Licensing Bill Lords
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Schedule 1
Provision Of Regulated Entertainment
6.55 pm
I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 109, line 31, at end insert
'for the entertainment or entertainment facilities'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 163, in page 110, line 14, at end insert—
'() For the purposes of subparagraph (4)(a), a person concerned in the organisation or management of entertainment facilities is not concerned in the organisation and management of the entertainment within paragraph 3(2) by reason only—
A number of organisations, including the Historic Houses Association, are concerned about the definition of private events in the Bill. That drafting means that private events—in particular, wedding receptions and concerts—could inadvertently be drawn into the scope of the Bill, despite the statement that the Minister made to the Historic Houses Association in a letter of 30 January:
Despite that statement, the situation still appears far from clear. The Historic Houses Association is working hard to encourage more houses to open up, and the Opposition are concerned about anything that will needlessly frustrate those endeavours and restrict public access to and enjoyment of our heritage. We support its efforts to encourage more tourists to visit such locations. The Government have already revised paragraph 1(4)(a)(ii) of the schedule expressly to prevent private events from being brought within the scope of the Bill. Indeed, in its new form the provision states that private entertainment facilities need to be licensed only if any charge is made and if the owner or manager is also involved in the organisation of the music, dancing or provision of alcohol. However, the interpretation of that provision appears far from clear. I shall give the House two examples. First, officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have said to various people that the provision of a dance floor would fall within the definition. That appears to encompass informally making available—I quote from the Bill—"space within a room". Of course, dancing could take place in such a space. The provision could thus result in an anomalous situation whereby a licence would not be needed if a bride and groom hired a marquee, complete with a dance floor, to be placed in the garden of a house, but one would be needed if dancing took place inside the house. The second anomaly relates to paragraph 1(1)(b), which expressly gives an exemption when a person performing or playing music at a private event provides any facilities for the purposes of his performance. We believe that that definition needs to be extended to avoid a licence requirement applying if a bride and groom hire audio equipment, but not if the person performing or playing music provides the equipment. At best, the legislation is still highly ambiguous. At worst, it appears contrary to what the Department intends. Unless there is extremely clear guidance—we await guidance on many issues even at this late stage of the Bill's passage—the legislation will become subject to widely differing interpretation, which will cause confusion and inconsistency of application. The amendments seek to address those problems."It is not the intention or the effect of the Bill to require wedding parties to require a licence to serve alcohol at their reception or provide entertainment for their guests (except in the rare circumstance when guests are charged to attend the wedding)".
I, too, have great admiration for the Historic Houses Association. It is doing excellent work in opening up some of the most wonderful buildings and gardens, which are great assets to the tourism trade.
Let me say up-front that the Government cannot accept amendment No. 162, as it would introduce a serious loophole into the entertainment licensing regime. I shall try to explain why. It would allow any individual who wished to put on entertainment under paragraph 1(2)(c) of schedule 1 to circumvent the licensing requirements altogether, simply by providing sandwiches, for example, and making a charge that he or she claimed to be for the food, but which was actually for the entertainment. The amendment would drive the proverbial coach and horses through this part of the Bill, and I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw it. Amendment 163 is a little more complicated. Those who inspired it have aired their concerns to the Department on a number of occasions. They are concerned about situations in which the owner of a stately home might wish, for example, to hire out the ballroom to a third party who would then organise the entertainment at a wedding. They argue that in such circumstances the owner of the home should not require a premises licence or other authorisation if they take no further part in the entertainment. The Government agree with that view, and we have amended the Bill to make that clear. Let me explain how. Schedule 1 sets out a number of conditions that determine whether the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is regulated entertainment. The condition in sub-paragraph (2)(c) is that where entertainment is not provided essentially to the public, or exclusively for members of a club, it is regulated entertainment where it is providedSub-paragraph (4) sets out what we mean by "consideration". It states that"for consideration and with a view to profit."
In relation to entertainment facilities, sub-paragraph (4) provides that a person will not be so concerned unless he is"entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, only to be regarded as provided for consideration if any charge—
- (a) is made by or on behalf of—
- (i) any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment, or … those facilities".
Clearly, that excludes the circumstances that I described a moment ago. The owner of the stately home would be concerned in the provision of the entertainment facilities—the dance floor, say—but not in the organisation of the entertainment for which those facilities were provided. I understand the hon. Gentleman's trouble, because it is a complicated issue, but I hope that in the light of my explanation and assurances he will see fit not to press the amendment."also concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment within paragraph 3(2) in which those facilities enable persons to take part".
The Minister attempts to separate the functions taking place under private agency in the grounds of an historic house, and an entertainment facility within the house itself—a ballroom, for example. Surely, however, the management of that enterprise will be involved in the setting up of whatever the customer wants to take place in the ballroom. They cannot simply say, "There's the ballroom: get on with it." They will have to be involved in some discourse about where things go, where the power points are, and so forth. That is where the anomaly arises. It is not clear-cut where the demarcation lies between the non-licensable activity taking place in the garden, perhaps under a marquee, and facilities that are being provided in the house. How do people avoid that problem?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman considers my explanation to be authoritative. As I said, it is a complicated issue, but I am confident that I have said enough to give some comfort to him and to owners of historic houses who may feel threatened or concerned about this part of the Bill.
I am grateful for the Minister's assurances. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that they will be transferred verbatim to his successor, whom we shall no doubt hold to account in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 111, line 27, leave out from '2' to end of line 28 and insert—
'(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music shall not be regarded as anything other than incidental to some other activity, merely because it has been advertised.'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 161, in page 111, line 28, at end insert— 'Performance of live music indoors
7A (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music indoors is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if—No. 132, in page 111, line 32, after 'that', insert—
No. 109, in page 112, line 2, at end insert—
9A The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities in the premises of an educational establishment for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.'.
No. 63, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
'Small events—live music
(1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where—
(2) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of entertainment described in subparagraph (1) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place.'.
No. 105, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
'Traditional folk performances
The provision of entertainment consisting of paceegging, mumming, morris dancing, souling or other traditional folk performances of a similar character is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.'.
No. 160, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
'Small events—dance and plays
The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of dance or plays is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes for this Act where—
No. 62, in page 113, line 19, at end insert—
'(2) The "performance of live music" means a performance of any musical composition, whether involving improvisation or not,—
I shall begin by speaking exclusively to amendment No. 64, which relates to the exemption provisions in part 2 of schedule 1. We tabled the amendment because although we had a good debate in Committee on incidental music, and the Minister made every attempt under the sun to define it for us, we remained unconvinced. He made a good fist of it, however. He said:
The reason for the amendment is simple. If something is advertised, why should it be read across to bottom-line profit? Should it necessarily be regarded as a nefarious activity involving trying to make money? To my knowledge, most people who run pubs are in the business of trying to make money, so why will the activity be precluded from the exemptions under paragraph 7 if it is advertised? If there was to be an exchange of money or a charge at the door, then, yes, perhaps there would be a direct correlation between the advertisement of the event and people turning up as result and paying their money. One could then say that the pub landlord was indeed trying to make money out of advertising the music. However, if there was no charge at the door, surely he would simply be attempting to get more people into his pub. I suppose that he would hope to sell more alcohol, but there is not necessarily any direct correlation between people coming to enjoy some folk music, or the improvisation of certain musicians, and drinking more alcohol. We tabled the amendment in a different form from that which we debated in Committee to tease out from the Minister exactly why he and those advising him think that advertising folk music in the local pub means that it should be licensable, given that the music that is played may be the same background music as would be played normally if it had not been advertised. Precluding it from the exemptions is neither logical, sensible nor fair to those involved. There is surely an argument that we should encourage pubs to put on live music of any kind. In Committee, the Minister was frequently at pains to stress that he championed live music and wanted more music to be played and heard in pubs and clubs. We will discuss the meatier stuff in the Bill later, but the measure might achieve the opposite of what the Minister genuinely—I choose the word with care—wants to happen. It could be argued that incidental music—indeed, any live music—should be encouraged in pubs. Doing so means not only that the landlord or tenant encourages live music and the musicians who play it, but the encouragement of social cohesion in villages and rural areas. It would spread culture and the arts and foster the sort of ambience and lifestyle that are so vital to our tourist industry. As the former Minister for tourism, the hon. Gentleman said that we needed to broaden the range of our activities to encourage people from not only abroad but our country to visit rural communities and participate in the sort of events that I described. We believe that the encouragement that the former Minister for tourism gave should be adopted. We are not considering a band session in which people sit and listen to the music all the time, but music in the background, with different people playing. The amendment would help folk groups and promote social cohesion and culture in our rural communities. Amendment No. 63 deals with the "Small events—live music" exemption and is coupled with consequential amendment No. 62, which defines the performance of live music. It resembles an amendment that was accepted in the other place. However, the Government saw fit to reject it in Committee. We believe that it is so important that we have tabled it again. If my antennae serve me well, the matter will be around for several sittings in the other place as well as here for a little longer; it will not go away. As I said earlier, the Government may have decided to dig in and go to the wire on the matter, but I believe that they must devise a sensible and practical provision on small events and relevant issues to live music in small gatherings to get the Bill through all its stages. Throughout the Bill's passage, those involved, such as the Musicians Union, the Association of British Jazz Musicians and the English Folk Dance and Song Society, have not wavered from their opinion that the measure will prove a disaster for the performing arts. Indeed, they believe that it goes against the Government's much heralded inclusivity banner and that the Bill is perhaps the most exclusive measure drafted by a Labour Government. Although it was hailed as an improvement, the organisations state that"If the entertainment is advertised and the purpose of the music is to draw in customers and to make a profit for the business, that has a direct bearing on the business and it would be difficult to describe it as incidental."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 April 2003; c. 69.]
They give examples. First, the Bill appears to allow a full-scale stand-up comedy routine, with stage, lighting and amplification, but insists on a licence to perform a play. Fears continue that a "play" could cover Punch and Judy shows. 7.15 pm I received a letter today from someone who takes his Punch and Judy tent to many events throughout the country. He is miffed that he may not be allowed to do that in future if he has to obtain a licence at every location that he visits. I shall not go into detail about that now, but it is another example of someone who has realised that the Bill is all pervasive and catches all sorts of people who perform a tremendous service to the community and bring enjoyment to many people."this hodge-podge of proposals actually extends the arbitrary discriminations of the old licensing regime."
Yesterday, I attended a social function that the Ventnor branch of the Isle of Wight Conservative Association organised. A young man called Christopher Philpott, who is a pupil at the middle school in Ventnor, expressed his concern—entirely unsolicited—that Punch and Judy shows would have to be licensed forthwith. When the Minister winds up, I should like him to state whether they need to be licensed and not merely say that the matter is in the hands of the licensing authority.
I am sure that the Minister heard my hon. Friend's intervention. I expect that he will preface his remarks with, "It all depends."
Another anomaly is that the Bill allows big-screen broadcasts and amplified juke boxes anywhere, but insists that live performance be licensed. It allows a play, dance, disco or musical performance in a place of worship or at a garden fête, but insists on a licence when the same events are held in a school, university or restaurant. The Bill also insists that traditional song and dance on village greens should be licensed. What grounds do the Government cite for regulating live music? Noise was frequently mentioned in Committee, but when one examines the statistics, one wonders why it is such a major issue. The Noise Abatement Society states that noisy people outside the premises are the cause of 81 per cent. of complaints about pubs and bars. The United Kingdom Noise Association states that complaints about live music are relatively rare. Indeed, it receives more complaints about noisy recorded music. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, all local authorities can seize noisy equipment immediately and issue £20,000 noise abatement notices for compliance forthwith or in anticipation of a noise nuisance. Under current legislation, the police can close noisy pubs immediately for up to 24 hours. The Institute of Alcohol Studies, which canvasses the views of residents' associations, states that none has ever made an issue about live music. What about public safety? We understand that a radical new fire safety regime for workplaces is due to be published in mid 2004 and will be called the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. It will apply to premises including cinemas, theatres, pubs and restaurants and cover the provision of entertainment irrespective of licensing requirements. Employers and the self-employed have statutory duties to make risk assessments of their work activities, covering risk to employees and others in connection with their work. Failure to undertake such risk assessment could lead to criminal prosecution. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on employers to ensure as far as practicable the health and safety of employees and non-employees who may be affected. Event organisers, promoters and licensees are bound by this duty to ensure that premises are safe and without risks to health. Who is to be affected by the measures? What of the impact on those involved? Let us consider the folk arts in England. Forget Scotland—which has a much less onerous licensing regime—Ireland, where I am sure the regime is even more liberal, and Wales. Let us just look at England, where we have a rich living cultural heritage in the form of the various folk arts and customs, including music, song, dance, drama, storytelling, games and other customary events and celebrations. These folk art forms are true community arts; they are inherently participatory, encouraging imagination, aspiration and learning.Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the resurgence of magazines such as Folk Roots illustrates that there is currently a renaissance in English, Welsh and Scottish folk music? The concerns that he is raising are shared by the readers and authors of that magazine.
The hon. Gentleman emphasises my point that this is a growing and developing part of our cultural heritage that ought to be encouraged rather than— according to its practitioners' interpretation of the Bill, and ours—have its activities curtailed in one form or another.
Folk art activity is extremely widespread, despite attracting relatively little attention in the mainstream arts listings and media. Let us look at the statistics. There are around 750 folk dance teams nationwide, including morris, clog, molly, longsword, rapper, Appalachian and other international styles. These teams involve more than 14,000 dancers, musicians and singers, and together they provide at least 10,500 folk dance events for at least 500,000 members of the public each year.The hon. Gentleman will be aware, having sat through the Committee proceedings and Second Reading, of the two-in-a-bar rule, under which two musicians, two dancers, two singers, or two people doing a recitation are allowed to perform. This great renaissance of folk music is taking place at a time when this law is in force. Is he saying that that renaissance is due entirely to the fact that two people, and only two people, can sing their way through an evening in a pub? Or is he saying that this golden age owes its existence to a very different legal regime from the one that exists now?
I shall be coming to the two-in-a-bar problem later. To answer the Minister's question, the renaissance does not relate simply to the two-in-a-bar rule in pubs. We are not just talking about a renaissance of folk arts and music; it is general and across the board. These people perform in other places as well as pubs. Obviously the licensing implications will affect them when they carry out those activities in pubs, but I do not remember seeing many morris dancers doing their stuff inside the pub. Perhaps they do on some occasions, but they normally perform outside in the open air. I shall come to that matter later as well.
There are at least 400 folk song, music and dance clubs in England. A minimum of 9,000 regular folk music sessions and singarounds take place in England each year, though hundreds more spontaneous, one-off events also occur. The greatest number of these folk arts activities are small scale and occur within local communities, outside the mainstream of arts planning and provision. On a community level, they are almost entirely voluntary and therefore highly sensitive to legislation, particularly when it carries cost implications. In my opening remarks, I alluded to the fact that many interested parties and groups had attempted to get their views across to the Department and, in particular, to the Minister. I remember addressing this issue in Committee, particularly in relation to the English Folk Dance and Song Society—EFDSS. On 8 May, in Committee, the Minister said:But EFDSS has written to me at this late stage to say that it is concerned because"I have had lengthy meetings with representatives of all the large morris, folk song and dance groups, including wassailers, storytellers and mummers. I took them through the Bill and they were much happier at the end of it than they were when we began." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 443.]
The society says that it was grateful to the Minister for the meeting on 3 April, and that he had opened the door to further discussions between the society and the Department, but in reality it remained worried by the legislation and had"this is absolutely not the case."
that it had raised. Here we are, discussing the Bill on Report, with Third Reading imminent and the Bill then going back to the other place, yet many of the questions that were rightly raised by these bodies have not been answered. The answers might not be the ones that they want to hear, but they do not think that they have had a fair or proper hearing. EFDSS has warned the Government that many folk music and song clubs that are currently not covered by entertainment licensing might become so under the new Bill. It states that many such clubs currently operate as private, members-only clubs which attendees have to join at least 48 hours before benefiting from any entertainment. It is their belief that there is therefore no requirement for them to have a public entertainments licence. EFDSS believes, however, that under the Bill, there will be no such get-out, and that the majority of England's 400 folk clubs could become licensable. EFDSS first submitted its concerns to the Department in February; so far, it has had no answer. It believes that the legislation relating to public safety is more than adequate to take care of the safety and noise aspects, and it has four questions that it wants to put to the Minister, through me. Perhaps he could answer them this evening in his response."not received adequate answers to the specific questions"
"How does the Government feel that folk clubs will be affected by the Licensing Bill?
Why is current, subsisting legislation deficient with regard to folk clubs?
What is the pressing social need to extending entertainments licensing regulations to cover folk clubs when broadcast football matches and loud recorded music in pubs remains exempt?
Those are four excellent questions for the Minister to address. Coming to the two-in-a-bar rule, the Minister has made the point tonight and many times in Committee—and we understand this—that the rule is the only existing form of limited exemption for live music at the present time. The justifications that are given for the new proposals, however, do not read well with those involved. Paragraph 3.5 of an entertainment factsheet published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport states:Does the Government feel that folk clubs are an acceptable casualty in the pursuit of its other licensing objectives?"
We would never say "never", but the statistics on noise issues that I quoted earlier show that most complaints are not about the music inside the pubs but about noise outside the premises. In fact, no matter how noisy the playing of music and broadcast entertainment might be, they would be exempt from the new measures if they were incidental to the main business on the premises. It is the view of EFDSS that such an exemption for incidental music is unsatisfactory and does not go far enough. The problem for those in the entertainment business, if I can call it that—the people involved in live music and entertainment of all kinds, most of it small scale—is not that it is easy to tick the box. How many times did the Minister say in Committee, "Well, all they've got to do is tick the box."? That, of course, is the DCMS mantra: when someone applies for a premises licence, a little box on the same application form can be ticked, which says, "Yes, I would like an entertainment licence to go with my alcohol licence." There is no additional fee on application for such an entertainment licence, but that is not the issue. The issue, of course, begins when all that gets to the licensing authority, which is the local authority."It is quite possible for a single performer using amplified equipment to give rise to considerably greater nuisance than four or even more entertainers performing acoustically. The Government simply does not accept that live music in pubs is never a source of disturbance."
7.30 pm
Do the hon. Gentleman and others recognise that a pub or other venue has to apply for an alcohol licence and a separate entertainment licence, sometimes at great cost? That is putting off a lot of venues from applying. Surely the number of premises that consider putting on live entertainment will increase when there is one licence.
That is wishful thinking, frankly. No one has done any research, and I have seen no analysis, to back up the hon. Gentleman's point. The Department and the Minister, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman, hope that that will be the case. Indeed, I hope that it will be the case, but among most landlords whom I have talked to out there in the real world, who have perhaps applied for public entertainment licences and had problems with local authorities or who have spoken to other licensees who have had difficulties and been involved with such costs, there is a feeling that ticking that box may lead them into all kinds of approaches from local authorities that will impose conditions and restrictions on them. Many people would happily not get involved with all that if they could avoid it.
From my experience as chair of public health in Newcastle, I know that the disincentive is not the bureaucracy that the hon. Gentleman talks about, but the current law and the expense of applying for the public entertainment licence in the first place—sometimes people have to employ solicitors and go to a hearing—and, secondly, the cost of the licence. Under the Bill, that will be done away with. There will be one licence, which surely will make it a lot simpler for many of those people who would consider putting on live entertainment, but who are discouraged from doing so due to the bureaucracy and cost.
The hon. Gentleman is continuing the argument that has been used over and over again by the DCMS, and I think it false. It leads people to believe that just by ticking that box they will be able to have any form of entertainment on their premises. That is not the case. When the local authorities look at the operating schedule and what is proposed, they will come round to inspect. In the local authorities that I know, when such people get involved, they then start nit-picking. They will say, "If you have more than a certain number of people in here, you must put in a new fire door, a new exit, do this, do that." [Interruption.]
I ask the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) to talk to the publicans in his area. I have talked to publicans in my constituency, and those who have recently applied for public entertainment licences do not complain about the cost of that application, although I accept the point—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's local authority may charge through the roof; I do not know. In parts of Cambridgeshire, local authorities do not charge inordinate fees for the application.rose—
Let me finish my point. The hon. Gentleman must not be too eager. Now I have lost the thread, of course, which is exactly what he intended. It is not so much the cost of the application but the cost of the work that people are told to do so as to comply that worries them. If they are to have someone crawl all over their premises and dictate major improvements, they will not bother to tick the box. What will happen, which is even worse than the hon. Gentleman predicts, is that there will be not two in a bar, but none in a bar.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I doubt whether that will occur in most cases involving a small number of performers, but is he really suggesting to the House that he is against expense being incurred if there is a serious public safety risk that warrants an extra fire door being put in?
I am not against measures for public safety, but I have been through a list of Acts of Parliament that deal with noise and safety and which cover most of those eventualities. The hon. Gentleman used the same argument in Committee and I repeat what I said then: we are not arguing that there should not be proper safety measures, but countless existing laws should take care of that situation. Why are we overburdening this sector of society with even more layers of bureaucracy?
If that is the case and if all those laws are a terrible bureaucracy that will put off venue holders from allowing such events to happen, why does the Musicians Union have a code of practice on its website? It urges its members to insist on that code being used at existing venues to ensure that the inadequacies of the current system do not result in lots of injuries to its members, let alone to audiences that may pack in there. Why does the Musicians Union feel that that is necessary?
The hon. Gentleman is now the great champion of the Musicians Union—it is wonderful to see Tories behaving in this way—so perhaps he will tell us why the need for additional safeguards has been mentioned on that website. The union insists on those safeguards because the existing system is not good enough to protect its members.I must admit that I have not seen that section of the website, so I am most grateful to the Minister for forcefully pointing it out to me. However, I suspect that what is on that website is what I would call common-sense remarks saying, "If you are playing at any venue, be it a pub or anywhere else, make sure that the sockets and electrics are okay. Obviously, that will affect your equipment." It is common sense to recommend such things to those people.
The Minister may confirm otherwise, but I am sure that the website does not say that people must put the appropriate legislation—the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, for example—on the table in front of the landlord and say, "Right, tell me whether you comply with all this before I start playing my oboe." I do not think that that is the case. Common-sense advice is being given to those who are involved.There is considerable concern in my constituency over events such as the Brecon jazz festival. The Government seem to be punishing the Musicians Union for being prudent in looking after the interests of its members.
I agree that the Musicians Union is being prudent, but there is a serious ramification if that jazz festival is being affected.
I am a regular visitor to the Brecon jazz festival, which is a fantastic event, and I am only sorry that I cannot attend this year. I cannot believe that the event is not already licensed. Although parts of my speech will agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I cannot believe that the Brecon jazz festival is threatened by the Bill.
I must make another admission: I have not been to that jazz festival, so I am unable to comment on it in any shape or form.
