about getting this definition right; that we are all talking about the same people, and we are not talking about those who are engaged in illegal activity. No one here would support any of that, but we would like to know what happens to those who are perfectly legitimately doing what they are doing, which no legislation stops them from doing, and how they will be supported by other agencies while their premises are closed. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I just wish to put on record our support for the noble Baroness's powerful points which she has made in this amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Crossbench)

I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who has asked some very reasonable questions and has pointed out what looks, on the fact of it, like a contradiction. I hope that the Minister can answer.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I will seek to explain successfully what we are seeking to achieve and I hope that if I fail I will have the opportunity to write. I am pretty sure that I understand where we are, but I am not 100 per cent sure on the point that has been raised.

However, Amendment 76 would remove the word "regularly" from new Section 136C which deals with the content and service of a closure notice. A closure notice is issued by the police before an order can be applied for from the court. Under the current provisions, this must state that only those who regularly reside on or own the premises may remain on them.

The amendment would have the effect of allowing people who reside on the premises to visit the premises on an occasional basis. We believe that this widening is not appropriate. It could lead to people who had been using the place for prostitution staying overnight—perhaps on a visit from another city—claiming that that they could stay because they had visited the place before. That is not our purpose. The amendment would also make the closure notice more difficult to police because of difficulties in establishing who could be said to reside at the premises, however infrequently.

We believe that in circumstances where a closure notice has been issued—namely where a police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the premises are associated with certain serious criminal offences—it is reasonable to expect people for whom the premises are not a sole or main residence to refrain from entering the premises. For these reasons, we resist the amendment.

I shall seek to deal with the precise point made by the noble Baroness. When a closure notice is made, those who regularly reside on the premises can remain there. In other words, in the period between the notice and the court's decision, the owners or people who regularly reside there can stay. However, if the court makes a full closure order, no one is then allowed to remain. The court will of course consider representations from those affected. As I have said, people are free to go back to the court within the three-month period.

Closure orders are more likely to be used when police have covertly surveilled the premises and, therefore, may well have knowledge of those living on the premises as a result of that surveillance and other inquiries made during the investigation. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary; it would widen the aspects, and there is a distinction between the two parts of the legislation—between notice being given and court appearance, when there is a closure order. If that is not absolutely correct or clear, I will seek to write to the noble Baroness in greater detail.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

Perhaps I may press the Minister further, because I hope that I asked—I meant to, if I did not—what agencies will be involved other than the court agencies? Earlier in the Bill it is stated that local authorities will have to be consulted. You can consult a local authority for all sorts of reasons. One may simply be to ask whether it knows of the premises, and whether it is bothered about it or has had concerns. Another reason might be that it is perfectly possible that people will be evicted or be out of the premises for two or three months—people may be on drugs and will need care. Who else will be involved? You cannot just tip people out; if you are going to make a closure order, you are going prosecute because you are concerned about the nature of the activities that have taken place, which are likely to have been illegal—that, as I understand it, is the reason for the closure order—but you may also find that there are people there who are not acting illegally. What other agencies will provide support to the police? I am certain that a court would want to know the answers to these questions.

Lord Brett (Labour)

The answer in terms of how these orders are implemented in practice will lie in guidance to be issued. It would seem reasonable say that the relevant social security or other agencies are to be alerted and able to assist people who are not directly to be prosecuted and who are thought not to be directly involved, but are put to hardship. I will seek to confirm that in writing to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

I would be grateful to the Minister if he did that to help us decide what we do at the next stage. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

Amendment 77

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

77: Schedule 2, page 143, line 43, leave out "two" and insert "three"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

This amendment seeks to ensure that all three of the conditions, instead of just two—which is all that the Bill requires at the moment—are satisfied before a closure order can be authorised. For example, what would happen if, as regards the third condition, reasonable steps had not been taken to establish the identity of any persons residing on the premises? You might be closing the premises although you had the wrong person. I should like to probe the Minister on why only two out of the three conditions apply, although the Bill specifies that three conditions need to be met. Why is it reasonable to revert to only two of them? We have specified in Amendment 81 that:

"The third condition is that the court is satisfied that the authorising officer has satisfied himself of the identity of the ... parties".

This may be a technicality which the Minister can answer quite satisfactorily. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

This goes on a little further from my previous probing question. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that closure orders will not be imposed out of the blue. Closure orders, as we have said, are very blunt instruments and, given the limited nature of the order, will not prevent the exploitation moving elsewhere. Can he give us a little more information on the closure orders being imposed, particularly with regard to drug offences, and how they will be accompanied by arrests and convictions?

Lord Monson (Crossbench)

Once again, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has tabled a commonsensical pair of amendments, which I certainly support.

Lord Brett (Labour)

One of the conditions that will have to be met before the police can issue a closure notice is that reasonable steps have been taken to establish the identity of any person who resides on the premises or who has control of, or responsibility for, or an interest in, the premises. The closure notice must then be served on those people who have been identified. If the police have failed to serve the closure notice on those who appear to have an interest in the property or they fail to take reasonable steps to identify such people, the notice will not have been validly served and the court would be expected to refuse to entertain the application for a closure order on those grounds. In this respect, the provisions are the same as those found in Schedule 20 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 for premises associated with persistent disorder or nuisance.

We may have a straw man here. If it went to court in the manner that has been suggested, the court would not find it difficult to come to the view that the order had not been served correctly, and would dismiss the claim. Had there been a financial loss to the organisation or persons responsible, they would be able to raise that issue as well.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I understand that he is disputing the fact that my amendment would mean that it is more likely that the closure notice would be properly served. He is saying that, as the Bill is drafted, it would be certain that the notice would be properly served. I am still puzzled. If there are three conditions that should be satisfied, why does the Bill specify two out of three? However, I will read the Minister's comments carefully.

Lord Brett (Labour)

Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I will respond to a point that I missed. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked what the courts would do in relation to drug offences. The offences covered in this part of the legislation relate only to prostitution and pornography, not to drugs.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

The trouble with a debate like this is that it raises questions as you go along. I want to check whether the Minister said that the closure order notice has to be served on everybody in the premises—if I sound questioning, it is because I am—because that is not what the legislation says. The legislation says what a closure notice must state, but does not say who it must be served on—just that it must be fixed to the door. Is everybody on the premises served with the notice before the closure order is made? Is it the owner of the premises? Who is the responsible recipient of a notice? I may have misheard the noble Lord, but I think that he said that everybody had a notice served on them. That is not what is set out in the legislation.

Lord Brett (Labour)

For the record, I shall repeat what I said. It is necessary for the police, before they can issue a closure notice, to take reasonable steps to establish the identity of any person who resides on the premises, or who has control of, or responsibility for, or an interest in the premises. The closure notice will then be served on those people who have been identified.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. I would be fascinated to know where in the legislation this is set out. It is certainly not in the sections that we are discussing.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has put her finger on the point. I, too, am confused. The Minister is saying one thing—perhaps it is an interpretation—but our reading of the Bill is completely different. This does not seem to be what the Bill says. I am encouraged because the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, with all her expertise on the Bench and so on, is probably much better at interpreting this than I am. If she, too, is puzzled, then we have a problem.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I will try to resolve this. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, looks at proposed new Section 136B(7)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, that may resolve her dilemma.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I am glad that the Minister pointed that out. We will look at it at leisure and mull it over well during the long period before Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

Amendment 78

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

78: Schedule 2, page 144, line 17, at end insert ", and that no other measures will prevent the premises from being used for such activities"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

For a reason that I cannot identify, I have already spoken to this amendment, and the Minister replied to both Amendments 78 and 80, although they are clearly in this group. I shall not weary the House by repeating what I said—and I think that the Minister replied. In case he has anything to add, I beg to move.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I pointed out, when the noble Baroness moved Amendment 73, that she had also sensibly grouped with her contribution Amendments 75, 78, 80 and 82. They were not in one group, but in two groups of two and a singleton. However, I answered them all, and I recall that she included Amendment 82. I take it that the debate on these issues has been concluded.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

The confusion deepens, because I did not speak to Amendment 82—I will do that when we get to it. I may correct myself. We have another amendment to debate before that one. I will look again at my notes. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 78 withdrawn.

Amendments 79 to 81 not moved.

Amendment 81A

Moved by Baroness Stern

81A: Schedule 2, page 144, line 24, at end insert—

"( ) If a child under 18 is resident on the premises, no action shall be taken until a multi-agency assessment of the child's needs has taken place."

Baroness Stern (Crossbench)

The Minister will be glad to hear that this modest probing amendment will give him the opportunity to put on the record what plans there are to meet the needs of children who are resident in premises that are closed by a closure order. This is a particular concern of the Standing Committee on Youth Justice.

It is accepted entirely that closing, temporarily or permanently, premises used for trafficking or for the sexual exploitation of children is required by the Council of Europe conventions on trafficking, and has a role to play in safeguarding children who would otherwise be victims of exploitation. However, children need special protection under the Government's view about safeguarding children, and our international human rights obligations. The amendment suggests that the Government may wish to ensure that, before any children are made homeless by the closure provisions, an assessment is made by the local authority involving a number of agencies to ensure that the arrangements made will leave the children in a better position than they were in before. It would be helpful if the Minister would give the Committee an indication of whether that is what the Government intend—and, if so, where it will be made clear. I beg to move.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I hope to satisfy the noble Baroness in respect of her probing amendment. Its effect would be that a closure order could not be made in relation to premises where a child is resident unless a multi-agency assessment of that child's needs has taken place. We recognise that it is important that these orders are not used inappropriately, and that the impact of any closure order on those living at the premises is considered carefully, particularly when those people are children. However, we believe that there are already sufficient safeguards within these provisions and other relevant legislation to ensure that the needs of children are considered fully.

As I have noted, a closure order will be made only if a court believes that it is necessary to prevent the premises being used for activities related to one or more specified offences of prostitution or pornography. If these offences are being committed on premises where children are resident, it should be a priority to take whatever action is necessary to prevent these offences occurring. In some cases, the child will be a victim of the offence. In such circumstances, it is clearly imperative to take all necessary steps to prevent the activity continuing and to remove the child to a place of safety as soon as possible, using powers available under the Children Act 1989. In such circumstances, a multi-agency needs assessment should be conducted at the earliest opportunity, and we do not believe that a court should be prevented from taking any action that could help the child until such an assessment has been conducted.

The police are under a general duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and protect the welfare of children under the Children Act 2004 when exercising their functions. This would include the exercise of their powers under closure order provisions. Guidance on the premises closure orders introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 draws attention to this general duty, and states that children's services should be involved from an early stage in action which may result in a closure order being made. Statutory guidance on the closure orders made under these provisions will echo these statements. I hope this satisfies the noble Baroness and that she will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

Can I ask the Minister a question before the noble Baroness comes to reply to his assessment of the situation? We are assuming, with the Minister's reply, that the premises are pretty small, but they could be enormous and multifloored with only one door. The children may be living far away from the offences and have no part in them at all, but by virtue of the closure order—I seem to remember when the Minister was replying to a much earlier amendment he said it might be a matter of great urgency and the closure order would have to be issued then and there—the children would become homeless and so would their parents. The likelihood is that they would be taken into care, which is pretty traumatic. Obviously, if the child is the victim in this situation, that is one thing, but if this is just somewhere the child lives and they are not involved in any of the activity, surely that is a completely different case.

Lord Brett (Labour)

The noble Baroness is building a hypothesis. The police will be raiding premises such as this only either on the basis of covert surveillance or because they have identified the people resident within it. It would make every sense for the police, recognising their responsibilities under the Children Act, to ensure that they made contact with the children's department of the local authority to discuss with it the likely outcome in terms of homelessness for the people concerned. While the noble Baroness raises a point, the reality is likely to be somewhat different. I think removing the child without any unnecessary delay would be sensible. I do not see too many brothels being likely to provide crèches and facilities that segregate children, as the people who run those kinds of organisations do not tend to have that degree of scruple.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

Can I go back a bit and thank the Minister for pointing me to proposed new Section 136B(7)(b)? I am satisfied with that reply so there is no need for anyone to write to me. I apologise for raising the matter incorrectly.

Baroness Stern (Crossbench)

I am grateful to all those who have spoken and to the Minister for his reply. I have to admit that I feel that the complexities of what is likely to happen when there is a closure order are being oversimplified to suggest that all will be well for any children who happen to live there. I am not sure that it is completely fair to talk about crèches in brothels. People who work in this industry may well have children and work hard to keep them separate from whatever it is they are doing, but they may need to share a front door. To that extent, I am not sure that we have got to the point of feeling content that all children will be protected. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and reflect a little further.

Amendment 81A withdrawn.

Amendment 82

Tabled by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

82: Schedule 2, page 151, leave out lines 13 to 20

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

The Minister was quite right that we have spoken to this amendment, and he replied, so I will not go any further with it.

Amendment 82 not moved.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clauses 21 to 25 agreed.

Amendment 82A

Moved by Baroness Hanham

82A: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—

"Amendment of Licensing Act 2003

(1) The Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 4 (general duties of licensing authorities) after subsection (3) insert—

"(4) In this section—

"public safety" may include the safety of performers appearing at any premises,

"public nuisance" may include—

(a) low-level nuisance affecting a few people living locally,

(b) the reduction in living and working amenity and environment of interested parties in the vicinity,

"protection of children from harm" may include the protection of children from moral, psychological and physical harm."

(3) In section 5 (statement of licensing policy) after subsection (7) insert—

"(8) A licensing authority may publish a special policy for an area creating a rebuttable presumption that applications for new licenses that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused unless the applicant can demonstrate in their operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives."

(4) In section 18 (determination of application for premises licence) after subsection (7) insert—

"(7A) When considering whether to make a representation, any responsible authority included in paragraph 13(4)(f) must assess what moral, psychological and physical harm the grant of the premises licence will have on children."

(5) After section 21 (mandatory condition: door supervision) insert—

"21A Mandatory conditions where licence authorises adult entertainment

(1) Where a premises licence authorises adult entertainment, the licence must include a condition requiring an approved code of conduct.

(2) The code of conduct may include measures relating to—

(a) conditions of employment for performers,

(b) codes of conduct for customers and performers,

(c) the outward appearance of the premises.

