My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

My Lords, at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave a commitment to reply in writing to questions that he was either unable or did not have time to answer at the end of the debate. I raised a number of questions and have received no letter from the noble Baroness's department; nor, so far as I am aware, have a number of my colleagues on this side of the House.

If a Minister makes a commitment at Second Reading to answer in writing questions with which he was unable to deal, the department and the Minister should make some effort to reply to us, or indeed to explain why we were unable to receive replies. Serious points were made during the debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a commitment to consider them and that, between now and Committee stage next week, she will reply to any issues to be dealt with then.

My Lords, of course I can do that. I received a number of letters yesterday to sign, but I thought that some of them needed changes. Because of the preparation that was necessary for this morning's proceedings, I did not feel able to ask officials to spend a lot of time changing them. I will, however, endeavour to obtain replies to the specific questions raised, some of which were not answered by my noble friend Lord McIntosh—although he did a splendid job, standing in for me at the last minute, in answering many of them. I will look specifically at the questions raised by the noble Viscount and at any others relating to points that will not be covered in ministerial responses today.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 9, at end insert—

"(e) the provision of indoor spaces in which smoking is permitted in premises where other licensable nib, activities are carried on."

Before responding to the amendments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I say to the Minister that, with regret, we had a difficult task last night and this morning dealing with the draft groupings presented to us mid-afternoon. To give one example, the amendments were grouped with the debate on whether the whole licensing system should be moved from magistrates' courts to local authorities. That was entirely inappropriate and ill thought through. Although the Minister may be under pressure to respond to questions raised at Second Reading two and a half weeks ago, we on Her Majesty's Opposition Benches and other noble Lords are also under enormous pressure. We urge the Minister to encourage her officials to think through carefully the drafting of the groupings.

Turning to the Bill, the Opposition do not support the amendments. We feel that they would be an inappropriate addition to the scope of the Bill. The Bill is intended to provide for unified regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol, the provision of regulated entertainment and the provision of late-night refreshment, referred to collectively in the Bill as the licensable activities.

The Bill is intended to ensure that the provision of additional opportunities for licensable activities is matched by additional measures enabling the police and licensing authorities to act promptly to maintain public order and safety. The Bill is therefore not about the sale or supply of tobacco products or about smoking in the workplace or in public places and it is not appropriate that it should be.

It is entirely inappropriate and wrong that the four licensable activities currently stated in the Bill should be added to by a fifth, as the amendment proposes, to include,

"the provision of indoor spaces in which smoking is permitted in premises w here other licensable activities are carried on".

That means that smoking—not generally, but in otherwise licensable premises—would require approval by licence and licence conditions. I disagree entirely with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. We believe that the proposal would lead to a possible back-door ban on smoking in pubs. If the noble Lord wishes to make it necessary for licences granted under the Bill to make specific requirements as to the conditions under which smoking may be permitted, Clause 1 is not the appropriate place.

The amendments, individually and collectively, would unnecessarily add to the regulatory burden. The key purpose of the Bill is to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation. The amendments take no regard of the obligations under existing legislation and regulation and of the widespread and growing effectiveness of self-regulation.

It is not appropriate that this or any other legislation should seek to achieve statutory regulation when it is so obvious that voluntary self-regulation of smoking is already a satisfactory and increasingly effective alternative in the workplace or in public places.

Employers have a common law responsibility to provide a safe place and system of work. Under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers have to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees. Under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, employers have to ensure that there are arrangements to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke in rest rooms or rest areas. If there is a risk to health, the employer must take action to deal with it. Health and safety inspectors can take enforcement action if necessary. Ultimately, it would be for the courts to decide in a particular case whether a risk to health was significant.

These facts make the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 4 redundant. In any event, well over 80 per cent of workplaces now have policies in operation that have the acceptance and agreement of employees and all other parties. Smoking in public places is also likewise now regulated largely on a voluntary, self-regulatory basis without the need for legislation. This is true on most forms of public transport and in taxis, hotels, restaurants, shops, shopping malls and many places of public entertainment.

A significant public demand exists for improved air quality generally in the hospitality sector, represented for the most part by pubs and bars. There is widespread and growing adoption by owners and operators of the public places charter on smoking. We disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who says that progress is slow. On the contrary, we understand that substantial improvements are being achieved in the provision of cleaner air in the hospitality sector through ventilation, filtration and separate smoking and non-smoking areas. The charter is based on education and training and has the support of all the relevant trade associations and leading commercial operators. It is a progressive scheme that encourages operators to agree and implement a smoking policy with appropriate signage, and to invest in improvements over a number of years.

It is worth noting the Government's stated position. As recently as 3rd December, the Secretary of State for Health said that,

"we have been trying to persuade employers, through our local tobacco control alliances, to take action locally. We want to encourage more of them, especially in the restaurant and pub business, either to make their environment smoke free or to at least make it clear to consumers and workers where smoking is allowed. Many employers want to take such action. I agree that there is a lot more to do, but we are beginning to make real inroads into a real problem".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/02; col. 741–42.]

In conclusion, in enclosed spaces, environmental tobacco smoke is far from being the only or most significant element in the context of air quality. Nor is the significance of the health implications clear or undisputed. There are many air pollutants—gaseous, chemical and biological—that are most satisfactorily dealt with by improved ventilation and filtration techniques. Regulation that relates only to environmental tobacco smoke would have an unmeasurable effect on overall air quality. Surely the key to improved indoor air quality is proper ventilation and filtration.

As a non-smoker, I can well understand the noble Lord's motivation in tabling the amendment. There are obviously health implications of smoking in pubs. However, we do not support the amendment. I shall not give the detailed reasoning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has already done so, but we believe that such regulation should be part of the role of the Health and Safety Executive rather than part of this Bill.

My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have responded to the amendment in moderate terms. I have been known to lose my temper on this subject inside and outside the Chamber. I do not intend to do so today.

My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are absolutely right. Knowing the background of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, described in Dod's as a liaison Peer to the Cabinet Office, I was amazed that he tabled these amendments to the Bill. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said—or almost said—the Bill was originally sold to us as a flagship deregulation Bill. It contains a lot of balancing of retained regulation on one side and easing on the other. It retains the need to maintain public order and safety. The amendments would be an unnecessary addition to the regulatory burden. I agree with everything that my noble friend said about smoking in the workplace.

The charter was agreed between the Department of Health and originally five—now 14—hospitality trade associations. It is very new, having come into effect only in 1999. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned 2003, which is when the first targets should have been achieved. The targets are that half the pubs and some restaurants must be signed by early 2003, in fewer than 65 per cent of which smoking would be allowed throughout. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, doubted whether that would be achieved. However, according to the public market report of 2002, 39 per cent of pubs have already achieved that aim. Therefore, it is a growing occurrence.

Although the targets will not be exceeded, I have no doubt that over the next three or four years we shall find that around 80 per cent of pubs and restaurants will, at the very least, have smoke-free areas. At best, we shall find a significant number being totally smoke free. I accept that there is a public demand for improved air quality generally. As the noble Lord said, the charter is a voluntary agreement; but, as my noble friend said, it has the approval of the Secretary of State for Health. I believe that it will actually achieve its objectives.

I do not believe that anyone on this side of the Committee has spoken about Amendment No. 90. It is a very worrying trend when the state seems to know better than parents what is good for their children. I hope the noble Lord will accept that it is good for children to be with their parents, whether in pubs, restaurants, or anywhere else. Indeed, as I understand it, this is part of the thinking behind the Bill. Surely it should be for parents to decide where the family sits in a public restaurant; it should not be a matter of law. It follows, therefore, that it should not be a licensing condition.

I do not want my noble friend to feel that he is the only person in the Committee with such views, so I rise to support him. My noble friend outlined the reasoning behind these amendments. Therefore, I do not propose to reiterate the points that he made. I shall merely say that I wholeheartedly support the amendments, especially Amendment No. 78, which gives protection relating to the health, safety, and welfare of those working in licensed premises. At present, workers in this industry do not have a choice as to whether or not they work in smoke-free areas. I accept that there are provisions in other Acts that currently cover such workers, but, unfortunately, they are outstandingly inadequate. The proposed provisions would further protect workers in licensed premises.

I do not believe that these proposals represent a backdoor method of banning smoking in pubs—I only wish that they did. I used to enjoy a drink in a pub. But, as I have become older and seem to be more and more affected by cigarette smoke, I can no longer do so. We shall have to wait for another day for such a ban. Indeed, we have been waiting for the ACoP for four years. I worked on the ACoP when I served as a health and safety commissioner. I do not know why we are still waiting. I have my suspicions, but I shall not verse them today. I support the amendments.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on two counts: first, I congratulate him on the impeccable and lucid way in which he read his brief, which was masterly. Secondly, I congratulate him on managing to keep a straight face when he said that his proposal was not to try to bring in legislation by the back door. It is. This is a licensing Bill; it has nothing whatever to do with smoking.

As the late Lord Benson once said, "Everything that I wish to say has been said". But just to reinforce my argument, I should point out to the noble Lord that if he wishes to bring in legislation of this type, Clause 1 is not the place to do so; neither is this the right Bill for such provisions.

Before I speak to the amendments, perhaps I may declare an interest for the purpose of this Committee stage; namely, that I am a non-executive director of a large regional brewer, which operates 1,500 pubs countrywide, including the famous Pitcher & Piano in Westminster—the subject of a good deal of publicity of which noble Lords may be aware. I quite understand the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has put forward. If he were to use the words, "discourage people from smoking", I could understand his argument, especially where passive smoking is involved. But I share the view that this is not the way to achieve the discouragement that the noble Lord outlined as his objective.

However, I can offer the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, some comfort. Within the estate that, we operate there is clearly a continuing and rising tide of public opinion in favour of smoke-free areas and the view that the number should be increased. Therefore, market forces and public opinion are on the noble Lord's side. That must be the way to achieve the objective, because we would arrive at the desired point with complete consent. Everyone would buy into the solution that had been found, which is better than trying to impose an anti-smoking provision in licensing legislation and, at the same time, increasing the regulatory burden on both the operator of the pub and licence holder of the premises.

Where attempts have been made to widen the smoke-free areas too far and too fast because of a vocal minority, there has been a backlash from smokers who believe that they, too, have rights. This proposal would put the personal licence holder, the premises licence holder, or the brewer, into the frontline of a battle of public opinion, which would not be fair on any of them. It is up to the legislature to set the framework; it should not be passed down the line and left to people on the frontline to arbitrate and address.

Perhaps I may begin by responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the groupings of amendments. This is always an issue, and the Opposition have the right to degroup when they believe it to be necessary. However, my officials put forward these groups in good faith, in the belief that that was the best way to organise the debate. I do not believe that the extent of the degrouping carried out by the noble Baroness will help the debate, though I completely sympathise with some degrouping. We have a great many single groups that seem to deal with more or less the same issue. However, I am perfectly happy to accept the degroupings that have been made by the Opposition; that is their right. We, too, have had to reorganise our way of approaching the Bill in order to take such degroupings into account.