I was at the first Brecon jazz festival and I have been to virtually every one since. Will the hon. Gentleman take this from me? If the pubs and the other venues in Brecon were not licensed, the Brecon jazz festival would never have taken place. He is bound to know that after 60 hours of Committee sittings. If he does not know it, he ought to be ashamed of himself.
I do not want to challenge the Minister, but perhaps he will point out the column of Hansard in which the Brecon jazz festival was mentioned in Committee. I do not remember it being mentioned. [Interruption.] Oh, it was, was it?
I am sure that the festival was mentioned, but not as often as the Isle of Wight. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I mean: any venue where more than two musicians are playing has to have an entertainments licence under current law. If he believes that that is not true, perhaps he should stand up, say so and tell me how the Brecon jazz festival continues to thrive year after year.
Who mentioned the Brecon jazz festival in the first place? I have not been, I am sure that it is administered and organised absolutely to the letter of the law, and I want to move on.
Let me end by quoting from a report published today or yesterday by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, entitled "Scrutiny of Bills Further Progress". Page 17 contains a couple of short paragraphs in heavy type which deal with the wonderful Bill that we are discussing. The Committee says—this bit is wonderful; it should be on the front pages of all tomorrow's newspapers—"We take the view that there is a significant risk that the proposed system of exemptions from the licensing requirements and from the applicable fees as currently set out in the Licensing Bill might: give rise to an incompatibility with the right to be free of discrimination in respect of the enjoyment of the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief under ECHR Articles 9 and 14 in so far as the exemption is given to premises used principally for the purposes of religion, or occupied by people or organisations on account of their religious beliefs or practices, and is denied to premises used principally for secular purposes, or occupied by people or organisations without a religious affiliation; and"
I am happy to have helped to draw them to the attention of this House in particular. As I said earlier, amendment No. 63 is similar to an amendment that was passed in the other place and subsequently thrown out. We shall return to the issue again and again, because unless the Government have some bright ideas at the eleventh hour—which I suspect they will not—this seems to be the best way of exempting small live-music events from the draconian measures in the Bill. Amendment No. 109 is also similar to an amendment passed in the other place and removed in Committee. We cannot see why, if village and parish halls and community centres are to be exempt at least from fees, a similar exemption cannot be applied to educational establishments."leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime for public entertainment, and so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10.2. We draw these concerns to the attention of each House."
I should declare at the outset that I am a member of the Folklore Society, and that my wife is involved with its journal.
I plead with the Minister to ensure—by amending the Bill if necessary—that traditional folk performances are not stamped out. Most have survived efforts to stamp them out by Cromwell and the Puritans, and by landlords and squires in the 17th and 18th centuries. They have survived the Victorian period, and all the commercial pressures. Their activities tend to be on a small scale. 7.45 pm I was told by people involved with the Bill that many such folk performances would not require licensing, and would therefore not be caught by the Bill. I am not sure about that. I was told that there would be no problem because these were spontaneous events. It seemed that if some of us persuaded the Minister to celebrate after Third Reading—if we went into one or two pubs, some songs were sung, a bit of music was played, perhaps a little play was put on about the Minister's performance today—all that would be perfectly all right, because the performance would be spontaneous.I am happy to confirm that it would indeed be all right.
If someone passed around a pint pot, asking for contributions so that the Minister could be presented with a small token of esteem—perhaps a little more drink—there would, again, be no difficulty. A good many folk performances are not very different from that, but they cannot be said to be spontaneous, because they have been taking place for at least 400 years.
Wales in general and mid-Wales in particular are awash with performances of this kind. They tend to take place weekly. I sometimes play the harmonica at The Grapes in Newtown: the Minister is welcome to come and enjoy the performance. It can hardly be described as spontaneous, however, as people come along every week to participate. The performers, and indeed the publican, could be in breach of the law without a licence.
I do not want to be drawn into that argument. I want to concentrate on performances with a long history. I see a series of anomalies. It would be easy for the Government to exempt such historic events. Some appear to be exempted already. I am not sure what is happening to the rush-cart ceremony, which concludes with rushes being taken into a church. Presumably it has already been exempted. However, similar events with no religious connotation would probably be covered by the Bill, which worries me.
If my hon. Friend was playing the trumpet, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) was playing his harmonica and, lo and behold, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was playing another instrument, would they not need a licence now?
Yes, but in the case of many traditional performances the two-in-a-bar rule has been taken into account. We tend to see a fiddler and someone playing another instrument during pace-egging, souling and similar activities. The Minister must ensure that such traditional events are exempt.
I understand that the Shrove Tuesday football matches are not covered by the legislation. I find that amazing. Huge numbers of people participate in the Haxey Hood football matches, which are far more violent than modern organised rugby matches, but they do not require a licence. Anyone going into the pub to do some singing in order to raise money to pay for the Hood, however, would be caught by the Bill.No, he would not.
I will not go into the matter with my hon. Friend, but I beg the Minister to tell me why, for instance, the Haxey Hood, the pace-eggers, the Britannic coconut dancers, the various groups of rush-bearers—some of whom do not go into churches—the Abbots Bromley horn dance and the souling at Antrobus will not need licences.
Some of those groups have no interest in publicity; they simply want to continue a tradition that has gone on for a long time. Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that those people will not be harmed by the legislation?This group of amendments is useful, as the subjects that the amendments cover cut to the heart of the Bill's difficulties and the objections raised to it. The Government would be well advised to accept as many of the amendments as possible, and if they are not convinced by the letter, they should accept the spirit of a good number of them.
Amendment No. 64, the first in the group, is particularly useful. The Government accepted the principle of incidental music, or music secondary to the principal business being carried out in particular premises, as a basis for exemption. However, I believe that the Minister's explanation in Committee of what constitutes incidental activity undid some of the good. The amendment is pertinent in focusing specifically on advertisement. If we take the view that any activity that is advertised cannot, by dint of its advertisement, be deemed secondary or subsidiary to the principal activity, it will not turn out to be much of a concession or exemption at all. I can think of several pubs in my own constituency that put out informal advertisements, perhaps on blackboards, announcing that they have live music every Friday night or Sunday lunchtime or whenever. I contend that that is incidental to the principal business of selling drink or food. When the Government first made the concession, I did not believe that such pubs would be caught out by dint of advertising, but the Minister's statements in Committee led us to that view. I readily grant the Minister the opportunity to put the record straight.I am always pleased to put the record straight for the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). The Bill does not exclude entertainment from the possibility of exemption on "incidental" grounds merely because it is advertised. If music is advertised, it may make it less likely to be incidental, but it certainly does not exclude advertised music from being defined as incidental. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record, because there has been an increasing tendency recently when matters are brought to court to pore over the proceedings of Standing Committees. It was my understanding that the Minister was leading us down that path in Committee, but I am pleased to hear what he has just said. I am sure that he is right: there is nothing in the Bill that places advertising on the wrong side of the exemption. It was more the commentary around it in Committee that worried me. To hear what he has just said on Report is most helpful.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patience. Let me expand a little and say that it will be a matter of judgment both for the venue owner—if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to use that expression—who has to take a decision about how he presents the entertainment, and for the licensing authority, which may have to decide whether the principal attraction is the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) playing his harmonica in Newtown or the food and drink sold at the venue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the judgment should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The strength is that it allows for flexibility, so a venue is not necessarily excluded from an exemption simply because his hon. Friend is playing an incidental harmonica.
I favour a flexible approach and if we have established that a function does not fall on the wrong side of the line by dint of advertising alone, I greatly welcome it.
I can assure the Minister that, to the best of my knowledge, not a single person has ever visited The Grapes simply to hear my harmonica—the opposite is more likely. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) agrees that the Minister's seminal clarification is important to the example that I raised. In the light of that significant reassurance, does my hon. Friend accept that advertising does not necessarily exclude live performance from being denied a licence where it is fairly clear that a performance has not been billed as the main attraction or reason for visiting a tavern?
I am also pleased to note another attempt to give exemptions to small events. The suggestion that events be made slightly smaller is realistic, because I am not convinced that the initial efforts on small events defined them as small enough. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to that perfectly sensible proposal even now.
Amendment No. 132 deals with the anomaly of television and radio receivers. Many people outside the House made the point—and I did the same in Committee—that it is odd that a pop concert on a large television set with big speakers would not require a licence, whereas two or three performers standing close by and producing noise at much lower decibel levels would require one. The Government argued throughout that they did not want to introduce additional burdens of regulation in areas where they currently do not exist. In a manner of speaking, amendment No. 132 steps into that territory. It has the useful benefit of highlighting again that there is something nonsensical about the inconsistent treatment in parts of the legislation. Amendment No. 105 deals with traditional folk performances. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) proposed what many would regard as a simple way of dealing with the vexed questions. Some of the difficulties to which he alluded remain real, because we have not had satisfactory answers to them. In the case of Morris dancers or other performers who are touring from one place to another, we have established that their activities would—whether by temporary event notices or premises licences—need to be licensed. If people are to perform far and wide and their activities are licensable, I can see them getting tied up in enormous amounts of red tape and, indeed, expense. No one believes that such traditional folk performers cause a public nuisance—or anything to which the public might take exception—so something along the lines of the amendment might well provide a good solution for the Government at this late stage.Unless the Bill is changed, is there not a danger of giving local authority licensing officers enormous powers to determine who and what activity is or is not licensable? I have severe doubts about whether such officers will exercise their powers in the way that the Minister hopes they will.
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If, in the early days of the legislation coming into force, local authorities held that various activities required a licence, I would be concerned that it might have an adverse effect. My fear is that some of the traditional groups that tour the country entertaining in one place or another will begin to lose the will to continue and give up the ghost.
I thought that the Liberal Democrats were the party of local government. Each local authority will have to produce a locally determined licensing policy, which will be able to reflect local circumstances, such as the prevalence of folk music and other interests.
8 pm
Local authorities will be required to present local policies, but they will have to accord with the legislation and the objectives mapped out in it. Some of these traditional groups move from village to village, and they might move from one local authority area to another, with the real danger that the whole process becomes so cumbersome that they conclude that it is not worth their while. The Government would do well to consider the amendment. I appreciate that the list in amendment No. 105 cannot be deemed to be exclusive, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would wish to include wassailing. However, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish attempts to cover that problem by including the words
I suspect that lawyers will make a lot of money arguing that all sorts of other things fulfil those criteria, so I do not claim that the amendment is perfect. However, the Government would be well advised to try to address the point it makes. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on the question of educational establishments, as mentioned in amendment No. 109. What is the Government's position? I understood that they had agreed the principle of some exemption, and I am confused about what they now propose to allow. The amendments suggest various forms of exemption for various forms of entertainment and they encapsulate the concerns that have been raised in the months of the Bill's passage through Parliament. They include some ideas that the Government would be well advised to adopt, even at this late stage, to try to prevent the Bill from having all sorts of unfortunate unforeseen effects on and consequences for areas of public life that no one would wish to see wither, but which could be in genuine danger."other traditional folk performances of a similar character".
The amendments cover forms of exempted entertainment and I wish to raise the issue of a form of entertainment that is very popular in pubs and clubs in the midlands and north of England, but which is subject to hardly any licensing or regulation—and I and many others are very concerned by that. I refer to stage hypnosis. Hypnosis is a complex phenomenon, in which the subject is put into a state of heightened concentration and becomes greatly suggestible.
The practitioner of stage hypnosis may have had only half an hour of tuition. Guidelines have been laid down for those using hypnosis as a form of entertainment. They include having to remain on the premises for half an hour after the event, or having to have public liability insurance. In most cases, the activity is subject to very little regulation, but it can do huge damage to members of the audience. People have been known to die a few hours after being subjected to stage hypnosis. Others have had their lives completely traumatised. The Bill is welcomed by many people in the music and entertainment industry, because it is a complete overhaul of our archaic licensing laws. The Bill will introduce a 21st century licensing framework for an industry that is important to many of us, be it through music or any other form of entertainment. Many aspects of the Bill have been highly controversial, but I wish to point out to the Minister that it contains no regulation for stage hypnosis. People who have had a couple of hours' training in hypnotism can be let loose on an audience and can do incalculable damage, because they may not have asked the audience if anybody suffers from epilepsy or schizophrenia, or whether anyone has suffered a recent trauma or is on medication. All those factors can have a detrimental effect if the person is hypnotised. I wish that I had been able to raise the issue earlier in the Bill's progress, because a constituent of mine, Mr. Robert Mitchell, has suffered great trauma because of stage hypnosis. He was hypnotised in the name of entertainment, at a sales conference at a hotel in the west midlands, and it has wrecked his life, including his working life. I hope that the Minister will find a way, if necessary though other legislation or orders, to reconsider the regulation of that, at present, unlicensed activity.
This group of amendments should be called the Punch and Judy amendments. I am sure that the Government had the best of intentions when bringing forward the Bill. The intention was deregulatory, and aimed to provide a single route for application for licences, instead of the multiple routes we have at present. However, those who were members of the Committee can testify that there is no coherent thread running through the Government's decisions about what should and what should not be licensed. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) illustrated that point perfectly. The application of the licensing objectives laid down at the beginning of the Bill is inconsistent with regard to the content of schedule 1.
I shall refer in particular to amendments Nos. 132, 105 and 160. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) pointed out, amendment No. 132 tries to pin down the Government on why it should be a requirement for films to be licensed when it is not necessary to license big-screen television. Both forms of entertainment might produce the same amount of volume and be watched on the same size screen in the same premises by the same number of people, with the same effect on those living in the area. It is entirely inconsistent for broadcast television not to be licensed and I hope that the Minister will explain why that is the case.rose—
I give way to the Minister, but I wish first to echo my hon. Friend's congratulations to him on his new appointment.
I thank the hon. Gentleman doubly, for giving way and for congratulating me. I am chuffed that he did so. He knows that there are specific reasons why the exhibition of films in film theatres is licensed. Those reasons date back to the early days of film when the film stock and projectors used were liable to burst into flame—and often did. As a consequence, the exhibition of films was governed by very specific laws. That did not happen with television, as the hon. Gentleman also knows. The Bill is deregulatory in intent, and we did not wish to extend legislation to cover areas that are currently not regulated. That is the reason for the apparent anomaly.
I thank the Minister for that explanation. He has demonstrated that the Bill will not introduce 21st century regulation for entertainment—as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean suggested. In fact, it will retain early 20th century regulation for no better reason than that cinematograph projectors used to burst into flame. I accept that there is another reason, to do with the regulation of what is shown by the projectors.
If it is merely intended to protect children and other youngsters from seeing films that are unsuitable, film entertainment does not need to be licensed in the panoply of ways that will be required as a result of its inclusion in schedule 1. That is my first point, and I should be very happy if the Minister is able later to provide an explanation that defeats it. I am glad to support amendment No. 105, tabled by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). I hope that the wordsmay extend to Punch and Judy shows. The Bill makes it a requirement that morris-dancing in pub car parks, on village greens, under oak trees and in a multitude of other locations must be licensed. It also means that Punch and Judy shows will have to be licensed."traditional folk performances of a similar character"
A Punch and Judy proprietor in my constituency entertains many children every day in the summer months, and he is concerned about whether he will require a licence in order to perform or whether the local authority will need a licence in order for him to perform on its premises—in this case, a beach in my constituency.
My constituent Mr. David Randini is equally concerned for the same reasons. I see no reason for them to be concerned about whether they must be licensed: the Bill is absolutely clear, and they do. A Punch and Judy show is
under paragraph 2(1)(a) of schedule 1. It"a performance of a play"
That is why Punch and Judy shows take place, and they will, therefore, be a licensable activity. They will have to be licensed. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), now not in his place, suggested that licensing authorities could get around that by producing a licensing policy. I am afraid that the hon. Member for North Devon was right to respond by saying that the licensing policy must be within the law. If the Bill is passed, the law will be what is contained in schedule 1. We cannot avoid the need to licence a Punch and Judy show by writing a slightly vague licensing policy. The hon. Member for North Durham, whom I am pleased to see returning to the Chamber, has repeatedly said, in Committee and this evening, that most of the things to which I refer have to be licensed already, and that there is therefore no greater licensing requirement. I hope that I have represented him correctly; he smirks, but I am sure that he means it as a nod. Perhaps such entertainments should be licensed, but the fact is that they are not. I discussed that with the chief executive of my own local authority, who was surprised to discover that morris-dancing would have to be licensed under the Bill. He was even more surprised to discover that the Minister believed that morris-dancing was already a licensable activity. The Isle of Wight council does not license morris-dancing. I hope that it never has to do so. Newcastle city council, on which the hon. Member for North Durham was chairman of the public health committee, may have licensed morris-dancers, pace-eggers—whatever they may be—and Punch and Judy shows, if they were fortunate enough to have such things on the banks of the Tyne. However, such activities are not licensed by every authority in whose areas they take place. That is the problem."takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience."
The hon. Gentleman seems to be telling the House that a local authority—namely, the Isle of Wight—was ignorant of the law. Consequently, he says, it was an exemplary local authority in that it did not attempt to license and monitor particular activities, including, in his example, morris-dancing. Is he saying that when the House considers law, we should not change it if local authorities such as his have a chief executive who clearly does not understand his role? Is he suggesting that we should try to pretend that the law that exists does not in fact exist just because a local authority for whatever reason—whether it turns a blind eye or is unaware of the law—does not carry out its statutory functions? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying?
8.15 pm
No, he is not. Nor is he saying that the Isle of Wight council is an exemplary authority. He is saying merely that if that is what happens in one council, it may well happen in other local authorities too. It is because the law is not properly observed that people feel that the Bill is not a deregulatory measure. I am not arguing that the Minister's intentions are not pure; they are, I am sure, as pure as the driven snow. The problem is that morris-dancing is not at present licensed in many parts of the country, so far as I can judge from representations made to me. After the Bill becomes law, it will have to be licensed, as will Punch and Judy shows. I cannot understand why the Minister wants to go down in history as the man who wanted to regulate Punch and Judy shows.
Is not the history entirely irrelevant? We have before us a Bill that does things that many Members of this House believe to be foolish and unnecessary. For that reason, we should argue that its foolish and unnecessary elements should be left out.
That is a better argument than the one that held the Isle of Wight council up to ridicule and contempt.
This is absurd. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) should know better than to say what he said. He knows that the law exists as it is; there is no way around that. In attempting to put the law regarding public entertainment on a much better basis, we believe that we will improve the situation. We shall not do that by pretending that the current law does not exist. Just because a local authority, perhaps for the best of reasons, may not enforce it—I hope, in fact, that lots of local authorities will in future decide to exempt all sorts of activities—we cannot pretend that the law is not what it is. That is complete nonsense.
The Minister is going down a dangerous road. He hopes that many local authorities will in future decide to exempt—
As they do now.
I agree; they do now. They may decide to do so, or they may exempt things out of ignorance, but they do exempt things now. The Minister is saying that many local authorities will be able to decide to exempt—Hansard will show whether I have understood his words correctly—activities of the sort that we are discussing. However, under the Bill, local authorities will not have the power to exempt 'such activities. Either they are licensable activities, or they are not.
Clearly, local authorities that are not enforcing the law do not necessarily do so in ignorance. They have a duty to enforce the law when the law breaking is pointed out. The fact that no one has pointed it out and that the law is not known means that such activities have been able to go ahead. That is not an exemption, but under the new Bill, when the new law is brought to everyone's attention, there will be a blanket ban on activities that have been taken for granted.
I am sorry that the Minister finds my argument either difficult or dull—
Just daft.
I am sorry, but it is not a daft argument. We have the opportunity to decide whether Punch and Judy shows will be licensable in future. That is what the amendments provide for. My amendment No. 160 provides for that in a different way.
Whether we describe the Bill as regulatory or deregulatory is irrelevant to its content. Its content is absurd because, as the Minister said in Committee, the Government would "certainly encourage" local authoritiesThe Minister believes that such activities are licensable. Once the Bill becomes law, there will be guidance from the Department in the law. Conferences of local authority licensing officers will be held; they will attempt to interpret and assist local authorities in implementing the law, but they cannot amend schedule 1—only we and those in another place can do that, and we should he doing so tonight."to obtain premises licences for public spaces … where there is any demand by groups of dancers, folk singers or anyone else who wanted to use that area."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 449.]
I want to speak to amendment No. 161, which I tabled in order to revisit some of our arguments and debates in Committee on this part of the Bill.
On Thursday, when I tabled the amendment, I thought that I would have to be careful not to try the patience of my hon. Friend the Minister too much when I was trying to persuade him to reconsider certain matters. Then, when I looked at the No. 10 Downing street website on Friday afternoon, I thought that it would be even more important to put my arguments because a new Minister would be in charge of the Bill. However, my hon. Friend is still with us and I am glad about that. I hope not to try his patience but I want to have one more go at putting my case. As everyone realises, the aim of the Bill is to deregulate and simplify, and much of it does so. However, in at least one sphere it extends regulation to a currently unregulated activity: small performances, especially music—small gigs. It is no surprise that, when the Government try to extend regulation to an unregulated sector, there is immediate concern. My concern is that the Government have not yet provided evidence of the need to regulate such activities. People are asking whether the Bill's response is really proportionate to whatever complaints may have been made. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has carried out a study into noise and licensing reform. Can the Minister tell us about the progress of that study? Was it taken into account in formulating the measure? Concern turned into vociferous opposition from some quarters when it was discovered that big-screen broadcast entertainment—video jukeboxes and sports bars—would not be licensable and that there would apparently be no limit on amplification. In many cases, such entertainment would be a larger and louder event than the kind of small gigs that I am talking about. I do not want the Government to be ridiculed or criticised, and I am concerned that that may happen. We could end up with a situation where a large number of football fans were watching an England game on one of those big screens; they could enjoy England beating the opposition and erupt when David Beckham scored the winner. Whatever nuisance that event caused, it would not be licensable, yet the solo guitar strummer or the lone pianist would be licensable. The comments made during the debate about incidental entertainment have been helpful, although I am concerned about how different local authorities might interpret the provisions. That point leads me to the root of my concern. My concern was not provoked by the Musicians Union lobby. Some of that lobbying was over the top and has been counter-productive because it hardened attitudes. My concern stems from my experience of how local authorities can operate, especially in rural areas. As a councillor, and as leader of a district council for six years, I have seen what can happen on licensing and planning panels—certain aspects of planning legislation are comparable to these provisions. Such panels and committees can make a considerable meal of what are often not very substantial objections. As has been said, it is simple enough to tick the box; the problem is that ticking the box is merely the entry to a form of local authority decision making about which many people are fearful. I am concerned about that. There could be two unfortunate consequences. The first relates to rural areas. In such areas, there is not much musical entertainment. There are not many venues; they tend to be pubs, many of which operate the two-in-a-bar rule, with no entertainment licence. Currently, when an establishment in a village or market town wants to apply for an entertainment licence, there are often objections and opposition, because these days so many people move to the country for a quiet life. They then become rather over-anxious about what might happen at entertainment venues. A high proportion of elderly people live in the countryside and they get worried about bands of young tearaways attending such events. In my experience, they lobby their local councillor, which is not difficult because councillors, too, are concerned about events in the village. The councillor talks to people on the planning committee or the licensing committee. Sometimes the application is turned down; sometimes it is just caught up in the process or deferred. That is how a meal can be made out of such things, quite apart from the attention of over-zealous council officers who sometimes have their own way of making a mountain out of a molehill. There is a shortage of entertainment in rural areas, so young people go off to the towns, in cars—because there is no other transport—often with disastrous consequences.I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about local licensing boards making a meal out of an Oxo cube, but if people are turned down for a licence, under the Bill, do they not have the right of appeal to the magistrates court?