(3) When approving a code of conduct, the licence authority must have regard to—

(a) any representations made by an interested party,

(b) the character of the relevant locality,

(c) the use to which any premises in the vicinity are put,

(d) the layout, character or condition of the premises in respect of which the application is made.""

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

With some relief we move on to a slightly different aspect. Before we start on Clause 26, I would like to proffer an alternative to what is being proposed in this legislation. I tabled Amendment 82A to probe exactly what the Government are seeking to do through Clause 26 and to explore whether their concerns with the current legislation cannot be met through the Licensing Act 2003.

As I understand it, the motivation for Clause 26 and the associated schedule is to address the understandable concern that local authorities and licensing authorities do not have the means available to refuse licence applications or modifications that allow adult entertainment. Quite rightly, the Government are seeking to give local residents a powerful voice in raising concerns about the establishment of lap-dancing clubs on their doorstep, and we continue to support that. We believe that residents have a strong role in this. There are many reasons to be concerned about lap-dancing clubs, and I have great sympathy with the organisations which have worked so hard to highlight examples of exploitation within that industry and sought to protect the women working in it. It is also clear that many people have understandable moral qualms about the sort of behaviour that such clubs are reputed to encourage and are worried about behaviour spilling out beyond their four walls.

As my amendment indicates, I do not believe that we need to use a 25 year-old piece of legislation to achieve a reduction in this. By my reading, the Licensing Act's objectives are more than adequate to deal with the concerns. If they are not, there is already the precedent of the mandatory conditions for certain licences within it to fill the gaps. My proposed new subsection (4) quotes liberally from guidance to the Licensing Act issued by the Government. It makes clear that the licensing objectives of preventing public nuisance or protecting children from harm are directly relevant to the concerns that have been raised. If there is evidence that having a lap-dancing club near a school or college leads to harassment of the pupils or students, why is that not already taken into account under the protection of children from physical, moral and psychological harm? If a new lap-dancing club would cause an unwelcome change in the tone of a residential area, why is the licensing authority not taking account of the reduction in the living amenity of interested parties in the vicinity?

Local residents may find themselves unable to raise their concerns about a licence application. This appears to be the case from the debates in another place. I strongly encourage the Minister to bring forward amendments to the Licensing Act to address this. Nothing in that Act was intended to exclude residents' or local organisations' voices, so it is clear there is a wider problem. I would be very glad to work with the Minister to improve this part of the Bill, although there might be some concerns about scope and departmental responsibility because this would straddle out of our area.

Another useful part of the Government's guidance was the detailed chapter on cumulative impact, which I have incorporated into my proposed new subsection (3). Licensing authorities are already allowed to establish a special policy around an area where they feel the number of licences being applied for is giving rise to an unwelcome cumulative impact. This is obviously relevant in areas where there is a growth of clubs or bars. There is no reason why it should not be applicable to lap-dancing clubs, too. The development of an area into a quasi red-light district, if that is what is being expected, is obviously one the licensing authority should have the power to control. This is a problem the Government are trying to address through the use of quotas for the licensing of lap dancing. We will come to the quotas in more detail later. In the mean time, does the Minister not accept that the cumulative impact guidance already given to licensing authorities gives them the power to refuse applications when they contribute to a negative cumulative impact?

We turn to the code of conduct. So far the parts of my proposed new clause that I have discussed are merely explanations and clarifications of the existing law. Licensing authorities are already actively encouraged by the Government to interpret the provisions this way. Proposed new subsection (5) in my amendment describes the one area where I feel that the Licensing Act may be deficient in protecting against inappropriate adult entertainment—or adult entertainment in general, because it may not be inappropriate. In speaking to outside groups on the matter, it became clear that although some premises licences specifically cover adult entertainment and include a number of safeguards and restrictions, others did not mention it at all, and it became permissible almost by accident. That is clearly not desirable, so I have inserted a new mandatory condition following the precedent of the licences that permit alcohol to be sold or films to be shown. A mandatory condition would ensure that adult entertainment is properly regulated with a binding code of conduct. In that way, the valid concerns about the exploitation of workers and the behaviour of customers and performers can be met through those representations.

Much of subsection (3) of my proposed new section, for example, is taken directly from the Local Government Act 1982. The criteria seem entirely appropriate in that regard and would be a useful addition to the Licensing Act. It allows for local premises such as schools or charities to be taken into account, as well as controlling the outward appearance of the club, thus adding to existing legislation on indecency and obscenity.

There are a great many advantages to using the Licensing Act, rather than proceeding to introduce a lot more cumbersome legislation. The following groups of amendments that we have proposed go into much more detail about our concern with the provisions as drafted, so this is an alternative to the rest. My amendment is an attempt to find a consistent, clear and easily understandable way forward to address valid concerns. I declare my interest as a member of a local authority, although I am not on the licensing committee so I would not be involved. I will be interested to hear from the Minister why this approach was not considered or preferred before the Bill was proposed. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, offers a far more appropriate solution to what is undoubtedly a problem that the Government are right to address.

I like several things about the amendment. The local authority is absolutely the right place to have such debate and discussion. Licensing committee members are trained and updated regularly on everything that they need to consider. They are well able to weigh the sort of balances that they will have to in such cases. It is undoubtedly difficult to do so for a community where the spectrum of what are called lap-dancing clubs is so wide, from reputable premises that are very well run and causing no aggravation to neighbours—and probably contributing to the life of the community and employment opportunities—to the most seedy, exploitative establishment that it is possible to imagine, including everything in between. It is impossible to legislate for that entire spectrum, but we can empower local authorities to make those decisions.

I know that there has been criticism of that approach from some quarters, saying that we would end up with a postcode lottery, instead of taking a more centralised approach. All parties have talked about localism and empowering local communities, and that is exactly what we should aim to do here. What might go down okay in—it is hard to pick a town without causing offence, so I will take the town about which the leader of my party leader in this House speaks a lot, so I will rightly get into trouble if I get it wrong—Blackpool might not go down well in a small rural town in Suffolk, for example. The licensing authority should be the place to have those debates, so that it can lay down the conditions it considers appropriate. There may be one or two small drafting differences between us, but, on the whole, I support the amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Crossbench)

I support the amendment. It draws attention to this whole area. We must not forget that lap dancing is a relatively new development that has become increasingly popular. Without wanting to spoil the fun of people who enjoy that sort of thing, there are obviously sides of it that are less than desirable. One has seen examples of that in the press. I will certainly be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the proposal. Normally, this would fall under local licensing authorities, so I await with interest what I shall hear from him.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I thank the noble Baroness for her clear exposition of what she seeks to achieve in the amendment. She asked an appropriate question about why the Government are using the 1982 Act, a 27 year-old Act—although she did use part of it in her amendment, but I shall ignore that. The answer is that we considered using the Licensing Act 2003, but local authorities told us that they wanted the 1982 Act to be used. I shall seek to explain why and answer the points that the Baroness raised.

Although the noble Baroness's amendment is aimed at dealing with issues specifically arising from the provision of adult entertainment, I fear that it would have a wider impact on all applications considered under the Licensing Act 2003. First, the amendment attempts to state in the Bill how three of the four licensing objectives should be interpreted, using definitions from the statutory guidance issued to licensing authorities under Section 182 of the 2003 Act. As the definitions used in the amendment are already contained in the statutory guidance, the Government do not believe that their inclusion in the Act would add substantially to the powers available to local authorities or change how the licensing objectives are currently interpreted. It has been the experience of numerous local authorities that the powers available under the 2003 Act have not been sufficient to control lap-dancing clubs opening against the interests of local communities. Therefore, more extensive amendments are required.

Secondly, the amendment would provide local authorities with power to publish a special policy creating a rebuttal presumption and applications would be refused if they were likely to add to the cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objections in a certain area and the applicant could not demonstrate in his operating schedule that there had been no such impact. Although I understand the intention behind the provision, again, I do not believe that it would add to the existing powers available to local authorities. One of the difficulties with the current regime is that local people and responsible authorities may have concerns about lap-dancing clubs that are not covered by the four licensing objectives.

Thirdly, the amendment introduces a requirement for any premises authorising adult entertainment to contain a condition requiring the premises to have a code of conduct approved by the licensing authority. Again, the Government have some sympathy with the concept of a code of conduct for lap-dancing clubs, but we need to be sure that such a code can be enforced. Under the 1982 Act, the local authority can impose standard conditions on sex-encounter venue licences. The standard conditions should cover those measures that are expected to be included in the code of conduct. It would be a criminal offence to contravene those conditions without reasonable excuse.

On the other hand, it is unclear what the sanctions could be for a breach of the code of conduct as proposed by the noble Baroness. The licensing authority would not be able to review the licence on the basis of the code of conduct having been breached, unless the conditions in the code were relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives. The code proposed under the amendment would also fail to deal with the issue of whether the premises should be granted a licence in the first place. The facts to which the licensing authority should have regard when approving the code of conduct tend towards that issue, rather than to how the premises should operate as a sex-encounter venue once licensed.

The impetus behind the reforms proposed in the Bill is a recognition that the existing regulatory framework provided by the 2003 Act has been unable to address the particular concerns that the presence of lap-dancing clubs raises for many local communities. Under the 2003 Act, objections made by local people on which local authorities can act must be based on the four licensing objections. Those, as we know, are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The experience of many local communities in recent years has been that widespread objections based on the impact that a lap-dancing club might have on an area's character or the inappropriateness of such clubs being located in certain largely residential areas have been disregarded, not because the concerns are invalid but because the 2003 Act does not recognise objections on those grounds.

Situations have therefore arisen where lap-dancing clubs have been opened in the face of widespread local opposition. Clause 26 seeks to address that situation, whereas Amendment 82A would, indeed, retain the status quo. Given that the Licensing Act 2003 aimed to create an integrated framework for the licensing of entertainment venues, I can understand the appeal of attempting to address the issue of lap-dancing clubs within the scope of the legislation. However the Government believe that, as with licensed gambling, certain venues require additional controls specific to the form of entertainment that they provide.

For lap-dancing clubs and similar venues, we firmly believe that the necessary controls are best provided by Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, and local authorities are certainly supportive of that approach. While I therefore certainly understand the intention behind the amendment, I hope that I have explained why the Government are not able to accept it and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not entirely surprised by his rejection of the amendment, because I suspect that some thought has probably been given to that. As we go through the other amendments, however, we may very well come back to the fact that this legislation would have been, and is, perfectly adequate if amended to include lap dancing. One real advantage in this, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is that it makes it very local; it means that something which affects local people, as the licensing of any premises does, can be dealt with against a local background. That is very important, while the number of premises—which we shall, again, be coming to—should also be in the hands of the local authority.

We would quite readily accept that a number—and probably the great majority—of these premises are extremely well run. They do not cause a problem, and there are actually few complaints about them from anywhere. The people who know about that are, again, local and able to comment or not as the situation arises. For today's purposes, I shall not pursue this but will probably come back to it in the light of the response to the other amendments that we move to the Government's own legislation. Let us see where the flaws in one are against the benefits of the other. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 82A withdrawn.

Clause 26 : Regulation of lap dancing and other sex encounter venues etc

Amendment 83

Moved by Viscount Bridgeman

83: Clause 26, page 22, line 26, leave out subsection (2)

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

Amendment 83 is a probing amendment on the name that the Government have decided to impose on lap-dancing clubs. The amendments in this group proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would appear to be based on exactly the same concerns. I would much prefer to see "adult entertainment venue" in place of "sex encounter venue".

My concerns about "sex encounter venue" are precisely those that the Minister claimed were behind Clause 15 —the stigma that a name can give. The Minister has, quite rightly, argued that the phrase "common prostitute" bears with it a stigma that is often inaccurate and unfair. It will almost always lead to prejudice in future life; for example, in job interviews. That is, of course, true, so it is astonishing to see that the Government are happy to label a large number of dancers who have never participated in prostitution as "sex encounter workers". How does the Minister expect a lap dancer ever to break into a more socially respectable line of dancing with that on her CV?

Not only is the Government's choice of title prejudicial to the women involved, it could be downright dangerous. The Government appear to be instilling an expectation among the customers that they are, in fact, entering a lap-dancing club to engage in a sex encounter. Since many of those clubs have a strict no-touching rule, the Government appear to be raising the most perverse expectations among lap-dancing clientele, which could result in considerable disaffection.

I am sure that the Minister would not deliberately suggest that lap dancers should be stigmatised as sex workers or, even worse, should be expected to participate in sex acts or encounters. I therefore recommend to him the alternatives proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as a far more appropriate title for these sorts of venues. So many of the provisions in the Bill have the laudable intention of enhancing the dignity of women, but I suggest that Clause 26(2) could well achieve precisely the opposite effect. I beg to move.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour)

I should tell the Committee that in the event that this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 84 by reason of pre-emption.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

We have a number of amendments grouped with the amendment so ably moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He made his points very well. We received strong representations, for example, from Equity, which feels that its members working in that field are being completely misrepresented if they are portrayed as working in the sex industry; they actually work in the entertainment industry. In any case, we are probably starting from the wrong place with the first name of lap dancing which is, I think, an American term implying something to do with sitting on laps. In the world of entertainment in this country there is a strict "no touching" rule anyway, so we might have to step back even further and address the whole way that we talk about this business, because we need to draw clear lines of definition.

Nor does this provision do any service to our overseas visitors who come over here and might be interested in going to an adult entertainment venue, quite possibly with their wives or girlfriends, but would absolutely not dream of going to a sex encounter venue. When they are told that something is classified as that, how on earth are they supposed to know that it is a perfectly respectable burlesque venue? On the other hand, if they are looking for a sex encounter and turn up at the perfectly respectable burlesque venue, they will be mightily disappointed. Calling it such an inappropriate name does no service to those who work in it; neither does it to the customers who have every right to expect it to be accurately labelled for what it is. That should start in the legislation, so I hope that the Government will think about renaming those venues.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Crossbench)

Having listened to what has been said, I support these amendments. While I accept that it would cause an awful lot of rewriting concerning the Bill, since "sex encounter" seems to have taken root in quite a number of its pages, adult entertainment is a well accepted term. Everybody knows what adult means and I should have thought that it would be very much better to stick to that and to encourage the side of things that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, is part of how we have interpreted the whole of that scene, given the no-touching requirements that are part of the lap dancing culture. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this change and meet everybody's good wishes.