I am grateful to the Minister, but surely it is the job of officials to help all of us in terms of the way that these groupings are presented. To group this debate with the whole transfer of the licensing system from magistrates to local authorities indicates, perhaps, the depth of misunderstanding of the Bill, which is most disturbing. It simply does not make sense when we are dealing with a Bill that has been coming towards the statute book for two-and-a-half years.

We have degrouped considerably because we believe that the Bill is worthy of full debate. The way that the original groupings were drafted was, to be honest, frankly dismissive of so many of the important issues that have been raised by both individuals and organisations. We have been lobbied extensively on this legislation. We believe that it is right for it to be properly scrutinised.

I am most puzzled by what the noble Baroness says about the group that we are debating at this stage. In its original form, this group was smaller rather than larger in size. It certainly did not have anything in it about transport. There is some misunderstanding in this respect. I saw the groupings that were put forward yesterday, and this first group of amendments was smaller. It did not refer to Amendment No. 90, which has since been perfectly legitimately added.

I must defend my officials. The groupings originally put forward were designed to enable a sensible debate to take place, without the need to repeat the same argument endlessly. That was the intention. The Opposition have a right to disagree, and they have done so. However, it is not fair to my officials to suggest that they approached the matter on any other basis than in good faith to promote the best possible debate. I am sure that Members on all sides of the Committee who have served as Ministers will accept that that is the case. I hope we can proceed on that basis, with that shared common understanding.

I turn to the amendments. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, Amendments Nos. 1, 78 and 90 seek to address concerns about smoking on licensed premises and the protection of those who work on such premises. Smoking is an issue that should be taken seriously. I take it very seriously, as I know do many other noble Lords. On a number of fronts, the Government are considering whether sufficient controls are in place to protect customers and employees in venues where people smoke. However, this Bill is not about smoking. I entirely agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, when she set out very clearly that this Bill is not about smoking. On that she was also supported by her colleagues on the Conservative Benches and by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale

I share some of the views of my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Gibson and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I am not a smoker and I do not like going into pubs full of smoke. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that public opinion has been shifting quite dramatically and that the market itself will lead ever more pubs to want to restrict smoking. I think that he will have more customers in the pub chain where he is a non-executive director if that organisation moves in that direction. I am sorry that I do not know the story about the pub in Westminster, but perhaps on another occasion he can tell me and other noble Lords who are a little curious about what went on there.

As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, one way in which we are already addressing public smoking in pubs and bars is through the public places charter to which various speakers have referred. The charter is a Department of Health initiative focusing on the link between smoking, drinking and eating. It does not ban outright the right to smoke in various premises, but it has provided a number of helpful practical solutions to smoking issues in what are known as "hospitality venues" in England and Wales, making it possible for customers to know whether the premises have smoke-free areas and the quality of the ventilation provided.

I have not seen the statistics quoted by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. However, I am inclined to agree with the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that much progress is being made, and rather more than he suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, also mentioned that and quite rightly pointed out that, as the targets do not have to be reached until next year, there is still quite a lot more time for people to put in place better provision for those who prefer to be in a non-smoking environment. I think that he quoted a figure of 80 per cent of pubs responding. I cannot comment on that as I do not yet know the figures, and I am not sure that we yet have figures on which we can rely.

I tell my noble friend Lord Faulkner that the Good Practice Guide issued by the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society advises the licensing justices not to set conditions that generally relate to health. I think that we should be absolutely clear about that. The Good Practice Guide states that these matters are properly for local authorities under their responsibilities for environmental health and are not properly dealt with in a licensing context. I think that we should all expect local authorities to take seriously their duties under other legislation such as environmental health law about health and safety matters, and I believe that they do.

The Bill's four licensing objectives were developed after extensive and detailed consultation with stakeholders. From the first consultation, and including the Government's White Paper, it was made clear that the purposes of the licensing regime needed to be absolutely clear and focused. The result of consultation was to choose for that clear focus the prevention of disturbance and disorder, as well as ensuring public safety wherever possible in places where people gather together for leisure purposes, whether as staff or patrons, and of course including children.

Amendment No. 90 would require licensing authorities to have regard to the need to exclude children from areas of licensed premises where smoking is permitted. For exactly the same reason as we do not believe that the regulation of smoking on premises where other licensable activities take place should be included in the Bill, I am not able to accept this amendment. However, I am ready to consider what more might be done to bolster the charter we have discussed, to discuss this with my right honourable and honourable friends in the Department of Health, and, in particular, to encourage its adoption by the licensed trade. I am sure that there will be general agreement across the Committee on that.

The issue of regulating smoking on premises is, however, beyond the scope of this Bill. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken. I particularly appreciate the comments of my noble friend Lady Gibson and the reply just now from my noble friend the Minister. This is an issue that will not go away. It is clear from the tone of all the contributions that the climate on smoking in public places, in licensed premises and indeed elsewhere, is changing steadily; on that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is absolutely correct. I would expect that the climate will have changed sufficiently for the great majority of businesses to realise that it is good commercial practice to provide properly for those who dislike the smell and taste of other people's tobacco smoke.

The purpose of moving and speaking to these amendments was to give a helping hand to my friends at the Department of Health who are desperately attempting to secure a proper tobacco control policy in this country. I pay tribute to what they are doing. The Answers that they are giving to parliamentary Questions and other Statements in this place and in the other place show that they are absolutely on the right lines. These amendments were a contribution, I thought, to joined-up government.

I should like to pick up one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I am pleased that he did not lose his temper this morning; he is an agreeable and equable character most of the time. I do, however, have to make the point about children and adults. Of course I am not suggesting that children should be separated from adults when they go into licensed premises. What I am saying is that, because of the damage which we know that passive smoke does to children, adults should be persuaded not to smoke in front of their children. Clearly that cannot be enforced at home, but it does not appear to be an unreasonable aspiration in public places and in licensed premises.

Nevertheless, I shall, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone suggests, not press the amendment to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No.2:

page 108, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

I support the amendments we are discussing to which I have added my name. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The Bill's purpose as set out in the White Paper is deregulation. However, the provision we are discussing appears to add a whole raft of areas which we believed were outside the ambit of the Bill and should remain there. The owner of Hobgoblins Folk Music Shops wrote to me suggesting that the provision could jeopardise the survival of his shops. The licence itself may not be too onerous a burden to bear if the fees are to remain within the guidelines set in the White Paper—although they may, of course, vary—but in the past the ongoing costs of meeting health and safety requirements under the public entertainment licence scheme have been onerous. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. We shall almost certainly return to this matter at a later stage.

I have a rather more fundamental point to make. Will the Minister explain to an ignorant mind such as I possess how you can have entertainment without providing facilities? Therefore, why is sub-paragraph (3) needed at all?

Will the Minister clarify a point that perplexes many noble Lords such as myself who are involved with small charities, often in rural areas? If I make my house and garden available to a local charity, a harpist plays to welcome people as they enter, wine is provided and perhaps a juggler turns up to entertain the children, will I and the charity now be faced with an expensive bureaucratic burden or can I carry on holding such events at my premises? Many people are asking such questions as the explanations provided for the Bill are poor as regards small charities and, indeed, some other larger organisations that we shall discuss later today.

We have started on Schedule 1. It is appropriate that I should comment: in general terms on the way in which we approach these matters. We did, indeed, group together many amendments to Schedule 1 regardless of which noble Lord tabled them as we considered that that was exactly what would happen in practice. What I shall say now applies not only to the amendments in the group we are discussing but to many amendments in subsequent groups.

The first point to be made about Schedule 1 is that the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is strictly set out in the early paragraphs of the schedule. Sub-paragraph (2) of the first paragraph of Schedule I refers to,

"entertainment or entertainment facilities… provided… for members of the public or a section of the public… for members of a club… and their guests, or in any case… for consideration and with a view to profit".

I believe that we shall discuss that matter further when we discuss a later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I refer to the matter now to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

The point here is that the facilities and the entertainment are provided as the main object of the exercise, so to speak. In other words, the horrible and ubiquitous muzak is not covered by the provision. There is no licensing requirement for it whether it be played in a pub, a shopping mall or, indeed, in the public street, where it is even worse.

I must take advantage of the noble Lord's kind offer to allow me to intervene. Where does the schedule say that the main purpose of the provision of the entertainment is the music? Nothing in the schedule removes the impression that has been gained that an event will be caught by the schedule if music is provided, which is incidental to the event but furnishes some entertainment for people attending that event.

I shall continue with the argument as I want to refer specifically to music as, clearly, it is of particular concern. A whole series of amendments relate to music and to the differences between live music, recorded music, amplified and unamplified music and so on.

The provisions of Schedule I do not attempt to discriminate in any way between one kind of music and another, or indeed, to discriminate between one kind of entertainment and another except in the sense that we are concerned with its effect. The effect is twofold: first, there is a health and safety issue as regards the protection of the audience—I refer only to entertainments carried out in the presence of an audience or members of a club or their guests—and, secondly, there is an effect on the area surrounding the premises. I refer in that connection to noise and disturbance. That is the basis on which the whole of Schedule I is constructed.

The Minister refers to entertainment being provided in the presence of an audience. But if someone was paid to prepare music for a wedding, would he not be caught by Schedule 1? That person would be presenting music to an audience for profit. Could that also not apply—perhaps I prejudge what the Minister will say—to music shops whose main purpose is to make a profit out of the provision of music?

No, that is not the case. A wedding party, for example, does not constitute an event conducted in the presence of members of the public. It involves invited guests. A music shop does involve members of the public but the main purpose of the music shop is to sell music, not to invite people in to listen to music. Those people are not charged for coming into the shop to listen to music. There is no question of music shops, wedding parties or anything else of that sort being covered by the Bill. That is simply not provided for.

The second question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was about facilities. Why do we need to cover not only entertainment, as defined in paragraph 1(1), but also facilities, as in paragraph 1(3)? Entertainment facilities are needed in the Bill to ensure that, when a nightclub provides a dance floor rather than staging performances, it is still required to have a licence. The effect of dancing in a nightclub, and the music that is necessary for dancing, constitutes a health and safety issue for those taking part and the audience and an issue of protection for those living nearby. That is why it must be included in the provisions.

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting at this point. I have a particular question that he may be able to answer now. If a dance floor is already in a venue but is not used for that purpose, does the physical presence of the dance floor mean that an official could say that the premises must be licensed, or does the dance floor have to be removed? That question has been raised by the industry, because the financial provision of pubs will be affected. What is a dance floor?

I come to the third part of the argument, because we need to consider the matter as a whole. I refer to the availability of licences. One is not going to have a dance floor in a nightclub unless one is proposing to dance, and one is not going to dance except to music—at least, not in my experience. Any licensed premises, such as a nightclub or pub, which is selling alcohol, is going to have an alcohol licence to start with. At the same time as applying for its alcohol licence, and at no extra charge, it will be able to apply for an entertainment licence.