Yes, but quite a meal might have been created before that point. Appeal to the magistrates court would be yet another course in the meal. Currently, people do not get caught up in that process. I am concerned that some establishments that currently offer unlicensed entertainment may be turned down when they apply for a licence because there are objections. Furthermore, the whole process may take a long time.
That brings me to my second point, which does not apply only to rural areas. If a landlord were not really bothered about whether he put on certain types of entertainment, he might not do so at all if he thought that he would have to follow a long and onerous road to get a licence. If he knew that he would have extra custom and make some money, he would go through the process. I am concerned about minority forms of music. Some hon. Members have mentioned folk music; as I said earlier, I am keen on jazz. Often it is not easy for folk and jazz musicians to find venues. Some landlords are not keen to put them on because they do not attract huge audiences. Lovers of that music are worried that some venues might get squeezed out if landlords feel that it is not worth getting a licence.My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that live music has been distorted for years in this country by the two-in-a-bar rule and that jazz has suffered especially. Is he suggesting that we should somehow defend the existing regime?
indicated dissent.
My hon. Friend is not suggesting that.
My hon. Friend intervenes at just the right time, as I was about to say next that the two-in-a-bar rule is intellectually unsound. That regime is not defensible, but it has given rise to a certain de minimis arrangement. That is the purpose of amendment No. 161, as I believe that, if we are to have a modern and reformed licensing regime, we need to consider some form of de minimis arrangement that permits the activities that I have been talking about, allows them to continue and prevents them from being squeezed out.
8.30 pm I have not tried to define the de minimis regime in amendment No. 161 because I am sure that I would be shot down if I did so. I tried to do so using various arguments in Committee, but I am trying to ensure that the sort of entertainment that takes place in rural areas at the moment and minority forms of music can continue, so I ask my hon. Friend to put on his thinking cap and, with his officials, try to come up with some de minimis regime.The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case—exactly the case that I would want to make if I had the opportunity. Is he not really saying that there is no need to introduce a remedy when there is no mischief, and that there is no mischief when there is no disturbance to the outside world, where no transgression of existing health and safety rules takes place and when a performance in a given venue causes no problem for anyone and those who want to witness the performance enjoy it?
I am saying that there is no need to license every form of musical activity.
I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to all the points that have been made in the debate, so I just ask him to accept the case for a de minimis arrangement and to consider devising one. May I give an example? We have had live music in the House of Commons. It is not the order of the day—it may even be frowned upon—but a little live jazz was performed acoustically in the Terrace Pavilion last year. We had Andy Sheppard on sax and John Parricelli on guitar. Perhaps the sound was a bit distorted, but that happened and it did not disturb anything that goes on in this place; nor did it disturb the House authorities. In fact, people much appreciated the chance to listen to that music and enjoy it. If we can do that here, we should allow it to continue to happen in various establishments throughout the country. I hope that we can avoid the ridicule of the comparison between recorded, big screen, broadcast entertainment and small, live entertainment. I fear that, if we do not get this right, the arguments will come bouncing back to the House again.I rise to speak because I am interested in promoting and enabling small-scale rural and Welsh language events. In particular, I refer to local eisteddfodau. The Minister will be very familiar with them, but I should explain to other hon. Members that they are essentially amateur, small-scale, competitive village events in singing, other forms of music and poetry. They are often held at community or village level, in a variety of venues, such as chapels, churches and chapel and church halls, so they are subject to certain legislative regulation, but they are also held in pubs and increasingly in hotels, as well as in schools.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are eminently sensible in situations where eisteddfodau should not be regulated. They often close down before 11.30 pm, and fewer than 200 people are usually involved. In fact, if everyone in most small rural communities attended, they would still involve fewer than 200 people. I wish to consider what would be achieved by regulating eisteddfodau in terms of the aims of the White Paper, which are to reduce crime and disorder. The Minister will know that, at the crowning or the chairing of the poet in an eisteddfod, the cry goes up, "A oes heddwch?"—"Is there peace?" The audience must respond, "Peace", or the event cannot continue. They are essentially peaceable events. What about encouraging tourism? Certainly, eisteddfodau are an untapped source of tourism for rural Wales. What about reducing alcohol misuse? They are very often teetotal. What about encouraging rural self-sufficient communities? Eisteddfodau should be encouraged, as an obvious example of what can happen in self-sufficient rural communities. Eisteddfodau are not a problem, and they should be exempted from the Bill.We have had an excellent debate on this set of amendments. Before I address amendment No. 64, with which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) opened the debate, let me say that I accept and understand completely much of what has been said. The Government amended the Bill in Committee to exempt from the provision of regulated entertainment incidental live music in certain circumstances in response to concerns raised in another place. The exemption relating to incidental music represents a major deregulation from current licensing controls. It was part of a package of concessions that we have made since the Bill was introduced to broaden the significant liberalisation of the entertainment licensing regime that it is designed to bring about.
Some of the other concessions in that package include: exempting places of public religious worship; amending the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who simply perform at unlicensed venues and do no more in respect of the entertainment will not commit an offence; announcing that we will exempt church halls, village halls and other community buildings from fees associated with regulated entertainment and, in a similar exemption, entertainment provided at schools and sixth-form colleges by the institution. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked a valid question, which we debated at length in Committee, about higher and further education institutions, and I want to repeat that, in the long-distant past, I remember going to lots of gigs with very big bands and very big audiences at universities. Indeed, that is one of the most lucrative parts of the entertainment trade. I am sure that he would have doubts about trying to compare what may happen in a primary or secondary school hall with the kinds of events—sometimes enormous rock concerts—that can take place in our larger universities. We will certainly use the accompanying guidance to underscore the requirement that only necessary and proportionate conditions are attached to licences. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) expressed fears that we would let loose local authorities on the poor venue owners, for whom life would be made unbearable. I want to make several responses to that. First, it is vital that the House should know that this Government believe wholeheartedly in encouraging live music, drama and dance. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), we will ensure that there is no doubt whatever in the minds of local authorities, either in relation to the statutory guidance that we will issue or discussions that the Department—I keep calling it my Department, but it is not my Department any more—for Culture, Media and Sport will have, and have had, with local authorities, that we expect cultural expression to be an important part of the life of every area, and that they will be expected to encourage it everywhere. That is an important consideration. I will respond more specifically to the points that he raised later, but I want to place them within that context. We have exempted live music to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity, which is not itself entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities as described in the Bill, bringing it into line with the exemption for incidental recorded music—such as that provided through juke boxes and, of course, the dreaded muzak, which one might encounter in lifts or hotel lobbies—in the Bill as originally drafted. Hon. Members might question that last point, but I am afraid that, however much I might wish it to do so, the Bill does not make distinctions on grounds of taste. That is a serious issue. Every example about which we have heard tonight is of a civilised group playing quiet music with moderate amplification. No one mentioned the fact that if we take away the two-in-a-bar rule—which I am entirely in favour of doing—there is nothing to stop a suddenly unregulated venue from putting on music that might have huge amplification. Were that to happen, I can guarantee that the welter of letters that some right hon. and hon. Members have received from some constituents, mostly those in the Musicians Union, will appear as a mere trickle compared with the letters that they will start to get from residents who will have no defence whatever from bands playing in unregulated venues at such volume that they are blown into next week. If we are to be honest, we should mention that. In Committee, much of the debate focused on the definition of incidental live music, as well it might. As is often the case, the Government amendment reflected the spirit of concerns raised by certain lobby groups. In response to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, I accept none of his criticisms about not having consulted and discussed matters with lobby groups from all manner of music and entertainment sectors. I spent many hours doing so, and many more hours answering written submissions from those sorts of people when it was impossible to meet them. For example, there was a great deal of lobbying at a late stage from individuals such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about giving historic churches the same kind of exemption—It being Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 295.
Division No. 233]
| [8:43 pm
|
AYES
| |
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Kirkbride, Miss Julie |
Amess, David | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
Ancram, rh Michael | Lamb, Norman |
Arbuthnot, rh James | Laws, David (Yeovil) |
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Liddell-Grainger, Ian |
Bacon, Richard | Llwyd, Elfyn |
Barker, Gregory | Loughton, Tim |
Baron, John (Billericay) | Luff, Peter (M-Worcs) |
Barrett, John | MeIntosh. Miss Anne |
Bellingham, Henry | McLoughlin, Patrick |
Bercow, John | Malins, Humfrey |
Blunt, Crispin | Maples, John |
Boswell, Tim | Maude, rh Francis |
Brake, Tom (Carshalton) | Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian |
Brazier, Julian | May, Mrs Theresa |
Breed, Colin | Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield) |
Brooke, Mrs Annette L. | |
Browning, Mrs Angela | Moss, Malcolm |
Burnett, John | Murrison, Dr. Andrew |
Burns, Simon | O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) |
Burstow, Paul | Öpik, Lembit |
Burt, Alistair | Osborne, George (Tatton) |
Butterfill, John | Ottaway, Richard |
Calton, Mrs Patsy | Page, Richard |
Cash, William | Paice, James |
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) | Paterson, Owen |
Pickles, Eric | |
Chidgey, David | Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr) |
Chope, Christopher | |
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Prisk, Mark (Hertford) |
Collins, Tim | Pugh, Dr. John |
Cotter, Brian | Randall, John |
Cran, James (Beverley) | Redwood, rh John |
Curry, rh David | Rendel, David |
Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Robathan, Andrew |
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden) | Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) |
Rosindell, Andrew | |
Djanogly, Jonathan | Ruffley, David |
Dodds, Nigel | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
Doughty, Sue | Sanders, Adrian |
Duncan, Alan (Rutland) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
Duncan Smith, rh lain | Selous, Andrew |
Evans, Nigel | Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian |
Fabricant, Michael | Shepherd, Richard |
Fallon, Michael | Simmonds, Mark |
Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster) | Soames, Nicholas |
Spelman, Mrs Caroline | |
Flook, Adrian | Spicer, Sir Michael |
Forth, rh Eric | Spring, Richard |
Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis) | Stanley, rh Sir John |
Gidley, Sandra | Steen, Anthony |
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl | Streeter, Gary |
Gray, James (N Wilts) | Stunell, Andrew |
Grayling, Chris | Swire, Hugo (E Devon) |
Gummer, rh John | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
Hammond, Philip | Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F) |
Hancock, Mike | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
Harvey, Nick | Thurso, John |
Hawkins, Nick | Trend, Michael |
Heald, Oliver | Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight) |
Heath, David | Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall) |
Heathcoat-Amory, rh David | Tyrie, Andrew |
Hendry, Charles | Viggers, Peter |
Hoban, Mark (Fareham) | Walter, Robert |
Hogg, rh Douglas | Waterson, Nigel |
Holmes, Paul | Watkinson, Angela |
Horam, John (Orpington) | Whittingdale, John |
Howard, rh Michael | Wiggin, Bill |
Hunter, Andrew | Willetts, David |
Jack, rh Michael | Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon) |
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) | Williams, Roger (Brecon) |
Johnson, Boris (Henley) | Willis, Phil |
Key, Robert (Salisbury) | Wilshire, David |
Winterton, Ann (Congleton) | Tellers for the Ayes:
|
Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk) | Mr. Robert Syms and
|
Young, rh Sir George | Mr. Mark Francois
|
NOES
| |
Adams, Irene (Paisley N) | Cummings, John |
Ainger, Nick | Cunningham, Tony (Workington) |
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE) | Darling, rh Alistair |
Alexander, Douglas | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
Allen, Graham | David, Wayne |
Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E) | Davidson, Ian |
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen) | Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli) |
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | |
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary | Dawson, Hilton |
Atherton, Ms Candy | Dean, Mrs Janet |
Atkins, Charlotte | Denham, rh John |
Austin, John | Dhanda, Parmjit |
Baird, Vera | Dismore, Andrew |
Banks, Tony | Dobbin, Jim (Heywood) |
Barren, rh Kevin | Dobson, rh Frank |
Bayley, Hugh | Donohoe, Brian H. |
Beard, Nigel | Doran, Frank |
Beckett, rh Margaret | Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W) |
Bell, Stuart | Drew, David (Stroud) |
Benn, Hilary | Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) |
Bennett, Andrew | Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) |
Berry, Roger | Edwards, Huw |
Best, Harold | Efford, Clive |
Betts, Clive | Ellman, Mrs Louise |
Blackman, Liz | Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E) |
Blears, Ms Hazel | Farrelly, Paul |
Blizzard, Bob | Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead) |
Borrow, David | Fisher, Mark |
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Fitzpatrick, Jim |
Bradshaw, Ben | Flint, Caroline |
Brennan, Kevin | Flynn, Paul (Newport W) |
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend) | Follett, Barbara |
Foster, rh Derek | |
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Foster, Michael (Worcester) |
Browne, Desmond | Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye) |
Bryant, Chris | |
Buck, Ms Karen | Foulkes, rh George |
Burden, Richard | Francis, Dr. Hywel |
Burnham, Andy | Gapes, Mike (Ilford S) |
Byers, rh Stephen | Gardiner, Barry |
Caborn, rh Richard | Gerrard, Neil |
Cairns, David | Gibson, Dr. Ian |
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Gilroy, Linda |
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Godsiff, Roger |
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Goggins, Paul |
Caplin, Ivor | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
Caton, Martin | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg) | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
Challen, Colin | Hain, rh Peter |
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
Chaytor, David | Hall, Patrick (Bedford) |
Clapham, Michael | Hamilton, David (Midlothian) |
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) |
Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston) | Hanson, David |
Healey, John | |
Clelland, David | Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) |
Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V) | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
Coffey, Ms Ann | Hendrick, Mark |
Cohen, Harry | Hepburn, Stephen |
Coleman, Iain | Heppell, John |
Connarty, Michael | Heyes, David |
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Hill, Keith (Streatham) |
Cook, rh Robin (Livingston) | Hinchliffe, David |
Corbyn, Jeremy | Hodge, Margaret |
Corston, Jean | Hope, Phil (Corby) |
Cousins, Jim | Hopkins, Kelvin |
Cranston, Ross | Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E) |
Crausby, David | Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Seftron E) |
Cruddas, Jon | |
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Howells, Dr. Kim |
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston) | Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) |
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | |
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
Humble, Mrs Joan | O'Hara, Edward |
Hurst, Alan (Braintree) | Olner, Bill |
Iddon, Dr. Brian | Organ, Diana |
Illsley, Eric | Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) |
Irranca-Davies, Huw | Owen, Albert |
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate) | Palmer, Dr. Nick |
Perham, Linda | |
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | Picking, Anne |
Jamieson, David | Pickthall, Colin |
Jenkins, Brian | Pike, Peter (Burnley) |
Johnson, Alan (Hull W) | Plaskitt, James |
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Pollard, Kerry |
Jones, Kevan (N Durham) | Pond, Chris (Gravesham) |
Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak) | Pope, Greg (Hyndburn) |
Jones, Martyn (ClwydS) | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
Jowell, rh Tessa | |
Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W) | Prescott, rh John |
Kueble, Ms Sally | Primarolo, rh Dawn |
Keen, Alan (Feltham) | Prosser, Gwyn |
Kemp, Fraser | Purchase, Ken |
Khabra, Piara S. | Purnell, James |
Kidney, David | Quin, rh Joyce |
Kilfoyle, Peter | Rammell, Bill |
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow) | Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N) |
Raynsford, rh Nick | |
Knight, Jim (S Dorset) | Reed, Andy (Loughborough) |
Kumar, Dr. Ashok | Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill) |
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen | |
Lammy, David | Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW) |
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie | |
Laxton, Bob (Derby N) | Rooney, Terry |
Lazarowicz, Mark | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
Leslie, Christopher | Roy, Frank (Motherwell) |
Levitt, Tom (High Peak) | Ruane, Chris |
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) | Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester) |
Love, Andrew | |
Lucas, Ian (Wrexham) | Sarwar, Mohammad |
Lyons, John (Strathkelvin) | Savidge, Malcolm |
McAvoy, Thomas | Sawford, Phil |
McCabe, Stephen | Sedgemore, Brian |
McCafferty, Chris | Shaw, Jonathan |
McDonagh, Siobhain | Sheridan, Jim |
MacDonald, Calum | Short, rh Clare |
MacDougall, John | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
McFall, John | Singh, Marsha |
McIsaac, Shona | Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E) |
McKechin, Ann | Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury) |
McKenna, Rosemary | |
Mackinlay, Andrew | Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) |
McNamara, Kevin | |
McNulty, Tony | Southworth, Helen |
MacShane, Denis | Spellar, rh John |
McWalter, Tony | Steinberg, Gerry |
McWilliam, John | Stevenson, George |
Mahmood, Khalid | Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber) |
Mandelson, rh Peter | |
Mann, John (Bassetlaw) | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW) | Stinchcombe, Paul |
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) | Stoate, Dr. Howard |
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Stringer, Graham |
Martlew, Eric | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
Michael, rh Alun | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
Miliband, David | Taylor, Dari (Stockton S) |
Miller, Andrew | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
Moffatt, Laura | Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W) |
Mole, Chris | Timms, Stephen |
Morley, Elliot | Tipping, Paddy |
Mountford, Kali | Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire) |
Mudie, George | Touhig, Don (Islwyn) |
Mullin, Chris | Trickett, Jon |
Munn, Ms Meg | Truswell, Paul |
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown) |
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) |
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) | Woolas, Phil |
Vis, Dr. Rudi | Worthington, Tony |
Ward, Claire | Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston) |
Wareing, Robert N. | |
Watts, David | Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth) |
White, Brian | |
Wicks, Malcolm | Wright, David (Telford) |
Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W) | Wright, Tony (Cannock) |
Williams, Betty (Conwy) | Wyatt, Derek |
Wills, Michael | |
Winnick, David | Tellers for the Noes:
|
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) | Joan Ryan and
|
Vernon Coaker
|
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 63, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
'Small events—live music
(1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where—
(2) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of entertainment described in subparagraph (1) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place.'.— [Mr. Moss.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 284.