Lord Brett (Labour)

Alas, alas. Noble Lords have made a number of interesting points. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested that we are using the wrong term by using the term "lap dancing" at all. In that case, what is the Lap Dancing Association doing about it, given that it has chosen to call itself the Lap Dancing Association—an association that represents the owners of these establishments? I suggest that lap dancing, which covers pole dancing and other similar activities, is not an inappropriate name in itself.

As the noble Baroness says, the amendments in the group seek something of the same end. Amendment 83 reflects concerns about the term "sex encounter venue". If it were accepted, sex encounter venues would not fall under the definition of a sex establishment under the 1982 Act. There is, however, no requirement in the clause for a lap dancing establishment to call itself a sex encounter venue. If it chose to advertise itself as such when it did not provide that, trade descriptions legislation might be a better way of dealing with that. In truth, this is how they are described in licensing terms, not how they are described in public relations or advertising terms.

The point has been made that the word "encounter" could give the impression that lap dancing clubs and similar venues offer sex for sale and by implication stigmatise those who work at such venues. We take this concern seriously. We are aware of our responsibility to those who are employed in the industry not to represent unfairly them and the work that they do. However, we believe that the term "sex encounter" accurately reflects the nature of the entertainment that is provided. We do not accept that the impression is given, or that it will be reasonably assumed, that sex is for sale, particularly as we do not require the term "sex encounter" to be used publicly by the establishment that is so licensed.

We also think that "adult entertainment" would be an inappropriate name as it is not clear, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, says, that it could apply only to venues that provide entertainment with a sexual content. Other forms of entertainment, such as horror films, have been called adult entertainment, without any obvious sexual content at all.

We are looking at what Clause 26 attempts to target. The definition of "relevant entertainment" is clearly that, to qualify as a sex encounter venue, the entertainment must be,

"any live performance; or ... any live display of nudity; which is of such a nature that ... it must reasonably be assumed to be provided solely or principally for the purpose of sexually stimulating any member of the audience".

Where that definition does not apply, such venues will not be classed as sex encounter venues. The definition does not suggest that these are premises where sex is being sold, as criminal law rather than licensing law steps in to deal with those establishments.

The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, made the plea that we should not use the term "sex encounter". He is much senior to me both in experience and wisdom, and can probably recall the term being brought into effect in 1986 by a Government who are familiar to Members on the Benches opposite. It has been used to define venues such as peep shows in London since 1986. Again, these are not places where sex is for sale, but they are described in legislation as sex encounter venues.

I therefore think that I have explained clearly why the Government believe that the existing name is appropriate for the purpose of regulating lap dancing clubs, and I hope that the noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Earl Ferrers (Conservative)

I listened to the arguments made by Members on both sides of the Committee with great interest, and I thought that the Minister's answer was pretty miserable. It repeated all the reasons that civil servants give for keeping this kind of wording. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has said, the words "adult entertainment" are known, but the words "sex encounter" are not. If you are told that you are going to a sex encounter place, it is pretty obvious that you expect to encounter sex and have some kind of relationship if you so want it. It is a most disagreeable title, and very misleading. I think the Minister said that if you go to a sex encounter place you could be sexually stimulated, but you can be sexually stimulated without ever having a sexual encounter. The term is most misleading and I hope that he will think about it again.

Lord Brett (Labour)

As people know from when I dealt with the nationality Bill, I am never oversold on particular names if more acceptable names can be found. However, we are looking for a term that describes how this will be dealt with in law, not for a term that will be used on the outside of public houses, lap dancing clubs or anywhere else. Therefore, does it matter?

On the question of what employees would put on their CV, they are not required to put on a CV that they were employed in a sex encounter venue. Presumably they would be happy to apply for employment on the basis of having been employed as a lap dancer in a lap dancing establishment.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

I am not entirely happy with the Minister's reply. The Lap Dancing Association is very concerned about the reputation of its dancers. Unfortunately, if the legislation remains as it stands, a large number of dancers will be stigmatised career-long for truthfully putting this on their CV. This will affect their future employment throughout their careers. I shall look again very carefully at the Minister's reply, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 83 withdrawn.

Amendments 84 to 86 not moved.

Amendment 86A

Moved by Viscount Bridgeman

86A: Clause 26, page 22, line 34, leave out "or" and insert "and"

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

This is one of a small number of quick groups to probe the definition of "relevant entertainment", which the Government consider suitable for this type of regulation. The definition in subsection (2)(a) of new Section 2A has several rather surprising characteristics, and I would welcome further explanation of the wording. In particular, the "or" at the end of subsection (2)(a) suggests that a fully clothed dancer could be considered to be sexually stimulating. This seems ridiculous. I do not particularly wish to get into the question of what is sexually stimulating or not, but a significant degree of nudity should surely be part of it. The Bill later defines nudity in an extremely strict sense. Will the Minister say why it was decided to draft the provisions in this way? Would it not be more sensible to have a looser definition of nudity and to rule out any dancing where the performer is fully clothed? I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

There was quite an interesting example recently of the possible difficulty of definition in a show which some of your Lordships may have seen. It was called "La Clique" and showed on Shaftesbury Avenue. It was, in effect, a series of circus acts. One scene involved a lady taking off all her clothes. It was mostly singing and circus acts, and it should fall nowhere near the definition of the Bill. Everyone who went to see it certainly went along to be entertained, but I would be incredibly doubtful as to whether anyone went along with the idea of being sexually stimulated. Nevertheless, there was stripping and nudity. I do not think that you could call it pole dancing; it was more like rope dancing because it involved trapeze acts and so on. It would be appalling if that sort of show, which was very well known and understood, fell anywhere near the sort of definition that is described here.

The Government always get into a bit of a problem here. The noble Lord, Lord West, did well to stay out of our debates in a previous Committee when we had to discuss sexual stimulation and pornography. I wish that I could stay out of it at the moment. The Government never do well when they get into the question of what is sexually stimulating. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, raised a very good point—it is so subjective, it is not a good idea to legislate for it. As far as we can, we should keep the wording of the Bill as objective as possible.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I think that the distinction is not the one made by the noble Viscount—between a fully-clothed dancer and a naked dancer—but I start by assuring the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that a theatrical performance, such as a play, or a show which is not centrally designed to provide a kind of sex encounter experience as such, but has nudity, dancing and so forth within it, is not meant to be covered, nor is it covered, by the provisions we are discussing today. The purpose of this would be to demonstrate, for example, that the Shaftesbury Avenue show that the noble Baroness referred to was not designed and put on specifically for the purpose of sexual stimulation. The nudity, or whatever, was part of a more general theatrical endeavour which was not for the purpose of sexual stimulation and therefore would fall outwith these provisions.

The amendment would mean that, in order for entertainment to be considered "relevant entertainment", it would have to be a live performance and a live display of nudity. The present wording of Clause 20 provides that it can be either a live performance or a live display of nudity. The amendment, as has been explained, seeks to ensure that it can be considered as such only if the entertainment is provided by an entertainer who is nude. That represents a significant narrowing of the current definition and would allow lap-dance operators to avoid the tight controls provided by Clause 26 simply by ensuring that performers were partially clothed in such a way that they would not come within the definition of nudity—lap dancers in socks spring to mind. This is different from fully-clothed dancers, although fully-clothed dancers could, in themselves, be sexually stimulating. I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that in that sense, there is an element of the stimulation which has to be in the mind of the person observing the performance.

Of course, many lap dancers are clothed to some degree—maybe not extensively, but it would be nonsense to suggest that nudity would be sexually stimulating and therefore disbarred and someone scantily clad performing the same kind of activity—pole dancing or lap dancing—would not. We therefore think that the amendment as proposed would create a significant loophole and prevent the reforms we are proposing from properly addressing the concerns of the local communities. The existing definition of "relevant entertainment" recognises that the prevailing factor which should dictate whether premises are sex encounter venues should be the nature of the entertainment provided and not solely whether the performers are nude. It is the performance, not the nudity, which determines whether it is a sex encounter venue. It would be strange to many people if we concluded that a lap-dancing club offering nude entertainment was a lap-dancing venue but the same club offering entertainment of the same nature, but with very scantily clad performers, was not.

We are confident that the existing definition of "relevant entertainment" is correct and will target those forms of entertainment that are of concern to local communities. I trust that I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount that the definition goes wider than just whether or not performers are nude and goes to the essential nature of the entertainment being provided, that being the key. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will find it possible to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has indicated, this House has to be very careful when it ventures into the realms of nudity. We need to look very carefully at the Minister's reply before coming back with any views on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 86A withdrawn.

Amendment 86B

Moved by Viscount Bridgeman

86B: Clause 26, page 22, line 36, leave out ", ignoring financial gain,"

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

Once again, we return to the question of financial gain. I am uncertain how this disclaimer in paragraph 2 relates to the specific requirement in sub-paragraph (1) that the organiser or the entertainer is performing for financial gain. As I understand it, the entertainment is classified as relevant only if someone is financially benefiting, but need it be only the performer? Is this correct? I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

This is one of the interesting questions that we come back to. I have understood that, in a lot of these clubs, the dancers are not actually paid; they have to exist, basically, on tips. That has been seen as being undesirable for a number of reasons. That is the way that they work at the moment. I do not want to return the Committee to an earlier part of the Bill but that is what makes Amendment 82A, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and referring as it does to conditions of employment for performers, particularly attractive.

Lord Brett (Labour)

As has been said, Amendment 86B would remove the words "ignoring financial gain". The purpose of including these words in the definition is to account for the fact that, first and foremost, the purpose of sex encounter venues is financial gain. Therefore it is necessary to ignore this aspect of the business when assessing whether the entertainment provided is solely or principally for the purpose of sexually stimulating any member of the audience. Whether it is financial gain to the performer or, more likely, financial gain to the performer and the club owner, there is a requirement to ignore that in order to make a fair assessment of whether the entertainment provided is solely or principally for the purpose of sexually stimulating any member of the audience.

The effect of this amendment would be that, irrespective of the nature of the entertainment provided, premises would not be considered a sex encounter venue as long as the operator could prove that the purpose of the entertainment was solely or principally for gain. Obviously, this would be easily demonstrated, because they are running sex clubs only for gain, and therefore, these provisions would be left ineffective by the inability to cover such venues—hence the need to leave aside the question of gain. The effect of this amendment would be to provide a loophole for sex encounter venues to avoid the need for a sex encounter licence. I expect that this was a probing amendment—at least, I hope that it was—and I hope that I have shown why the inclusion of the provision to ignore financial gain is correct and the undoubted unintended consequences if this phrase was removed. On that basis, I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

I can assure the Minister that it was, indeed, a probing amendment. I am grateful for his reply and explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 86B withdrawn.

Amendment 86C

Moved by Viscount Bridgeman

86C: Clause 26, page 22, leave out line 39

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

I come to the last of my three probing amendments on the definition of "relevant entertainment". Amendment 86C probes the inclusion of verbal performance. We seem to be taking the concept of a lap-dancing club to the very extreme where there needs not to be any dancing at all. Indeed, the subsection as a whole would suggest that a person could be paid to stand, dressed from neck to ankle, absolutely still on a stage and, if she sings a racy song, that could count as a sex encounter. It would seem to strike at a lot of the tradition of music hall. Why have the Government decided to include verbal means in this definition? I beg to move.

Lord Brett (Labour)

In moving the amendment the noble Viscount referred to people standing still fully clothed. I thought that we were moving on to the Windmill Theatre, which I think was a forerunner of this kind of entertainment. It required the ladies only to stand still and I do not think that clothes were involved. The noble Viscount raises an interesting point, to which I hope that I am able to respond. The words are important because they make clear that the means used to sexually stimulate the audience can be by word or by other conduct, which could include physical touching or very provocative dancing. This clarification is also included in the existing definition of sex encounter establishments as found in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

The Government are confident that the definition introduced in Clause 26 will target those forms of entertainment, such as lap dancing, that are the concern of many communities. The definition will exclude entertainment which is primarily artistic or educational by stating that the "relevant entertainment" must be,

"solely or principally for the purpose of sexually stimulating any member of the audience".

Hence, the Shaftesbury Avenue show referred to would not be covered by these licences. Artistic performances, such as plays, will not be captured by these provisions even if they contain occasional nudity. There will also be a power to exclude certain types of performer or displays of nudity should that definition prove unintentionally wide. I hope that the explanation given satisfies the noble Viscount and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

Perhaps I may check something that the Minister has said. I understood that any form of touching was already illegal. I cannot remember under what provisions that would be so, but I am fairly certainly that touching is not allowed.

Lord Brett (Labour)

The noble Baroness may be correct. Touching a member of the audience could mean touching a member of the audience without physically putting a hand on them. One might have some equipment with which to poke a person—perhaps to wake them up—who is not too stimulated by the lap dancing. I am not sure: I have never entertained myself in a lap-dancing establishment. Certainly, aural stimulation with the use of songs, jokes or whatever at the same time as a provocative performance could fall within this area and that would be covered. That would be necessary to ensure that these regulations are effective.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I should like to hear what the Minister will further define because I think that he has just received further advice on whether touching by hand or with an extended toy is permitted.

Lord Brett (Labour)

The answer I have is that not all lap-dancing clubs have conditions in their licence. At present, they exclude touching, which would suggest that this legislation will presume to bring a standard across all lap-dancing establishments and is to be desired.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

The Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for probing the issue of touching. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, which I will read carefully and perhaps come back to on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 86A withdrawn.

Amendments 86B to 87 not moved.

Amendment 88

Moved by Viscount Bridgeman

88: Clause 26, page 22, line 42, at end insert—

"( ) premises licensed under Part 3, and clubs granted a certificate under Part 4, of the Licensing act 2003 which—

(i) authorises "relevant entertainment"; and

(ii) has conditions expressly relating to the way "relevant entertainment" is provided during such time that regulated entertainment is being provided;"

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

I tabled Amendment 88 to highlight the concern among highly regulated venues, which are currently operating under a premises licence, that they are being punished for the crimes of the unregulated sector. My noble friend Lady Hanham touched on this point earlier and I would like to probe the Minister a little further on the reasons behind these provisions, and to raise some concerns about the enormous impact they will have on a significant number of clubs.