As I have made clear, the judgment on the entertainment licence will not be made on the basis that the music is live or recorded, or amplified or not amplified. It will be made on whether an audience is present that needs to be protected on the grounds of public safety, and whether protection is needed for those who live around. The conditions that will be applied to the licence relate not to whether it is live or recorded or amplified or not amplified but to whether health and safety and public safety requirements are met by the premises and by the emission of noise and other disturbance from the premises. In other words, they could be controlled in terms of the numbers of decibels, such as a requirement for a lower level of noise later at night. All those matters can be dealt with in the conditions of the individual licence.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into all the detail into which many of the amendments go, except for the purposes of explanation, as we do in paragraph 2 of the schedule. The purpose of facilities is to have entertainment, for which they will need a licence. The purpose of protection from licences is to discriminate not between one form of entertainment and another but in terms of public safety and public nuisance. That purpose is set out in the licensing objectives, although we have not yet come to that part of the Bill.

Taking the amendments in more detail, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that, if there is any concern about rehearsal studios or music practice, those rooms are not subject to licensing. The playing of music at either of those would not constitute regulated entertainment because it would not satisfy the first condition set out in the schedule, which is that the entertainment must be,

"for members of the public or a section of the public",

or for "members of a club" or their guests, or "for consideration". There would be no audience at a rehearsal studio or practice, and no,

"consideration … with a view to profit".

I believe that the Committee will agree, however, that when there is a public dress rehearsal or press night, for which people are not paying but to which they are invited, the same issues of public safety and nuisance arise as if it were a paid public performance. Therefore, it should be subject to licensing.

Amendment No. 18 would add dancing and making music to the list of descriptions of entertainment in paragraph 2. The performance of live music and any playing of recorded music is already caught, so I do not understand what that amendment would add.

Amendment No. 19 would amend the description of entertainment by including entertainment provided for the purpose of "participation by the public" in addition to that provided for,

"an audience and … for the purpose … of entertaining that audience.

If an audience is present when an entertainment under the Bill is carried out, and the other conditions of the schedule are satisfied, the entertainment will be licensable. The Committee will agree that issues of public safety and nuisance arise under those circumstances. The participation or otherwise of the audience does not make any difference as to whether a licence would be required.

I was asked a specific question about where incidental music is exempted. Paragraph 7, in Part 2 of the schedule, exempts,

"recorded music … that … is incidental to some other activity",

whether that is selling music, shopping, walking in the streets or travelling up and down in a lift. I believe that sort of music to be absolutely horrible, but it is not, and should not, be licensable.

Perhaps it will be a subject for future regulation.

Not in this Bill.

I find the Minister's reply depressing, in the sense that it has raised more questions than it has answered. I shall want to read his comments carefully in Hansard. For example, if there is a party to which there are invited guests, does a gatecrasher trigger the need for a licence?

No. I shall not find out where it mentions gatecrashers in the Bill.

The point I am making surely shows that our amendment would simplify the Bill. It would remove the vague reference to facilities and concentrate on the description of entertainment, so that we can all understand to what extent licensing will be required.

There are questions of health and safety and with regard to the effect on the area around the premises, but we remain confused about the extent of the meaning of "facility". In later amendments we shall develop the argument about why the schedule needs clear amendment. All we are doing in the amendments to which I have spoken is to seek to assist the Government in simplifying the schedule so that it focuses on the entertainment itself, and on the impact that that entertainment will have on its environment.

We shall read carefully what the Minister said. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that if the Government do not accept the amendments, we shall probably return to the matter on Report. This is an important area of the Bill, in relation to which we have been lobbied heavily because it raises so many questions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 108, line 14, leave out "to any extent"

The Bill appears vague and somewhat confusing and is therefore almost a paradise for lawyers, who will need to explain what we meant when we passed this wonderful Bill. Will the issues raised by it be covered by the guidance, which of course has not yet been published?

I support the amendment. It was said earlier that weddings will be for invited guests but my experience is that if a wedding is in a church, the public are not excluded; anyone can walk in. The phrase, "to any extent" could mean that that answer about the church might not be correct. Similarly, the point about the gatecrasher might be covered by that phrase. It is a very sweeping phrase and I support its removal from the schedule.

I ask the Minister—I am glad that she has regained her dulcet voice—whether agreeing to the amendment would make any difference. Paragraph 1(2)(a) of the schedule states,

"to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public".

Even if one removed "to any extent", the phrase "a section of the public" could mean two people. If one wants to carry home the point, another amendment will be needed next time. Will the Minister confirm that?

The phrase, "to any extent" will be pored over by the courts; the whole Bill will provide a field-day for lawyers and there will be a huge number of judicial review applications as a result of the transfer to councils of licensing responsibility. What the Minister says in Committee about the words "to any extent" will be pored over, bearing in mind the Pepper v Hart decision, which allows courts to look at Hansard in certain circumstances.

I intervene on this issue to try to tease out of this Minister, having tried with the previous Minister, whether this provision provides a gateway through which small charities, such as those that I mentioned earlier, can go. If the event is organised on the basis that tickets are sold by people with a particular interest so as to invite some members of the public to private premises—a village hall or church, for example—in order to support a charity, will the words allow us not to have to apply for a licence? If not, what do they mean, if anything at all?

I raise another example, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might care to consider. I speak as a former vice-president of the Aldeburgh Foundation. One of our most successful activities are the Britten-Pears musical schools, in which a number of masterclasses are given by experts: singers, violinists and so on. They are extremely interesting events, to which one can go and pay a small fee. Not many people can go but they are generally very popular. If one is ambitious to become a Lieder singer, one will learn much by going to listen to a masterclass. At the moment, the funds received, which are not considerable, go to help to pay for the foundation's expenses. Would they be caught by the phrase "to any extent"? I suppose that they will be.

The Minister may regard my observation as dated but I raise a footnote to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I offer to the Chamber the remark by Raymond Asquith's mother-in-law, Lady Homer, in about 1900. She said that there is no social event in the entire kingdom to which one cannot gain access by writing "Admit two" on your visiting card.

I remember many years ago being in Carmel, California, for the summer musical festival and discovering that, as is often the case, fire safety regulations were at odds with security. If one went up the fire escape, one could get into part of the hall and obviate the need to pay for a ticket at the door. I hasten to say that I have not done that for many years!

I can answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, very simply. Of course the public can go into weddings, but weddings are not covered because they are religious services. I was discussing wedding parties; in other words, the "do" afterwards, not the wedding service. That also applies, I believe, to the register office.

I shall respond to the amendment about the phrase "to any extent" before dealing with some of the other challenges. Members of the Committee may appreciate why we wanted to group these amendments: all the questions being raised could and should have been raised in relation to the subject matter of Schedule 1.

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 defines the "provision of regulated entertainment" for the purposes of the Bill. Sub-paragraph (2)(a) sets out the condition that the "entertainment or entertainment facilities" must be provided,

"to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public".

That is one of three alternative descriptions in the paragraph that must be satisfied for the entertainment to be regulated. The amendment seeks the removal of the phrase "to any extent" in that condition. That expression is understood by the courts. I say that with some trepidation in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. It removes any argument that the provision of entertainment for any number of people, including a single person attending an event, if only for part of that event, is covered by the licensing regime.

There are entertainments—some fringe entertainments at the Edinburgh Festival—at which only one person turns up. I have heard of an entertainment on the fringe of the Edinburgh Festival at which only one person was allowed to be present; in other words, it was a one-to-one entertainment. However, the consideration in this regard, as always, is about the twin issues of public safety and protection of the public from public nuisance. If we took out the phrase "to any extent" there would be the possibility that the definition of "members of the public" and "section of the public" could be open to misinterpretation and a good deal of argument. The law must be clear for venue operators.

I was asked a number of specific questions, which I shall try to answer, anticipating future amendments in future groups. School concerts, surely, are for invited guests—that is, the parents and relatives of those in the school—and are therefore not covered.

I have already dealt with the issue of the wedding service. On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about Aldeburgh masterclasses, I have only got into a masterclass once—

Will the Minister—

Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to finish my sentence; I am trying to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.

I have got in only once because the tickets are very difficult to get hold of; but, yes, they are licensable activities. They are for members of the public and issues of public safety and public nuisance apply.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He made an assertion that school concerts are for parents and members of the school. That is right. But, now, in a great many schools where school concerts are given by, for example, the school orchestra, the local community is invited to attend the concert and to pay money for a ticket; nevertheless, it is the school concert. Will that be included within the licensing requirements and, if so, is that reasonable?

If any query were to arise on the basis of public safety and public nuisance, it would be in relation to the exemption which is being made only for those who are invited to school concerts. The answer is: yes, if the public attend, the event will be licensable because issues of public safety and public nuisance arise. However, the question should be: should events which are not open to the public be licensable because issues of public nuisance and public safety arise? Perhaps I may be allowed to finish and I shall then give way to noble Lords in turn. The fundamental consideration must be public nuisance and public safety. Within that, we are trying to be as deregulatory as we can. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.

I thank the Minister. He mentioned public nuisance and public safety and, quite legitimately, that has been the catch-all for a number of his points. However, we are talking about schools, churches or certain other institutions that are already covered by health and safety guidelines on safety at work. Obviously, this point will be raised in relation to churches. But this is meant to be a piece of deregulation. We are adding on top a piece of regulation which already exists because school halls are already adequately covered by fire and noise regulations. Therefore, we are simply adding a piece of secondary legislation. I believe that the Minister's point that we cannot object to this because of health and public nuisance issues somewhat misses the point of the amendments.

No. That is the reason for the exemptions. But if anyone stages a commercial concert and charges for admission, and if there is any,

"consideration and with a view to profit",

as stated in Schedule 1(2)(c), then clearly issues of public nuisance and public safety arise.

I am now utterly bemused by the argument about safety and public nuisance. Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I take a keen interest in an organisation known as the National Opera Studio. The Minister will know that that organisation is responsible for training all our best young opera singers from every opera company in the country. During the course of a working week with one of our national opera companies, it usually holds a concert in a school hall. During the week, it also goes out to, and does work with, a number of schools.

I attended the last event organised by the National Opera Studio in the school hall of a school in Penarth. I cannot see that a safety issue arises for those who attended that concert to listen to people being trained in a school hall that does not arise for anyone attending a school concert in the same building. No other question of health and safety arises from people being present to listen to those performers than it would for anyone else sitting in a school hall and listening to a performance. Therefore, I simply cannot understand the argument.

From this side of the Chamber perhaps I may support some of the contributions thus far. I went to St Mary's Church in Battersea a week last Thursday for a musical event which raised funds for the fabric of the building. Members of the congregation and members of the public generally were charged £7.50 per head for attending. Presumably, under this provision, the church would be required to be licensed. Is that or is that not so?