Division No. 234]
| [8:57 pm
|
AYES
| |
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Davey, Edward (Kingston) |
Amess, David | Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden) |
Ancram, rh Michael | |
Arbuthnot rh James | Djanogly, Jonathan |
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Dodds, Nigel |
Bacon, Richard | Doughty, Sue |
Barker, Gregory | Duncan, Alan (Rutland) |
Baron, John (Billericay) | Duncan Smith, rh lain |
Barrett, John | Evans, Nigel |
Bellingham, Henry | Fabricant, Michael |
Bercow, John | Fallon, Michael |
Blunt, Crispin | Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster) |
Boswell, Tim | |
Brake, Tom (Carshalton) | Flook, Adrian |
Brazier, Julian | Forth, rh Eric |
Breed, Colin | Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis) |
Brooke, Mrs Annette L. | Gidley, Sandra |
Browning, Mrs Angela | Gillan, Mrs Cheryl |
Burnett, John | Gray, James (N Wilts) |
Burns, Simon | Grayling, Chris |
Burstow, Paul | Gummer, rh John |
Burt, Alistair | Hammond, Philip |
Butterfill, John | Hancock, Mike |
Calton, Mrs Patsy | Harvey, Nick |
Cash, William | Hawkins, Nick |
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) | Heald, Oliver |
Heath, David | |
Chidgey, David | Heathcoat-Amory, rh David |
Chope, Christopher | Hendry, Charles |
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Hoban, Mark (Fareham) |
Collins, Tim | Hogg, rh Douglas |
Cotter, Brian | Holmes, Paul |
Cran, James (Beverley) | Horam, John (Orpington) |
Curry, rh David | Howard, rh Michael |
Hunter, Andrew | Ruffley, David |
Jack, rh Michael | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) | Sanders, Adrian |
Johnson, Boris (Henley) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
Key, Robert (Salisbury) | Selous, Andrew |
Kirkbride, Miss Julie | Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian |
Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Shepherd, Richard |
Lamb, Norman | Simmonds, Mark |
Laws, David (Yeovil) | Soames, Nicholas |
Liddell-Grainger, Ian | Spelman, Mrs Caroline |
Llwyd, Elfyn | Spicer, Sir Michael |
Loughton, Tim | Spring, Richard |
Luff, Peter (M-Worcs) | Stanley, rh Sir John |
McIntosh, Miss Anne | Steen, Anthony |
McLoughlin, Patrick | Streeter, Gary |
Malins, Humfrey | Stunell, Andrew |
Maples, John | Swire, Hugo (E Devon) |
Maude, rh Francis | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian | Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F) |
May, Mrs Theresa | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield) | Thurso, John |
Trend, Michael | |
Moss, Malcolm | Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight) |
Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen) | Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall) |
Murrison, Dr. Andrew | Tyrie, Andrew |
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) | Viggers, Peter |
Öpik, Lembit | Walter, Robert |
Osborne, George (Tatton) | Waterson, Nigel |
Ottaway, Richard | Watkinson, Angela |
Page, Richard | Whittingdale, John |
Paice, James | Wiggin, Bill |
Paterson, Owen | Willetts, David |
Pickles, Eric | Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon) |
Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr) | Williams, Roger (Brecon) |
Willis, Phil | |
Prisk, Mark (Hertford) | Wilshire, David |
Pugh, Dr. John | Winterton, Ann (Congleton) |
Randall, John | Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk) |
Redwood, rh John | Young, rh Sir George |
Rendel, David | |
Robathan, Andrew | Tellers for the Ayes:
|
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) | Mr. Robert Syms and
|
Rosindell, Andrew | Mr. Mark Francois
|
NOES
| |
Adams, Irene (Paisley N) | Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend) |
Ainger, Nick | |
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE) | Brown, Russell (Dumfries) |
Alexander, Douglas | Browne, Desmond |
Allen, Graham | Bryant, Chris |
Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E) | Buck, Ms Karen |
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen) | Burden, Richard |
Burnham, Andy | |
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary | Byers, rh Stephen |
Atherton, Ms Candy | Caborn, rh Richard |
Atkins, Charlotte | Cairns, David |
Austin, John | Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) |
Baird, Vera | Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) |
Banks, Tony | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
Barron, rh Kevin | Caplin, Ivor |
Bayley, Hugh | Caton, Martin |
Beard, Nigel | Cawsey, Ian (Brigg) |
Beckett, rh Margaret | Challen, Colin |
Bell, Stuart | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
Benn, Hilary | Chaytor, David |
Bennett, Andrew | Clapham, Michael |
Berry, Roger | Clark, Paul (Gillingham) |
Best, Harold | Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston) |
Betts, Clive | |
Blackman, Liz | Clelland, David |
Blears, Ms Hazel | Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V) |
Blizzard, Bob | Coffey, Ms Ann |
Borrow, David | Cohen, Harry |
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Coleman, Iain |
Bradshaw, Ben | Connarty, Michael |
Brennan, Kevin | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
Cook, rh Robin (Livingston) | Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E) |
Corbyn, Jeremy | |
Corston, Jean | Howells, Dr. Kim |
Cousins, Jim | Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston) |
Cranston, Ross | |
Crausby, David | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
Cruddas, Jon | Humble, Mrs Joan |
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Hurst, Alan (Braintree) |
Cummings, John | Iddon, Dr. Brian |
Cunningham, Tony (Workington) | Illsley, Eric |
Darling, rh Alistair | Irranca-Davies, Huw |
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate) |
David, Wayne | |
Davidson, Ian | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli) | Jamieson, David |
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Jenkins, Brian |
Dawson, Hilton | Johnson, Alan (Hull W) |
Dean, Mrs Janet | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
Denham, rh John | Jones, Kevan (N Durham) |
Dhanda, Parmjit | Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak) |
Dismore, Andrew | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
Dobbin, Jim (Heywood) | Jowell rh Tessa |
Dobson, rh Frank | Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W) |
Donohoe, Brian H. | Keeble, Ms Sally |
Doran, Frank | Keen, Alan (Feltham) |
Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W) | Kemp, Fraser |
Drew, David (Stroud) | Khabra, Piara S. |
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Kidney, David |
Eagle, Mania (L'pool Garston) | Kilfoyle, Peter |
Edwards, Huw | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow) |
Efford, Clive | |
Ellman, Mrs Louise | Knight, Jim (S Dorset) |
Ennis, Jeff (Bansley E) | Kumar, Dr. Ashok |
Farrelly, Paul | Ladyman, Dr. Stephen |
Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead) | Lammy, David |
Fisher, Mark | Lawrence, Mrs Jackie |
Fitzpatrick, Jim | Laxton, Bob (Derby N) |
Lazarowicz, Mark | |
Flint, Caroline | Leslie Christopher |
Flynn, Paul (Newport W) | Levitt Tom (Hjgh Peak) |
Follett, Barbara | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
Foster, rh Derek | Love, Andrew |
Foster, Michael (Worcester) | Lucas, Ian (Wrexham) |
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye) | Lyons John (Strathkelvin) |
McAvoy, Thomas | |
Foulkes, rh George | McCabe, Stephen |
Francis, Dr. Hywel | McCafferty, Chris |
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S) | McDonagh, Siobhain |
Gardiner, Barry | MacDonald, Calum |
Gerrard, Neil | MacDougall, John |
Gibson, Dr. Ian | McFall John |
Gilroy, Linda | McIsaac, Shona |
Godsiff, Roger | McKechin, Ann |
Goggins, Paul | McKenna, Rosemary |
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | Mackinlay, Andrew |
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | McNamara, Kevin |
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | McNulty, Tony |
Hain, rh Peter | MacShane, Denis |
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | McWalter, Tony |
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | McWilliam, John |
Hamilton, David (Midlothian) | Mahmood, Khalid |
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | Mandelson, rh Peter |
Hanson, David | Mann, John (Bassetlaw) |
Healey, John | Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW) |
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
Hendrick, Mark | Martlew, Eric |
Hepburn, Stephen | Michael, rh Alun |
Heppell, John | Miliband, David |
Heyes, David | Miller, Andrew |
Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Moffatt, Laura |
Hinchliffe, David | Mole, Chris |
Hodge, Margaret | Morley, Elliot |
Hope, Phil (Corby) | Mountford, Kali |
Hopkins, Kelvin | Mudie, George |
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E) | Mullin, Chris |
Munn, Ms Meg | Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury) |
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | |
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) | Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) |
Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) | |
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Southworth, Helen |
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Spellar, rh John |
O'Hara, Edward | Steinberg, Gerry |
Olner, Bill | Stevenson, George |
Organ, Diana | Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber) |
Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) | |
Owen, Albert | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
Palmer, Dr. Nick | Stinchcombe, Paul |
Perham, Linda | Stoate, Dr. Howard |
Picking, Anne | Stringer, Graham |
Pickthall, Colin | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
Pike, Peter (Burnley) | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
Plaskitt, James | Taylor, Dari (Stockton S) |
Pollard, Kerry | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
Pond, Chris (Gravesham) | Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W) |
Pope, Greg (Hyndburn) | Timms, Stephen |
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Tipping, Paddy |
Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire) | |
Prescott, rh John | Touhig, Don (Islwyn) |
Primarolo, rh Dawn | Trickett, Jon |
Prosser, Gwyn | Truswell, Paul |
Purchase, Ken | Turner, Dr Desmond (Brighton Kemptown) |
Purnell, James | |
Quin, rh Joyce | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
Rammell, Bill | Vis, Dr. Rudi |
Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N) | Ward, Claire |
Raynsford, rh Nick | Wareing, Robert N. |
Reed, Andy (Loughborough) | Watts, David |
Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill) | White, Brain |
Wicks, Malcolm | |
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW) | Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W) |
Williams, Betty (Conwy) | |
Rooney, Terry | Wills, Michael |
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Winnick, David |
Roy, Frank (Motherwell) | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
Ruane, Chris | |
Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester) | Woolas, Phil |
Worthington, Tony | |
Sarwar, Mohammad | Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston) |
Savidge, Malcolm | |
Sawford, Phil | Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth) |
Sedgemore, Brian | Wright, David (Telford) |
Shaw, Jonathan | Wright, Tony (Cannock) |
Sheridan, Jim | Wyatt, Derek |
Short, rh Clare | |
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Tellers for the Noes:
|
Singh, Marsha | John Ryan and
|
Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E) | Vernon Coaker
|
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 16
Applicant For Premises Licence
I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 9, line 35, leave out paragraph (h).
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 91.
The Government have tabled amendment to the Bill exempting premises that, at the time the activity is carried out, are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the armed forces. That will have the effect of exempting serves messes and certain other armed forces facilities from the provisions of the Bill. We recognise the special status of messes and other service facilities. Messes are effectively the homes of many of the men and women serving in the forces. The exemption also takes into account the unique operational circumstances of the forces, especially the impracticalities associated with the highly mobile nature of service life. Activities in messes and the other armed forces facilities concerned are already subject to Queen's regulations and locally issued service instructions. The Government consequently take the view that they should be treated exceptionally.
Adjacent to my constituency is a naval base, where there is a theatre that is occasionally used by community groups as a venue for fundraising. Will the Minister explain whether use by community groups for fundraising purposes is also exempt under the amendments?
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I shall certainly look into the matter for him to see whether the theatre is technically part of the mess. Perhaps he would be kind enough to furnish me with some details, and I shall certainly ensure that the situation is checked out.
Although the Bill would have provided for certain premises to be exempt from licensing control on the authority of a Cabinet Minister on grounds of national security, in the current climate that would have placed a considerable burden on the armed forces in identifying and exempting a very large number of individual premises. I commend the amendment to the House.The Opposition concur with much of what the Minister has said, and acknowledge that the armed forces should have exceptional provisions. The Government amendments seem to achieve that. However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Amendment No. 91 speaks of temporary arrangements or premises. Does that cover the armed forces on manoeuvre and in encampment? Does it cover the Territorial Army, which does not occupy its premises frequently and for prolonged intervals? Will the Minister elaborate and confirm that the amendments cover all those eventualities?
I am certainly happy to confirm that the amendments would cover those situations and eventualities.
Will the Minister reflect on whether it is entirely appropriate that such premises should be exempt? Of course I accept that, if they are being used by the armed forces for purposes connected with the defence of the realm, it is understandable that they should be exempt. I am not sure how far down the line that should apply, however, such as in relation to the territorial forces or an Army cadet hut. I am glad to see the Minister shake his head on the latter point Territorial Army premises, including camps, sites for camps, shooting ranges and the like appear to be covered by the exemption. Will he confirm that that is the case?
I would appreciate some detailed information on the sort of sites that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I can confirm that we shall not be making exemptions for cadet huts, or, I would think, for some of the sites where there are recruiting centres for young people and so on. None the less, if he has got somewhere in mind, I shall certainly try to check out the situation, as I will the issue raised by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) concerning a theatre.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17
Application For Premises Licence
I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 10, line 38, after 'premises', insert '(existing or proposed)'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in clause 28, page 16, line 34, at end insert—
'() An application under this section may also be accompanied by an operating schedule as defined in section 18(4) in respect of the premises licence for which application is to be made in due course, save that in the case of premises where the relevant licensable activities are to include the supply of alcohol there shall be no requirement when making application for a provisional statement to supply information concerning the proposed designated premises supervisor.'.No. 43, in page 16, line 37, after second 'completed', insert
'prior to the coming into force of any new premises licence that may be granted'.
No. 44, in page 16, line 39, at end insert—
'or any modified schedule that may subsequently have been approved by the relevant licensing authority under this provision.'.
No. 45, in clause 30, page 18, line 3, at end insert—
'() A provisional statement issued under this section shall have effect for three years from the date of issue.
() (a) A person may at any time apply to the relevant licensing authority to modify the schedule of works or the provisional statement.
(b) The Secretary of State may make regulations concerning the making of applications under this subsection and the circumstances in which they shall be advertised.'.
No. 164, in clause 31, page 18, line 15, leave out from 'same' to end of line 21 and insert
'or a similar form as the licence described in the application for a provisional statement, and
representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purposes of section 18(6)(d) save for representations made under section 18(6)(c).
() Where—
representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purpose of section 18(6)(d) if subsection (4) applies.'.
No. 1, in clause 41, page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
No. 2, in page 24, line 7, leave out subsection (6).
No. 3, in page 24, line 11, leave out subsection (7).
No. 145, in page 32, line 18 [Clause 54], leave out 'Regulations' and insert 'The relevant licensing authority'.
No. 146, in page 32, line 22, leave out 'Regulations' and insert 'The relevant licensing authority'.
No. 147, in page 32, line 22, leave out 'the relevant licensing authority' and insert 'it'.
No. 148, in page 32, leave out line 24 and insert
'The relevant licensing authority shall prescribe—'.
No. 149, in page 32, line 28, at end insert—
'(5) Different amounts may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.'.
I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 38, 42 to 45, 164 and 1 to 3, which were tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban).
The amendments relate to the clauses dealing with provisional statements and provisional licences, as they may be called. 9.15 pm Amendment No. 38 relates to clause 17, which is well ahead of the main clauses on provisional statements. It is probably the key amendment. The Government responded at quite a late stage to the representations that were made to them about provisional statements, indicating that they believed that the assurances sought by the trade and the industry were covered by the Bill as drafted. However, I have received at least 20 letters and approaches from a range of people in the business, including architects, designers, those in the licensed trade itself and those in the construction industry who are heavily involved in the construction of licensed premises, all of whom feel, even at this late stage, that the Government have not clarified the issue to their satisfaction. Amendment No. 38 would clarify their understanding of whether their applications could be either for existing or proposed developments, because all the relevant clauses after clause 17, which refers to applications for premises licenses, would cover applications for proposed developments, not just existing premises. The other amendments relate to clauses 28, 30, 31 and 41. When this part of the Bill was debated in the other place, the Government spokesman, Lord McIntosh, made some rather encouraging comments, as a result of which the Opposition withdrew their amendments and did not press them to a Division. Lord McIntosh's assurances were clear cut. He said:He went on to say:"We need to examine the implications and talk to people involved in the industry and stakeholders before we reach a final decision but I am happy to take the matter away and consider it."
What has happened following those assurances? First, the Department appears to have undertaken no consultation of any kind with the industry. No one had any idea what the Government would propose in Committee. In fact, we never reached the relevant clauses and amendments because the guillotine came down and we lost a whole raft of amendments on a part of the Bill that is important to the people whom I described. This is our first opportunity to debate amendments to an important part of the Bill. The Minister courteously and kindly wrote to me after the fall of the guillotine in Committee. In his long letter he precluded any amendment, and at that point no consultation had been carried out. Representatives of the industry belatedly got to discuss those matters with officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They were asked to draft amendments, but given no guidance about what would be acceptable. How naïve could they be? The Minister and the Department were not likely to point the industry in the right direction. The Government should have tabled amendments. I hope that they will do that at some stage, because only they know what is acceptable to them. That was the position a week or so ago. There is no formal way in which to reintroduce such a crucial issue into the debate in another place. The Minister may know better than me, but since the matter was not debated at length and voted on and no amendments were accepted there, I do not think that it can easily be reconsidered on Thursday when the Bill reverts to the other place. The Government, in the person of Lord McIntosh, undertook a duty to set out their reasoning and explain why they believe that no amendment is necessary and that the balance has been properly, fairly and adequately struck between the needs of the industry and those of residents in the vicinity of the proposed development. Current legislation allows a company to obtain a provisional licence for a new development from the magistrates court. Provided that all the works are completed in accordance with the relevant plans and permissions, the premises may automatically open on the completion of the development. Clause 31(3) allows a so-called "relevant person", who is defined elsewhere in the Bill, to raise objections to the opening of licensed premises after construction, even if no objections were raised at the time of the operator's application for a provisional statement. It appears that objections can be made when an individual can show that he or she could not have raised an objection at the time of the original provisional statement or had a good reason for failing to do that. Objections can also be raised when a "material change" has occurred in the circumstances that relate either to the premises or"I cannot promise to return with the amendment at Third Reading, or that an amendment on the face of the Bill will be necessary. However, we are certainly sympathetic to the objective behind the amendments."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 2003; Vol. 645, c. 449.]
How on earth can an applicant, who will invest a lot of money, be sure that on completion of the premises there will not be a material change in the environment or the vicinity—for example, the construction of some new houses or a block of flats? How will the residents in the new houses view the application for the premises licence? If they table reasonable objections that are subsequently carried, the project could be placed in serious jeopardy. I have some examples that I would like to share with the House. Over the last five years, company No. 1—I do not wish to mention any names—has made approximately 20 applications for new licences. I shall not say precisely what kind of licences they were, but they certainly required a licence to sell alcohol associated with the mainstream activity involved. Those new licences resulted in an investment of more than £55 million. That figure does not include seven further projects that are currently in development, or the investment required for major redevelopment projects that do not require licensing applications. In terms of employment levels, each of the new premises will generate between 70 and 80 jobs. This is an example involving one particular company, in whose opinion a relocation would create a further 30 jobs. Company No. 2 has invested £70 million in new projects over the last three years, and intends to invest a further £30 million per annum over the next three years. This company employs about 400 external people annually—professionals, builders, architects, designers and so on—and directly creates 500 new jobs each year. I have been told by the industry that if we were to multiply those figures by about 50, that would account for all the companies in this particular business that are applying for licences and constructing licensed premises of one kind or another on an annual basis. Multiplying £30 million a year by 50 would give the huge total of £ 1.5 billion a year in the construction industry and associated professions and trades, just in this one area of creating new licensed premises."the area in the vicinity of those premises".
My experience is that once a licensee or developer has been granted a provisional licence, the time that elapses between then and the development taking place and the premises opening is quite short. Obviously, the people who have made the investment want to get the place open as soon as possible. If there were great changes in circumstances or in the way in which an establishment was operated, surely it would be right that local people should have a say in the matter. Even if the decision were overturned at a subsequent hearing, those involved would still have the right to appeal to a magistrate, to argue the case that the decision was unfair.
I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has not been anywhere near business, because what he has just said is nonsense. Nobody invests millions of pounds without certainty. The hon. Gentleman has just confirmed that there would be no certainty. He may well say that such premises go up quite quickly. I hope that they do, as that would negate some of the problems that the Bill, as it is currently written, seems likely to bring about. If, however, the construction period lasted for 18 months—a big project could take that long—there could well be changes in the environment in the vicinity during that time. According to the Bill, people moving into the area who had not objected initially—because they were not there and did not know about the project—will still have the right to raise objections under clause 31.
We are not just talking about cash here, or about companies with resources from their profits to reinvest. We are also talking about banks being involved in substantial lending. I would submit that no bank is going to take on a project without the certainty of knowing that once the application for a provisional licence has gone through the normal procedures and been granted, it is inviolate, as it is at the moment. The industry is saying that it wants not only assurances from the Government that it will be all right on the night, but that it needs words in the Bill that make it absolutely clear cut and certain that what it is doing will come right in the end. The last thing a business wants is to incur extremely expensive legal bills in fighting its way through the courts because some local authority has given it a hard time over clause 31. The way in which the clause is written would probably deliver such a problem in some circumstances.9.30 pm
My hon. Friend has raised the point about the period over which those provisional licences can be in place. The shopping centre that is being built in my constituency has retail and leisure facilities, and one of the anchor tenants of that mixed-use development is a pub. It has taken two or three years to get to this stage, when the first sod is being cut. Clearly, that anchor tenant would want much more certainty than the Bill appears to give. Would my hon. Friend's amendment tackle that issue?
Yes it would. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us that example, because that exactly illustrates what will happen if we do not amend the Bill.
Things are even worse than I have said, as it is not only changing circumstances that can give rise to a late objection. According to the explanatory notes, somebody who happens to live in the area, but who was in hospital at the time of the application, would have "reasonable excuse" under clause 31(3)(a). Obviously being in hospital would be a reasonable excuse, as the person could not be there at the time to make the objection. That opens a Pandora's box whereby people can leap up at one remove or at the last minute to object to such developments. The words "reasonable excuse" are still in the Bill, despite our attempts to get them removed and despite the attempts of the other place, although the relevant amendments were not pushed to a vote. The definition of "reasonable excuse" leaves a lot to be desired and, of course, it is an entirely new concept. There is nothing akin to it in the licensing laws.Or in planning.
From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman refers to planning. I do not want to go into planning in particular, but he is right. The two applications—one for the provisional statement or licence and one to the planners for the building itself—would go hand in hand.
There is an interesting confusion here, as the hon. Gentleman says. Two applications would go through to different parts of the council, but residents would have more rights in one area than in another.
I am not sure that that is strictly true.
Not if they were in hospital.
I am sorry but I did not quite catch the drift of the hon. Gentleman's thinking. Yes, if people were in hospital they could not object to either, but of course they would have no reasonable excuse for opposing a planning application. I am with him, and I beg his pardon for going off on slightly the wrong tack.
In addition, there does not appear to be a procedure that would allow any existing provisional licences obtained, say, during a transitional period, to be automatically converted to provisional statements. The proposals provide that the new licensing authority can have regard to an existing provisional licence, but it will not be automatically obliged to convert such a licence. That, too, will create significant risk and uncertainty for all those companies, as a development may be completed with the risk of losing the benefit of that original licence. Amendment No. 38 proposes a simple change in the wording of clause 17, which would probably sort out all the problems. Failing that, there are amendments Nos. 42 to 45 and 164. Under amendment No. 164, if the application for a provisional statement was accompanied by an operating schedule and the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application has been satisfactorily completed,What the trade is telling us, and what I am now telling the Minister, is that if the Minister cannot live with amendment No. 38, amendment No. 164 would be a way of saying to businesses that are investing millions that if they provide operating schedules, the subsequent provisions relating to objections and reasonable excuses should fall by the wayside. Those in the industry would know that if they went through the required hoops they would achieve what they wanted. If there is no operating schedule—if a company has not gone into enough detail to convince the licensing authority that it has a clear idea of how it will operate once the building is up and running—"representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purposes of section 18 (6)(d)".
—this is the key part—"representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purpose of section 18 (6)(d) if "
There are two separate approaches. One involves the operating schedule, and the provision of all the details of the club or pub's activities, opening hours and so forth, so that the local authority can go through all the necessary stages once the application has been received, as it would in the case of an application for an existing premises licence, and the company can be certain of its position fairly soon. Amendment No. 45 takes a different approach. It asks the Government, if they cannot live with some of the other amendments, to impose a time limit. It proposes that a"subsection (4) applies."
The amendment is really a back-stop. The other amendments are much stronger and we prefer them, but as we have got nothing from the Government so far we would be grateful if they accepted this one. In fact, I do not think that the Minister will give us anything tonight, for the simple reason that someone else will have to pick up the file later. No doubt he is under strict instructions to yield nothing. This issue is going to bounce back and forth. It is a key issue, and it is a tragedy that we did not have time to debate it in Committee. Assurances were given in the other place, by which the industry set great store. It is up to the Minister to answer my questions tonight, and to justify his case. The clauses relating to provisional statements will cause havoc—and I mean havoc—in the trade, according to those involved. If, as his officials are saying, clause 17 allows applications for proposed developments and there is no problem, why is there any need for clause 31(3), which allows latecomers the opportunity to object and could jeopardise extremely important investments? I leave the Minister with the thought that much money and many jobs are involved, and that the potential impact on tourism in many parts of the country is great. It would be tragic beyond words if, for the sake of a few words in the Bill, the industry were decimated."provisional statement issued under this section shall have effect for three years from the date of issue."
I shall be brief. The group of amendments includes one or two that add rather than reduce bureaucracy—I support only those that attempt to reduce it. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) was right to talk about the provisions adding to the uncertainty for business, but that does not apply only to business: many public sector projects could be held up or prevented because of the uncertainty and additional risk that may be incurred. Public sector projects tied into external grant funding, either from central Government or Europe, could be at particular risk if protests were made about specific proposals. As a consequence of being turned down, the Government money could not be used in another way and the opportunity for public sector investment could be lost. It is not an issue for private sector business alone.
I hope that the Government will consider the matter again. I am all in favour of the public having as much say as possible in respect of planning as well as in the provisions before us, but there is a danger of creating a position in which no one will take the risk to do anything for fear of being turned down. The balance is skewed against the development of public or private sector facilities. It is possible to have public input without adding additional risk.I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 147, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), who is not in his place at the moment.