The group of amendments after this raises various aspects of the new regulations that will be particularly burdensome. There is a significant danger that clubs that have been operating under the existing licensing regime will struggle to survive the transition to the new regime. Is that the Government's intention? Bleeding a business dry through expensive and complicated regulation seems a very convoluted way of reducing the number of lap-dancing venues in the country. If that is not the Government's intention, why have they not inserted a grandfathering safeguard to soften the blow on existing businesses? My amendment would completely exempt existing businesses from the new provisions, but many alternatives could be considered; for example, a staggered timeframe or a presumption that they will at least get their first year's licence. I beg to move.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I am not sure that I can construct from the proposed legislation any circumstance which could be described as bleeding a business dry. The amendment would mean that where a venue has been granted a premises licence or a club certificate to authorise relevant entertainment to take place, provided that there are expressed conditions regulating the lap dancing or other similar entertainment being provided as part of the relevant entertainment, it would not be considered to be a sex encounter venue.

In effect, the majority of lap-dancing clubs—both those with existing licences and those that may be granted licences under the Licensing Act in the future—would continue to be regulated under the Licensing Act and would avoid the tighter controls provided by Clause 26. Such an amendment would render these reforms largely ineffectual and prevent local people having a greater say over the number and location of lap-dancing clubs in their area.

As I stated in response to Amendment 82A, the Government are taking action on the issue of lap-dancing clubs because the controls provided by the Licensing Act have, in the experience of many local authorities, proved insufficient and have not allowed them to address the concerns that such venues pose for many local communities. Therefore, it is the Government's intention that all venues offering relevant entertainment are regulated under Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to allow local communities to have a greater say about all such venues in their area.

Obviously, we are aware that existing lap-dancing clubs will need to be migrated to the new regime and will need time to apply for a new licence. The transitional arrangements dealing with these issues will be set out in secondary legislation. The Government will publish detailed proposals to that end, and will consult with the industry and other stakeholders on those proposals in due course. I have explained why the Government are not able to accept this amendment and, when we deal with subsequent amendments, I think that we can prove that the fear of bleeding businesses dry is unfounded.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister. This was a probing amendment, but can we expect to see before Report, which is quite some time hence, a draft of the proposed regulations in this respect?

Lord Brett (Labour)

I do not have the absolute answer to that and I will seek it for the noble Viscount. I suspect that the answer is no because we are to start the consultation with the industry. Once the industry has given its views, it will be a question of taking that into account and producing the guidance. But if it is possible, clearly it would be advantageous so to do.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

I am concerned about retrospectivity, which is what this is likely to be in terms of the number of venues within an area. If the legislation comes in as it is and there is no long transitional period or carrying forward of the licences that are already granted under the licensing regime, businesses will be concerned that they will be put out of business. A local authority may suddenly decide that it will not continue to have the same number of lap-dancing premises. For example, there may be eight venues in a local authority which says that its number will be reduced to four. What will happen?

We have had lots of discussion about the retrospective nature of other legislation and its impact on businesses that are operating at the moment. The concern is what will happen to, in many cases, very expensive premises. We are talking as if all lap-dancing organisations are complete mavericks. As the Minister knows, some big organisations regulate this business very thoroughly and put a lot of money into it.

Lord Brett (Labour)

The noble Baroness makes a valid point. This is why we want to consult the industry to find out the circumstances and how it sees them before we draw up the regulations. She makes a point that will not be ignored. We are not seeking to ban lap dancing and certainly not to drive out of business respectable organisations that provide this service, meet the criteria and are licensed in accordance with Clause 26. I suspect the migration will have to take account of time and circumstance. If we can produce any further information before Report, then I undertake that we will do so.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

My noble friend Lady Hanham and I are grateful for these explanations. Obviously we want to be kept as closely in touch as is practicably possible with the Government's negotiations with the industry. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 88 withdrawn.

Amendment 89

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

89: Clause 26, page 22, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 23

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

This probing amendment enables us to discuss whether there should be exemptions for clubs that provide lap dancing less than once a month. One could argue the case either way. I am interested to hear your Lordships' views.

Venues which irregularly hold lap-dancing events could be said to be those most likely to present problems. They will have much less adequate security, they might have invested much less in health and safety and they might present more problems in their neighbourhood. Then again, I would not want to think that a village hall which is laying on a fundraising event and might only do so once a year—or once—is going to be caught in any way by this legislation. This amendment is to examine the pros and cons of having the exemption as drafted by the Government. Did they weigh up the issues such as those I have mentioned about village halls against the fact that, if we are talking about occasional use, they fall outside of the regulation? I beg to move.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, makes some good points in this amendment. We agree with many of her concerns about the operation of this exemption. Although I would not want to extend this extremely burdensome regulation unnecessarily, it appears the Government are imposing the strictest conditions on some clubs while allowing others to continue to operate completely free from restrictions.

The exemption as drafted is extremely detailed: no more than 11 occasions; none lasting more than 24 hours; and never more than once a month. The detail is understandable since the Government will obviously want to rule out the travelling circus-type show that was discussed in another place, but the prescription also means that the sort of event that this exemption was intended to apply to risks not being exempted at all.

I understand that the exemption was specifically designed to stop pubs falling into this category of venue—a point made by the noble Baroness—if, for example, a stag party hires a stripper, or a one-off show of the Chippendales comes to town. I would welcome the Minister's correction if I am wrong on this point. That being so, how is a landlord to prevent a stripper coming into the club more than once a month? He risks serious penalties for something he is likely not to know about at all. I look forward to the Minister's answers to these points and those made by the noble Baroness.

Lord Brett (Labour)

The noble Viscount is correct in his analysis of why this exemption is in the Bill and why it has these particular ingredients of no more than 11 occasions. The purpose here is to recognise that not all premises that provide relevant entertainments should be classed as sexual encounter venues. He is absolutely right that we do not believe that such premises as, for instance, a pub which hosts a one-off birthday party at which a stripagram has been booked should be regulated in the same manner as lap-dancing clubs that offer entertainment on a nightly basis.

I am not sure I recognise the ability of someone to perform in that manner more than once a month without a landlord or the landlord's manager knowing about it. In that sense, the responsibility rests with the pub management or rugby club management—or the village hall committee. Most villages I know would be up in arms at the thought of village halls being used for those purposes. Maybe I live in a gentler part of the country in the north.

Premises that hold such infrequent events will continue to be regulated under the Licensing Act 2003 and will not require a sex establishment licence. This provision is important to ensure the reforms are dedicated to lap-dancing clubs for gain and venues providing similar entertainment on a regular basis. We were made aware during the debate in the other place that there was a fear that we could have "lap dancers on tour", who would move from venue to venue, keeping strictly within the 11 performances by moving around a large number of establishments, pubs and clubs in a short period. We doubt that is the case, but we would be worried if using temporary event notices to hold lap-dancing events in venues operated in such a manner. Therefore, we are making provision that that is not an unintended consequence. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest these concerns will materialise but we will have a limited order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to tighten the exemption or remove it altogether should it be clear that it has been exploited in that way. This has the right balance between stopping events, whether fundraising or other, of a nature that do not constitute regular performance of lap dancing and stopping events from those business organisations that do. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his reply. As somebody who hardly ever goes north of the line across from the Wash, I could not possibly comment on what happens in the north—although I remember seeing the film "The Full Monty", which suggests that occasionally such things happen there. I am sure the Minister will tell me that "The Full Monty" would not be caught by this either—unless he tells me different. It is certainly stripping but would probably not fall within the Bill. He is nodding, so that will be a relief. He has provided an explanation of when this will take hold—or not. I am satisfied with that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 89 withdrawn.

Amendment 90

Moved by Lord Brett

90: Clause 26, page 24, line 30, at end insert—

"( ) In paragraph 9(1) (duration of licence) after "paragraph 16" insert "or 27A below"."

Lord Brett (Labour)

Amendment 90 and Amendment 102 in the name of my noble friend Lord West are minor, technical amendments seeking to ensure, once premises have been granted a sex establishment licence in order to operate as a sex encounter venue, that they will be deemed to be a sex encounter venue for the duration of their licence, irrespective of how frequently entertainment is provided.

The amendments are required to avoid premises obtaining a licence then claiming that they are not a sex entertainment venue, either because they desisted from the provision of such relevant entertainment or, at the time in question, they were operating within the conditions of the exemption of infrequent events provided by Clause 24(3)(b). This is necessary as, in order to use some of the powers available in Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, local authorities and the police must establish whether a premises was a sex establishment at the time in question. In the event of ceasing to provide relevant entertainment and no longer wishing to be subject to the conditions of a sex establishment licence, a licence-holder can write to the local authority and request that the licence be cancelled.

Amendments 161 and 162 to Schedule 7 are consequential amendments to clarify the relevant entertainment provided by venues that are deemed to be sex encounter venues. By virtue of these amendments —I am sorry, I will read that again. Amendments 161 and 162 to Schedule 7 are consequential amendments to clarify the relevant entertainment provided by venues that are deemed to be sex encounter venues by virtue of these amendments—I shall read it a third time and I might be able to make sense of it. Amendments 161 and 162 to Schedule 7 are consequential amendments to clarify that the relevant entertainment provided by venues that are deemed to be sex encounter venues by virtue of these amendments is not to be considered to be regulated entertainment for the purposes of the Licensing Act 2003. This means that such venues do not need a premises licence in order for lap dancers or stripagrams to perform their routines or for music to be played for them to dance or perform to. They will still need a premises licence for the sale of alcohol. I beg to move.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

These government amendments are welcome because they improve the clarity and drafting of the Bill and address many of the concerns expressed in the last debate. Although many venues are dedicated to adult entertainment, there are others where the distinction between a bar and a relevant venue is not nearly as clear. We still have concerns about the exemption provisions and the definition of "relevant entertainment", and we feel that these leave much to be desired. We shall pay attention to these before we come back at the Report stage.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I thank the noble Viscount for his remarks.

Amendment 90 agreed.

Amendment 91

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

91: Clause 26, page 24, line 30, at end insert—

"( ) In paragraph 9(1) after "any licence" insert "apart from a licence in respect of a sex encounter venue,"."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

These two probing amendments have been tabled with the intention of discovering how the Government came to decide that the annual renewal of licences is reasonable. It seems to be a fair burden on businesses to have to renew their licences each year, and it is also quite an administrative burden on a local authority with a lot of clubs. We do not want this to become in any way an exercise in rubber-stamping just to get through the volume of business. Amendment 91 would exclude licences granted in respect of sex encounter venues from the provisions that such licences should be renewed on an annual basis. As I say, the amendment is probing in nature to discover whether a biannual renewal period would be more reasonable. An annual renewal period seems a little more frequent than necessary, but I am sure the Minister has an explanation. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

The noble Baroness has raised what is probably one of the most burdensome aspects of these regulations for the businesses concerned. They are to move from operating under perpetual licences that do not have to be renewed on a regular basis to being expected to apply annually for a licence. In some cases, a great deal of money is charged for these licences each time an application is made. There is also the possibility of an arbitrary refusal, and we have not yet come to the point of discussing what a refusal would be based on and why a local authority might not accept the renewal of a licence, which would take into account the number of clubs in a particular area. The possibility of an annual renewal period will be a great shock to many premises, and I know that the Lap Dancing Association is extremely concerned about this. I am sure that the Government have received many representations on it.

We understand that this system has been in operation for sex shops and cinemas, but does not the Minister agree that those venues can adapt their services far more cheaply and rapidly than, for example, lap-dancing venues that by nature rely on large and expensive premises with significant facilities? I understand that the DCMS Select Committee agreed with the lap-dancing industry that the licence period should be longer, suggesting five years. Can the Minister tell us why that recommendation was not accepted?

Lord Brett (Labour)

As the noble Baroness indicated, the concerns of the lap-dancing industry have been made clear to the Government. It fears that the annual renewal process will be overly burdensome and, indeed, may in some instances be used by local authorities to remove licences without cause. The Government do not believe that this will be the case. The regime has been in force for over two decades for a number of venues such as sex shops and sex cinemas, and while it is true that the conversion costs may be less for those businesses, there do not seem to have been any problems. We see no reason to believe that local authorities will refuse to grant or renew a licence to a responsible operator that only a year previously had been issued a licence unless it has good reason for so doing.

It is therefore the Government's view that these amendments would significantly weaken the impact of the reforms being introduced in Clause 26, which will reclassify lap-dancing clubs as sex establishments, recognising that they offer entertainment which is fundamentally different from other entertainment venues such as nightclubs and pubs. Such venues often raise particular concerns for local communities. For this reason, we believe that the ongoing scrutiny created by the need for a lap-dancing club to renew its licence on at least an annual basis is justified. The renewal process will provide local people with the opportunity to make further objections, if such objections exist, thereby empowering people to ensure that local authorities can be responsive to their views. I hope that this explains clearly why the Government have proposed these provisions and do not feel able to accept the amendment, and I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

When will we have sight of the reasons why a local authority can object to or refuse a licence? I am trying to balance in my mind whether we are dealing with a moral issue here or one of practical concern. By and large, as I understand it, all these clubs are pretty well regulated. There may be those that are not, but if that is the case, we ought to know what objections are being made. All the entertainment takes place inside the building and the codes of conduct certainly make it clear that nothing should happen outside. I am told that everyone agrees that very few complaints are lodged because such venues cause trouble externally. I am concerned that we have spent an awfully long time talking about these establishments today and are now considering an overly burdensome regulation, and I wonder if we are doing this because it is a moral issue rather than on the basis of resolving a practical difficulty.

I know people will say that they do not want a lap-dancing venue in their area, and that is fine, but for those that are already there, presumably someone is going to have to demonstrate that they have caused trouble. Will the Minister confirm that?

Lord Brett (Labour)

The objections that have successfully been made but had to be denied in the light of the Licensing Act 2003 and its four distinct provisions include seeking to open a lap-dancing club in a wholly residential area, which was seen by many local people to be undesirable; the suggestion of opening lap-dancing clubs near schools, which may be a moral issue—I am not sure; and opening lap-dancing clubs near or adjacent to religious buildings.