I am sorry to extend the debate but this is obviously a matter of huge importance and wide application. I believe that the last comment made by the Minister before he kindly gave way—I thank him again for letting me intervene—concerned consideration being charged for events. However, as he earlier said correctly, subsection (2) does not require tickets to be sold for an event in order for the event to fall within subsection (2). Therefore, taking the example of the school play, one would not need to charge anyone attending the event for the event to be caught by subsection (a) if,

"to any extent … members of the public or a section of the public",

were present.

As the noble Lord said in defending that wording, it is designed to catch one or two people who are present for part of an entertainment. I put it to the Minister that, in fact, the organisers of most school plays, especially those held in a large hall and with several performances, encourage pupils to bring along friends. As the wording stands, I believe that if friends are allowed—indeed, encouraged—to come along to a school performance of any kind without charge, that is caught.

I am sorry to add to the woes of the Minister but perhaps I may ask for clarification on one other point. The amendment that we are discussing does not refer only to "entertainment"; as we were aware earlier, it refers also to "entertainment facilities". Those are still covered by the wording,

"to any extent for members of the public",

and so on. Let us take the example of a school which has its own concert facilities—a stage and so on. Normally that school would not use those facilities for the public; they would normally be used only for the school. However, under certain circumstances every year or two years, the public might be present at an event. I refer specifically to the "facilities" that are available. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the school will require a regulated entertainment licence because the facilities exist and might be used to any extent for the public. I refer not to the entertainment itself but to the facilities.

Perhaps I may also ask the Minister to clarify the point which follows on from the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He said that one does not necessarily have to charge. Can he clarify whether, in the school concert scenario, there is a difference if people are not specifically charged but are asked to donate? I cite as an example the case of the charge of £7.50 for the event at a church. When one enters museums, one often sees a notice saying, "Donations suggested", with an amount, even though it may be a non-charging museum. Can the noble Lord clarify whether the word "donation" makes any difference?

Before the Minister reads those helpful pieces of paper that are on their way to him, perhaps I may, in a spirit of comradeship, give him a little advice. He knows of the affection that I have for him. Part of my job from these Benches is to go to another place and sit in on our parliamentary party meetings. Very rarely do I receive questions or comments on what we are doing at this end of the building. Last night, a large number of Members said that their post bags were already being filled by complaints, fears or doubts about this part of the Bill. Before the Minister plays his usual elegant, straight bat in response, perhaps I may suggest that he takes back the matter to the department. He will certainly have trouble from this end of the building and my suspicion is that, as those post bags fill up, he will also have trouble from the other end.

I can get a word in edgeways—excellent! Clearly a large number of specific questions about specific cases—whether they be master classes, opera schools or whatever—have been raised, and it would be foolish of me to attempt to answer them at the Dispatch Box. I shall undertake to write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate about all the issues raised.

There will obviously be difficulties at the margin. However, I believe that the fundamental principles that I stated in relation to Schedule 1 deal with the large bulk of the questions raised in the post bags of the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and, indeed, with the questions raised in this House.

I want to return specifically to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about existing health and safety legislation and whether it is being duplicated. Our existing health and safety legislation relating to the workplace covers schools. It does not matter whether it is a place of work or an educational institution; health and safety issues are addressed in a place of work or educational institution. It does not cover the issues which may arise when those premises are used for other purposes; in other words, when the public have access to entertainments which are comparable to those provided in commercial premises. The issues when large numbers of the public come into a school are different from those concerning schoolchildren in a school.

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting at this late stage. As I understand it, under health and safety legislation a school hall in which 200 to 300 children sit, and where there is amplification for the teachers, is covered in the same way as a play.

What if a rock group plays in a school? There are issues of public safety and public nuisance.

I shall try to answer as many as I can of the individual points raised in so far as they could be helpful to the general tenor of the debate. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton: no. Clearly, that is an exact example of an occasional licence for up to five occasions a year. He said once every year or every two years. For the reasons I have given, although that is licensable, it is on a restricted and a limited scale.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the question of donations. Donations are not a charge made for the entertainment provided and do not give rise to the need for a licence.

I apologise to the Minister, who is being extraordinarily patient. However, I believe the Committee would want me to say that that reply was unintentionally misleading. Under this paragraph, it does not matter whether there is a charge, a donation or nothing. That is the point. As was rightly said in introducing the amendment, there are three alternatives, any one of which being satisfied brings in the whole of the registration procedure.

The word used in the Bill is not charge but

"for consideration and with a view to profit".

Donations, which are clearly voluntary, do not fall within that category.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He was right the first time. In order for this paragraph to be applicable, it is not necessary for there to be any consideration or a view to profit. Regardless of that, one is caught if members of the public, or any section of the public, to any extent are present at the occasion, full stop.

That is right, and that is why issues of public safety and public nuisance arise. That is exactly the reason.

I did not properly deal, except flippantly, with gatecrashers. The answer is that a gatecrasher would not make an event licensable, because the entertainment has not been provided for the public. The entertainment must be provided for the public in order to bring it within the regime. If someone gatecrashes your wedding party, you are not in retrospect guilty of not having applied for a licence.

I do not know where to begin. I shall try to be brief. In relation to previous amendments, the Minister said that it is unnecessary to go into all the detail. I hope he now accepts that we are raising significant questions with regard to clarity and the implications of the Bill, which require answers.

I am grateful to the Minister, as I am sure are all noble Lords, for offering to write to us to give answers to some of the questions raised. However, surely the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is right when he says that as currently drafted, this provision will create a field day for lawyers. As a lawyer, I support that. I simply do not understand some of the answers given by the Minister. My noble friend Lord Brooke put it succinctly and summed up the problem. When referring to how to get round the problem of an event which is private, one has an invitation card on which one writes, "Admit 2". The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right. Perhaps the amendment is not the right one, and we should consider excluding the whole of the subsection.

Questions have been asked about weddings as religious services. Sadly, many weddings today are not religious services, although now we are told that they do not need to be religious in order to be exempt from the Bill. There is much here that is unclear. The noble Lord, Lo rd Redesdale, rightly said in relation to school concerts that schools are subject to considerable burdens in relation to health and safety issues—quite rightly. However, this is another layer of regulation. We believe passionately that this is entirely against what we were led to believe; that is, that this would be a deregulatory measure. The Bill will give us more regulation, more red tape, and more cost.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly said that complaints following this debate alone will mean that our postboxes will be fuller than they have been hitherto, as will our e-mail accounts. We shall consider with care the Minister's remarks. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We hope very much that the Government will consider carefully before Report all that has been said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 108, line 14, at end insert "(otherwise than by an educational or religious institution)"

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her speech. I agree with much of what she says. The amendment standing in my name covers ground that is treated by other noble Lords, but it is not tabled in a spirit of unseemly competition. We simply wish to help the Minister, who will be understandably concerned to secure some form of words that would protect from any abuse a general exemption for places of public religious worship and educational institutions.

Many of the arguments for maintaining the present position were rehearsed at Second Reading. I do not wish to weary your Lordships by repeating them and delaying the Committee proceedings. The exemption was approved by Parliament in 1982 and we have heard no argument that justifies removing it. The present situation has assisted places of worship to fulfil their wider community role, as they have for centuries.

Since Second Reading, some two-and-a-half weeks ago, countless examples have come to light of just how close the relationship of church and community entertainment often is. St Paul's, Covent Garden, for example, is a place that provides facilities for young musicians and actors at the beginning of their careers, while children from local schools and special art schools use the space for concerts and drama.

We have already heard examples from across the river in Southwark diocese. I must say that I admire the scale of fees it seems to be charging just across the Thames. But as to the situation countrywide, I have been told of one church in Ludlow which has held 27 performances so far this year, ranging from the local choral society to the rugby club. A church in Carlisle has detailed 10 events from organ recitals to a concert by local people. They are far from being money-spinners; for example, that programme in the church in Carlisle has been subsidised.

That is an important point which has been emphasised again and again in correspondence. Some of the events are simply seen as part of the church's outreach into the local community. Some are intended, as in the example we had from Battersea, to raise funds, but usually for charity or to maintain the building itself. Many places of public religious worship are listed as important parts of the architectural inheritance of the whole community. Nearly one-half of Grade I listed buildings in the country are ecclesiastical. They are cared for, very cost effectively I may say, on behalf of the whole community by an army of volunteers. If unamended, the Bill would represent a further tax on their efforts.

I note Dr Howells' comment in his letter to The Times that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to waive or reduce charges for places of worship and charities, but that would still be an added layer of regulation imposed on hard-pressed volunteers by a Bill with the laudable aim of deregulation.

I fear very much—Prunella Scales has got the matter absolutely right—that if volunteers contemplate the costs of obtaining a licence, the time involved in annual inspections and making temporary notifications, they will conclude that it would be safer and simpler not to hold the events at all. This is a very law-abiding part of the community and I can hear in my inner ear now the anxious debates on the PCC.

I know very well that this would be a long way from the intentions DCMS. The department's paper A Force for Our Future argues cogently for the wider use of heritage buildings for community activity and as a focus for tourism and regeneration. There is an army of unpaid volunteers countrywide who are trying to do just that. They need encouragement.

The amendment I have tabled, with the support of friends from all the major faith communities—I must underline that this is not just a Church of England pitch—seeks to provide this encouragement by exempting from the definition of "regulated entertainment" events in a place of public religious worship.

Why have we used the formula:

"place of public religious worship"?

Because, we understand, it is a phrase that has a clear and precise legal meaning; it covers both Christian churches and places of worship of other faiths without laying the exemption open to abuse. It is the wording that the Government themselves employed in relation to relief from rates in local government legislation.

The second element in the amendment recognises the problems likely to arise from the attempt to exempt those entertainments that are incidental to a religious service. Of course, it is often difficult to make a dear distinction between religious services and entertainment—although unfortunately, sometimes it is only too easy. For example, how should we classify a medieval mystery play or a Christmas carol concert at which some crooner sang "White Christmas"? By inserting the word "anything", we hope to assist the Minister by avoiding confusion and making the exemption workable.

In the light of so much that has been said in this debate and real and—judging from my post bag—growing concern, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments and take the opportunity to improve the provisions by taking into account the valuable contribution made to community and cultural life by educational institutions and all the nation's faith communities.

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 24, to which my name is attached. However, I must admit that I prefer the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, which I should have supported if I had read it in time. The amendments highlight a massive concern that goes to the heart of the Bill. The Bill is "one size fits all"; it deals with massive venues as well as the smallest church in the land.

I raised with my local church, St Marks, the question of a Nativity concert of a school nursery that was based in the church. I asked whether the Bill would apply but, being in London, it already has a public entertainment licence. St Marks could perhaps bear the cost. However, my local church in Northumberland, which has a congregation of eight, would find it a different matter altogether.