I am curious about why the Government believe that it is necessary to make regulations to provide for something set out so clearly in the Bill. The amendments would remove from the Government the obligation to make such regulations. If the Minister says in his response that there are different ways of making regulations to make provision for what is set out in clause 54(1)(a) and (b), subsections (2) and (3)(a) and (b) and that Ministers need more time to work out the best way of effecting those provisions, I will be interested to hear it. For my part, I believe that the clause is immensely clear, simple and brooks no variance of interpretation from what most of us would conclude from reading the words in the Bill. The amendments simply provide that, instead of regulations requiring applications to be accompanied by a fee and prescribing the level of fee, the local authority may require those applications and prescribe the amount of the fee. Instead of regulations requiring the holder of a premises licence to pay the relevant licensing authority an annual fee, the licensing authority itself may require the holder of a premises licence to pay the annual fee. The other issue in the amendment is the size of the fee, which may vary hugely from place to place. Local authorities are concerned that the fee set may be inadequate to meet their reasonable costs in licensing and enforcing the regulations made under the Bill. The Government have said that they wish to prescribe a scale of fees, and it is likely—perhaps the Minister will clarify the point in reply—that that scale of fees will make it difficult to distinguish between different authorities and the costs associated with the work that they are doing. A licensing authority that spends a great deal of money advising applicants in advance of the licences about conditions that may be acceptable, and assists them in drawing up the statements that must accompany licences, will find it easier to deal with licence applications once they are lodged. However, a local authority that does not do that will find licence applications more difficult to deal with. Similarly, a local authority that does not spend much on enforcement will be able to make a profit from the fees prescribed by the Government, but it may not be providing a very effective service. However, a local authority that spends much time and energy on enforcement will find it necessary to charge a higher fee. I hope that the Minister will provide some clarification about the level and detail of the fees, and the extent to which they may vary from place to place. My second point was addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), and I wish to reinforce it. The comparison has been drawn—and it is fair—between the rights of someone who opposes a licensing application following a provisional statement and someone who is in hospital at the time that a planning application is made. There is no provision in planning law for someone to revisit an application after construction of a premises and say, "Hang on, I was in hospital at the time of the application and I would not have agreed to the premises being provided for the purposes of a pub. Instead, I would like you to arrange them to be used for the purposes of a nursing home." That is not allowed in planning law, so why should it be allowed in licensing law? Why should someone who has been in hospital be able to say, "Well, you may have invested £1 million or £2 million in building a night club, or a pub or a cinema, but I do not feel that it is appropriate for the premises to be used for those purposes, despite the fact that you made it clear all along that that was your intention."?9.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman's example is rather frivolous and stupid, like many of the other examples that he gave in Committee and earlier tonight. If a provisional licence is granted by the licensing authority, the reasons for changing it would have to be fundamental, not the simple absence of the person from the first hearing. If the licensing authority overturned a provisional licence for frivolous reasons, the applicant would be able to take the issue to the magistrates, who would reverse the decision.
I accept that, but I am trying to understand exactly why it is necessary to have a two-stage procedure at all, without the clarity and guarantees that someone would need before undertaking an important investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested, people would not be willing to undertake such investments without reasonable certainty that the investment would be viable.
One of the Bill's purposes is to encourage investment in the entertainment industry.Is it not the case that the only occasion on which a licensing authority might revoke a provisional licence is when there are major changes in, for example, a development? Surely we should welcome that requirement. If a developer changes a proposal, local people should have a say.
Of course that is justified if there is a major change in what the hon. Gentleman and I have fallen into the trap of calling a provisional licence. The problem, uncertainty and fear for most developers is that the provisional statement will not be followed up by confirmation of a licence in broadly the same terms.
The hon. Gentleman should tell us what the difference is between that and the present situation. For example, if magistrates give a provisional licence and there are major changes, people can object when it returns for a full hearing at the magistrates court.
As I hoped I had pointed out in answering the previous intervention, where there are major changes, there should be a second bite at the cherry. Essentially, a new or different licence would be being asked for. People who undertake major changes in the course of construction do so at their own risk, as do people who depart from planning permissions in the course of construction. They have to ask either for an amended planning permission or a new one. I accept all that.
The difficulty will arise when people construct premises broadly in line with the provisional statement only to find that there is a danger that the full licence will not be granted.If a developer obtains a provisional statement for his licence and does exactly what he said he would do, the chances of any licensing authority overturning him would be very remote. If an authority did, the case would be thrown out when it went to a magistrates court.
The simple answer is that I do not know whether the chances of the statement being overturned are remote, and I certainly do not know whether such a decision would be overturned in a magistrates court. It has been known for control of a local authority to change in the course of construction of a major investment project. The representatives of the ward in which the project is being constructed may change. There is every possibility of a change being made between the provisional statement and the granting of the full licence. As to whether that is just, and as to whether the magistrates would throw a case out, I have no way of telling. What I do know is that anyone who intends to invest a large sum of money in a major project wants some certainty of achieving what the investment is intended to achieve. That certainty is not clear in the procedure set out in the Bill.
If the Minister intends to say, as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has implied, that a local authority would be unable to issue a licence in the terms of the provisional statement and that the magistrates would, or would be likely to, throw out a decision by a local authority not to issue such a licence in the terms of the original statement, I shall be likely to accept what he saysIf an imaginary person has been in hospital and is the only person who comes forward to object to the provisional statement, and if the developer has done exactly what he or she said they would do, the idea of a licensing authority overturning the developer will be remote. If the case then went to a magistrates court, it would surely be very unlikely that there would be grounds for overturning the statement. Is that not the case at present with magistrates' provisional licences?
I cannot say what the position is now, or that it is as the hon. Gentleman has asserted, although I have no reason to argue with him.
However, the rest of the hon. Gentleman's intervention was exactly the same as his previous intervention, so my answer is exactly the same. If, when the Minister replies to the debate, he tells us that there is no prospect of a local authority being able to refuse to issue a licence in the terms of the provisional statement and that, if it did so, the court would be extremely likely to throw out the decision, it will make me much happier than hearing it from the hon. Member for North Durham, expert though he must be by virtue of his former position in Newcastle.This is a large group of amendments dealing with various aspects of premises licences, provisional statements and fees. I shall do my best to cover that extensive ground.
On provisional statements, the amendments address two matters, which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) articulated well: the anxiety that an application for a premises licence could not be made in advance of a building being constructed, or of its imminent construction; and the desire to give developers greater confidence that their investment in any new development will be secure, by restricting the opportunity to make representations on an application for a premises licence. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made a lot of sweeping statements about the fact that we had not listened to industry. In fact, the Department has held extensive consultations with the British Beer and Pub Association at official level. I, too, have met BBPA representatives to discuss their proposals since we gave undertakings to hold further consultations—although I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is listening. On amendment No. 38, nothing in the Bill prevents an application for a premises licence from being made in advance of a building being constructed or extended. The amendment would add the words "existing or proposed" to the description of the premises for which a plan must be provided with an application for a premises licence. The fact that under clause 17 a plan of the premises must accompany the application for a premises licence does not mean that the premises—a building—must currently exist. If the plan describes proposed premises, an application may be considered and, when granted, the premises licence could be given a future start date. It is not, therefore, necessary to state "existing or proposed" in the Bill. Clause 28 provides that where premises are being, or are about to be, constructed, extended or altered for use for licensable activities, a person interested in the premises may apply to the licensing authority for a provisional statement. Where that person is an individual he or she must be 18 or over. A provisional statement is a statement issued under clause 30 and provides those engaged in, or about to be engaged in, construction or development work at premises to be used for licensable activities with a certain degree of assurance about their potential trading conditions. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, that is where we enter difficult territory, because we are talking about balance. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) also recognised that fact. The matter is important because, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire told us, millions of pounds are involved. The hon. Member for Torbay rightly drew our attention to the fact that such money could come from public funds as well as from private investment. Developers or property owners who wanted to construct, alter or extend premises might be reluctant to invest their money if they had no degree of assurance that the premises could be used to carry out the intended business. An application for a provisional statement must be accompanied by a schedule of works, which must include a statement of the particulars of the premises and the licensable activities for which the premises are to be used. It must also include plans of the work being carried out and such other information as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, in respect of clause 28, and amendment no. 45, in respect of clause 30, are at the heart of the revised procedures proposed by the businesses engaged in such developments. Before I explore the detail, I shall make some general points. If a developer knows precisely what licensable activities the development will be used for, what hours it will be open and who will operate it, it may be entirely possible for him to seek a premises licence. He would merely indicate that he did not want the licence to come into effect until a later date. Nothing in the Bill will prevent that, so provisional statements are relevant when there is a lack of certainty about precisely what the new premises will be used for ultimately and, for example, the hours during which activities will take place on the premises. 10 pm We want businesses to have as much certainty as possible, so that their investments are as secure as possible, as early as possible, but the procedures must include a proper balance between the needs of the property developer and the needs and rights of the local community. Local residents have a right to have their voices heard and to have decisions made in the overall public interest. So in examining this group of amendments, it is important that the House consider that balance at all times. Let us remember that the justices have to declare a provisional licence final when the work has been completed, but they can, for example, examine the case afresh to decide whether the licence holder is a fit and proper person to hold a full justices' licence. So there is no absolute certainty under current licensing laws, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) have said. Even where a representation was made by those with a reasonable excuse—perhaps they are new to an area or they have been in hospital—that would not necessarily lead to the premises licence application being rejected, as my hon. Friend reminded us. A hearing would have to be held and representations taken into account in the context of the licensing objectives. Under amendment No. 42, an applicant could submit an operating schedule, as defined in clause 17(4), with an application for a provisional statement, save that, if the supply of alcohol were involved, he would not have to specify a designated premises supervisor. I have two points to make about that. First, amendment No. 42 is erroneously drafted and refers to clause 18, not clause 17, which would be correct. It is flawed on that basis alone. Secondly, if a developer were capable of preparing an operating schedule that far in advance, he could seek a premises licence, as I have already explained. I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will accept that important explanation as a comfort. The developer could specify any personal licence holder as the proposed designated premises supervisor and, where necessary, seek a variation of that name if the proposal changed by the time the building was constructed. So amendment No. 42 is both flawed and unnecessary. Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would change the meaning of the phrasein clause 28, which covers"references to work being satisfactorily completed"
for a provisional statement. Under those amendments, that would be limited to"work at the premises being completed in a manner which substantially complies with the schedule of works accompanying the application"
Those amendments, which have to be read with amendment No. 45, also appear to be flawed. Under amendment No. 45, the provision that would permit the schedule of works or the provisional statement to be modified contains no detail about what processes and procedures would apply. The Secretary of State would be free to impose any arrangement, by regulation, that she thought fit. I would not suggest that the industry drafted amendment No. 45. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire drafted and moved it, but he said quite clearly that he seeks to represent an industry that is worried about this part of the Bill. I cannot understand why an industry that purports to seek greater certainty wants to allow the Secretary of State carte blanche to include anything. It is abundantly clear that a modification of a provisional statement or schedule of works will go to the heart of procedures. It might, in effect, be a new application, and that could be an attempt to avoid representations that might come from local residents about such modifications. Whatever the intention behind the proposal, however, the truth is that it is far too open ended to include in the Bill, particularly at this late stage. Amendment No. 45 would also limit the validity of a provisional statement to three years. Once expired, a new provisional statement would be required, with the full procedures in play again every three years. That will bring the timing into line with proposals in respect of planning permission. The amendment, however, cannot be considered in isolation. The industry has offered this limitation as part of a package that includes limitations on representations that can be made by local residents or responsible authorities, including the police, at the end of the process, when a premises licence is being sought. We have no strong objection to the three-year limitation per se, although, in isolation, we cannot see the rationale behind seeking to time-limit its validity. We object, however, to the whole package that is being proposed. The Opposition seem to have what I consider to be a schizophrenic approach to a key issue such as cumulative effect. I have no doubt that in few moments we will hear the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) talk about cumulative effect. What would be the effect if, at the end of a long period during which a building has not been completed and has not become operational, serious changes had taken place in a vicinity? The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave some vivid examples that have stayed in my mind ever since: he pointed out that in a two or three-year period a street or an area of a city can change quickly and remarkably. For example, a large increase in vertical drinking establishments, as we came to call them in Committee, could take place. The responsible authorities, including the police or a department of the local authority, might say, "Hang on, we want to talk about this." It might pose a serious problem to law and order in the area, or to other businesses that discover that their clientele do not want to come into a city centre. As happens in Manchester on a Friday or Saturday night, there may be 150,000 mainly young people having a good time but perhaps creating an atmosphere that some people find threatening. We heard in Committee that restaurateurs, for example, are very worried about those cumulative effects and are considering moving away from city centres. The Opposition cannot have it both ways: if they are to argue that case, they must also admit that things can and do change regularly. We want to give developers as much certainty as we can, but to understand the package we need to look at amendment No. 164, which was the last blast of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who, in effect, said, "If you can't accept anything else, accept this." Well, I cannot accept amendment No. 164 either, and I shall explain why. It replaces a large part of clause 31, under which representations about applications for premises licences when a provisional statement has been issued are excluded if the application for the provisional statement and the work described in the schedule of works has been satisfactorily completed. For representations to be excluded, the relevant person must have been able to make the same or substantially the same representations when the provisional statement was applied for and must have failed to do so without reasonable excuse. There must also have been no material change in the circumstances relating to the premises or the vicinity of the premises since the statement was issued Amendment No. 164 would limit representations that can be made when a premises licence is sought in respect of premises for which a provisional statement has been made. It assumes that several other amendments in this group have been accepted. It would exclude representations other than those in respect of the premises supervisor if applications were made in similar or the same terms as the original application for the statement, if that statement was accompanied by an operating schedule and the work described in the schedule of works, or any modification of that schedule, had been or would be satisfactorily completed. Furthermore, if applications were made in similar or the same terms as the original application for the statement and that statement was not accompanied by an operating schedule but the work described in the schedule of works or any modification of that schedule had been or would be satisfactorily completed, all representations would be excluded if subsection (4) applied, meaning that the person would have failed to make representations without reasonable excuse and there would have been no material changes in circumstances relating to the premises or the vicinity of the premises. The amendments are built on the flawed assumption that a premises licence could not be obtained in advance of premises being constructed. The drafting of amendment No. 42 is technically flawed and the other amendments, which are the heart of the proposals, are built on that error. None of them can therefore be accepted. I understand fully why the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire tabled the amendments. I was as sorry as him that we did not have the opportunity to debate similar amendments in Committee. I remember going through amendments in Committee faster than I ever had before in an attempt to reach such amendments. I hope that my explanation demonstrates that even if the errors were corrected, the changes would not be necessary to give developers more confidence. They would upset the careful balance that the Bill will establish between the needs of developers and the rights of local residents, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. We have spent a lot of time on these amendments, but I do not want to leave the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) without an answer. As he knows and as I tried to explain in Committee, we have been careful to ensure that local authorities will be as responsible as possible. The vast majority of local authorities will understand that the streamlined new procedure will allow them to cut many existing costs. We do not want to allow a rogue local authority—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman used that term—to do such a thing as imposing prohibitive licensing fees that would stymie both development and live music and other forms of cultural expression in licensed premises. Fees will be set centrally for that reason and that reason alone, but we shall examine carefully such issues as turnover and geography to ensure that they are set fairly. We shall watch that situation carefully."work being completed prior to the coming into force of any new premises licence that may be granted in a manner which substantially complies with the schedule of works accompanying the application or any modified schedule that may subsequently have been approved by the relevant licensing authority under this provision".
Can my hon. Friend tell me the extent of the range that the Government might have in mind? There is real worry that if we are not careful, extended-hours costs—policing and cleaning—will be borne by the taxpayer rather than those who use and benefit from the extended hours.
I make it clear to my hon. Friend that none of those costs will form part of the fees that we will charge. People have the right to have a good time in pubs whether they drink at 2 am or 10 pm. One would think that the Bill had nothing to do with extending licensing hours and freeing up the way in which we enjoy ourselves and participate in licensable activities, because we have not got round to discussing that at all. The Bill is deregulatory and liberating. We shall have to address costs that might arise as part of a consideration of local government funding in general. I shall not lumber the licensed industry with those costs.
rose—
I love the way the Liberals always come up with something right at the end. I give way to the hon. Gentleman because he was here earlier.
I am somewhat confused about the line that the Minister is taking. It seems that it is okay for licensees to be exempt from meeting the costs, but that local authorities, which are already hard pressed for cash, will have to pick up those extra costs. That is the very point that the hon. Member for Bristol. West (Valerie Davey) made.
10.15 pm
Yes, and it is the very thing that we do not deal with in the Bill. I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with the legislation. He has had plenty of time to study it and to listen to and participate in the debates, although I am not aware that he has taken part up until now. We are dealing with licensable activities. We are not dealing with a more general issue of local government funding or the possible direct consequences for local government funding of activities that might occur away from licensed premises. I would be willing to have that debate another time. That is also my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey).
We are dealing with something that is specific to an industry and it concerns licensable activities. There are many reasons for litter on the street and loutish behaviour. Some of them are to do with what goes on inside pubs, but many of them are not. The Bill tries to make a significant change by blowing away the clouds of criminality that have surrounded the issue of alcohol licensing in this country for far too long.The Minister made a reasonable fist of throwing out our amendments. I admit that there was a drafting error. However, we used legal counsel to table some of them, so we have not had incompetents assisting us.
One concern remains in my mind: why are the Government changing the current rules and regulations relating to provisional licences? What has prompted them to go down that road? It is a change. The Minister says that it is not, but the Bill enables people with reasonable excuses to make late-stage objections. Has the Minister or his Department received a raft of objections as a result of the provisional licences? There is no evidence of that. Those in the industry think that the present system works extremely well and they see no reason to change it. The Minister went on at length about a degree of balance. We would support that, but how can there be a balance when individuals can jeopardise at a late stage millions of pounds of investment that has already been committed? He said that justices can examine cases afresh, but that can happen only when the conditions set down at the outset have not been fulfilled. That would provide real grounds on which to revisit licences, but there is no near certainty about any such matters. The Minister also talked about having another look at the fit-and-proper-person definition. That may be relevant when someone is nominated for a premises licence, but that can be altered and does not necessarily jeopardise the whole investment. We would be happy to give ground on some amendments, but we want to press amendment No. 38 to a Division. The industry believes that the current wording does not give it the assurance that it seeks on applications. The Minister has not convinced us on that.Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 297.