The licence may not be renewed for a range of reasons set out in paragraph 12(3) of Schedule 3 to the 1982 Act and include, for example, that the applicant is considered unsuitable. I understand the concern of the Lap Dancing Association in relation to the members it represents, but there are upwards of 300 establishments and considerable concern has been expressed about the inability of local residents to have the local authority take notice of their objections. That is not say that the views of residents will override those of the local authority because it has wider responsibilities which, as the noble Baroness knows better than I, it takes very seriously. So I would not have thought that the proposal we are putting forward for an annual inspection need be too onerous, too expensive, or likely to bleed any business dry.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

The trouble is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is absolutely right that this onerous renewal—the Minister did not disabuse me of the idea that it is onerous—is more about a moral crusade than a practical approach to the problem. The first time the club applies for a licence, the issue of the locality, which we shall discuss shortly, and whether it was near a school, and so on, would be very important. As those issues would have been dealt with already, annual renewal sounds too often. The Minister is ignoring some of the evidence given to the DCMS Committee of the other place by Chief Inspector Studd of ACPO who was talking about the low risk of these venues from a public order perspective. He said:

"There is no evidence that they"—

lap-dancing clubs—

"cause any crime and disorder. Very rarely. They tend to be fairly well run. They tend to have a fairly high staff ratio to customers. The people who tend to go there tend to be a bit older so they do not drink excessively and cause the crime and disorder problems outside".

Of all the things that local authorities have to license, on that evidence given by a representative of ACPO, these sound to be pretty mild. It is quite surprising that the Government want to put that level of burden on local authorities and on the clubs themselves. I suspect that we shall come back to this on Report, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

Amendment 92 not moved.

Amendment 93

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

93: Clause 26, page 24, line 36, at end insert—

"( ) In paragraph 12(5)(a) after "locality" insert "within the area defined by section 2"."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I want to probe exactly what is meant by "locality", particularly when an urban area has a boundary that is very close to the next authority. That would certainly be the case here in London, and we shall listen carefully to the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on this. It is very important to define locality, but the Bill leaves it very loose. Does it mean that views should be taken from the neighbouring authority if the neighbours are affected? What if the club intends to open in one place and just down the road but over the border, there is a school? I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

My Amendment 94 is grouped with this. I want to probe the transition from the current regime to one in which these provisions will apply. I am concerned about the idea of quotas in the lap-dancing industry. The quota could be set below the existing number of venues in an area. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the point about what is an area when it straddles a boundary? Do local authorities have to come to an agreement on that? Given that some dissatisfaction with the licence has to be found on grounds other than the number of them, it is extremely likely that some local authorities will actively seek to chop away at the number of venues using the quota as a guillotine. It is important to know how these quotas will work particularly, as I have already touched on, in relation to establishments that are already there and may be in excess of a quota advised by a local authority, or two local authorities, in the context of this debate. Perhaps we can dig a little further on what the quota system and its implications are likely to be.

Lord Brett (Labour)

Under the proposed new regime, local authorities can refuse to grant a licence to a lap-dancing club on the ground that it would be inappropriate, having regard to the character of the relevant locality, or on the basis that a number of such venues in the locality is equal or exceeds the number that the local authority considers appropriate. Amendment 93 would define locality as within the local authority area where the premises are situated. That could prevent a local authority considering the locality that surrounds the premises but which happens to fall in another local authority area when deciding whether it is appropriate to have a sex encounter venue located in a particular site. The amendment could also prevent local authorities drawing distinctions within their own areas when judging whether it is appropriate to have a sex establishment in the location.

If premises happened to be situated on the boundaries of two local authority areas, we consider it appropriate that the local authority handling the application can consider the whole locality, even if it straddles two local authority areas. It would seem odd, for example, if a locality adjacent to such premises were in a residential area or contained a school, but because it fell under the jurisdiction of another local authority, the one handling the application could not take some matters into account when deciding whether to grant a licence. It is a common-sense approach.

Given the diversity of many local authority areas, ranging from busy high streets to residential areas, the Government believe that local authorities should set the different limits on the number of sex establishments appropriate to the different localities. For example, a local authority may decide that a particular locality in a city centre is an appropriate location for a limited number of lap-dancing clubs, while a suburban, residential area is not suitable for any sex establishments at all. The amendment would remove that flexibility.

Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, would omit paragraph 12(4), which states that the local authority can set the number of sex establishments that it considers appropriate for a particular locality at nil. The Government believe that paragraph 12(4) is useful as it makes clear to all parties that local authorities are fully within their rights to determine that certain areas are entirely inappropriate for the location of sex establishments. In other words, being able to set the limit at nil allows local authorities to prevent sex establishments opening up in areas that are deemed wholly unsuitable, having regard to the nature and character of the locality.

For example, a local authority may decide that it is inappropriate to have any sex establishment in an area that is overwhelmingly residential, or where schools or religious buildings are located. To ensure that local authorities can respond to the concerns of local communities, the Government believe that they must retain their flexibility to manage sex establishments that the amendments would remove. I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment would have odd, perhaps unintended consequences and would decrease valuable flexibility.

On the question of the number of establishments that will be in a local authority area, it will be a matter for the local authority.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

Does the Minister agree that this would be absolutely fine if we were working from a clean sheet of paper, where no lap-dancing clubs existed and it was a completely new set-up? The reality is that lap-dancing clubs already exist. They are licensed to some extent, and the local authority knows they are there. It goes back to the question on which we touched before that if the local authority suddenly decides that it will agree to eight or three establishments, and one is an area where they will now be prohibited, what will happen to that business? Will it have to cease operating or can we ensure within the legislation that there is a proper way of it carrying on until a certain number is reached? That cannot happen if the local authority says that there are to be no lap-dancing clubs in its area at all.

We have to accept that these businesses exist; we cannot pretend that they do not. I suppose that we can say it in legislation, but should we say it: that some premises will have to be put out of business because of the number at issue? Whether I agree with the type of business or not is irrelevant. It is extremely important to be fair and just. Is it fair to leave it open to doubt whether a business has to go out of business because it is deemed to be over and above the local authority numbers?

Lord Brett (Labour)

The noble Baroness raises an important point and she makes it well, but I have already explained that the transitional arrangements will be set out in secondary legislation and that we are consulting the relevant stakeholders, including the Lap Dancing Association, on that legislation. I do not want to pre-empt the consultation but I have given assurances already in relation to another amendment that if any information arrives before Report stage I shall seek to make it available.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

The trouble is that that consultation, coming, as it does, so late and with us having to look at these amendments now, will not help us in deciding whether the legislation is adequately drafted. On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about how local authorities are going to prioritise, the last thing we want to do with this legislation is to allow unsatisfactory licensed clubs to up their game a bit, become more satisfactory and get the quota, while better places do not. I can see the Minister is becoming frustrated by this argument. I shall simply ask him when he expects the results of the consultation: is there any chance that by the time we get to Report, probably sometime in October, we might have the results?

Lord Brett (Labour)

I have already answered the noble Baroness's question: I do not know; it will depend on the degree of consultation and the degree of vehemence and argument of the stakeholders who are being consulted. If there is any information I shall seek to make it available before that stage. My frustration is not with the noble Baroness and the comments she makes but with what seems to be missing from the discussion. This is predicated on giving local people and local authorities more control over what is desirable in their areas. The consequences of avoiding a licensing provision—we do not have one—will be that the number of lap-dancing clubs, good or otherwise, will become a local authority issue and the transitional arrangements will have to address the migration from the old regime to the new one. I cannot add any more than that.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I fully understand the need to keep local people involved—that is not the problem. Under whatever legislation we do this, local people must have their say. What I am worried about is a club which has had no objections—no one has bothered about it and it is in the right place—which is over the quota.

Lord Brett (Labour)

With respect, that is a matter for the local authority, which will determine the quota. It is a circular argument. Unfortunately, as we are trying to enable local authorities to take greater account in a way that they cannot do under the Licensing Act 2003, I can add nothing to the argument other than to repeat my offer to make available to noble Lords any additional information in respect of the consultation or the guidance that comes to us before Report.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

With that reassurance and the thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and I may get together and think about her amendment which looked at the Licensing Act and strengthened the arm of local authorities, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 93 withdrawn.

Amendments 94 to 96 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.34 pm.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

The point of the amendment is to ensure that all licensing conditions are clearly presented for everyone concerned to see. Whether they are standard or specific, we believe that they should appear in the licence so that not only the licensee but members of the public know exactly what are the constraints of the licence. Further, as it is necessary to display the licence, members of the public should be quite clear and should not be presumed to have any specialist knowledge of what an authority has decided in principle. The Bill as drafted leaves the possibility for a licence to be too vague. I beg to move.

Lord Brett (Labour)

The objective of Amendment 97, which would amend paragraph 13(4) of Schedule 3 to the 1982 Act, seems to be to ensure that the local authority sets out the conditions on the face of the licence. Although I can understand the intention behind the amendment, the Government are not aware of any issues arising from the existing wording that has been used for sex shops, sex cinemas or sex encounter establishments in London since 1982.

As I understand it, where local authorities do not place conditions in the licence, they will in many cases make reference to them in the licence and provide applicants with a copy. We also expect all local authorities to publish standard conditions on the internet. In any event, any person can request a copy of the standard conditions from the local authority, and the local authority must provide a copy of the same on payment of a reasonable fee. However, if the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is aware of any evidence to show that there is a problem with the current arrangements, we would be happy to consider her amendment further.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

That is very kind of the Minister; I will go away to seek evidence, which will probably be quite hard to find, as this has not yet come into effect. I still think that, as a matter of principle, expecting members of public to search on the internet is not as satisfactory as including the conditions in the licence. I have not really heard from the Minister a good reason why they should not be in the licence, but I shall consider what he said and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 97 withdrawn.

Amendment 98

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

98: Clause 26, page 24, line 45, after "applications)" insert—

"(a)"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

We believe that it would be inappropriate for local authorities to use a new licensing regime as a revenue-raising vehicle. Instead, licensing fees should cover only the administrative costs of the licensing application to the licensing authority. As Clause 26 stands, local authorities would be able to set the annual cost of the sex encounter venue licence at any rate that they deemed reasonable.

To put that into context, charges for the equivalent sex encounter establishment licence, which provides the blueprint, vary between £300 and £30,000 annually, depending on which local authority you happen to find yourself in. Clearly, the parameters of what is reasonable are very wide. The cost of the licence will be additional to the club's premises licence, which is required for the sale of alcohol. It would at least be useful to hear from the Minister how he imagines that the rate for the licence will be set.

Having said all that, we also believe it to be reasonable that there is freedom for local authorities to have sufficient latitude to reflect their needs in their fees. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 states only that an applicant for a licence shall pay a reasonable fee determined by the appropriate authority, so I would be interested to hear the Government's thinking on the fees matter. I beg to move.

Lord Brett (Labour)

I am delighted to agree with the noble Baroness, as the Government also take the view that the application fee for licensing should not be a profit-making operation or be raising revenue. We do not go as far as the amendment, which says that there should only be an administrative fee. We understand why the noble Baroness has raised the issue and are aware that the matter of fees for sex establishment licences causes some concern among lap-dancing operators.

However, the Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary to protect applicants from undue charges. While "reasonable fees" are not defined in the 1982 Act, direction on how local government should calculate charges is provided elsewhere, in the form of the HM Treasury guidance on fees. That guide makes it clear that fees should reflect the cost of providing the service and should not be used to generate a profit; that is, I believe, the chief concern of the lap-dancing industry.

We are aware that sex establishment licences can vary depending on the local authority area. That, however, reflects the fact that costs can vary from area to area. In those circumstances, the local authority has the flexibility to set fees to accept those variations. Further guidance will be provided by the services directive, Article 13(2) of which states that,

"charges which the applicants may incur from their application shall be reasonable and proportionate to the cost of the authorisation procedures in question and shall not exceed the cost of the procedures".

The Government believe that the services directive and the guidance issued by HM Treasury will provide sufficient protection against undue or excessive local authority charges for lap-dancing operators. Obviously, where licence holders have genuine concerns regarding the level of fees charged by local authorities, they will be able to challenge the fee structure by way of a judicial review. I hope that information will help the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 98 withdrawn.

Amendment 99 not moved.

Amendment 100

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

100: Clause 26, page 25, line 26, at end insert—

"( ) Paragraph 27(3) is repealed."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

Amendments 100 and 101 have come as a slight surprise to me. I shall have to move Amendment 100 and hope that the Minister is better prepared for them than me. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

Perhaps I might make the contribution that I would have if this had been more formally spoken to, because that might give us an edge on the debate. I support the amendment; the lack of appeal against the refusal of a licence on those two grounds is worrying, especially in the case of a refused renewal. Again, we have touched on this as we have gone through; the failure to renew a licence will mean the abrupt closure of a business, with the accompanying loss of jobs and revenue. To make that decision without the possibility of an appeal would be deeply unfair, and the possibility of such a step happening in the case of the arbitrary quotas highlights our concerns with that aspect of the provisions.

Will there be any objective assessment of the evidence on which the quota is set, or will the authority be able to pluck a number out of thin air or even amend it at will to close down a licence application without having to come up with a good reason?

The power to shut down discussion on the ground of the character of the locality also has the potential to be abused, so surely it would be more productive to see whether the concerns about the layout of the venue could be addressed before rejecting an application. The Minister, in response to a previous amendment, talked about lap-dancing places being next door to a church or a school or in a village where there has been none. Those are the areas that we need to consider. There seems to be no mechanism in the legislation by which to appeal against a decision to close a venue because of a quota. The Minister might like to comment on that.

Lord Brett (Labour)

Amendments 100 and 101 deal with the rights of applicants to appeal to a magistrates' court against a decision taken by a local authority to refuse, to grant or to renew a licence for a sex establishment.

Schedule 3 rules out the possibility of an appeal to a magistrates' court where a licence is refused on the grounds that the number of sex establishments in the locality is already equal to or exceeds the number that the local authority considers appropriate, or that the grant or renewal would be inappropriate given the character of the locality. This does not leave the applicant without redress. Instead, such decisions can be challenged in a judicial review.