I support everything that the right reverend Prelate said. We shall return to the issue, and I hope that the Minister will make some concession on it, because I am sure that if the right reverend Prelate were to press it, it would receive support from around the Committee.

I have two questions. Are carol concerts covered under paragraph 9 of the exemptions? What about instrumental music? What if there was a religious service, an orchestra performed and at the end of the orchestra's performance a prayer was said? Would the orchestra's performance become part of the incidental music and therefore exempt under the Bill?

I do not want to add to the arguments advanced by my friend the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, but I want to stress the widespread concern about the matter and the importance of churches and religious buildings in the cultural life of the countryside. In my episcopal ministry, I have served in two dioceses—Peterborough and Chichester—which are typical of the English countryside. They combine urban settlements, small towns and even smaller villages. In all of those settings, churches and other places of public religious worship are increasingly used by the local community for concerts, school plays—as we have heard—and other cultural activities.

My predecessor was probably unfair when he described Peterborough as a cultural desert, but without Music in Country Churches, Music in Quiet Places, the Oundle Organ Festival, Music in Lyddington—and so the list could go on—the cultural life of our communities would be considerably impoverished. Many of those events use a variety of venues in different villages and different churches, all of which would have to apply at least for a temporary licence under the proposals. Many of the organisations involved run on a small and fragile budget and, as we have heard, are subject to subsidy.

I therefore warmly support the amendments, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the schedule. It would be anomalous on the one hand to encourage the increasing use of churches and other places of religious worship for cultural purposes by the community and on the other to add financial and bureaucratic burdens that could frustrate that purpose. When, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence of abuse of the current exemption, why are the Government legislating to remove it and require those places to seek a licence?

I rise to support the amendment, and that in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. As a Muslim, I know that musical events do not affect the Muslim community. However, cultural activities do, and, in any case, in solidarity with all religious groups and places of worship, I support the amendment.

Before I became a Member of the House, I was a local councillor, and from my experience I know that many groups use places of worship such as churches for cultural events—especially those people who cannot afford to go to opera houses. Places of worship are the local, community place available to be used. I do not know of any crime and disorder in any place of worship. The White Paper talks about encouraging tourism and self-sufficient rural communities, reducing crime and disorder and reducing the burden of unnecessary regulation. I cannot see how including places of worship achieves any of those objectives.

I support the amendment, and hope that the Minister will consider all that has been said, with which I entirely agree.

My name is also attached to Amendment No. 5, and I support everything that has been said so far. It is extraordinary that at a time when schools have been working so hard to forge good relationships across the whole community by bringing people in to use school premises sensibly and by holding events for all kinds of groups in the community, they should then be penalised for doing so by having to pay a fee.

I turn to the community work of and cultural activities in cathedrals and churches, which have been so greatly valued by the community. Southwark Cathedral, where I worship, has a full, constant programme of events. I must tell my noble friend Lord Luke that we once had a knifing in Southwark Cathedral, but that was in the middle of a carol service, not of an alternative cultural event. I do not think that a licence for a carol service would have helped.

I reiterate to the Minister that it would be counter-productive and contrary to government policy to discourage the community outreach of schools, universities, colleges and churches by penalising them in that expensive way.

A few weeks ago, I had the daunting task of cross-examining the right reverend Prelate in the Central Criminal Court. I am, therefore, pleased to speak on the same side as him, on this occasion—again, some might say.

My noble friend should make it clear that the right reverend Prelate was not the accused.

He was not the accused.

I want to say a word about small music festivals. Immediately, I declare an interest or, at least, the interest of my wife, who is chairman of the Gregynog festival in mid-Wales. It is one of a large number of small music festivals that operate on a shoestring but bring high-quality music to communities that cannot always gain access to it. However, I shall not use my wife's festival as my example.

I want to draw the Committee's attention to three other examples. One is the Llanfyllen festival, which takes place in a small town on the Montgomeryshire-Shropshire border. The festival depends entirely on the remarkable goodwill of the Allegri String Quartet, who perform two or three concerts there every year as a result of the fact that a retired member of the quartet has a holiday home locally. Festivals such as the Llanfyllen festival have no financial margin of error; they operate on a shoestring. Indeed, that festival recently had to reduce the number of concerts.

The festival takes place in a beautiful church that is not full every Sunday, despite the great efforts of the local rector, but it is more or less full for the festival concerts. It brings people into the church; it brings the church into the mind of the people; it binds the community together; and it brings high-quality culture to that small town. If there is to be a charge that falls on the church, it will have to be passed on to the festival. If it is passed on to the festival, the festival may no longer be viable.

Another example is the remarkable English Haydn Festival, which takes place in a church in Bridgnorth. The church is redundant, but, I believe, it is still consecrated. It is a large festival in terms of the quantity of Haydn's music that is brought to the community around Bridgnorth, in Shropshire and mid-Wales. It, too, is run on a shoestring. A sum of £1,000 makes a huge difference, and £100 makes some difference. As I said, the church in which the English Haydn Festival at Bridgnorth takes place is no longer used for regular religious worship, but the festival provides a rationale for the retention of the building, which is in a crucial architectural position in the historic centre of a town that has, over the years, seen some poor development round its edges. So, as well as the cultural issue, there are architectural and civic issues.

The third example relates to the activities of an organisation with which my wife and I have had some dealings over the years—the Welshpool Choral Society. Not so many years ago, the Welshpool Choral Society sang the "Messiah" in Welshpool parish church. The society paid an organist to play for the occasion and sold tickets to the public. It lost a lot of money. We who sang had to pay for the privilege of singing and did so gladly, but the margins on which such small societies operate mean that extra charges will possibly bring such events to an end, along with the involvement of the community.

I already hear the Minister saying, "Ah, but we must be sure that health and safety law isn't broken. The same rules apply". I suppose that we will hear from the Minister that there is a danger at a chamber concert of the cello being played too loud and that there will have to be licensing conditions before it takes place. That is illogical. Under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, a gospel rock band taking part in a religious service would not require licensing under the Act. There is a great deal of such activity, particularly in evangelical churches throughout the country. I have witnessed it myself in mid-Wales.

The schedule will create a bureaucratic nightmare that will drive small musical performances, particularly the smallest music festivals—which mostly take place in rural areas—out of existence for the sake of what appears to be only the principle of uniformity. I strongly support the amendments.

I can be brief, as the case that I was going to make has just been admirably made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was going to speak on the same subject—music festivals, particularly music festivals in Wales. The case was also comprehensively and adequately presented from my Front Bench and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I prefer the right reverend Prelate's amendment to the other amendment.

I speak, I suppose, as a representative of the disestablished Church in Wales. I am churchwarden of a small church in a group of parishes in a Welsh valley. I think that I could speak equally well for the chapels of Wales, in which the same situation would arise. The importance to churches and communities of the kind of social and entertainment activities that have been described by speakers on the Bishops' Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and, indeed, the Government Benches, cannot be over-emphasised.

I have two detailed points. One—on health and safety—has just been made. In the church of Crickhowell, there is a wonderful choral festival every year. We all sit in the seats that we might have occupied at a church service the previous week or at a wedding. In fact, there are almost exactly the same numbers as there would be for a large wedding service or as there were recently for the funeral of a popular local figure. I cannot see that there can be a health and safety question that arises for the people who attend the concert that does not arise for those who are present for a funeral or a wedding. I find the argument on health and safety utterly unconvincing and incomprehensible. As the right reverend Prelate also said, there has been exemption for about a hundred years, and no good case has been made for removing it.

For all the reasons so cogently given and as a passionate supporter of the kind of concerts and musical activities that take place all over the country—certainly in my part of the country—I strongly support the amendments. I suspect that they will not be pressed to a Division today, but I hope that, if the Government do not listen to our arguments, there will be an occasion later in the progress of the Bill when we can vote for the right reverend Prelate's amendment.

Many noble Lords have spoken about the disadvantages of what is in the Bill, and I support what they said. However, I ask the Minister to set out in her reply the reasons why the proposal is in the Bill. I am an ex-bureaucrat, and I have a vivid imagination, but I am unable to see why it is in the Bill. It is not sufficient to make a general argument about health and safety. It is not sufficient just to say that there could be a problem with health and safety in some parish church or elsewhere. I am not convinced by that argument; we need a lot more than that, if we are to respond to the Government's position. At present, I see no reason to do that.

I have one other question. Is there a district council in the kingdom that has asked for the power?

There is one aspect of the clauses that has not yet come to our attention—their financial effect. Although it is made clear who will conduct the licensing, there is no procedure for appeals against the amount of the fee for the licence or the annual inspection. The relevant references are Clause 54 and Schedule 5.

I know the effect that it will have on my parish church, which is a Grade I listed building, with 130 people on the church roll. We are at a loss as to how we would finance activities without collaring four or five string quartets who come each year to play in the excellent acoustic. That helps us. Not only will we lose that amount, but we may have to pay more. The district council's finances are always in a difficult condition. If it sees that it can up the ante and charge more, as far as I can see there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it from doing so. Therefore, I believe that this is a serious matter and hope that we shall adopt one of the two amendments to those clauses. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I have a marginal preference for that produced by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London.

To follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I should be grateful if the Minister would say what would be the average cost of an annual visit for licence purposes, if one has to be undertaken.

I support the previous speeches and, in particular, that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. St Leonard's Church in Bridgnorth—the home of the Haydn concert to which he referred—will undoubtedly be affected by the type of charges that are in contemplation. Astley Abbots is a small village two miles outside Bridgnorth and I have known the church all my life.

The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London referred to Ludlow. That brings us to wider implications of the Bill. St Lawrence church, Ludlow, where the concerts to which he referred take place, does not just maintain the fabric of the church—good though that is—it also maintains the grave of A E Housman, the famous poet and writer of "A Shropshire Lad", in the churchyard. Therefore, all those activities have more to offer the community than first appears to be the case. I very much support those amendments and I hope that the Government will consider them and return with a sensible and thought-through amendment to the Bill.

I simply want to underline the important point of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London as regards public access. I speak as someone with some years experience of small rural communities in the West Country where the tiny parish church is often an important—if not the only—focus of rural life. As the right reverend Prelate said, it is the Government's own heritage policy—is it not?—to encourage access to all our public buildings and make every possible use of, say, churches built for a religious purpose. In the case of my local community, half the church is a badminton court.

I am partly responsible for access to a tiny church. I feel that any licensing system would be a nonsense and would deprive churches of income that they desperately need for repair and maintenance.

I seem fated in these debates to be adding footnotes to speeches made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Those ancestors of mine who sat as Liberal Members of Parliament in another place are, I hope, smiling in yet another place, to see me do it. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Churches Conservation Trust. That is a trust which maintains the very church in Bridgnorth to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred. It maintains in excess of 300 other churches as well.