Division No. 235]
| [10:19 pm
|
AYES
| |
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | George, Andrew (St. Ives) |
Allan, Richard | Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis) |
Amess, David | Gidley, Sandra |
Ancram, rh Michael | Gillan, Mrs Cheryl |
Arbuthnot, rh James | Goodman, Paul |
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Gray, James (N Wilts) |
Bacon, Richard | Grayling, Chris |
Barker, Gregory | Gummer, rh John |
Baron, John (Billericay) | Hammond, Philip |
Barrett, John | Hancock, Mike |
Bellingham, Henry | Harvey, Nick |
Bercow, John | Hawkins, Nick |
Blunt, Crispin | Hayes, John (S Holland) |
Boswell, Tim | Heald, Oliver |
Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey) | Heath, David |
Heathcoat-Amory, rh David | |
Brady, Graham | Hendry, Charles |
Brake, Tom (Carshalton) | Hogg, rh Douglas |
Brazier, Julian | Holmes, Paul |
Breed, Colin | Horam, John (Orpington) |
Brooke, Mrs Annette L. | Howard, rh Michael |
Browning, Mrs Angela | Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) |
Bruce, Malcolm | Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) |
Burnett, John | Hunter, Andrew |
Burns, Simon | Jack, rh Michael |
Burt, Alistair | Jackson, Robert (Wantage) |
Butterfill, John | Johnson, Boris (Henley) |
Calton, Mrs Patsy | Key, Robert (Salisbury) |
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) | Kirkbride, Miss Julie |
Laing, Mrs Eleanor | |
Chidgey, David | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
Chope, Christopher | Lamb, Norman |
Collins, Tim | Laws, David (Yeovil) |
Cotter, Brian | Leigh, Edward |
Cran, James (Beverley) | Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E) |
Curry, rh David | Liddell-Grainger, Ian |
Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Loughton, Tim |
Djanogly, Jonathan | Luff, Peter (M-Worcs) |
Dodds, Nigel | McIntosh, Miss Anne |
Doughty, Sue | Maclean, rh David |
Duncan, Alan (Rutland) | McLoughlin, Patrick |
Duncan Smith, rh Iain | Malins, Humfrey |
Evans, Nigel | Maples, John |
Fabricant, Michael | Maude, rh Francis |
Fallon, Michael | Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian |
Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster) | May, Mrs Theresa |
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield) | |
Flook, Adrian | |
Forth, rh Eric | Moss, Malcolm |
Fox, Dr. Liam | Murrison, Dr. Andrew |
Norman, Archie | Steen, Anthony |
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) | Streeter, Gary |
Öpik, Lembit | Stunell, Andrew |
Osborne, George (Tatton) | Swire, Hugo (E Devon) |
Ottaway, Richard | Syms, Robert |
Page, Richard | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
Paice, James | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
Paterson, Owen | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
Pickles, Eric | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
Prisk, Mark (Hertford) | Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight) |
Pugh, Dr. John | Tyler Paul (N Cornwall) |
Randall, John | Tyrie, Andrew |
Redwood, rh John | Viggers, Peter |
Rendel, David | Walter, Robert |
Robathan, Andrew | Waterson, Nigel |
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) | Watkinson, Angela |
Rosindell, Andrew | Whittingdale, John |
Ruffley, David | Wiggin, Bill |
Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Willets David |
Sanders, Adrian | Williams Roger (Brecon) |
Sayeed, Jonathan | Willis, Phil |
Selous, Andrew | Wilshire, David |
Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian | Winterton, Ann (Congleton) |
Shepherd, Richard | Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield) |
Simmonds, Mark | Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk) |
Soames, Nicholas | Young, rh Sir George |
Spelman, Mrs Caroline | |
Spicer, Sir Michael | Tellers for the Ayes:
|
Spring, Richard | Mr. Mark Hoban and
|
Stanley, rh Sir John | Mr. Mark Francois
|
NOES
| |
Adams, Irene (Paisley N) | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE) | Caplin, Ivor |
Alexander, Douglas | Caton, Martin |
Allen, Graham | Cawsey, Ian (Brigg) |
Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E) | Challen, Colin |
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen) | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
Chaytor, David | |
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary | Clapham, Michael |
Atherton, Ms Candy | Clark, Paul (Gillingham) |
Atkins, Charlotte | Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston) |
Austin, John | |
Banks, Tony | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
Barron, rh Kevin | Clelland, David |
Battle, John | Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V) |
Bayley, Hugh | Coaker, Vernon |
Beard, Nigel | Coffey, Ms Ann |
Beckett, rh Margaret | Cohen, Harry |
Bell, Stuart | Coleman, Iain |
Benn, Hilary | Connarty, Michael |
Bennett, Andrew | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
Berry, Roger | Cook, rh Robin (Livingston) |
Best, Harold | Corbyn, Jeremy |
Betts, Clive | Corston, Jean |
Blackman, Liz | Cousins, Jim |
Blears, Ms Hazel | Cranston, Ross |
Blizzard, Bob | Crausby, David |
Borrow, David | Cruddas, Jon |
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
Bradshaw, Ben | Cummings, John |
Brennan, Kevin | Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland) |
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend) | |
Cunningham, Tony (Workington) | |
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
Browne, Desmond | David, Wayne |
Bryant, Chris | Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli) |
Buck, Ms Karen | Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) |
Burden, Richard | Dawson, Hilton |
Burnham, Andy | Dean, Mrs Janet |
Byers, rh Stephen | Denham, rh John |
Caborn, rh Richard | Dhanda, Parmjit |
Cairns, David | Dismore, Andrew |
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Dobbin, Jim (Heywood) |
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Dobson, rh Frank |
Donohoe, Brian H. | Kemp, Fraser |
Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W) | Khabra, Piara S. |
Drew, David (Stroud) | Kidney, David |
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Kilfoyle, Peter |
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow) |
Edwards, Huw | |
Efford, Clive | Knight, Jim (S Dorset) |
Ellman, Mrs Louise | Kumar, Dr. Ashok |
Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E) | Ladyman, Dr. Stephen |
Farrelly, Paul | Lammy, David |
Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead) | Lawrence, Mrs Jackie |
Fisher, Mark | Laxton, Bob (Derby N) |
Fitzpatrick, Jim | Lazarowicz, Mark |
Flynn, Paul (Newport W) | Leslie, Christopher |
Follett, Barbara | Levitt, Tom (High Peak) |
Foster, rh Derek | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
Foster, Michael (Worcester) | Llwyd, Elfyn |
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye) | Love, Andrew |
Lucas, Ian (Wrexham) | |
Foulkes, rh George | Lyons, John (Strathkelvin) |
Francis, Dr. Hywel | McAvoy, Thomas |
Gapes, Mike (IlfordS) | McCafferty, Chris |
Gardiner, Barry | McDonagh, Siobhain |
Gerrard, Neil | MacDonald, Calum |
Gibson, Dr. Ian | McDonnell, John |
Gilroy, Linda | MacDougall, John |
Godsiff, Roger | McFall, John |
Goggins, Paul | McIsaac, Shona |
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | McKechin, Ann |
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | McKenna, Rosemary |
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Mackinlay, Andrew |
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | McNamara, Kevin |
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | McNulty, Tony |
Hamilton, David (Midlothian) | MacShane, Denis |
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | Mactaggart, Fiona |
Hanson, David | McWalter, Tony |
Harman, rh Ms Harriet | McWilliam, John |
Healey, John | Mandelson, rh Peter |
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Mann, John (Bassetlaw) |
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW) |
Hendrick, Mark | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
Hepburn, Stephen | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
Heppell, John | Martlew, Eric |
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia | Merron, Gillian |
Heyes, David | Michael, rh Alun |
Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Miliband, David |
Hinchliffe, David | Miller, Andrew |
Hodge, Margaret | Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) |
Hope, Phil (Corby) | Moffatt, Laura |
Hopkins, Kelvin | Mole, Chris |
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E) | Morley, Elliot |
Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E) | Mountford, Kali |
Mudie, George | |
Howells, Dr. Kim | Mullin, Chris |
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston) | Munn, Ms Meg |
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | |
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) |
Humble, Mrs Joan | Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) |
Hurst, Alan (Braintree) | O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) |
Iddon, Dr. Brian | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
Illsley, Eric | O'Hara, Edward |
Irranca-Davies, Huw | Olner, Bill |
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate) | Organ, Diana |
Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) | |
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | Owen, Albert |
Jamieson, David | Palmer, Dr. Nick |
Jenkins, Brian | Perham, Linda |
Johnson, Alan (Hull W) | Picking, Anne |
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Pickthall, Colin |
Jones, Kevan (N Durham) | Pike, Peter (Burnley) |
Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak) | Plaskitt, James |
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) | Pollard, Kerry |
Jowell, rh Tessa | Pond, Chris (Gravesham) |
Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W) | Pope, Greg (Hyndburn) |
Keen, Alan (Feltham) | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
Keen, Ann (Brentford) |
Prescott, rh John | Stewart, lan (Eccles) |
Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr) | Stinchcombe, Paul |
Stoate, Dr. Howard | |
Primarolo, rh Dawn | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
Prosser, Gwyn | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
Purchase, Ken | Taylor, Dari (Stockton S) |
Purnell, James | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
Quin, rh Joyce | Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W) |
Quinn, Lawrie | Tipping, Paddy |
Rammell, Bill | Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire) |
Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N) | Touhig, Don (Islwyn) |
Reed, Andy (Loughborough) | Trickett, Jon |
Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill) | Truswell, Paul |
Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown) | |
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW) | |
Turner, Neil (Wigan) | |
Rooney, Terry | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
Roy, Frank (Motherwell) | Vis, Dr. Rudi |
Ruane, Chris | Ward, Claire |
Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester) | Wareing, Robert N. |
Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E) | |
Sarwar, Mohammad | Watts, David |
Savidge, Malcolm | White, Brian |
Sawford, Phil | Wicks, Malcolm |
Sedgemore, Brian | Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W) |
Shaw, Jonathan | Williams, Betty (Conwy) |
Sheridan, Jim | Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon) |
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
Singh, Marsha | |
Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E) | Woolas, Phil |
Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury) | Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston) |
Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) | Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth) |
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) | Wright, David (Telford) |
Southworth, Helen | Wright, Tony (Cannock) |
Spellar, rh John | Wyatt, Derek |
Steinberg, Gerry | |
Stevenson, George | Tellers for the Noes:
|
Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber) | Mr. Nick Ainger and
|
Joan Ryan
|
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 18
Determination Of Application For Premises Licence
I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 11, line 40, after '19' insert
', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments Nos. 67, 68, 71 to 75, 90, 100, 101, 103 and 104. Government new clause 2—Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films. Government new clause 3—Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films.The amendments introduce a mandatory condition to be included in all premises licences and club premises certificates authorising the exhibition of films, for the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with the recommendations given to films either by the body designated under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984—the British Board of Film Classification is the only body that has been so designated—or by the licensing authority itself.
Allowing the licensing authority to recommend restrictions on the admittance of children to film screenings would preserve the current, rarely exercised power of local authorities to classify films themselves, including on an individual film basis, which will allow ultimate discretion and ensure that the many excellent film festivals held in this country can continue without each film having to be classified by the film classification body. We tabled the amendments in response to discussions with the BBFC, which was concerned that the Bill, and in particular the licensing objective ofmight not allow it to do all it wished in relation to the classification of films. I have been able to give it an assurance that we intend the objective to have the widest possible meaning and to cover moral, psychological and physical harm. However, in response to the board's wishes, I have agreed to reinforce with the amendments the provisions relating to the access of children to films. It is important to bear it in mind that the effect of the amendments is not to place the film classification body's recommendations on a statutory footing, but simply to recognise in the Bill the body's expertise, while making it clear that the licensing authorities will continue to be able to impose their own classifications. That preserves the effect of the current position under the Cinemas Act 1985. We will support the amendments with additional references in the statutory guidance to the body's activities. I am pleased to commend the amendments as a response to the BBFC's concerns and I hope that the House will support them."the protection of children from harm",
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 67, in page 12, line 6, after '19' insert
', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 34
Determination Of Application Under Section 33
Amendment made: No. 68, in page 20, line 15, after '19' insert
', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 36
Application To Vary Licence To Specify Individual As Premises Supervisor
I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 21, line 11, leave out from 'licence' to end and insert 'may—
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 70, 88, 89, 120, 121, 98, 122 to 131, 99 and 102.
This is a group of minor technical amendments. Government amendments Nos. 69 and 70 are minor amendments perfecting the drafting of the Bill in relation to applications to vary the individual specified in a premises licence as the designated premises supervisor. It is only for premises licences authorising the supply of alcohol that a designated premises supervisor is required, because of the particular issues that arise from the supply and consumption of alcohol and the responsibilities that go with that.
The centrality to the system of the concept of the designated premises supervisor has been discussed at great length in Committee and in another place, together with a number of modifications that the Government have made to the Bill in response to various representations by the industry and by other bodies. Clause 36 provides that the holder of a premises licence may apply to vary the licence to specify a new premises supervisor.On behalf of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and myself—we are, respectively, chairmen of the Historic Chapels Trust and the Churches Conservation Trust—I thank the Government for giving us the undertaking in correspondence that our organisations will be exempt, provided that we fulfil the religious qualification under the Bill. May I also use this opportunity to thank, through the Minister, his staff for the care that they have taken in negotiating those concessions?
I take great pleasure in saying that I will convey my thanks to the staff, who worked very hard on that. My right hon. Friend has done the House a great service in persuading us that we should look again at the issue of historic churches. He will guarantee that many of them remain as great cultural and historical assets for this country.
Government amendments Nos. 88 and 89 are technical amendments to improve the drafting of clauses 148 to 150 to achieve consistency with similar provisions in the Bill.Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37
Circumstances In Which Section 36 Application Given Interim Effect
Amendment made: No. 70, in page 21, line 37, at end insert
'in respect of a premises licence which authorises the supply of alcohol'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 51
Determination Of Application For Review
Amendment made: No. 71, in page 31, line 14, after '19' insert
[mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 71
Determination Of Application For Club Premises Certificate
Amendments made: No. 72, in page 41, line 44, leave out 'section 72(2) to (5)' and insert
'any conditions which must under section 72(2) to (5) or [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] be included in the certificate'.
No. 73, in page 42, line 12, leave out 'section 72(2) to (5)' and insert
'any conditions which must under section 72(2) to (5) or [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] be included in the certificate'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 83
Determination Of Application Under Section 82
Amendment made: No. 74, in page 47, line 29, leave out from first 'to' to end of line 31 and insert
'sections 72 and [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] (mandatory conditions relating to supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises and to exhibitions of films)'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 86
Determination Of Application For Review
Amendment made: No. 75, in page 50, line 1, leave out from first 'to' to end of line 3 and insert
'sections 72 and [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] (mandatory conditions relating to supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises and to exhibitions of films)'.— [Dr. Howells.]
It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER, put the Questions necessary to dispose of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
Clause 98
Temporary Event Notice
Amendments made: No. 76, in page 55, line 18, leave out '72' and insert '96'.
No. 77, in page 55, line 32, leave out '72' and insert '96'.
No. 78, in page 56, line 8, at end insert—
'(7A) The Secretary of State may, by order—
Clause 105
Counter Notice Where Permitted Limits Exceeded
Amendments made: No. 80, in page 59, line 23, leave out 'or (4)' and insert', (4) or (4A)'.
No. 81, in page 59, line 35, leave out 'five' and insert '12'.
No. 82, in page 59, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert—
'(a) are in respect of the same premises as notice A, and'.
No. 83, in page 59, line 40, at end insert—
'(4A) This subsection applies if, in any year in which the event period specified in notice A (or any part of it) falls, more than 15 days are days on which one or more of the following fall—
No. 84, in page 60, line 3, leave out 'or (4)' and insert', (4) or (4A)'.
No. 85, in page 60, line 20, at end insert—
'(10A) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend subsection (2)(b), (3)(b), (4) or (4A) so as to substitute any number for the number for the time being specified there.'.
No. 86, in page 60, line 21, at end insert—
'() a temporary event notice is in respect of the same premises as notice A if it is in respect of the whole or any part of the relevant premises or premises which include the whole or any part of those premises;'.
No. 87, in page 60, line 22, after 'year;' insert—
'() "day" means a period of 24 hours beginning at midnight;'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Schedule 4
Personal Licence: Relevant Offences
Amendments made: No. 94, in page 117, line 16, at end insert—
' An offence under section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c.29) (false trade description of goods) in circumstances where the goods in question are or include alcohol.'.
No. 95, in page 118, line 21, at end insert—
'() section 107(3) (infringement of copyright by public performance of work etc.);'.
No. 96, in page 118, line 33, at end insert—
'An offence under either of the following provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 (c.16) in circumstances where the food in question is or includes alcohol—
No. 97, in page 118, line 33, at end insert—
' An offence under section 92(1) or (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (c.26) (unauthorised use of trade mark, etc.in relation to goods) in circumstances where the goods in question are or include alcohol.'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 148
Delivering Alcohol To Children
Amendment made: No. 88, in page 81, line 26, leave out 'sale' and insert 'supply'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 150
Prohibition Of Unsupervised Sales By Children
Amendment made: No. 89, in page 82, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—
Clause 164
Review Of Premises Licence Following Closure Order
Amendment made: No. 90, in page 90, line 21, after '19' insert
', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 170
Activities In Certain Locations Not Licensable
Amendment made: No. 91, in page 94, line 30, at end insert—
'() at premises which, at the time when the activity is carried on, are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown,'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Clause 192
Regulations And Orders
Amendments made: No. 92, in page 107, line 12, at end insert—
No. 93, in page 107, line 22, leave out '(3)(b)' and insert '(3)(aa), (ab), (b)'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Schedule 6
Minor And Consequential Amendments
Amendments made: No. 120, in page 139, line 27, leave out 'to 133' and insert 'and 132'.
No. 121, in page 139, line 27, at end insert—
' In section 133 (miscellaneous provision about new towns), in subsection (1), omit the following definitions—
I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 146, line 8, at end insert—
'Data Protection Act, 1998 (c. 29)
() In section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.),after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) Where the constitution, rules, standing orders, Memorandum, Articles of Association or other governing instrument of any club, society, company or other legal person (not being an individual) contains a provision (hereinafter called a "rule provision") framed to comply with any enactment repealed by the Licensing Act 2003, the exemption afforded by subsection (1) shall continue to apply to that rule provision and anything done under it, notwithstanding the repeal of such enactments.".'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 169, in page 156, line 35 [Schedule 8], at end insert—
'() if the premises currently operate subject to undertakings which have been given to the licensing justices, a copy of those undertakings,'.
No. 4, in page 157, line 24 [Schedule 8], leave out from 'that' to 'converting' in line 25.
No. 138, in page 158, line 8 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
No. 179, in page 159, line 21 [Schedule 8], at end insert—
'() the purposes embodied in those undertakings of a permanent nature that relate to the licensing objectives which have been offered by the licensee and which attach to the relevant existing licence,'.
No. 180, in page 159, line 24 [Schedule 8], after 'the', insert 'permanent undertakings and'.
No. 170, in page 159, line 25 [Schedule 8], at end insert
'or
() those undertakings which have been given to the licensing justice in respect of the relevant existing licence, or licences, which the licensing authority decides are necessary to promote the licensing objectives.'.
No. 139, in page 160, line 11 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
No. 47, in page 162, line 13 [Schedule 8], leave out from 'must' to end of line 15 and insert
'grant a premises licence and the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect as if the application were for conversion of an existing justices' licence'.
No. 140, in page 164, line 23 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
No. 141, in page 165, line 33 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
10.45 pm
The lead amendment, which is to schedule 6, relates to the Data Protection Act 1998. It is our understanding that the data protection commissioner required treasurers or secretaries of clubs, sporting or otherwise, to cease publication of the names and addresses of applicants for membership from computer details. However, we also understand that schedule 7(3) of the Licensing Act 1964 required publication and that section 35(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 therefore protects publication. It states:
"Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court." When the 1964 Act is repealed, the requirement for which it provides will no longer apply. Doubtless that means that the protection in section 35 of the 1998 Act will no longer apply. Accordingly, any publication of the applicant's name and address from computer records to comply with a club's constitution will contravene the 1998 Act. What was once legally necessary could become illegal overnight. Club constitutions would have to be altered to take effect on the same day as the repeal. Sadly, most club secretaries will not be surfing the internet for appointed day orders. Clubs may decide to simplify their rules when the new law is introduced. If they did that, the exemption would no longer apply because the rule provision would no longer be in force. However, they should not be obliged to make such a change and the amendment would allow choice.I want to speak to amendments Nos. 169 and 170, which are in my name and that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), and are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Our constituencies, like many others, are severely affected, if not afflicted, by noise, loutish behaviour, vandalism and intimidation, often late at night as people enter or leave licensed premises. Although it is rather late for a sitting in the Commons nowadays, it may be an hour or two yet before our constituents have their sleep disturbed by the behaviour that I described.
Both amendments refer to undertakings that were previously given to magistrates by licensees to obtain or continue an existing licence. Provided that the undertakings have been complied with, they have given the protection from nuisance that local residents currently enjoy. We believe that if such undertakings disappear, problems and a great deal of nuisance are likely to arise for residents who have grown accustomed to some sort of control over licensed premises. The amendments would continue the protection. I am told that some Government officials claim that that cannot be done by retaining conditions in the existing licences because, they assert, the undertakings do not have the force of law. However, I have done some checking and I have the Justices' Clerks Society "Good Practice Guide 2002 Edition", which is the most recent edition. From that, it is as plain as a pikestaff that, under the current position, if licensees refuse to continue an undertaking, the magistrates can refuse to grant the licence. The only recourse for the disappointed licensee is to make a new application to the justices. That seems to me to be pretty close to having the force of law. Whether that is the case or not, my colleagues and I do not see why the existing undertakings cannot be included as a condition in new licences, and amendment No. 170 seeks to include in a new licence the existing provisions. That would not require the new licensing body to include them as a condition, but it would give it the right to consider the matter and to include them if it saw fit. I really cannot see what is wrong with that proposition. Amendment No. 169 can only be described as even more reasonable and unassertive than amendment No. 170, and it should cause the Government—and the licensees, for that matter—less of a problem. All that it would do would be to require that an application to renew an existing licence should specify on the face of the application the existing undertakings, so that the new licensing body could consider whether it wished to dispense with them, vary them or include them as a condition. That seems to us to be a very moderate request, but if it is not granted, or if the Government cannot find some other way of bringing about the possible continuation of some of the existing undertakings at the discretion of the new licensing body, hundreds of neighbourhoods and tens of thousands of people all over the country who enjoy some protection will see that protection withdrawn. I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention.I endorse the points made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and support the amendments to which he spoke, as well as those that stand in my name. The undertakings that have been extracted from licensees by magistrates—particularly in London and other city areas, but in other parts of the country as well—are a vital part of licensing law as it stands. They represent the wisdom and expertise acquired by magistrates in carrying out these tasks over a period of years.