Parliament obviously took the view that this was the appropriate approach when it passed the 1982 Act. Schedule 3 to that Act is designed specifically to regulate sex establishments. Due to the particular entertainment that such venues provide, the Act recognises the need to equip local authorities with sufficient powers to manage the impact that sex establishments have on local communities. The Act gives local authorities the power to impose limits on the number of sex establishments in a locality or to refuse to grant a licence if they believe this to be necessary to protect the character of the locality.

In making these decisions, the local authority is required to use its discretion and judge what are and are not suitable locations for sex establishments. Given the nature of the judgments which the local authority will be required to make when deciding an application, we consider judicial review to be the appropriate mechanism by which to challenge these decisions because of the margin of appreciation that the court will accord to local authorities when deciding whether the decision ought to be upheld, as opposed simply to substituting its view for that of the local authority.

I appreciate the concerns enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in our debates on this and previous amendments about the rights of applicants to appeal in a judicial review decisions taken by local authorities, but I hope that my comments have reassured both her and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to the extent that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, feels able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his reply, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for speaking so ably to my amendment; I cannot explain where my notes have disappeared to. The Minister's reply was helpful, and I will read it in detail. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 100 withdrawn.

Amendment 101 not moved.

Amendment 102

Moved by Lord Brett

102: Clause 26, page 25, line 30, at end insert—

"( ) After paragraph 27 (appeals) insert—

"Premises which are deemed sex encounter venues

27A (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) premises are subject to a licence for a sex encounter venue; and

(b) their use would be use as such a venue but for the operation of paragraph 2A(3)(b).

(2) This Schedule applies as if—

(a) the premises were a sex encounter venue; and

(b) the use or business of the premises was use as, or the business of, such a venue.

(3) But the appropriate authority must cancel the licence if the holder of the licence asks them in writing to do so.

(4) In this paragraph "premises" has the same meaning as in paragraph 2A.""

Amendment 102 agreed.

Amendment 103 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 3 agreed.

Clause 27 : Increase in penalty for offence

Debate on whether Clause 27 should stand part of the Bill.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

In opposing the inclusion of the clause, I in no way seek to weaken the ability of the police to take effective measures against irresponsible drinking and the violent behaviour to which it often leads. The link between the two is clear, and we would welcome effective measures to combat the sort of behaviour that blights communities. However, this is not an effective measure. Of all the clauses in the Bill, this one illustrates most clearly what is wrong not only with the Government's policies to prevent crime and tackle criminal behaviour but with their chosen methods of implementation. The Government have had to admit that there is a problem. Neither the number of people who are receiving fines for this offence or the crime statistics indicating the level of alcohol-related violent crime are falling. Instead, they are increasing.

The Government's policies to address the problem that they helped to create with their 24-hour boozing culture are not working and this offence is not proving to be a deterrent; so the Government come forward with their solution—they will increase the maximum possible fine from £500 to £2,500 in the hope that this will, and I quote, "send a message". They hope that the possibility of being on the receiving end of a really significant fine will make an impression where the £500 limit does not. This sort of thinking shows just how much government policy-makers are living in fantasyland. Do they imagine that people get drunk and violent after careful consideration of what fine might be imposed? Do they imagine that anyone out drinking in the streets early on a Saturday morning knows or cares what the maximum penalty for this offence is?

We all know that the existing £500 limit has never been used. The number of people who have received a fine above £200 for this offence is in single figures. So who are the Government trying to send this clear and strong message to? The literature would suggest that they are trying to reach the people on whom the fine will be levied, but in the debates in another place, the Under-Secretary of State admitted that it was, in fact, to send a message to the police and the CPS. It comes as some surprise to this side of the Committee that the only method of communication the Home Office had with these departments was through primary legislation.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister what direct conversations have been held with the police as to the necessity or desirability, or point, of raising this fine, and as to the possibility of using the maximum level as it is already set.

There is much more that could be done to address problem drinking; more attention must be given to alcohol referral schemes, in particular. Levying ever-heavier fines on a person with a drinking problem will not cure him. I see this clause as entirely unnecessary and, by giving the impression of running while the Government are, in fact, standing still, it is actively unhelpful.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

We agree with the sentiments here, in that the idea of simply raising the level of fine to a really quite disproportionate level will do nothing to solve the problem. We think the Government have been right to concentrate on the problem, but, as we said at Second Reading, it is not possible to legislate your way out of the binge-drinking culture that is causing so much of the problem.

The Government have put a number of things in place which we would say are good. For example, last year and I think into this year, the Home Office has run a series of workshops, which I might come back to and speak in more detail about later, aimed at all sorts of sections of not only those who sell alcohol, but also those who are trying to improve community safety. Those workshops have barely had time to take effect, in the training they have given people, for example. There have been other tools that the Government have come up with. They have their youth alcohol action plan, for example, which is a mixture of education, enforcement and action with industry and, again, that is a commendable idea.

So at one level, the Government understand that this is a matter of education and working across a very broad spectrum of people, from the industry itself to community leaders and the police, and that it is not just a question of fines. In fact, those on whom the fines are likely to be levied are unlikely to be able to pay them at this level, which will then lead to further criminal proceedings. That is not a particularly desirable outcome when it ends up with those people in prison, costing the taxpayer an absolute arm and a leg, without the problem really being solved. I hope that, during discussions on this part of the Bill, we can come to a better understanding of what the solution should be.

Baroness Stern (Crossbench)

I support what has been said about this clause. The Minister will know very well that the binge-drinking culture is a social problem and not a manifestation of a lack of deterrents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has said, substantial moves are already underfoot for the necessary educational programme that might have an influence. It is impossible that a message-sending type of legislation will have any effect on the decisions made by people going out on a binge-drinking night. It is an unfortunate consequence that, if the fine is so high that they cannot pay it, they get imprisoned for default.

This provision will apply in a designated public place. Will the Minister tell the Committee how those who are drunk will know whether the place in which they are drunk is designated and, therefore, whether this legislation apply? I am sure that I should know the answer to that, but I am afraid that I do not.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

In his reply, perhaps the Minister will give us an idea of what lies behind this. As I understand it, the sections in the 2001 Act that have implemented the fines in the designated areas have not been in for all that long. There has probably been very little opportunity for anyone to find out whether the designated areas are working and whether the fines are adequate. It probably is also worth remembering that in the court system fines are appropriate to a person's income. Quite a lot of people who indulge in binge drinking will not have a very high income, so it will not make the slightest difference whether they are fined a maximum of £500 or £2,500. It will still be at a level which is appropriate to what they are deemed to be able to afford. Perhaps the Minister will give us a view of his thinking so that perhaps before he finishes we may come back to this if necessary.

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

As we move from sex to alcohol, I am reminded of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who wished to declare an interest on the second day in Committee, although I do not know whether he did. I suppose that I should declare an interest: I find that, within proper bounds, in the correct circumstances and in moderation, alcohol is rather enjoyable. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, saying that I know full well the effects of having too much alcohol perhaps is a little more than I would have declared.

Clause 27 increases the maximum fine for refusing to comply with a police officer's instructions to stop drinking—a person might or might not be very drunk—and/or to surrender alcohol—again, a person might or might not be very drunk—in a person's possession in a designated public place—to which I shall return in a minute—from £500, a level 2 fine, to £2,500, a level 4 fine. An offence is committed when a person fails to comply with police instructions to do that. I said that a person might not necessarily be very drunk and a couple of speakers have talked about that already. He is liable to a penalty notice disorder, a PND, and, on summary conviction, to a maximum fine of, at the moment, £500. Increasing the maximum fine for this offence will bring it in line with the maximum penalty for a similar offence of failing to comply with directions to leave. So this fine will not be out on its own.

Since 2001, local authorities have implemented 712 designated public place orders, DPPOs, throughout England and Wales. This clearly shows that local authorities support this power and believe that it will tackle the disorder and nuisance associated with alcohol consumption. In areas where a DPPO is in effect, local authorities must put up signs to show the public that they are in a DPPO and to show the maximum penalty. In a sense, the fact that the DPPO signs are there answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. You could argue that if a person is very drunk, he or she will not be able to read, but this is aimed at people at all stages of intoxication. Those who might be tempted to ignore a police officer's instructions to stop drinking or surrender alcohol may reconsider their actions if they think they will be prosecuted for a fine of up to £2,500.

So far the maximum of £500 has not been used; it has been percentages of that. Putting it up to £2,500 shows all those involved, and those imposing the penalties, how seriously we take this. A percentage of the £2,500 could be way over the £500. Even if the fines do not reach the maximum, the clause will send a clear message to deter the type of alcohol-related disorder and nuisance that we see in these areas.

The noble Baroness asked what happens if they are absolutely screaming drunk. I am afraid that when people get to that stage nothing makes a difference. There are a lot of stages before that where these things can have some impact. In Committee in the other place concerns were raised that this clause will not have the intended effect when people are told what to do. I can tell that that concern is shared here as well. I hope I am covering some of the points that make me think it will.

Statistics from the Ministry of Justice show an increasing number of PNDs issued for breach of this offence, with a twofold increase in the past two years. Some 485 individuals received a PND for this offence in 2004, 712 in 2005, 1,061 in 2006 and 1,544 in 2007. The increasing number of PNDs issued for breach of this offence strongly suggests that although DPPOs have proved useful for their intended purpose, more can be done to increase their deterrence effect. We consider that increasing the consequences of breaching a DPPO will deter more people from refusing to comply with police instructions to stop drinking or to surrender alcohol in these areas. This will also incentivise more local authorises to use DPPOs as an effective solution to their area's alcohol-related disorder and nuisance.

The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked if we are working with the police and enforcement agencies, and how much dealings we have with them. We are dealing with them across the board, talking through with them their full range of available tools and powers. Increasing this maximum penalty was one they discussed. As has been said by other speakers, this is not the only thing. There are a whole range of things one has got to use.

The noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also asked whether we had done much training of front-line enforcement practitioners. So far we have trained 1,300 in use of appropriate powers and other ways of trying to do this. We have also talked about this maximum penalty.

I have touched on the designated area issue and have covered most of the points. We believe that this will, with all the other measures, make an impact. You are not always dealing with someone who is absolutely out of their brain. Below that level, people will know how seriously we now take this. It will match other similar fines for this level of behaviour. I hope that those assurances will calm the worries of the Committee. I know we all have the same desire to stop this dreadful behaviour. It is a question of how we go about it. I beg to move that Clause 27 stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

I knew that the Minister would raise something I would want to come back on. He gave some indication of how many penalty notices have been issued. What is relevant is how many of those have been paid and how many breaches there have been. I do not expect an answer now but would be grateful to know how many prosecutions have resulted from those penalty notices not being paid. That is the only way that this offence comes into being. Then it would be easier for us to see whether the £500 was a deterrent. I suspect with penalty notices that people are not listening, whether it is £2,000 or £500.

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

The noble Baroness raises a good point. I do not know the answer, and I will come back to her. That is of course only part of it. It does not say how much it might have stopped other people offending, just knowing those fines are there. There is more to it than just that, but I will certainly come back with those factors.

What I did not mention but should have to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is that we have launched six adult alcohol arrest referral pilots for young people. Those arrested under this receive professional assistance from trained workers, and the interventions will be available alongside these measures. This is a total package because, as with most things, it is not just about punishment. Lots of other factors have to be taken into account.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

On behalf of my noble friend Lady Hanham and myself I thank the Minister for that reply. I may not have been quite fair enough to the Government in acknowledging the steps they are taking in terms of alcohol education and so forth. However, with alcohol-related violent crime still rising, I feel that the jury is out and that we shall have to see how it goes. In the mean time, we shall study very carefully the reply the Minister has given.

Clause 27 agreed.

Clause 28 : Selling alcohol to children

Debate on whether Clause 28 should stand part of the Bill.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

In opposing the Motion that this clause should stand part, I am afraid that I am not much more kindly disposed towards the second clause in this part of the Bill than I was to the first. Here we are looking at a change to the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children, lowering the bar from three occasions to two within three consecutive months. Again, I would have welcomed a provision that played part of a meaningful policy addressing the growing problem of underage drinking. We all know about the damage alcohol can cause to young people, not only to their health but to almost every aspect of their lives. Shops that deliberately or recklessly sell to minors should be pursued. However, why have the Government suddenly decided that the number of strikes is a problem. The current system has been in place for less than two years, and what hard evidence is there that it is failing?

In the debates in another place, the Government indicated that the police would welcome the opportunity to escalate the penalties more rapidly where they believe premises were wilfully relaxing their checks until they had received two warnings. Does the Minister have any statistics on the number of penalties and fines that have been issued to these premises for failing a test purchase? We have had a partial response to that already. Presumably there must be evidence of lots of £80 penalty notices on bar staff and £10,000 fines on licensees for the first two offences that the Government are failing to act as a sufficient deterrent. I look forward to hearing the figures.

The Government also claimed in another place that they were working with licensees to tackle underage drinking together, yet in this clause they seem to have disregarded their concerns entirely. Large retailers are worried that their high numbers of sales mean that they will rapidly hit the two-strike barrier even when taking all possible care, while small retailers are worried about the difficulty of training their staff to recognise the multitude of IDs that they are expected to vet, and all retailers are struggling to keep up with the ever-changing legislation and regulation they have to operate under. I have yet to hear or see any compelling evidence that this change will make any difference to the problem at hand. I hope that the Minister will be able to do better than his colleagues in another place in explaining just why we need this clause.

Lord Redesdale (Liberal Democrat)

I support this Motion and perhaps I should declare an interest. I apologise for not being able to speak at the Second Reading of this Bill, but I declare an interest as the owner of a particularly fine pub called the Redesdale Arms in Northumberland on the A68 just south of the Scottish border which serves particularly fine wine and beer and, of course, food. If anybody happens to be on the A68, it is a good road to take. Perhaps that is more of an interest than I should have expressed. I should also say that I am chairman of Best Bar None, which is funded by the Home Office, and is an organisation that deals with award schemes for best practice in pubs and nightclubs.

It is in that regard that I am interested in supporting this clause because although a large number of pubs deal firmly with the issue of underage drinking, a number of venues have a problem with it. They are the much larger venues where a number of people are the premises licensees.

The issue that I have is that there is no evidence. The noble Viscount's point about the number of fines was probably rhetorical, but I believe that there are few cases. I am interested to know whether the Home Office is pushing it. Where did "two strikes and you're out" come from? I am concerned because if one offence has taken place, those in charge of the premises will have to retrain the staff and institute proper management.