The Minister will know particularly well how the Churches Conservation Trust is encouraged by her department to engage in outreach to a national public. That involves making available for events, as well as for the occasional services, churches which, long before they came into the hands of the trust, were declared redundant by the Church of England. Moreover, in addition to holding events, as a method of outreach, it is the case that ancient buildings gain immensely by being used and not simply being left shut up. The Minister, again, is particularly well qualified to recognise the irony that 70 per cent of the funding for the Churches Conservation Trust comes from her department.

The common intention of Amendments Nos. 5, 23 and 24, is to exclude places of worship from the entertainment aspects of the licensing regime. Amendment No. 5 goes further and also exempts educational institutions.

I am sure that all Members of the Committee will want to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on our churches. I entirely accept that, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London said, unnecessary burdens should be avoided. The Bill, as currently drafted, exempts all music and other entertainment which is for, or incidental to, a religious meeting or service. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that would certainly include carol services. However, it does not exempt secular entertainments in churches or other places of worship, as I believe those who have taken part in the debate clearly understand. It is that matter to which many speakers object.

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting so early and am grateful to her for giving way. I believe that she may have misled the Committee inadvertently in saying that incidental music was exempted by the Bill. It is only recorded incidental music that is exempt, under paragraph 7.

I did not say that incidental music was exempt. I said that programmes such as carol services are exempt. But it would be so much easier if I could complete what I want to say without being interrupted—it might make some difference to how we proceed.

The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, asked why those provisions were inserted. I have to remind the Committee, again, of a matter that arose at the beginning of the debate. Churches in London are already subject to a premises licence regime. Concerts take place in London churches. I believe that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey is involved in some of those concerts. They are not just in rural areas, although there are many in rural areas too.

I believe that it was thought right that one regime should apply to the whole country and that this was an anomaly. Of course, Members can argue that the Government could have gone in the other direction and taken London out, rather than that there should be one rule for churches in London and another rule for churches in rural areas. I entirely accept that it could go in that direction rather than being extended to cities, towns and villages elsewhere in the country.

We are naturally concerned that the Bill should treat all faiths equally—indeed, it must, as my noble friend Lord Ahmed said. A definition which properly includes all potential places of religious worship and does not drive a coach and horses through the Bill is no easy matter. Members need to think about so-called "new-age" religions and "raves" which some people believe masquerade as worship—and, indeed, they sometimes do. Therefore, we should be extremely careful before settling on a form of words which does not protect bona fide places of worship.

Therefore, we intend to consider our position again in respect of places of worship and to do so carefully. I undertake to return at a later stage and address a way forward. In those circumstances I hope that Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 will not be pressed today.

The issues that arise from Amendment No. 5 also came up in the previous debate. It calls for educational institutions to be exempt from the licensing regime. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked whether the Department for Education and Skills had been consulted, and the answer is no. There was no need to consult it because we are not changing the position of schools or colleges in any way in the legislation. In so far as schools, colleges, universities or any other educational institutions involve the public in paid events, they are currently not exempt from the licensing regime.

We should be absolutely clear that the provisions of the Licensing Bill—or, indeed, of the current regime—will not affect musical instruction or musical tuition. The performance of live music falls within the scope of the Bill where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose of entertaining that audience. Tuition is not provided for the purposes of entertainment but for the purposes of instruction.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to the possibility of a teacher or head teacher standing in front of a very large group of 500 or even 1,000 children and possibly having amplification. That teacher or head teacher is clearly not there for the purposes of entertainment—although some of the pupils might find what he or she has to say entertaining, or might seek to find it entertaining—but for the purpose of instruction. I can again assure the House that entertainment provided without charge for pupils, their parents and other invited guests is not a licensable activity. It is a private event to which the public are not admitted and no charges are made. However, it would probably be wrong to go further and exempt automatically schools, colleges and universities which stage public and commercial concerts. They sometimes stage extremely large pop and rock concerts where public disorder can take place. The public safety implications of such concerts in terms of very loud noise and disturbance are no different from other commercial concerts. I hope that the Committee will accept that point. Some schools put on first-rate commercial performances—sometimes with professional orchestras—but the safety of the public must be our first concern.

Having made a very important concession—which I hope will be welcomed—that we will go back and look carefully at the issue of an exemption for churches which is watertight and not subject to all kinds of difficulties, including cases being taken to court, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Before the Minister sits down, she asked a perhaps rhetorical question about whether London should be exempt or the rest of the country. Although the debate has centred around the difference between London, being a metropolitan area, and rural communities, especially Wales, it is only London and not the rest of the country, rural or urban, that falls within this category. So it is only the position of London that is at issue.

I am grateful to the Minister, as are all noble Lords, for the concession that she 'will reconsider whether or not places of worship and religious establishments should be exempted. I wrote down three words while noble Lords were speaking to this issue—"heritage", "cultural" and "community". Next to those words I wrote, "It is not worth it". Is this really what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport really intends? I think not.

A number of important points have been made. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough said that there is no evidence of abuse of present legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said that the Bill is intended to reduce crime and disorder and encourage tourism, and that that is exactly what places of worship and schools are doing already across the country. As my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark added, they are building relationships in the community.

We have had a full debate. We all believe passionately that religious establishments should be exempted. We on these Benches also believe that the position of educational establishments should be reconsidered and that they should form part of the concession to which the Minister has kindly agreed for the many reasons given by noble Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, asked what are the reasons for including schools and places of worship. I return to the point that I made—perhaps not forcibly enough—in relation to previous amendments: that the Government expressly support the evidence-based approach to drafting legislation. May we please now have the evidence, particularly in relation to schools? We cannot agree with the Minister that the Bill means no change for schools.

I again thank the Minister for her concession. I am glad that the Government will reconsider the amendments. Given that several noble Lords said that they prefer the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I have drafted a different amendment should we need to bring it forward on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Does the Minister wish me to proceed with the next amendment three minutes before the lunch break?

Yes.

It will cut what I have to say into two parts.

First course and second course.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 108, line 19, at end insert—

"other than in circumstances where the whole proceeds of the entertainment, after deduction of expenses thereof, and the relevant expenses of any exempt lottery under the provisions hereof, are applied for purposes other than private gain"

I am sorry to say that although I enjoyed the noble Lord's speech it does not bear much relation to the amendment or to the way in which it would affect the Bill. Paragraph 1(2) of the schedule provides under heading (a) that the condition is that the entertainment or entertainment facilities are provided,

"for members of the public or a section of the public";

under (b) that it is,

"exclusively for members of a club … or … their guests";

and under (c) that it is entertainment or entertainment facilities,

"in any case not falling within paragraph (a) or (b), for consideration and with a view to profit".

Clearly, the fete referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, does not fall under (c). It falls under (a) because it is open to the public. So amendments to (c) are irrelevant to his village fete.

I am sorry, but the Minister misunderstands my amendment. It applies to (a), (b) and (c).

It does not say so. It comes at the end of line 19 rather than as an additional provision. If I have misunderstood, I am sorry, but if it is meant to apply to (a), (b) and (c), it should have been in a separate sub-paragraph.

I acted on the advice of those who purport to know, and this will apply to all three headings.

It will not. That is all I can say. I have to deal with the amendment as it is. It seeks to qualify the condition relating to profit—that is the point about heading (c)—by exempting circumstances where the proceeds of an entertainment after deductions of expenses of any exempt lottery are applied for purposes other than private gain. That is where I understand the point being made about the village fete to lie.

The only way we could make that work would be by examining the accounts—not so much those of a village fete, but let us think, for example, of a Live Aid concert or an entertainment where people are paid to take part. I referred to such a case at Second Reading: a choir and an orchestra play in a church and the choir is not paid but the orchestra is. Are we going to examine the accounts every time? Even if the proceeds of an entertainment are not intended for private gain, they will be licensable if they are provided for members of the public—which is the village fete. Incidentally, any memorial service is exempt under Schedule 1(9).

To return to the example, unless I wholly misunderstand the nature of his village fete, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is forgetting the provision of the Bill which says that if there is provision for an audience of less than 500, and provided that there are no more than five occasions, which can each be three days long, in any one calendar year, notice must merely be given; there is no provision for a licence. Does the noble Lord's village fete attract more than 500 people for more than three days, more than five times a year? I very much doubt it.

A few days ago, I attended a memorial meeting of a secular nature for a celebrated forensic scientist. It was held in a room in a college at Cambridge University. Some recorded music was played, chosen by and at the request of, the deceased person's children. It seems to me that that would be caught under the Bill as it was not a religious service. If so, I invite the Minister to reconsider whether that is appropriate.

I refer to an example I gave earlier. I am a trustee of a small mental health charity in mid-Wales which holds events in private houses, sells tickets to members of the public and, typically—because we have a large number of young harpists in Montgomeryshire—we invite a harpist to play. Are we really to be subject to licensing in such a situation? If so, it seems to me a ludicrous piece of regulation. A government who seek to support small charities such as ours, which do a lot of work that used to be done by the National Health Service, should make life easier for us, not more difficult.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, should look at paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which, after listing descriptions of entertainment, states,

"where the entertainment 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 audience at the memorial meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, refers, came to honour a forensic scientist. Incidental music is not licensable.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response but I am unswayed by it. He is not right in saying that one does not need a licence for a fête—he said that there must be five occasions. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is wrong to say that schools are excluded from the provisions of this licensing regulation. Can she show me where they are excluded? There is no reference to schools' exclusion from this legislation. The amendment applies to sub-paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c). Nothing that the Minister has said affects my case. We will certainly bring this back at the next stage.

Before my noble friend gets up, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I did not say that schools were exempted. On the contrary, I said that schools, colleges and HE institutions are covered by the existing licensing regime if they are holding events involving the public and charging, for commercial purposes. There is no change from the longstanding situation. We have not had complaints from either the Department of Education or schools.

With great respect to the Minister, I heard her correctly. I am reluctant: to contradict her blankly, but there is no option. She is not taking account of the fact that sub-paragraph (2)(a) stands alone. To be caught by this Bill, an event does not need to involve charging or to be run in a school for profit. The mere admission to an event of any member of the public, or any section of the public, whether or not there is a charge, will catch it, with the result that it will be licensable. That is new. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, winter fuel payments were introduced in the winter of 1997–98. They are universal, non-contributory, age-related payments made to those ordinarily resident in the UK. We have recently agreed with the EU that EEA citizens receiving WFP in this country may port them to another EEA country.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Does she agree that many severely disabled pensioners receiving the attendance allowance and many severely disabled younger people receiving the disability living allowance are struggling to get by? Pensioners receive the winter fuel allowance, which is very helpful, but incredibly, the Government refuse these payments to younger severely disabled people. That cannot be right, because their needs are very similar. When will the Government reconsider this? Chronically and severely disabled people are just as vulnerable to the cold, whether they are old or young. That is why the issue needs reconsideration.