I simply do not believe that those undertakings cannot be continued into the new regime in the manner described by the right hon. Gentleman. They should constitute part of the first application that the licensee makes under the new regime. I know from what Ministers have said previously that they are sympathetic to that objective, but they seem to have convinced themselves that, for some reason, it cannot be done in the simple form that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is vital that it should be done. If it is not, we shall be requiring the local authorities that are going to take over this role to reinvent the wheel. They will have to take a crash course, learning all the experiences of every set of premises that magistrates have gathered over a period of years and wisely written into the agreements that they have made with those premises. It will be difficult enough to handle the transition anyway. The local authorities will be taking on a huge task, cranking themselves up to carry out all these new functions. It would make that task very much easier, and afford far more protection for residents living near licensed premises, if the undertakings that had been built up over time were to transfer to the new regime along with the licence. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has looked into the technical arguments and suggested to the House that he believes that the undertakings could and should be carried forward. He is absolutely right, and, as he says, if they are not, there are going to be disgruntled residents all over the place who will view the new legislation from the outset as being unable to provide them with the protection, peace of mind and peaceful enjoyment of their homes and properties that they have had in the past. That will leave an even bigger challenge for the local authorities that have to struggle to make sense of complicated new legislation. I appeal to Ministers, if on no other basis, to agree to carry those undertakings forward just to give their new legislation and regime as good a start as possible. Otherwise, they will be mired in localised battles and difficulties from the outset in a way that I am sure they do not want.I wish to address the issue of undertakings, if I may, as well as the amendments on transitional arrangements that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
It might appear curious to many of those watching the debate in the Gallery or on the BBC's Parliament Channel that there is such cross-party agreement, but I have worked closely with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) as these issues have affected all of us in our part of central London. Indeed, it is fair to say that probably only the three of us know the boundaries of our constituencies. Many police and many constituents would not know when they had crossed from parts of Camden in Covent Garden to Westminster or that in crossing the Marylebone road they had gone from one side of Westminster to another. It is important to stress that the amendments on undertakings are not simply a matter of the effect on central London. I am acutely aware of that, although in Committee the Minister often teased me in his pleasant way about how I addressed many comments to the particular and unusual circumstances of the city of Westminster. It is a fact that many of the issues apply to coastal towns across the country. Dare I say it, as he is sitting directly to my right, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) will find that they apply to many licensed premises in his constituency? Seaside towns across the country will equally be affected if the undertakings regime is dismantled in the way that the Government envisage. There have been difficulties for many of us who served in Committee, particularly those such as me who are of a libertarian bent. I do not necessarily think that there should be strict rules applying to drinking at all hours. If only we lived in a society in which we could rely on individual responsibility, and if only people who are happy drinking at all hours in Soho, Covent Garden or any of our seaside towns on warm, summer days such as this could be trusted to behave in a civilised fashion, we would all like a liberalisation and deregulation of all licensing laws. However, we all know, sadly, that we do not live in such an ideal world and there is therefore a necessity to have some framework in place. I have had some fundamental disagreements, which I referred to on Second Reading. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may do so again on Third Reading. However, one can understand that there is a need for some regulatory framework. I probably speak for many Members who represent seats with large licensed alcohol and entertainment industries in saying that we have a schizophrenic approach to them in certain respects. We would like much deregulation in certain areas—indeed, many of us spoke on those matters earlier on Report—while we want strict regulation in others. In respect of undertakings, I have been impressed by the work done by a number of residents associations in my constituency, in particular the Meard and Dean street residents association, which put forward a detailed paper that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras alluded to. It is clear that the local Metropolitan police view the undertakings as an important part of any licensing application made by prospective licensees. They are, for want of a better phrase, a gentlemen's agreement—in these politically correct times, I should perhaps say that they are a ladies' and gentlemen's agreement—between the applicant and the licensing justices. They show good will on behalf of the premises that they will be run correctly and responsibly managed. 11 pm It is also said that, in the case of multiple operators, any revocation notices served will be effective. The Metropolitan police in the central London area have objected to new applications for transfer on the ground that the applications in themselves constituted a clear attempt to opt out of revocation proceedings. A revocation notice will be withdrawn only when it is shown that the operators have no further financial or business dealings with the new venture that is being applied for. I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that we should be gravely concerned about the fact that if we eliminate the current undertakings regime, we shall lose generations of expertise that have helped to ensure a balance in particular vicinities. It would be sad to lose the long-standing wisdom of magistrates who know and love their areas. As I know from my constituency, it is feared in central London that if we start with a blank sheet of paper—a new conditions regime—having got rid of all those undertakings, we shall see more than just a lowering of standards. Anyone out on the streets of Soho or Covent Garden at 3 or 4 am on a Saturday or Sunday morning will probably be horrified by the sheer mass of people there, and the antisocial behaviour that takes place. What some describe as late-night licensing is actually early-hours licensing. As I have said here a number of times, the great majority of people who live in Soho and Covent Garden live there not by choice, but because they are social tenants: 70 to 80 per cent. of housing in those areas is social housing. Such vulnerable people require a strict undertakings regime that reflects the history of their area. I hope that the Minister will think seriously about what I have said,. It is not just special pleading for a small part of central London; it applies to much of the country. I fear that our debate has not been as vociferous as it might have been partly because the real implications of what is being proposed have not become apparent to many Members who represent seaside towns. It is only during a handful of weekends at this time of the year that antisocial behaviour becomes—sadly—the norm, and for that reason a blind eye may have been turned to many provisions that undermine protection for the local population. The hon. Member for North Devon rightly focused on residents, but we should go a step further. What gives my part of the country its charm—and I am sure that the same applies to all seaside towns—is the existence of long-standing family businesses such as small wine bars, pubs and restaurants that may have been in the hands of families for several generations. In the event of the downward spiral into an entirely deregulated 24-hour city—for want of a better phrase—there is a risk that only the very large operators will step in. At the time of the next economic upturn, selling out will be an extremely attractive proposition for many long-standing family operators, and only the lowest common denominator will be appealed to. We central London Members are not appealing to our residential population just on a nimby basis, although it must be said that, come election time, it is the residential rather than the business population that votes. We want businesses to thrive. We want smaller family businesses with a genuine stake in the community to survive. Let me say something about the transitional arrangements. I gave the Minister chapter and verse on the arrangements that applied in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where I was a councillor until 12 months ago. It was able to brief me. He will be gratified to learn that I have even more statistics to hand from the city of Westminster. They will similarly underline some of the challenges facing Westminster. It is for that relatively straightforward reason that my amendments Nos. 138 to 141 are designed to double the length of the initial transitional period from two to four months. It seems evident that government in the broader sense—by which I mean local government as well as central Government—and business need to consider how best to contribute to the costs of the community of late-night entertainment. The night-time economy already puts a major strain on central London's local infrastructure and public services. That is a recurring theme, and I am sure that all Members with constituencies in central London agree that we lack such an infrastructure in respect of a 24-hour public transport system—apart from buses, where great improvements have been made, but not enough to cater for the vast numbers congregating in central London, particularly at weekends. Similarly, the police infrastructure is inadequate. Statistics are often bandied around about the number of police available in the west end on an average evening, but it is clear that without enormous investment of resources in that sector we will not secure sufficient cover for the needs of the residential population and those who are out and about in central London during the night. I am not talking only about the alcohol-fuelled violence and loutish behaviour of a small minority, but about the crush caused by the sheer number of people around at that time of the night and early morning. In my view—and it conforms to the experience of people who have lived in places such as Soho for many decades—late licensing means that transport, policing and street cleansing services need to be able to respond to the impact created by the thousands of people leaving late-licensed premises. To give some concrete examples from the city of Westminster, 10 new portable urinals have been installed in the west end on Friday and Saturday nights only. These are somewhat gruesome statistics, but during the past year, those urinals collected some 12,000 gallons of urine at a cost of £91,780 per year. Members who have spent any time in the west end for late-night entertainment, particularly during the summer, will know that we have a night refuse collection service, which collects an average of 110 tonnes of waste each night, seven nights a week. A regular and persistent cleansing, degreasing and flushing service deals with much of the pavement in Oxford street and surrounding areas—it sounds like the Forth bridge. Indeed, in Westminster 4,500 km of streets have to be cleaned in that way. Likewise, evidence shows that the peak time for crime in a place such as Westminster is 3 am. An area of the west end covering only 4 per cent. of the city of Westminster generates some 40 per cent. of the crime. For that reason, above all, we believe that a transitional period of two months is far too short. It was suggested in Committee that we should extend that period to six or even 12 months. I hope that, in attempting to find a compromise for my amendments, my suggestion of four months represents a sensible way forward. I accept that my statistics apply specifically to Westminster. There is no doubt that late-night entertainment is firmly established in Westminster and throughout the other parts of the west end. Westminster has the UK's largest 24-hour economy and it should be stated once and for all that the city of Westminster is not opposed to late licences. People are proud of the diverse and vibrant night-time economy in the west end and beyond. However, if it is to continue, it needs to work well and be a well-managed mix of business and community interests. I have always felt that nothing could be worse for the medium and long-term future of many of these areas than becoming ever more denuded of a residential population. It is interesting to learn that the other part of my constituency—the City of London—has for the first time in 200 years, as demonstrated by the most recent census, had an increase in its population. Suddenly it has become more desirable to a residential population, and we need to maintain that vibrancy and fluidity by making the area a pleasant place for families to live. That is essential if cities are to become more liveable. It has been part of this Government's agenda, and I am sure that it will be part of a future Conservative Government's agenda, to ensure that our cities become much more habitable. We have seen great success stories in places such as Manchester and Liverpool, after decades of what appeared to be an intolerable and inexorable decline. A sensible and balanced licensing policy can play an important part in such regeneration.Does my hon. Friend agree that the policies of restricting out-of-town development and the insistence on building mixed economies in the centre of our cities, which were started under the previous Government and continued by this Government, are important to his point? People who live in the centre of cities must be considered alongside the 24-hour people who travel in and out of the centre. That point is even more urgent than it was 20 years ago, when there was a division between the commercial and the residential.
I could not agree more, and it may have been unfair of me to fail to point out the successes of the previous Conservative Administration in which, of course, my right hon. Friend played a leading role. He hit the nail on the head.
The number of licensed premises in the City of Westminster as a whole has grown to more than 3,000, two thirds of which are located in the small stress area commonly known as the west end. For the last full calendar year, Westminster received some 1,024 applications relating to entertainment licences and night café licences, only 14 of which were refused. That is an enormous burden, and moving from the transitional arrangements to an entirely new regime in such a short time will lead to an administrative logjam in Westminster. It will be very difficult to make a smooth transition. In the past year, 812 applications were made for public entertainment licences and night café licences and only a small number were refused. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how a transitional regime that gives only eight or nine weeks notice can possibly work in the larger London boroughs. Discussion has taken place at various stages about fees, and I do not wish to reiterate the arguments. However, an extended night-time economy means that local authorities face numerous significant costs and burdens. It is vital that they have the ability to manage their town centres using locally determined strategies in partnership with all stakeholders. Under the Bill, authorities will also have substantial extra administrative costs, to which we have referred. The local authorities believe that any licensing regime must allow councils to recoup the cost of delivering the scheme. It is not seen, and should not be seen, as a money-spinner to allow local councils to make significant sums of money. We went into considerable detail in Committee to explain that no one considers it to be a money-spinner. Indeed, the large costs incurred for some of the highlighted premises—for example, the Royal Albert hall, which pays some £12,000 to £15,000 a year—were something of a loss leader for Westminster city council. As well as a smooth transition, local authorities wish to ensure that they have the ability to set locally determined fees that reflect local circumstances, but based on Government guidelines indicating applicable costs, instead of relying on centrally prescribed fixed amounts, as currently proposed. The initial start-up costs for the City of Westminster, before it received any applications, would be about £100,000 and the projected fee income—based on an average of £300 in the transition year—would be just under £972,000, or just under £1 million. That would lead, on the council's calculation, to a shortfall of £200,000 in administrative costs. I hope that the Minister can give some guidance on fees. I accept that I have gone slightly beyond the amendments, but the point is a relevant one. I also seek some guidance on the transitional arrangements.11.15 pm
I should normally favour deregulation and greater freedom and choice, but I have been swayed by the arguments this evening and by my reading elsewhere. There is a real problem, and I hope that the Minister listens attentively and sensitively.
The nub of the Bill is summed up in the dilemma posed by the amendments. On the one hand, many of us would like businesses to have greater freedom to provide a wider range of service and choice to their customers. On the other hand, we all represent people who live close to licensed premises, and they have rights as well. They have bought their properties on the basis of a certain licensing regime and a certain pattern of conduct. They will naturally be very upset if that pattern of conduct is changed rapidly and in a direction that is adverse to their interests. I hope that the Minister understands that this is a real issue and that the amendments modestly try to make small improvements for those who live near licensed premises. I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is right to say that the provisions apply not only to his own part of London. They could apply to any major urban or metropolitan area, in towns and elsewhere. Conflicts can arise between businesses and licence users and residents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) rightly reminded us that getting more life into our inner cities has been a bipartisan policy. We all welcome it, but there must be some restriction of antisocial conduct and prevention of antisocial hours from getting out of control or being permitted or encouraged so that the amenity of a city is wrecked for those who live or work in it. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the modest suggestion of a longer transition period, albeit still a short one given the complexities in many areas of licensing. A great deal of work remains to be done. I hope that he will also respond sympathetically to the idea of undertakings so that people can be reassured that there will not be sudden lurches in the regime.My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) spoke with great knowledge, having participated considerably in the Standing Committee on the Bill. He expressed intimate knowledge of his constituency here in the centre of London.
I rise primarily to support the brief but accurately expressed case of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). As several speakers have said, this issue is not just for the large cities. It relates to many towns and large villages up and down the country. In my own constituency, there are severe problems with antisocial behaviour resulting from alcohol abuse, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights in the centre of Macclesfield. That makes it extremely unpleasant for those who go there to dine out or to drink modestly and to behave and enjoy themselves. It creates tremendous problems for those who live in the town centre. Antisocial behaviour is a problem, and the police find it extremely difficult to do anything about it. I hope that the Minister will give rational responses to the many points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, but I support the case put by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras for ensuring that the undertakings and conditions applying to existing licences can be carried forward to the new regime. The Report stage of a Bill offers Back Benchers who were unable to speak on Second Reading or were not members of the Standing Committee their only opportunity to advance the interests of their constituents and constituencies. The Minister has a reputation for sensitivity and for being rational and helpful to Members of Parliament who have experience of the matters that we are discussing, so will he respond positively to the amendments? Why is it not possible to carry existing undertakings forward into the new regime? That could be simply done. The Government could help the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to deal with any modest drafting deficiencies in the provisions, or could themselves put them right in due course, if they are unable to do so at present. The amendment is reasonable and it has cross-party support. The House is trying to come to the right decision and I strongly support the amendment for which the right hon. Gentleman so ably argued.It is extremely refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and his right hon. and hon. Friends argue the case for residents. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber earlier this evening, he would have heard me berated from both sides of the House for wanting to retain a bit of regulation covering loud rock bands playing in pubs, and for not giving developers a cast-iron right, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) wanted, to open up huge pubs, no matter what might happen to the community. It was wonderful to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, and I am glad that he made it.
It was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) say that we need to get people back into our city centres. The right hon. Gentleman is a cultured man, so he will have seen Hogarth's Gin Lane paintings. The problems are not new; they have always been with us. The scale, however, is phenomenal. In Committee, we talked a great deal about the huge number of people who migrate to our cities on Friday and Saturday nights. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) reminded us, nowhere attracts people like the west end of London; it always has, and I hope that it always will. The hon. Gentleman might also have mentioned Manchester, where the police tell me that 150,000 people go in to the centre, many, but not all of them, to drink. The hon. Member for Macclesfield made an important point about businesses such as high-quality restaurants. When I was in Manchester, I was told that the clientele of such restaurants found the atmosphere on the street rather intimidating. It is not that people set out to be intimidating, but that where there are 150,000 young men and women who might have drunk a bit too much, a person could feel a little insecure late on a Saturday night when they were out with their family enjoying a good meal in a good restaurant. We need to take that into account. The group of amendments broadly covers some of the issues that will emerge during transition from the old licensing regime to the regime established by the Bill. I am not sure that amendment No. 61, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, would achieve the effect that he intended. It would certainly amend the Data Protection Act 1998 so as to maintain the ability to disclose information under section 35(1), which is otherwise subject to non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings in respect of certain information pertaining to clubs, companies or other legal persons notwithstanding the repeal of certain provisions in the Licensing Act 1964. In our view, amendment No. 61 is wholly unnecessary. Section 35(1) of the 1998 Act will continue to apply, and appropriate protections of personal data in the 1998 Act will continue to apply to information and data held by licensing authorities for the purposes of their licensing functions. Maintaining the ability to disclose information as required by law and in the context of legal proceedings is right, in the Government's view. Clause 180, which will permit the provision of information to other licensing authorities and responsible authorities, is restricted to the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the authority's functions under the Bill. That is as it should be. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire shakes his head, but I had hoped that that would give him some comfort. It may be sensible for me to deal with amendments Nos. 169, 170, 179 and 180 next, because they also address converted licences and undertakings. Although adopting slightly different approaches, those amendments would require a premises licence to be granted under the conversion provisions in schedule 8, subject to such conditions as reproduced the effect of the undertakings subject to which the existing licence or licences—for example, a justices' licence—had been granted or renewed. The Bill will provide comprehensively that conditions attached to the existing licences will be reproduced in the new premises licence. In other words, everything that the licensing justices, for example, thought should be legally enforceable and which was within their discretion to impose would be attached as conditions to those existing licences. However, that is slightly different from what was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, as he has explained. Undertakings are very different from what I have just described, and it is important to understand what they are. I chose the example of a justices' licence because that is the area of current licensing where undertakings are often mentioned. Indeed, such undertakings most commonly arise in the context of justices' off-licences, such as those held by supermarkets. Undertakings, which are sometimes sought by licensing justices, have no legal force. For the content of undertakings to have legal force, they must form conditions in existing licences. Undertakings may be considered by the justices when licences are being renewed, and if the undertakings have been broken, it could lead to the renewal of licences being refused. That is a very useful tool, but it is a discretionary practice, and we have discovered that it is carried on only by certain justices. However, any breach of an undertaking cannot of itself lead to a criminal prosecution, as would be the case with licence conditions, and undertakings cannot be enforced. In essence, such undertakings are entirely voluntary, and as such they do not attach to a licence. Under current legislation, they amount to no more than a personal promise by the applicant for a licence or a renewal. The question therefore is whether such promises should be made mandatory for licence conversion applicants under paragraph 2 of schedule 8, to provide information on such non-legal, personal matters, giving those undertakings new legal status and force, but it should be remembered that they may have existed without legal status or force for a number of years. That presents a difficulty.The Minister says that the undertakings could not be used in prosecuting a licensee, but where such undertakings have been extracted and given, could not the magistrates nevertheless revoke the licence if the undertakings were not adhered to? Although the undertakings cannot be used in criminal prosecutions, they have some bite, as they can be used to take away the licence.
As I explained, undertakings are a very useful tool, as things stand—but I shall say why the regime that we propose will be much more useful. However, I take the point of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
I have one key reason, however, for believing that the House should not agree to the proposal. Under the Bill, interested parties in responsible authorities can request the review of any premises licence on a ground relating to the licensing objectives. That provides ample opportunity for residents and others to seek a remedy if a licensee does something, or fails to do something, that was previously the subject of an undertaking that they consider should or should not be happening—provided, of course, that the act or omission is relevant to the licensing objectives. I remind the House that those include the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. I therefore assure the House that the Bill provides ample protections. 11.30 pm The Bill also provides more opportunities than there are at present for residents and others to seek a remedy if premises cause a particular problem. There is nothing to be gained in transferring undertakings to premises licences.Surely the point made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was correct: if the condition that has been there is passed on, all the wisdom that led to that condition can be passed on automatically. There seems no reason why that should not be the case. The difficulty for the House in following the Minister is that we can see that to have both provisions would be sensible, but to leave one out would seem to lose a deal of experience.
I am concerned about losing that experience, which we debated a great deal in Committee. I shall try to explain why safeguards exist to ensure that that experience is not lost, and why undertakings—which reflect some of the worries given as illustrations by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—were agreed, as they cannot be imposed, in the first place.
I missed out a question asked by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). A licence cannot be revoked for a breach of undertakings, which exist as agreements. There may be other reasons why a licensee's behaviour, under the present regime, should mean that he loses his licence, but an undertaking cannot be used as a legal means of revoking a licence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that hundreds of neighbourhoods would be affected. He implied that undertakings in respect of pubs, nightclubs and so on are common, but they are not. They are more common in London. He should note that in the good practice guide from which he quoted—to which I shall refer in more detail in a moment—they are associated mostly not with pubs or nightclubs but with supermarkets and off-licences. They are used much more rarely in connection with pubs, and some misinformation may have been disseminated about how widespread the practice is. We do not think that it is that widespread.The only thing that I know that casts doubt on what I am sure that my hon. Friend says in good faith is that not only does our proposal have the full support of the Metropolitan police but of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which represents police forces in neighbourhoods all over the country. If the practice is not widespread, I cannot see why they supplied the wording, which was duly turned by the Clerks into something more orderly and tabled as the amendment.
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend was told that by the police. We had many discussions about the selective lobbying that we received on the Bill and we frequently found in Committee that lobbying groups had told the Opposition one thing and told us another. I have no doubt that the police and ACPO are getting their retaliation in first. They will press for the hardest possible measures to make their jobs easier.
It is curious that the Minister draws a distinction between London and other places. Surely the issue is whether undertakings will be relevant, not whether the issue relates to the capital city or throughout the country. The concern is about undertakings, not regionalisation.
I made it clear that I was referring specifically to the claim made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that hundreds and thousands of communities would suffer if undertakings were not incorporated in the Bill in the manner proposed by amendment No. 170.
As the guide published by the Justices' Clerks Society states, undertakings are based on custom and not in any way on the written law, which we are debating today. They are not enforceable in law and rely entirely on the co-operation of the licence holder. That is interesting because if an undertaking is broken under the existing regime—the wonderful system of undertakings—a person might have to wait three years before anything could be done about it. We have addressed that major weakness in the Bill. Under the existing system, action could occur only when renewal proceedings took place. In the meantime, the undertaking would be simply a promise that had been broken. That is why the review arrangements in the Bill are infinitely better and more dependable than the existing system. If a licence holder caused a nuisance or problems of disorder, the matter could be considered at the review of the licence, irrespective of whether it was the subject of an earlier undertaking.If the advice that my hon. Friend has received is correct, why does the licensing justices' manual say that if a licensee has obtained a licence subject to an undertaking, the licensee may make application at any sessions to be released from the undertaking? If an undertaking has no force, there is no need for a licensee to bother to apply to be relieved of it. The manual also says that if a request is refused, the applicant's only remedy is to make application for a new justices' licence. Clearly those responsible for advising magistrates throughout the country believe that an undertaking does have force.
An undertaking clearly does not have legal force. My right hon. Friend asked why anyone would bother to apply to be relieved of an undertaking but I can think of many reasons why a licensed premises or a licence holder might apply for an undertaking to be revoked or modified. For example, a different business might open next door or there might be a proliferation of vertical drinking establishments, which could alter the need for an undertaking. However, an undertaking does not have the force of law.
I understand my hon. Friend's point that circumstances might change to lead the licensee to want to unload an undertaking, but why would anyone bother if an undertaking cannot be enforced? Why would a person go to the bother of returning to a magistrate and risk being turned down?
I would like to hear of a case of a licensee going voluntarily to a magistrate and risking being turned down and losing their licence. I bet that such a person is a pretty rare creature. However, I can imagine many situations in which licensees would want to keep sweet with licensing justices and be prepared to play footsie with them if they thought that it would help their next licence application. However, there will not be licensing justices.
There will be a licensing authority instead. For the first time, those hard-pressed residents whom my right hon. Friend mentioned will have the opportunity to ask for a licence to be reviewed. They cannot do that now. The ability to do that is infinitely preferable to some kind of old boys' agreement between a licensee and licensing justices that might sometimes benefit local residents, but is designed for completely different purposes.There is not only the review but the additional powers in clause 158 that allow senior police officers to close down premises for up to 24 hours on the grounds of public nuisance owing to noise emanating from premises or actual or likely disorder from a licensed premise. The police do not have those powers now and they will help residents.
Yes, and if right hon. and hon. Members read the Bill they will see that it greatly strengthens the hand of the police, responsible authorities and local residents when they encounter difficulties not just in London, but all over the country. That is infinitely preferable to the existing situation.
My hon. Friend knows full well that I welcome the bulk of the Bill and the strengthening of the feeble arrangements for protecting the interests of residents and neighbouring businesses. However, I cannot understand the Government's rooted objection to our requirement—the very least that we propose—that when people apply to the new licensing body, they should include in their application a list of the undertakings that apply. I cannot understand why that is unacceptable.
I understand my right hon. Friend's argument and know that he supports the Bill. It may well be the case that the conditions imposed on the licence will include many of the features of the undertakings, but I have obviously failed to communicate to him that those undertakings do not have statutory force. The Bill deals precisely with how we might maintain the order in communities such as the one that he represents. We have proposed a much simpler way of doing that. Undertakings are not statutory creatures and cannot be incorporated into the Bill as it stands. I do not accept the amendment to that effect because the regulations that we propose are much stronger, much simpler to understand and give local residents a much better opportunity to object.
Is the Minister saying that the undertakings to which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred could be translated into conditions that could be part of the new regime? If that is the case, he is going a long way towards reassuring us.
I want to be careful in the answer that I give. My impulse is to say, yes, it could happen. It would certainly be up to the licensing authority to insist on conditions in any licence to which it agrees. If it considers that those undertakings—they would have to be defined as something else—are necessary conditions for allowing a licence to be granted then so be it, but that flexibility must be given to the licensing authority because there may be many other considerations and variables that it might want to include in the agreement.
11.45 pm I turn now to amendments Nos. 138 to 141, in the name of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). Among other things, schedule 8 provides that when an application is made for conversion of existing licences to a premises licence, or for conversion of registration certificates in the case of clubs, and no decision has been taken by the licensing authority after two months, the application will be deemed granted. Similarly, where an application is made to vary such a converted licence or club premises certificate, and no decision has been taken by the licensing authority, it is to be deemed refused two months after it was received. Essentially, the conversion of existing licences, as a grandfather right, is an entirely administrative process, in which there can be no real excuse for delay. There has to be statutory pressure to resolve those cases, and that pressure is established by the time limit of two months, after which the application must be granted. We cannot allow licensing authorities to spin out transition for ever, and converted licences would only permit that which earlier licensing authorities or licensing justices had permitted in the past. Variations would be automatically deemed refused because no previous licensing authority would have sanctioned that variation in the past, and it is important that it is considered fully and that interested parties and responsible authorities have an opportunity to make representations. Deemed refusal would provoke an appeal and provide for finality. The amendments would change from two months to four months the period following the lodging of applications for converted premises licences or club premises certificates and variations of those licences and certificates after which the application would be deemed granted or refused if no decision had been taken. Although I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to ease the pressure and burden on licensing authorities, I am concerned that some, although by no means all, would be inclined to delay and inefficiency. We have to make a judgment. I acknowledge the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there is a terrible rule that says that if the limit is four months, the job will be done in four months, but if the limit is two months, it is a statement of faith from me saying that the job will be done in two months. I shall stick at that shorter period. I recognise that some larger authorities will have many applications to deal with, but they will of course have a much larger income to deploy in performing that task. The Government have made a promise to the people of this country that we will deliver the reform of licensing law, and we fully intend to do that and to ensure that the transition is completed quickly. None of the new licences will come into force until the transitional period ends, so the benefits of reform will not be seen on our high streets until then. I do not want to encourage delay. Despite the force of the hon. Gentleman's arguments and the examples that he has given us, I hope that, with that explanation, he will not press the amendments.I am grateful for the Minister's response, particularly on amendment No. 61 in my name. I accept his argument that it is probably unnecessary, and I shall seek to withdraw it after I have commented on amendments Nos. 138 to 141, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). The first two deal with the determination of applications and variations in respect of premises licences, and the others deal similar matters relating to clubs.