Of course, most premises would not go out of their way to sell alcohol to those who are under 18 but the under-18s will try extremely hard to buy alcohol. I remember that I was never refused a drink from the age of 15 onwards. I went to many pubs and would have caused landlords a lot of problems. Obviously, with the pass scheme it is easier for publicans and licensees to deal with this. But it is unfair on the organisations which, by the time they receive warning notices, have implemented procedures to retrain their staff, and which will then receive a second penalty before they have introduced all the measures. They will be shut down and there is an enormous amount of time, effort and cost to the pubs, especially in this economic crisis, to sort it out. The present system of three strikes has not really been questioned, and it is strange that this should turn up in the legislation.

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

The Government are clear that selling alcohol to young people is unacceptable, which is the view in the Chamber. I am pleased to say that that view is also shared by the majority of those who sell alcohol and their representatives. It is rather nice for the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to own his own pub with his own name; it is a splendid thing to do.

I hope that I can explain why I believe this is important and that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, will give me more marks than the other place in achieving that. I will have a go. It is clear from the targeted enforcement campaigns that we ran that a number of retailers still sell to under-18s, which has to stop. It is not all just errors. In the summer of 2007 the Home Office ran its Tackling Underage Sales Of Alcohol Campaign—TUSAC—which targeted more than 2,500 premises nationally to ascertain the extent of underage sales and how frequently they were made over a three-month period.

The premises targeted as part of this campaign had already been identified as problem premises, and the results showed that 40 per cent of the premises targeted failed on at least one occasion, 8 per cent failed twice and 1 per cent failed three times. Despite being told when it started that they were being targeted for underage sales, 8 per cent still failed twice in that three-month period.

The Government are committed to targeting a minority of businesses that sell alcohol illegally. Even though those premises were targeted on the basis of local intelligence, we felt that the failure rates were unacceptable. If young people know that certain shops will sell them alcohol, they will take advantage, and it is possible that when under the influence of alcohol, as we all know, these young people will be involved in anti-social behaviour, possibly crime and they can cause themselves harm.

Lord Redesdale (Liberal Democrat)

Does the Minister have a breakdown of the figures between the on-licence trade and the off-licence trade? Pubs and clubs being mixed in with off-licences might give a completely different view of the figures.

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

I do not have the figure at my fingertips. Unless the Box can provide it shortly I shall write to the noble Lord, but I will cover it if the information comes before the end of the debate.

Some in the alcohol industry will argue that it is too early to introduce changes to this offence. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, did exactly that, given that the original offence came into effect only in April 2007. I disagree with that. The original offence was introduced before TUSAC, which clearly shows that despite repeated warnings some premises continued to sell alcohol to children. Some representatives of the industry have also said that reducing the number of underage sales in a three-month period from three to two is much too harsh, and that the new clause is disproportionate. We all accept that human error will occur and that people will make mistakes when determining whether someone is over 18, but the defence to this offence is that the person selling alcohol has taken reasonable steps to determine whether the person was under 18. That means that they simply ask for some form of proof of age. I agree that it would be disproportionate to penalise businesses for a genuine mistake by a single member of staff—that is why changing this offence as we propose still allows for a level of human error—but the change makes clear that those selling alcohol should ask for proof of age any time there is doubt and, where this does not happen and these sales take place more than once, it is right that the business should be held to account.

A vast number of premises now run Challenge 21 or Challenge 25-type schemes and this clause cannot be considered disproportionate. Simply put, if you are not selling alcohol illegally, the clause will have no impact. But it will send a strong message that it is not acceptable to sell alcohol to children and that those who do will be punished. Earlier this year in Blackpool, an outlet of a major supermarket chain was found guilty of this offence. It was fined only £6,000 but, since then—I think because of social conscience more than the £6,000 fine, although that was important—it has introduced a Challenge 25 scheme across the whole country. I am pleased that many in the alcohol industry are taking steps to ensure that their staff do not sell alcohol illegally. The Challenge 21 or Challenge 25 schemes initiated by the industry are becoming widely understood by the general public. The hologram of the proof of age standards scheme, PASS, is also fast becoming an easily recognised feature of many student and other ID cards. The new clause, coupled with the excellent work the industry is doing, will send a clear message to those selling and those attempting to buy alcohol illegally that it will not be tolerated.

As regards the question of how many people have been prosecuted, the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children, as I said, came into effect in 2007. No prosecutions were brought in 2007 and court proceedings data for 2008 are not available until later this year. I have covered the other one and so I am afraid I cannot add any more. I shall get back to noble Lords with the details of that. On that basis, I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw his objection to Clause 28 standing part of the Bill.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

I am grateful for that full explanation. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who is an expert in the pub-owning industry. We all know that there is a very good pub up in Northumberland.

We shall await the statistics we have requested and have been promised by the Minister. In the mean time, we shall study his reply carefully.

Clause 28 agreed.

Clause 29 : Confiscating alcohol from young persons

Amendment 104

Moved by Viscount Bridgeman

104: Clause 29, page 26, line 4, at end insert—

"( ) In subsection (1) after "possession of alcohol" insert "without reasonable excuse"."

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

Amendment 106 in this group is designed to address a deep concern on these Benches about the Government's removal of the requirement that there needs to be evidence of intent to drink the alcohol before it can be confiscated. Amendment 104 probes why there is no defence of reasonable excuse inserted to replace such a safeguard. Essentially, these are probing amendments to establish why the Government are changing this power in such a way as to remove all necessity of bad behaviour.

The Government's amendments in this clause would make it possible for a policeman to confiscate a sealed bottle of alcohol from a young person even if there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that he was going to drink it and he had a perfectly good excuse as to why he was carrying it. This would be ludicrous. While maintaining, as ever, my full support for effective measures to address underage drinking, I fail to see how a young person carrying a bottle of wine home for his parents is in any way a suitable target for the police. Even worse, by then refusing to hand over that bottle of wine, he becomes subject to criminal sanctions—and for what?

Although I understand the desire to allow for the confiscation of alcohol from someone who is transporting it to be drunk by another young person—a situation which the current legislation does not cover—there surely must be a defence of reasonable excuse inserted in order to replace the absent subsection. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

We support the amendment. It seems unreasonable that there is no such provision in the Bill. You can imagine a situation where a young person is carrying a sealed bottle of alcohol as part of the weekly shop, which perhaps they deliver to their grandmother—in that case, it might be a bottle of Guinness, which I think is often associated with grandmothers. In a less frivolous way, let us suppose that one of the child's parents was an alcoholic and the alcohol was sent by their sister, say, or their brother or whoever to the person and the child was carrying it. That is not a desirable situation but surely it should not be caught by the Bill, particularly if the young person had no intention of drinking the alcohol.

In replying to a Question for Written Answer from my noble friend Lord Avebury on 30 June, the Government mentioned that they were revising the drug and alcohol guidance for schools. Apparently they intend to make drug and alcohol education statutory as part of personal, social and health education. That sort of provision in the Bill, if it needs legislative time to be made statutory, would be a far better use of time in tackling some of these issues than the clause that we are debating at the moment.

Baroness Stern (Crossbench)

I support the amendment. The Minister has said on two previous clauses that the purpose is to send messages. I ask him to reflect on the message that is sent to young people when they are stopped although they have a reasonable excuse. They feel that what is happening is extremely unfair and that they have been picked on, and they begin to see the police as people who pick on young people rather than upholders of the law and people whom they should respect. When we are talking so much about sending messages, we should remember that messages go in a number of different directions. In this case, without these amendments the provision could send a message about the unfairness of the forces of law and order, which is not a good message for young people to get.

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

Amendment 104 seeks to amend the Bill so that people under 18 would not have their alcohol confiscated by a police officer if they provided a reasonable excuse for possessing alcohol in public. This seems perfectly reasonable but I assure noble Lords that it is unnecessary. The Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 already requires the police to consider when it is appropriate for them to seize alcohol from a young person. Section 1(3) of the 1997 Act sets out that a person commits an offence only if they fail "without reasonable excuse" to comply with a requirement imposed on them. In practice, that means that an officer has to consider the circumstances and decide whether it is appropriate to confiscate the alcohol from the young person in question. Naturally, that will include whether or not they have a reasonable excuse.

In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, about young people being picked on, one has to know the context in which this happens. Some of our areas and inner cities are a bit like wild lands, I am afraid. It happens in little towns out in the country as well; I know this from Dorset, where I used to have a cottage. You get groups of youngsters behaving in an appalling way, and they are well aware that they are doing so. It is not as if some person walking quietly along the street is going to get picked up for this. We have to get this into context.

Before confiscating the alcohol, a constable is required under Section 1(4) to inform the young person that it is an offence to fail to comply with his request "without reasonable excuse". In practice, the constable cannot simply put the question of a reasonable excuse to one side as a matter that arises only if there is a prosecution for non-compliance; he will be using his judgment on the basis of the reasonable excuse. This is different from the situation in Clause 30, which makes it an offence to be in possession of alcohol in a public place on three occasions in 12 months. Under that clause, the offence is for possessing alcohol, but the clause contains a safeguard for children with a reasonable excuse for holding alcohol. A young person who is holding alcohol during a family picnic in a park, for example, is exempt from this power as he or she has a reasonable excuse for doing so and would not be penalised.

On Amendment 106, a young person who is drunk on the street clearly poses harm to themselves and potentially to others. The Government are very clear that unsupervised drinking by young people under 18 in public places is unacceptable. It exposes them to alcohol-related risks and has clear links to crime and anti-social behaviour. All of us in this House understand that. It was a central message in the youth alcohol action plan published last June. Therefore, we want to make it easier for the police to confiscate alcohol from under-18s found in possession of alcohol in public. We believe that doing so will have a very positive impact on removing or minimising alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and crime and disorder.

The police have told us that the requirement in the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 to prove an intent to consume makes it difficult for officers to take sealed containers of alcohol away from young people who are increasingly aware of this requirement—let's face it, these youngsters can be very cute—and are using it to get round these powers. All it takes is for the young person to argue that the alcohol is not theirs because it is still sealed or they are holding it for someone else, and they cannot be touched. The provisions in Clause 29(4) respond to the very real concerns of the police we have been in dialogue with that they should have the powers they need to take alcohol away for under-18s in a public place, and we agree with them.

If the amendment were accepted, the constable would continue to need to prove that the young person intended to consume all of the alcohol in their possession before that alcohol could be confiscated. It would mean that the police were not able to tackle effectively young people drinking alcohol in public. That, in turn, is almost certainly likely to have an impact on the anti-social behaviour that occurs in the communities and areas I have described. As a result, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that where the police have identified that existing legislation is not working as intended, we should be responsive to these concerns. As I said on the other two amendments, this is part of a total package of measures, all aiming at addressing these concerns.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about education in schools. We are looking at how we can do more in dealing with schools; DCSF is looking at that in the context of communities. We will make sure that the noble Baroness's views are reflected in this strategy. There are all sorts of strands, all of which have to be pulled together. I hope that I have covered noble Lords' concerns and I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

There is a bit more information that would be very useful to have. I do not think that the Minister is likely to have it in detail now, but I should be grateful if he could write to us. He mentioned the plan that was published in 2008, which talked of improving the alcohol treatment for young people when they have been identified to have a problem. Has this happened? What sort of guidance has been circulated to local commissioners and service providers, as the plan stated that it would be circulated later in 2008? Was it circulated and can the Minister let us see that guidance in the next few weeks? What sort of implementation has taken place since then?

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

I do not have that information at my fingertips. I am very happy to write with details to those who have taken part in this debate.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Stern and Lady Miller, for their constructive support for the amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for elucidating the previous legislation on confiscating alcohol, which satisfies some of our concerns. This is a serious problem about which the whole House is deeply concerned. I am grateful for the Minister's ample explanation and shall read it carefully before Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 104 withdrawn.

Amendment 105

Moved by Baroness Walmsley

105: Clause 29, page 26, leave out lines 9 to 12

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

We have now agreed that I will move Amendment 105. The effect of this amendment is to leave out the part of the Bill that amends the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 and would give police the power to remove children under 16 from an area to their place of residence or a place of safety if they are simply in possession of alcohol. They will be able forcibly to remove a child, regardless of whether any offence is being committed, or it is necessary to do so for the person's safety or well-being, or for public order. We are not talking about the situations that the noble Lord was referring to when he responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, a few moments ago. The Committee should bear in mind that a single possession of alcohol is not an offence under Clause 30. This new power is unnecessary and disproportionate. The police already have the power, under Section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, to remove children under 16 to their homes between 9 pm and 6 am if they are in a specified area and the power to remove children for their own safety in an emergency under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989. Those provisions have been debated at great length in your Lordships' House and I have certainly taken part in those debates myself.

We have been contacted by Liberty, which is particularly concerned that these proposed new powers could be open to abuse; that children will feel further alienated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said; and that they are unnecessary in the light of existing laws to tackle problems of anti-social or criminal behaviour. I agree with Liberty on that score. There is already plenty of legislation to deal with children who are misbehaving. If a child under 16 in possession of alcohol commits a breach of the peace, such as by threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, it may constitute a breach of Sections 4, 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. A police power to move children on when they have not committed any offence or disturbance is discriminatory, ageist and counterproductive. As children's spokesperson from these Benches, I think it is an outrageous idea.

I am not suggesting that we do not have a problem with children and alcohol. We do. According to an Answer to a Parliamentary Question by my honourable friend Norman Lamb in another place, last year there were 181 admissions to A&E of children under 12 for alcohol-related issues; more than 4,000 admissions of 12 to 15 year-olds; and nearly 8,000 admissions of 16 and 17 year-olds. The admissions of 12 to 15 year-olds have gone up by 12 per cent since 2002, and by 66 per cent for 16 and 17 year-olds. We on these Benches agree that this is an epidemic, but we need visionary responses as well as responses that have been proved to be effective. Many local authorities have schemes to address the problem and I outlined some of those at Second Reading. The Government too have some excellent initiatives, such as the alcohol arrest referral programme, which is currently being tested in six local authority areas and was referred to a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord West, in the debate on Clause 27.