My Lords, I have to disappoint my noble friend. It is not the case, as he says, that severely disabled people are as vulnerable to the cold as are older people. Severely disabled people are less poor than older people. Far fewer of them are in fuel poverty compared with older people. Above all, they are at far less risk of dying in the winter due to cold. Something like 95 per cent of the additional deaths that occur during the winter months are of those aged over 60 or 65. It is therefore not the case, as my noble friend says, that severely disabled people are at greater risk as a result of their disability.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has rejected the appeal by the noble Lord behind her, but can she confirm that it is possible that some people who have gone to live in warmer countries will still be in receipt of the winter fuel payment? Can she also confirm that men between 60 and 65 who were affected by the European Court's decision can still have their claims backdated three years? If that is so, how many have been paid?

My Lords, on the first of those two questions, some countries in the EEA, such as former French colonies, have warmer climates, but many, such as Scandinavia, Germany and the like, have very cold winter temperatures. As a result of the agreement with the EU, we expect that something like 30,000 people may be able to export their winter fuel payments. They can do so only if they acquire their eligibility while ordinarily resident in the UK. So far, about 2,000 of them have claimed it.

My Lords, will the Minister please bear in mind that in some areas in the north of this country, particularly up in the mountains, the weather in the winter is very much colder than it is in the south? Will the Government please consider that people living in those areas might need more help with fuel in the winter than do people in the south? I live in one of those areas. I am lucky enough not to need such help, but I know plenty who do.

My Lords, the noble Lady is right. That is why over the past year about 1.8 million cold weather payments were made, totalling something like £15 million, disproportionately to Scotland. The right answer is obviously to make sure that houses are well insulated and, as a result, people can afford to heat them properly. I am delighted to report that under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, around 400,000 households have been able to take advantage of grants of up to £1,500 to do precisely that.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the allowances that are given to the severely disabled are targeted to meet existing and current needs? Surely it is not beyond the powers of the Government's imagination or totally removed from their thinking to make a cold weather payment for the specific small group who have problems generating body heat or are incapacitated.

My Lords, somebody who is severely disabled would get full income support rates. In addition, they would get disability living allowance of up to a further £95 a week, a disability premium of another £23 a week and perhaps even a disability enhanced premium of a further £11, at a cost of something like £7 billion in extra benefits to help disabled people meet some of the additional costs of their disability. I think that is remarkably supportive treatment from the Government and we should be proud of our record.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, notwithstanding the progress that the Government are making on tackling child poverty, the poorest group in our society are still the children of lone parents? Do the Government have any plans to extend winter fuel payments to that group?

My Lords, my noble friend is exactly right. The poor in this country include pensioners and some disabled people, but, on average, while about 20 per cent of pensioners are in the bottom 20 per cent of income and only about 10 per cent—or possibly less than that—of those who are severely disabled are in the bottom 20 per cent of income, 50 per cent of the children of lone parents are in the bottom 20 per cent of income.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer my second question? Is it true that the 60 to 65 age group affected by the court's decision can backdate their claims three years, and how many have been paid?

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. Anybody who has come into the system as a result of the eligibility age for men changing from 65 to 60 is entitled to backdated payments. However, in the normal course of events, the right to an automatic payment expires at the end of March. I shall write to the noble Lord about the figures on a yearly basis. We estimate that there may be 20,000 to 25,000—perhaps a few more—still outstanding, but it is difficult to pay because many of those men between 60 and 65 are in work and are not receiving the state pension, so we have no national insurance records of their eligibility or records of where they are working. It is a question of records, not entitlement. Any pensioner is paid automatically, but we have to encourage active claims coming to us from men between 60 and 65, because they are not in the state national insurance system for that purpose.

My Lords—

My Lords, I am afraid that we are out of time.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, while the Government are currently satisfied with the workings of the Press Complaints Commission, we recognise that, as with any regulatory system, there may always be room for improvement. For this reason, the Government continue to monitor closely the effectiveness of the newspaper industry's self-regulatory system. We would not hesitate to suggest improvements if appropriate.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can the noble Baroness explain why, of all institutions in this country, the press is almost uniquely allowed self-regulation in contrast to other institutions for example, the House of Commons, where freedom of speech is equally important? Despite many warnings, is it not clear that many dubious practices are continuing, such as payments to witnesses in criminal proceedings, as highlighted by the Lord Chancellor, contempt of court, as recently highlighted by the Attorney-General, payment to criminals like Ronnie Biggs, and entrapment as in the case of the Countess of Wessex?

Is it not clear that eminent journalists, such as Mr Kelner of the Independent, or, dare I say, Mr Rusbridger of the Guardian, are right in saying that there are too many cosy deals between the commission and the tabloids? What we want is not conciliation or arbitration: it is adjudication by a genuinely independent body.

My Lord, as I am sure is the case with the Opposition, the Government support the principle of a free and responsible press as the cornerstone of our democracy. Newspapers are, and should remain, completely independent of government. It is for the press to decide what, and what not, to publish. The Government are committed to preserving that freedom. However, the Government also continue to believe that effective self-regulation, with a code of practice overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, is preferable to any statutory measure. Nevertheless, as with any regulatory system, there may be room for improvement. The Government certainly expect the press to abide by the rules and the commitments set out in the code of practice.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if they run true to form, the press response to the excellent Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will be to "thcream an'thcream" like Violet Elizabeth Bott about press freedom? Has the noble Baroness read the research by Ian Hargreaves and James Thomas entitled New News, Old News from the University of Cardiff, which shows a catastrophic level of public trust in either the truth or the impartiality of our national press? Any other industry incurring that kind of public contempt would display some sense of urgency as regards putting its house in order in terms of ethics and standards. That is totally absent in our press.

My Lords, I have not seen the research mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I should very much like to receive a copy of it, and, indeed, read it. I am certainly aware of a growing lack of trust among the public in the accuracy of our newspapers and in some other aspects of the way they operate. It is for the press to take note of that public concern and to respond accordingly. That must be the position. Where they have legitimate grounds to do so, it must also be the case that members of the public take their complaints to the Press Complaints Commission where they will be properly investigated.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that what is really needed is a completely independent press commission, that is, one independent of the press barons or their representatives?

My Lords, this is a difficult question—

Oh!

I believe there is a strong case for involving editors in the Press Complaints Commission. They are a minority. Lay members form the majority on the commission. It is the task of those editors on the commission to take most seriously the issues that are investigated. Where complaints are found to be justified, it is their task to return to the newspaper industry—not just their own newspapers, but to collective discussions in the industry—to ensure that any decisions made by the PCC are acted on.

My Lords, noble Lords are inclined to ask: what are the Government afraid of in relation to the PCC? Does not the Minister agree with Mark Stephens, of Finers Stephens Innocent, that the injustices of cheque-book journalism—for example, in the case of Alex Ferguson, or that of Peter Foster—highlight the need for tougher regulation?

My Lords, there are a whole range of issues on which there is possible need for tougher regulation. As I said in my initial Answer, the Government are carefully monitoring the way that the PCC operates. I have in mind issues about contempt of court. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is undertaking a review on that very issue at present; I believe it will be completed in December. So it is not true to suggest that the Government are in some way afraid of taking action to investigate whether there is a need for a change in the present arrangements.

My Lords, are the Government aware that one does not have to be one of their supporters to feel contempt for the vicious hate campaign carried out by the Daily Mail against the Blairs, especially Mrs Blair? The Daily Mail campaign has shown little regard for accuracy or for the truth. It reeks of hypocrisy and smug self-satisfaction. When a newspaper makes false allegations, should not an independent press commission be empowered, of its own accord, to investigate such matters?

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord about the "vicious hate campaign" carried out by the Daily Mail in relation to Cherie Blair. However, for the time being, we have to stick to the current arrangements whereby it is up to any party who feels that he has been maltreated by our newspaper industry to make a complaint to the PCC. It would become extremely difficult to undertake regulation if it were carried out by third parties.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. A soft question always "turneth away wrath".

My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest as a director of the Spectator Ltd. Does the Minister consider that there is something faintly undignified, and, to many people, rather unsatisfactory, about a group of politicians attacking the press for not telling the truth, or for even coming out with unworthy stories? Powers exist to pursue the press in cases such as those for contempt of court. We should all welcome it if they were more vigorously used. Should not politicians remember that when they attack the press they are also attacking those who buy the newspapers with such keenness? As for the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I hope that he gets the job he is looking for somewhere.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, may not be aware of the fact that over 90 per cent of the complaints received by the PCC are from ordinary members of the public. It is right to say that newspapers should be accurate, as should politicians.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, given that the office of Queen's Counsel involves no public duties, is there any justification whatever for a government Minister and a government department being involved in the appointment process at all? If appointments to the rank of Queen's Counsel are to continue—and that, in itself, is highly questionable—should not the appointment be made by the senior judiciary and the profession?

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor is the head of the judiciary, and the judiciary, along with many others, is consulted on the appointment of Queen's Counsel. So the Lord Chancellor is at the end of a line of process that includes independent civil servants, the judiciary, the legal profession, and now lay assessors. Every stage in the process is open to the closest scrutiny by the Judicial Appointments Commission. It is the duty of the Lord Chancellor to ensure that applicants are treated impartially and on their individual merits without reference to connections, allegiances, or contacts that are irrelevant to the award of Silk.

I repeat to your Lordships, as I have previously, that I have not excluded the possibility of an appointments commission to take over some part of these processes. But there are powerful arguments why a quango would not command greater public confidence than the existing system. Moreover, if the function were to be handed over to the profession, I very much doubt whether that would command public confidence or whether, on the contrary, it would be thought that the profession was feathering its own nest by the creation of an excessive number of Queen's Counsel.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, could we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell?

My Lords, it was a very modest contribution from a practising member of the Bar of some years. Would the noble and learned Lord accept that his assessment of this situation is certainly wholly acceptable to me?

My Lords, I could have no better ally.

My Lords, is there any truth in the oft-repeated allegation that the selection system is based on secret negotiations?

My Lords, I think that the phrase is "secret soundings". The allegation that judicial and QC appointments rest on secret soundings is false, but it is constantly repeated, presumably because of an unshakeable affection for the expression regardless of its inaccuracy. The names of all consultees are known; there is no secret about them. What individual consultees say about individual applicants is kept confidential. However, that is a common feature of practically all appointments systems; otherwise assessments would not be full and frank.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords

My Lords, it must be the turn of the Cross Benches, I think.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recognise that there is a strange conflict in this area? On the one hand, as I understand it, public funds are to be used rarely in employing QCs. On the other hand, as I understand it, the fee that an applicant must pay to apply to become a QC is going to be at least doubled this year.

