I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a rather better formulation of the wording in the clause. The amendment enables a licensing board in considering the suspension of a licence to take account of misconduct by customers of the licensed premises either in the premises or in the vicinity. It also makes the clause rather more comprehensive.

The Bill as drafted said:

"any misconduct occurring in the vicinity of the licensed premises on the part of persons frequenting those premises."

The amendment, which I think is better, speaks of any misconduct which is "attributable" to them. Does that mean that it would not be necessary, as I believe it would be under the Bill as drafted, to prove that, say, people involved in a fight had been drinking in the premises? If there were frequent fights outside a public house, it would seem that under the Bill unamended it would be necessary to prove that the people concerned had frequented the public house. Am I correct in thinking that with the new words no such proof is necessary?

I think that that is one of the effects of the amendment. It adds misconduct in the premises, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is misconduct

"attributable to persons frequenting those premises."

The amendment also brings in the concept of the "immediate vicinity", which I think to be right. "Vicinity" by itself in the old formulation was perhaps a little too general.

Taking the amendment as a whole, we have a far better wording than we had before.