Under the scheme, those aged 10 to 17 who have been arrested while under the influence of alcohol or drugs—so we are not talking here about possession—will be interviewed and assessed by a specially trained youth worker who will get to the bottom of the problem and work with the child and his family to agree treatment, education or whatever else is appropriate. I congratulate the Government on initiatives of this sort and urge them to spend their money on more of this sort of thing rather than wasting the police's budget on moving on children who have not done anything. The authorities should target those who are behaving anti-socially or damaging themselves and their health. They should do it through proven therapeutic means, rather than dragging them unnecessarily into the criminal justice system. The danger of taking children home when they have not broken the law is of destroying any relationship they might have had with the police and alienating them from society by labelling them as troublemakers. I beg to move.

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right to probe this power and to ask what its purpose is. There is no indication that the carrying of alcohol under this clause indicates that the young person is unsafe or about to cause disruption, so what is the purpose behind taking them home? The Government making it a criminal offence to refuse to give the police their home address could lead to a worrying escalation of a very minor situation.

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

Amendment 105 would remove from the Bill the police discretionary power to take persons under 16 whose alcohol has been confiscated to a place of safety or to their home. Young people drinking in public is a growing problem. A survey of 11 to 15 year-olds—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned some statistics—showed that the proportion of that age group who drink outside has gone from 21 per cent in 1999 to 31 per cent in 2006. That proportion increases to more than 50 per cent among those who drink more than seven units of alcohol a week, which is an alarming growth. These children place themselves and others at risk of alcohol-related harm. Clause 29 is designed to help address this problem. This discretionary power will allow the police officer to take children under 16 to their home or to a safe place. Guidance will make it absolutely clear the children should be taken home only if they are in possession of alcohol and pose a risk to themselves or others. I do not want to give a raft of examples but I can certainly imagine a 12 year-old carrying a slab of beer accompanied by his older mates who would fall into that category. However, I shall not give lots of hypothetical examples as it would be dangerous so to do.

As I say, it seems to me all too easy to imagine circumstances where someone under 16 who has alcohol confiscated could be at risk if the police officer then simply abandons him. Accordingly, it seems only sensible for the police to have a discretionary power backed by appropriate guidance to take that person home or to a place of safety. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, says that sufficient measures are in place. The police removal powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act are applicable only—I think that she touched on this—to children whose behaviour is found to be intimidating, alarming or distressing between 9 pm and 6 am in designated locations. That is why we believe the removal power under Clause 29 is necessary as it would apply to persons under 16 deemed by an officer to be susceptible to alcohol-related harm and would permit the welfare of the child to be considered at all times and in all locations. We believe that is beneficial. I hope that with that answer I will have resolved noble Lords' concerns. I request that the amendment is withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

In relation to taking a person to a place of safety, what happens in a place of safety? That may be evident in other legislation but not in the Bill before us. Where is the place of safety? Is it a police station, a school or the local social services department? What are the ramifications of this? If the child incriminates himself or herself by saying too much or not saying enough, and they are taken to social services, you can see all sorts of problems arising, possibly from care proceedings because the parents are not around. It is quite easy to put this into writing; it is quite difficult to see the end result. The Government need to consider the end result before we blithely pass this through.

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

The place of safety is not defined in the Bill. Guidance under the Children and Young Persons Act states that a place of safety can be a community home provided by the local authority, a controlled community home, a police station, hospital, surgery or any other suitable place if the occupier of that place is willing temporarily to receive the child. However, it is important to note that under the amendment the child will often be taken to his or her own place of residence. I do not see this so much as a punishment but rather looking after them and pulling them away from where they are in danger of getting into lots more trouble and ending up in the criminal justice system. I see this as protecting them.

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I really think that we are asking too much of the police here. I fail to see how a police officer can know whether a child walking along the street with a bottle of Sanatogen tonic wine is in danger of alcohol abuse. We may well come back to this matter, and we have the next debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill to explore it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

Amendment 106 not moved.

Debate on whether Clause 29 should stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

As we have just heard, Clause 29 amends the police's power to confiscate alcohol from young people in a public place. As the Minister said, the police no longer have to prove that the individual intended to consume that alcohol. The clause also requires the young person to give their name and address to the police and allows the police to return the individual to their home or a place of safety, which is not defined.

Confiscation is not the best way to deal with young people who drink outdoors. We on these Benches are concerned that such an approach could antagonise young people and result in conflict between them and the police. It is very easy to get young people's backs up when they feel that they have been dealt with unfairly. The Government should bear in mind that a 15 year-old may be taking the alcohol home where he or she can legally drink it. There is no link to consuming the alcohol in public. The Government are criminalising behaviour in which the young person is simply preparing to do something perfectly legal—that is, to drink the alcohol at home.

I am also concerned that the power to return the individual to their home or a place of safety is very broadly drafted, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has just pointed out. A similar power in Section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to remove persons under 16 to their place of residence can be exercised only when certain conditions are met—that is to say, only between the hours of 9 pm and 6 am; where the relevant officer, who is a police officer above the rank of superintendent, has grounds to believe that any members of the public have been intimidated by the presence or behaviour of groups in the locality; and where anti-social behaviour is already a significant and persistent problem. There are no such safeguards against abuse of the powers in this Bill.

We believe that children and young people who are drinking in public places should not, without also having behaved in some other criminal or anti-social way, be subject to criminal sanctions. Dragging them into the criminal justice system and giving them a criminal record will have damaging effects on their future prospects for employment and will be of little deterrent against what is common teenage behaviour. In relation to younger children in particular, public drinking suggests a lack of proper parental supervision and carries evident risks to their health. A welfare-oriented approach should, therefore, be used, including parental support and working directly with the family.

As I said at Second Reading, criminalising possession of alcohol may also lead to children seeking out isolated locations in which to drink, where they may be at risk, particularly at night. There are all sorts of nasty people out there. We also have a problem with the proposition in Clause 29 that those people from whom the alcohol is confiscated should have to give their names and addresses to the police, and that this is then likely to be used as evidence against them in proceedings under Clause 30 to establish a persistent pattern of possession. Children from whom alcohol is confiscated are, therefore, required under Clause 29 to incriminate themselves. They will not be warned of this by the police, nor will they be legally advised, nor will they have an appropriate adult with them—as would happen in situations that occur in a police station.

Further, you can imagine what a child might do when confronted with a police officer asking for their name and address. There is every chance that they will give a false name and address, and they may implicate another innocent young person who will then find it hard to dispute his identity as the person from whom the alcohol is confiscated. A miscarriage of justice is waiting to happen.

In response to the Government's youth crime action plan, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice cautiously welcomed Operation Staysafe, under which the police use existing child protection legislation to remove children and young people from the street late at night to a place of safety; but the committee expressed concern that that was being used under the banner of controlling anti-social behaviour and should not result in children being swept off the streets. I share that concern. Children should be removed to a place of safety only if they themselves are at risk of harm, as defined by the Children Act 1989. Even then, the interpretation of the words "at risk" and "place of safety" need careful consideration. Let us not further criminalise children, many of whom are only copying behaviour learned from their parents. They need help and guidance, not criminalisation.

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

Clause 29 does three things, and I shall take them in sequence. Removing the requirement to prove that the person under 18 "intended" to consume the sealed containers of alcohol in their possession will make it easier for the police—we have had a lot of dialogue with the police—to confiscate all alcohol from those under 18 years of age in public places. We are talking about situations where, for example, 12 or 14 youngsters are at a bus stop. Some of them are very drunk, some are not very drunk and some are just watching what is going on. Some are holding drink and some are not. The proposed change should have a positive impact on removing or minimising alcohol-related crime and disorder. Too often, the police hear excuses such as, "It is not mine, I was just holding it for someone else"; or, "I was not going to drink it". This makes it extremely hard for them to take action against young people in possession of alcohol in public. That is why they believe that this change is necessary, and I agree with them.

I am sure that, in some circumstances, an individual under 18 will have a reasonable excuse for refusing to comply with police instructions to surrender their alcohol: for example, if the young person is with a parent and is helping to carry their shopping. I mentioned the example of going out for a picnic. We agree that alcohol should not be confiscated in such instances, and we expect the police to exercise discretion. However, these situations are very different from the ones that the police are telling us about: for example, groups of young people, some over 18, some under, at a bus stop or in a park, all drinking. It cannot be the norm for young people to be allowed to wander around in groups with alcohol in their possession. I hope that noble Lords agree with me.

The requirement in Clause 29 for a police officer to request the name and address of the person under 18 is linked to the new offence in Clause 30 of persistent possession of alcohol in a public place. Under that clause, it is an offence for a person under 18 to have alcohol confiscated from them three times in any 12-month period. As such, it is necessary for police to know if the individual has had alcohol confiscated before. Taking down the individual's name and address will allow this to happen. It is interesting to think back to my grandfather, who was a beat bobby in Brixton. He knew all the scallywags, knew where they lived and knew all their families. We are in a different world now. He would probably have clipped them round the ear—which nowadays would get him arrested—and taken them back to their house, where their parents might have smacked them, which would get them arrested now, too. Some forces already take down the details of those from whom they confiscate alcohol. This good practice should be consistent across all forces.

There are concerns that, when someone provides their name and address, they will be incriminating themselves under proposed Clause 30, which creates the offence of persistently possessing alcohol in a public place. However, this is not the case. Under the proposed changes to provisions in the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act, it will be an offence for a young person whose alcohol has been confiscated to refuse to provide their name and address when required to do so. The child does not incriminate himself by giving his name and address and complying with the law. The personal information provided by the young person under the provisions of the clause may be used to prove the offence of persistent possession, but it is the fact that the person is caught in possession of alcohol three times that triggers the offence, not the fact that they have given their name to the police.

Finally, the clause makes provision for the police, should they deem it necessary, to return persons under 16 to their home or a place of safety. The safety and welfare of young people is a key concern of the Government—as it is of all noble Lords—and I assure noble Lords that we take the issue very seriously. We do not consider that it will be necessary in all cases to return a person under 16 to their home or a place of safety. That is why the clause does not say "must", but "may" take the person to their residence or a place of safety. Not all children whose alcohol has been confiscated will be at risk of harm if they are not returned to a place of safety. Whether they are will depend on how the police assess the situation, and we have to assume that they can do this. The provisions of the clause allow police to use their discretion, so that a decision that considers the vulnerability of the person under 16 can be taken in the light of circumstances. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, feels this is putting too much on the police but I think that we should expect it of the police and that they are capable of making these judgments.

The police already have some powers to remove persons under 16 to a place of safety under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003—I have covered this already—for example, if is a question of alarm or distress and if they behave in that sort of way between 9 pm and 6 am. Under the Children Act 1989 the police also have emergency powers to remove a young person at risk of significant harm—

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

While the Minister is on that subject, would he answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, that under the Act he has just quoted it has to be a superintendent or above who exercises that power, whereas in this Bill it is a constable? Why do the Government feel that in the case of anti-social behaviour a more senior officer should do this, whereas in the case of alcohol, a constable can deal with it? What is the difference?

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

I have not focused on that particular point. Personally, I rather like the fact of driving down levels of decision-making on some of these things. I will come back to the noble Baroness on her specific point.

Baroness Hanham (Conservative)

The Minister mentioned the Children Act. I declare an interest as a family court magistrate. Under the Children Act, the police would have the right under a police protection order to take a child into protective custody, but a whole lot of ramifications flow on from that. I asked the Minister previously if he could say what the implications were of taking a child to a place of safety. You cannot just take them and leave them somewhere. There has either then got to be contact with their parents in order that they can come and collect them, or, potentially, you have to go down the route of the Children Act and you are in the whole different world that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was referring to. Before the next stage, we need to follow this story through as to what this place of safety means and what follows from it in terms of the Children Act. Then you are involved in all sorts of areas, such as taking the children into police protection and having to seek emergency protection orders. There is a big road to go down. One would hope it would be simple and that when the parents were rung up, they would say, "Oh, dear", and come running down to pick up the child. But they may not; they may not be around and there may be all sorts of reasons. So I do not think we can leave it like this.

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

I take that point. It is a good point and we need to look at that. We would expect the bulk of the people to be returned home, as I said earlier. But if some are returned somewhere else, the point made by the noble Baroness is absolutely valid.

As far as the Children Act goes, it is a much more considered and ponderous way of doing things, which is probably why we had this higher level in there. What we are trying to do is immediate and on the ground, which is why we are looking at constables to do it, which I think is right. But this is a valid point and we will get back on that specific issue.

These powers are not designed to deal with the return of young persons who are at risk of alcohol-related harm or who pose a risk to themselves or others because of their alcoholic intoxication. We think that by possessing these things, they could go down that route, which is why we made separate provisions under this clause.

In summary, I believe these measures will empower the police to confiscate all alcohol found in a young person's possession, thereby reducing the volume of alcohol consumed in public places and all the associated anti-social behaviour and crime. It is quite shocking, as I said earlier, how incidences of this are rising. I am sure all of us have seen what goes on in some of these places. I certainly have and it is pretty unpleasant and we need to do something about it. This will require the police to take a record of who has had alcohol confiscated and ensure that, where appropriate, a person under 16 caught with alcohol is taken home or looked after. I believe that this clause strikes the right balance between tackling under-18 drinking in public and child protection. It is part of the composite of all the things we are doing to try and tackle this problem.

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his response, but I point out that the many millions of pounds-worth of prohibited drugs that have been confiscated do not seem to have had the desired effect of reducing consumption of drugs. His hope that confiscation of alcohol from young people will reduce the amount of alcohol consumed is a hope that will not be realised.

I understand what the Minister says about the link between the link between this clause and Clause 30, where police have to take the name and address of the child because they need to establish the pattern for which there is an offence in Clause 30, but I am very concerned about the fact that the child on the street will not understand the implications of giving their name and address to a police officer. They will get no advice about it. Again, the Minister is expecting the police to make the sort of judgments and assessments of whether the child's welfare will be compromised that children's services workers are trained for years to make. I will be very surprised if police officers would go through anything like the amount of training that specially trained youth workers will to make such assessments.

Perhaps the Minister has understood from this debate that we are still unhappy about the clause, so he may find us returning to it, but, for the moment, I shall not be pursuing my opposition to the clause.

Clause 29 agreed.

House resumed.