We have received strong representation from the Local Government Association and certain councils who fear that the two-month transition period allotted in the Bill for determination places too great a burden on them. Obviously we are talking about councils that will have to deal with a large number of licences. They feel that people who do not get the determination right will go to appeal, as the Minister said, so magistrates courts could quickly become clogged up if things go pear-shaped. The Minister talked about statutory pressure. We concede that if there is not some pressure in the legislation, everyone will go to the wire. We are not asking, in the Minister's words, for forever. We are asking for an extension of the two-month limit, which we think is reasonable and sensible, given all the work that needs to be done in the transition period to bring about a fundamental shift from licensing justices to the licensing authorities or local authorities. We therefore want to press amendment No. 138 to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment. No. 61.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7
Repeals
Amendments made: No. 98, in page 149, line 25, at end insert—
'Common Informers Act 1951 (c. 39) | In the Schedule—the entry relating to section 11 of the Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743, and the entry relating to the Sunday Observance Act 1780.'. |
No. 122, in page 149, line 41, leave out line 41 and insert—
'in subsection (1), the words "; and accordingly as from that date—" and paragraphs (c) and (e), and'. |
No. 123, in page 150, line 45, at end insert—
'Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (c. 66) | In Schedule 7, paragraphs 9(a), (b), (d) and (f), 10, 11 and 12.'. |
No. 124, in page 151, line 28, leave out 'to 133' and insert 'and 132'.
No. 125, in page 151, line 28, at end insert—
'In section 133(1), the definitions of "development corporation" and "the 1964 Act".'. |
No. 126, in page 151, line 37, leave out '29' and insert '29(a)(i)'.
No. 127, in page 152, line 9, at beginning of second column, insert—
'Section 3(1A).'. |
No. 128, in page 152, line 9, at end insert—
'Sections 17 and 18.'. |
No. 129, in page 152, line 12, leave out 'paragraph 15' and insert
'paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16(a) and the word "and" immediately following it.'.
No. 130, in page 152, line 15, leave out
',paragraphs 1(1) and 2 to 5' | |
and insert— | |
'paragraph 1(1),in paragraph 1(3), the words following paragraph (c), and paragraphs 2 to 5'. |
No. 131, in page 154, leave out line 6.— [Dr. Howells.]
Schedule 8
Transitional Provision Etc
Amendment made: No. 99, in page 157, line 6, leave out from 'copy' to 'unless' in line 7.— [Dr. Howells.]
Amendment proposed: No. 138, in page 158, line 8, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.— [Mr. Mark Field.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 249.
Division No. 236]
| [11:52 pm
|
AYES
| |
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Grayling, Chris |
Allan, Richard | Grieve, Dominic |
Amess, David | Gummer, rh John |
Arbuthnot, rh James | Hammond, Philip |
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Harvey, Nick |
Bacon, Richard | Hawkins, Nick |
Barker, Gregory | Hayes, John (S Holland) |
Baron, John (Billericay) | Heald. Oliver |
Bellingham, Henry | Hendry, Charles |
Bercow, John | Hoban, Mark (Fareham) |
Blunt, Crispin | Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) |
Boswell, Tim | Hughes, Simons (Southwark N) |
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Jack, rh Michael |
Brady, Graham | Johnson, Boris (Henley) |
Brazier, Julian | Key, Robert (Salisbury) |
Brooke, Mrs Annette L. | Krikbride, Miss Julie |
Browing, Mrs Angela | Laing, Mrs Eleanor |
Brunett, John | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
Burns, Simon | Lamb, Norman |
Burt, Alistair | Laws, David (Yeovil) |
Butterfill, John | Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E) |
Calton, Mrs Pasty | Liddell-Grainger, Ian |
Cash, William | Lilley, rh Peter |
Chope, Christopher | Llwyd, Elfyn |
Collins, Tim | Loughton, Tim |
Curry, rh David | Luff, Peter (M-Worcs) |
Davey, Edward (Kingston) | McIntosh, Miss Anne |
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden) | Maclean, rh David |
McLoughlin, Patrick | |
Djanogly, Jonathan | Malins, Humfrey |
Dodds, Nigel | Maude, rh Francis |
Doughty, Sue | Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian |
Duncan, Alan (Rutland) | May, Mrs Theresa |
Evans, Nigel | Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield) |
Fabricant, Michael | |
Fallon, Michael | Moss, malcolm |
Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster) | Murrison, Dr. Andrew |
Norman, Archie | |
Flook, Adrian | O'Brien, Stepehn (Eddisbury) |
Forth, rh Eric | Öpik, Lembit |
Fox, Dr. Liam | Osborne, George (Totton) |
Garnier, Edward | Paice, James |
George, Andrw (St. Ives) | Paterson, Owen |
Gibb, Nick (Bognor, Regis) | Pickles, Eric |
Gidley, Sandra | Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr) |
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl | |
Goodman, Paul | Prisk, Mark (Hertford) |
Gray, James (N Wilts) | Pugh, Dr. John |
Redwood, rh John | Thurso, John |
Rendel, David | Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight) |
Robathan, Andrew | Tyrie, Andrew |
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) | Viggers, Peter |
Rosindell, Andrew | Walter, Robert |
Ruffley, David | Waterson, Nigel |
Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Watkinson, Angela |
Sanders, Adrian | Whittingdale, John |
Sayeed, Jonathan | Wiggin, Bill |
Selous Andrew | Willetts, David |
Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian | Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon) |
Simmonds, Mark | Williams, Roger (Brecon) |
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine) | winterton, Ann (Congleton) |
Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield) | |
Spicer, Sir Michael | |
Stanley, rh Sir John | Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk) |
Steen, Anthony | Young, rh Sir George |
Stunell, Andrew | |
Swire, Hugo (E Devon) | Tellers for the Ayes:
|
Taylor, John (Solihull) | Mr. Robert Syms and
|
Taylor, Sir Teddy | Mr. Mark Francois
|
NOES
| |
Ainger, Nick | Coffey, Ms Ann |
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE) | Cohen, Harry |
Alexander, Douglas | Coleman, Iain |
Allen, Graham | Connarty, Michael |
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary | Cook, rh Robin (Livingston) |
Atherton, Ms Candy | Corston, Jean |
Atkins, Charlotte | Cousins, Jim |
Austin, John | Cranston, Ross |
Banks, Tony | Crausby, David |
Barren, rh Kevin | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
Battle, John | Cummings, John |
Bayley, Hugh | Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland) |
Beard, Nigel | |
Benn, Hilary | Cunningham, Tony (Workington) |
Bennett, Andrew | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
Berry, Roger | David, Wayne |
Best, Harold | Davidson, Ian |
Betts, Clive | Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) |
Blackman, Liz | Dawson, Hilton |
Blears, Ms Hazel | Dean, Mrs Janet |
Blizzard, Bob | Denham, rh John |
Borrow, David | Dhanda, Parmjit |
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Dismore, Andrew |
Bradshaw, Ben | Dobbin, Jim (Heywood) |
Brennan, Kevin | Dobson, rh Frank |
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend) | Donohoe, Brian H. |
Drew, David (Stroud) | |
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) |
Browne, Desmond | Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) |
Bryant, Chris | Efford, Clive |
Buck, Ms Karen | Ellman, Mrs Louise |
Burden, Richard | Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E) |
Byers, rh Stephen | Farrelly, Paul |
Caborn, rh Richard | Fisher, Mark |
Cairns, David | Flynn, Paul (Newport W) |
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Follett, Barbara |
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Foster, rh Derek |
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Foster, Michael (Worcester) |
Caplin, Ivor | Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye) |
Caton, Martin | |
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg) | Foulkes, rh George |
Challen, Colin | Francis, Dr. Hywel |
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Gapes, Mike (Ilford S) |
Chaytor, David | Gardiner, Barry |
Clapham, Michael | Gerrard, Neil |
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Gibson, Dr. Ian |
Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S) | Godsiff, Roger |
Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston) | Goggins, Paul |
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | |
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
Clelland, David | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
Coaker, Vernon | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) |
Hamilton, David (Midlothian) | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | O'Hara, Edward |
Hanson, David | Olner, Bill |
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart) | O'Neill, Martin |
Healey, John | Organ, Diana |
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) |
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Owen, Albert |
Hendrick, Mark | Palmer, Dr. Nick |
Heppell, John | Perham, Linda |
Heyes, David | Picking, Anne |
Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Pickthall, Colin |
Hinchliffe, David | Pike, Peter (Burnley) |
Hope, Phil (Corby) | Plaskitt, James |
Hopkins, Kelvin | Pollard, Kerry |
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E) | Pond, Chris (Gravesham) |
Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E) | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
Howells, Dr. Kim | Prosser, Gwyn |
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston) | Purchase, Ken |
Purnell, James | |
Humble, Mrs Joan | Quin, rh Joyce |
Hurst, Alan (Braintree) | Quinn, Lawrie |
Iddon, Dr. Brian | Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N) |
Illsley, Eric | Reed, Andy (Loughborough) |
Irranca-Davies, Huw | Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW) |
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | |
Jenkins, Brian | Rooney, Terry |
Johnson, Alan (Hull W) | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
Jones, Kevan (N Durham) | Roy, Frank (Motherwell) |
Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak) | Ruane, Chris |
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) | Sarwar, Mohammad |
Jowell, rh Tessa | Savidge, Malcolm |
Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W) | Sawford, Phil |
Keen, Alan (Feltham) | Sedgemore, Brian |
Keen, Ann (Brentford) | Shaw, Jonathan |
Kemp, Fraser | Sheridan, Jim |
Khabra, Piara S. | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
Kidney, David | Singh, Marsha |
Kilfoyle, Peter | Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E) |
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow) | Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury) |
Knight, Jim (S Dorset) | Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) |
Kumar, Dr. Ashok | |
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen | Steinberg, Gerry |
Lammy, David | Stevenson, George |
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie | Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber) |
Laxton, Bob (Derby N) | |
Lazarowicz, Mark | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
Leslie, Christopher | Stinchcombe, Paul |
Levitt, Tom (High Peak) | Stoate, Dr. Howard |
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) | Stringer, Graham |
Love, Andrew | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
Lyons, John (Strathkelvin) | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
McAvoy, Thomas | Taylor, Dari (Stockton S) |
McCafferty, Chris | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
McDonagh, Siobhain | Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W) |
MacDonald, Calum | Tipping, Paddy |
McDonnell, John | Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire) |
MacDougall, John | Touhig, Don (Islwyn) |
McFall, John | Truswell, Paul |
McIsaac, Shona | Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown) |
McKenna, Rosemary | |
Mackinlay, Andrew | Turner, Neil (Wigan) |
McNamara, Kevin | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
McWalter, Tony | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
McWilliam, John | Vis, Dr. Rudi |
Mann, John (Bassetlaw) | Wareing, Robert N. |
Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW) | Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E) |
Michael, rh Alun | Watts, David |
Miller, Andrew | White, Brian |
Mole, Chris | Wicks, Malcolm |
Morley, Elliot | Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W) |
Mullin, Chris | Williams, Betty (Conwy) |
Munn, Ms Meg | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
Woolas, Phil | Wright Tony (Cannock) |
Worthington, Tony | Wyatt, Derek |
Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston) | |
Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth) | Tellers for the Noes:
|
Mr. Jim Murphy and
| |
Wright, David (Telford) | Jim Fitzpatrick
|
Question accordingly negatived.
Schedule 8
Transitional Provision Etc
Amendments made: No. 100, in page 159, line 13, after '19' insert
', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.
No. 101, in page 159, line 19, after '19' insert
', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.
No. 102, in page 163, line 25, leave out from 'copy' to 'unless' in line 26.
No. 103, in page 165, line 9, after '72' insert
', [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films]'.
No. 104, in page 165, line 13, after '72' insert
', [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films]'.—— [Dr. Howells.]
New Clause 2
Mandatory Condition In Licences: Exhibition Of Films
'(1) Where a premises licence authorises the exhibition of films, the licence must include a condition requiring the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with this section.
(2) Where the film classification body is specified in the licence, unless subsection (3)(b) applies, admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that body.
(3) Where—
admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that licensing authority.
(4) In this section—
"children" means persons aged under 18; and
"film classification body" means the person or persons designated as the authority under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c.39) (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification).'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Mandatory Condition In Certificates: Exhibition Of Films
'(1) Where a club premises certificate authorises the exhibition of films, the certificate must include a condition requiring the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with this section.
(2) Where the film classification body is specified in the certificate, unless subsection (3)(b) applies, admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that body.
(3) Where—
admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that licensing authority.
(4) In this section—
"children" means persons aged under 18; and
"film classification body" means the person or persons designated as the authority under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c.39) (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification).'.— [Dr. Howells.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Allowing Children Into Licensed Premises
'(1) In pursuit of the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d) children under the age of 18 are only permitted to enter licensed premises when accompanied by an adult over the age of 18.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) these licensed premises are—
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply where the premises license operating schedule sets out clear, unambiguous steps to promote the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d) and which are agreed and accepted by the relevant licensing authority'.— [Mr. Moss.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would replace a clause that was voted through in the other place, but taken out by the Government in Committee in this place. It concerns allowing children into licensed premises. As the Bill stands, clauses 143 to 150 deal with children and alcohol, but nowhere in any of those clauses do the Government see fit to restrict access by children of any age. In fact, the presumption is that children will be allowed on to licensed premises unless the licensee sets out in his operating schedule reasons why he cannot accommodate that and makes the position clear to the licensing authority. New clause 7 reverses the presumption. We tabled it after some discussion with the police—the same chief constable and members of the Association of Chief Police Officers to whom the Minister referred earlier. They want a presumption that no child under 18 will be allowed into licensed premises unless accompanied by an adult over 18. However, subsection (1) of the new clause would not applyto protect children from harm—"where the premises licence operating schedule sets out clear, unambiguous steps to promote the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d)"—
The presumption is that children should not be allowed into licensed premises unless accompanied, except when the licensee sets out specific steps on how he or she will deal with young children on the premises. The Government's approach conveys conflicting signals. On the one hand, they perceive a problem with alcohol and young people and they want to reduce consumption. On the other, the Bill provides that children of all ages can attain access to licensed premises. That sends the wrong signal. For example, the Bill provides that it is illegal to sell alcohol to children and for a level 5 fine, which is £20,000. It also provides that someone who is under 18 and consumes alcohol on relevant premises could be fined at level 3—again, a significant sum. The Government appear to encourage children to enter licensed premises, but seek to criminalise them for succumbing to the temptation of consuming alcohol there. New clause 7 would replace a similar provision, which their Lordships strongly supported, but which was removed in Committee. When the Bill reverts to another place on Thursday, I am sure that the matter will be considered again."and which are agreed and accepted by the relevant licensing authority".
Productive meetings have taken place with children's charities and organisations such as Alcohol Concern. They have been reassured by discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister.
Although protection for children does not appear on the face of the Bill, it will be included in guidance. I am sure that hon. Members would be reassured if my hon. Friend could comment on the guidance.I may have misheard my hon. and learned Friend, but I emphasise that protecting children is one of the Bill's four licensing objectives.
It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 258.
Division No. 237]
| [12:13 am
|
AYES
| |
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Burns, Simon |
Amess, David | Burt, Alistair |
Arbuthnot, rh James | Butterfill, John |
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Cash, William |
Bacon, Richard | Chope, Christopher |
Barker, Gregory | Collins, Tim |
Baron, John (Billericay) | Curry, rh David |
Bellingham, Henry | Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden) |
Bercow, John | |
Blunt, Crispin | Djanogly, Jonathan |
Boswell, Tim | Dodds, Nigel |
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Duncan, Alan (Rutland) |
Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey) | Evans, Nigel |
Fabricant, Michael | |
Brady, Graham | Fallon, Michael |
Brazier, Julian | Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster) |
Browning, Mrs Angela |
Flook, Adrian | Paterson, Owen |
Forth, rh Eric | Pickles, Eric |
Fox, Dr. Liam | Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr) |
Garnier, Edward | |
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl | Prisk, Mark (Hertford) |
Goodman, Paul | Redwood, rh John |
Gray, James (N Wilts) | Robathan, Andrew |
Grayling, Chris | Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent) |
Grieve, Dominic | |
Gummer, rh John | Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) |
Hammond, Philip | Rosindell, Andrew |
Hawkins, Nick | Ruffley, David |
Hayes, John (S Holland) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
Heald, Oliver | Selous, Andrew |
Hendry, Charles | Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian |
Hoban, Mark (Fareham) | Simmonds, Mark |
Jack, rh Michael | Spicer, Sir Michael |
Johnson, Boris (Henley) | Stanley, rh Sir John |
Key, Robert (Salisbury) | Steen, Anthony |
Kirkbride, Miss Julie | Swire, Hugo (E Devon) |
Laing, Mrs Eleanor | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E) | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
Liddell-Grainger, Ian | Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight) |
Lilley, rh Peter | Tyrie, Andrew |
Llwyd Elfyn | Viggers, Peter |
Loughton, Tim | Walter, Robert |
Luff, Peter (M- Worcs) | Waterson, Nigel |
McIntosh, M,ss Anne | Watkinson, Angela |
McLoughlin, Patrick | Whittingdale, John |
Malins, Humfrey | Wiggin, Bill |
Maude, rh Francis | Willetts, David |
Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian | Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon) |
May, Mrs Theresa | Wilshire, David |
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield) | Winterton, Ann (Congleton) |
Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield) | |
Moss, Malcolm | Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk) |
Murrison, Dr. Andrew | Young, rh Sir George |
Norman, Archie | |
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) | Tellers for the Ayes:
|
Osborne, George (Tatton) | Mr. Robert Syms and
|
Paice, James | Mr. Mark Francois
|
NOES
| |
Ainger, Nick | Buck, Ms Karen |
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE) | Burden, Richard |
Alexander, Douglas | Burnett, John |
Allan, Richard | Byers, rh Stephen |
Allen, Graham | Caborn, rh Richard |
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary | Cairns, David |
Atherton, Ms Candy | Calton, Mrs Patsy |
Atkins, Charlotte | Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) |
Austin, John | Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) |
Banks, Tony | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
Barren, rh Kevin | Caplin, Ivor |
Battle, John | Caton, Martin |
Bayley, Hugh | Cawsey, Ian (Brigg) |
Beard, Nigel | Challen, Colin |
Benn, Hilary | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
Bennett, Andrew | Chaytor, David |
Berry, Roger | Clapham, Michael |
Best, Harold | Clark, Paul (Gillingham) |
Betts, Clive | Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S) |
Blackman, Liz | Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston) |
Blears, Ms Hazel | |
Blizzard, Bob | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
Borrow, David | Coffey, Ms Ann |
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Cohen, Harry |
Bradshaw, Ben | Coleman, Iain |
Brennan, Kevin | Connarty, Michael |
Brooke, Mrs Annette L. | Cook, rh Robin (Livingston) |
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend) | Corston, Jean |
Cousins, Jim | |
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Cranston, Ross |
Browne, Desmond | Crausby, David |
Bryant, Chris | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
Cummings, John | Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W) |
Cunningham, Tony (Workington) | Keen, Alan (Feltham) |
Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Keen, Ann (Brentford) |
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Kemp, Fraser |
David, Wayne | Khabra, Piara S. |
Davidson, Ian | Kidney, David |
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Kilfoyle, Peter |
Dawson, Hilton | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow) |
Dean, Mrs Janet | |
Denham, rh John | Knight, Jim (S Dorset) |
Dhanda, Parmjit | Kumar, Dr. Ashok |
Dismore, Andrew | Ladyman, Dr. Stephen |
Dobbin, Jim (Heywood) | Lamb, Norman |
Dobson, rh Frank | Lammy, David |
Donohoe, Brian H. | Lawrence, Mrs Jackie |
Doughty, Sue | Laxton, Bob (Derby N) |
Drew, David (Stroud) | Lazarowicz, Mark |
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Leslie, Christopher |
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Levitt, Tom (High Peak) |
Efford, Clive | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
Ellman, Mrs Louise | Love, Andrew |
Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E) | Lyons, John (Strathkelvin) |
Farrelly, Paul | McAvoy, Thomas |
Fisher, Mark | McCafferty, Chris |
Flynn, Paul (Newport W) | MacDonald, Calum |
Follett, Barbara | McDonnell, John |
Foster, rh Derek | MacDougall, John |
Foster, Michael (Worcester) | McFall, John |
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye) | McIsaac, Shona |
McKenna, Rosemary | |
Foulkes, rh George | Mackinlay, Andrew |
Francis, Dr. Hywel | McNamara, Kevin |
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S) | McWalter, Tony |
Gardiner, Barry | McWilliam, John |
George, Andrew (St Ives) | Mann, John (Bassetlaw) |
Gerrard, Neil | Michael, rh Alun |
Gibson, Dr. Ian | Miller, Andrew |
Gidley, Sandra | Mole, Chris |
Godsiff, Roger | Morley, Elliot |
Goggins, Paul | Mullin, Chris |
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) |
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) |
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | O'Hara, Edward |
Hamilton, David (Midlothian) | Olner, Bill |
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | O'Neill, Martin |
Hanson, David | Öpik, Lembit |
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart) | Organ, Diana |
Harvey, Nick | Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) |
Healey, John | Owen, Albert |
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Palmer, Dr. Nick |
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Perham, Linda |
Hendrick, Mark | Picking, Anne |
Heppell, John | Pickthall, Colin |
Heyes, David | Pike, Peter (Burnley) |
Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Plaskitt, James |
Hinchliffe, David | Pollard, Kerry |
Hope, Phil (Corby) | Pond, Chris (Gravesham) |
Hopkins, Kelvin | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E) | |
Howells, Dr. Kim | Prosser, Gwyn |
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston) | Pugh, Dr. John |
Purnell, James | |
Humble, Mrs Joan | Quin, rh Joyce |
Hurst, Alan (Braintree) | Quinn, Lawrie |
Iddon, Dr. Brian | Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N) |
Illsley, Eric | Reed, Andy (Loughborough) |
Irranca-Davies, Huw | Rendel, David |
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW) |
Jenkins, Brian | |
Johnson, Alan (Hull W) | Rooney, Terry |
Jones, Kevan (N Durham) | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak) | Roy, Frank (Motherwell) |