My Lords, the state, as any other purchaser of legal services, is entitled to be sparing in the hiring of the services of Queen's Counsel—who represent at any one time only about 10 per cent of the Bar. On the other hand, I see no objection whatever to applicants for the rank of Queen's Counsel paying a fee that represents overall full costs recovery for the highly expensive scheme administered. This year, for example, in the current Silk round, we have consulted nearly 500 automatic consultees and nearly 1,500 nominated consultees, making approximately 2,000 in total. It is a massive exercise. There are no quotas, but recent experience shows that anything from about 70 to slightly more than 100 may succeed when 400 to 500 apply, and all deserve to have the merit of their applications scrupulously assessed. The Government took the view that a fee of £720 was fair since it represented, as I just said, overall full costs recovery.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor consider it more appropriate for the ultimate decision to be made by a very powerful Cabinet Minister, nominally the head of the judiciary, rather than by the Lord Chief Justice, who does not exercise any political power and could not then even be thought of as having any appearance of political patronage?

My Lords, I do not think hat that question goes any further than the supplementary question which I answered from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we have invested £8.5 million in the current financial year to help reduce the number of cancelled operations and ensure that good practice in operating theatres is implemented throughout the National Health Service.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is not the high number of cancelled operations simply part of a wider picture of falling productivity in the health service? Is the Minister aware that, over the three years to last April, the NHS budget increased by more than 21 per cent, yet, during the same period, NHS activity increased by only 1.6 per cent and the number of hospital admissions actually decreased? Do those figures cause the Minister any concern? Should we not question whether all the extra money promised for the health service will succeed in treating a commensurately large number of extra patients?

No, my Lords, because it is not possible to measure NHS performance purely by hospital activity—although, by 2001–02, the number of finished consultant episodes had increased by 11 per cent compared with 1997–98. Surely the noble Earl will recognise that there has been a great expansion in services. Better and more expensive drugs can improve the quality of life and keep people out of hospital, and an expansion in primary care also is desirable. We need to paint a rounded picture to see the results of the extra expenditure. I am confident that we will meet the targets, reduce waiting, increase capacity and produce the type of health service the public want.

My Lords, are not the real figures actually far worse than those published? It appears that only operations cancelled on the day are included in the figures, and that patients put on standby are not included. Whatever happened to the troubleshooting managers who the NHS announced in February and said were capable of tackling the problem?

My Lords, we have taken action to improve the situation in relation to cancelled operations. The £8.5 million programme to which I referred has been accompanied by direct intervention and action in individual hospitals to help reorganise their processes. The figures I have seen for the first two quarters of the current financial year indicate that, by the end of the financial year, compared with last year, there will be a reduction in the number of cancelled operations.

My Lords, what are the most frequent reasons for cancellations? Is it non-availability of operating theatres or other reasons?

My Lords, my information is that although the pressure on theatre time may be a contributing factor, there are a number of reasons for cancelled operations, including bed availability and shortage of theatre staff. There are also emergency pressures on theatres whereby patients scheduled for routine treatment are asked to wait because of an emergency case. The real solution to these problems is to increase capacity in the health service. That is why we are seeing such a large increase in the number of nurses employed, up to 40,000 more since 1997; an increase in bed numbers; and an increase in staff training places. All those actions will enable the health service to increase capacity and, therefore, to deal with the problem most effectively.

My Lords, can the Minister say to what extent the shortage of staffed intensive care beds is contributing to the cancellation of very major surgery in patients who are extremely ill with life-threatening conditions?

My Lords, it is not possible for me to quantify how many operations might have been cancelled because of a particular problem with a critical care bed in a particular hospital. What I can tell the noble Baroness is that, just as we have seen an increase in the past three years—for the first time in 20 years—in the number of general and acute beds, we have also seen a big increase in the number of critical care beds. Using as a baseline 15th January 2000, there were 2,362 critical beds; by July 2002, the number had increased to 3,070.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the causes of cancelled operations are multiple and vary from place to place, in many instances surgeons find themselves unable to operate because of a lack of time or space in theatres? Is not this whole matter compounded by the difficulty in discharging patients into the community where they would be better off?

My Lords, as regards the discharge of patients, we shall introduce a Bill to incentivise local authorities to do what is required to ensure that when a patient has finished his treatment and is ready to return to the community the relevant local authority makes the necessary arrangements. There are instances of pressures with regard to theatre use but that matter is being tackled. I believe that a more flexible working pattern on the part of staff in the NHS would enable those theatres to be used more effectively.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the growing body of anecdotal evidence that the money to which he referred in his reply to the first supplementary question of my noble friend on the Front Bench is simply not coming out of the other end of the pipe into which it is poured? Will the Minister reassure me as regards the following matter? In the spring I heard at a meeting held by people running cancer units in Greater London that they had not received the money that was promised to them. I also heard at a meeting of people running hospices that they had not received the extra money promised to them in September. Does the Minister recognise that that makes it difficult for me to accept what he said?

My Lords, we monitor carefully the two matters to which the noble Lord referred. I understand that the improvements that we wanted to see take place in cancer services are taking place. As regards the general resource question, as I think I have already said, one cannot judge the use of resources simply in terms of the number of hospital admissions. Resources are being used, for example, to increase drug budgets. That enables people to receive better treatment and often means that they do not have to go into hospital. We are also using resources more effectively by increasing the use of GPs and primary care. Overall, the NHS is treating more patients more quickly and more effectively. That is the pathway to an improved and excellent NHS.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 108, line 33, after "facilities" insert "other than a person who is a performer in relation to the entertainment or a person representing such performers in dealings with the promoters of the entertainment"

I support the amendment which stands also in my name. Is it the intention—as we believe—that an individual could trigger the question of whether an activity is licensable? There appears to be confusion and concern about the matter, especially among those who organise private parties.

Does not the matter go wider than that? The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is an opera lover. She will have attended performances given by, for example, Diva Opera, in private houses and other locations which may or may not have raised money for charitable purposes. At Question Time hospices were discussed. Is it the intention to cover those events? If so, I, and I am sure, various noble friends would consider that that is quite wrong.

Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the first schedule requires that certain conditions must be met for entertainment to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment under the Bill. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 provides:

"The first condition is that the entertainment or entertainment facilities are provided—

(a) to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public,

(b) exclusively for members of a club which is a qualifying club in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment, or for members of such a club and their guests, or

(c) in any case not falling within paragraph (a) or (b), for consideration and with a view to profit".

Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1 states:

"For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c)"—

that is, other than for members of the public or members of a club or their guests—

"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 any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment or those facilities, and

(b) is paid by or on behalf of some or all of the persons for whom that entertainment is, or those facilities are, provided".

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a wider point about private parties to which I should like to respond if an amendment were tabled on that subject. However, the measure we are discussing does not concern that point. The amendment would exempt instances where a charge was made by or on behalf of someone organising the management of the facility if they were a performer or a person representing performers dealing with the promoters of the entertainment. But, as I said, the exemption would apply only where the entertainment or facilities were not provided to members of the public or members of a club and their guests.

Taking the amendment literally, I do not see why the safety concerns of the public would be reduced simply because the performer, or someone representing performers, was the person organising or managing the entertainment facilities to whom a charge was paid. Why should a premises owned by a musician, for example—because that is what the measure would mean—be exempt from a requirement when a normal business person would not? I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is saving but that is not what her amendment says.

Before the noble Lord sits down, his explanation gave the impression that a private performer, for example, concerned with musical dance, would have to license his or her own home. If the entertainer in question offered children's entertainment, would the relevant child's home have to be licensed premises under the Bill?

Of course not. I thought that I had made that entirely clear. Private parties become licensable only if the holder of the party charges those for whom an entertainment is provided and only if the purpose of the party is the provision of entertainment. Incidental entertainment provided even when the entertainer is paid as part of a private party is not licensable. Certainly, anything where no charge is made for admission is not licensable. Mozart and Haydn spent most of their lives being paid to do work that was not licensable. Count Esterhazy's soirees at Eisenstadt, to which he did not charge admission as far as I know but which did include performances conducted by Joseph Haydn, would not have been licensable.

That is all very well, because nobody is paying, but I still have not had an answer to my charitable problem.

Would the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, be good enough to repeat his question?

I asked whether, for example, the owners of a private house who employed the Diva Opera to raise money for a local hospice would need a licence for the premises. The people who came to such an event would be paying, although the profits would go to charity. Under the definition and the explanation that the Minister has so far given, that would be a licensable activity. I, for one, think that that is quite wrong.

I believe that we dealt with that question when we debated Amendment No. 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Yes, if a charge were made for admission to a private house, whether it was for private profit or charity, the same issues of public safety and public nuisance would arise. To that extent, it would still be licensable. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for it to be licensable, other than simply subject to the serving of a notice, there would have to be five events. Each of those events could last up to three days in the course of one calendar year, and there would have to be more than 500 people involved. There are not many of those.

Could the Minister say what would happen if, at such a private party, no charge was made for admission but a collection was taken up on behalf of a charity, for example?

I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was here when I answered that question before. That would not be a charge for admission and would not make it licensable.

Looking around the Chamber, there seem to be concerns on two levels. First, I am concerned that the Minister's explanation does not fit my questions. Secondly, there is consternation among Members of the Committee that such events to which we have referred, such as the one mentioned by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, attract the need for a licence. There is concern on those two levels.

As I said to noble Lords, we have consulted licensing lawyers with expertise in these matters, and we believe that there is a problem with this part of the Bill. We believe that our amendment clarifies the situation, but clearly in the view of the Minister it does not. I shall read his comments carefully in Hansard, but I fear that we shall return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 109, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).

Oh!

Well, they are all good questions, as I hope Members of the Committee will agree.

Would that example be covered by any regulations that would apply to the relevant subsection? Would an operator have to apply for permission to close a structure? Does the definition include a marquee near a sporting event, or a tented structure? What about the circumstances, which are increasingly common in some events, in which an awning or cover is placed over some parts of an otherwise open-air structure to shelter the sporting entertainers?

Those may seem small issues, but they are part of everyday life throughout the country, and it is important that we should be clear at the outset how far and in what ways the Government intend the provisions to bite. I beg to move.

The amendment also appears in my name. The Explanatory Notes helpfully describe sporting events:

"For the purposes of this Bill, sport is defined as any contest in which physical skill is the main factor. For example, tennis would be covered by the definition. However, a game of chess contested publicly would not".

However, the notes do not refer to darts. That may seem an amusing factor, but darts is one game often played in pubs. The Sports Council does not recognise darts, and it is not an Olympic event as yet. Often, of course, darts is covered as a licensable activity in large competitions through the sale of alcohol. However, will the Minister give some definition? Although the definition of sport in paragraph 14 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 uses the word "includes", darts is an issue that many councils will ask about.

I must declare an interest as chairman of the House of Lords bridge group. I understand from the very helpful Explanatory Notes that bridge would not normally be covered. However, there is surely a bit of a muddle here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the Bill does not really explain what "sport" means. It clearly covers more than contact sports and clearly means sports that people pay to view specifically. Darts in a pub is incidental, and the pub would have to be licensed anyway, so it seems to me that it would not be a factor in the equation.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who has answered one of the difficult points for me. I am not a darts fanatic, but I have seen the game played from time to time, and I cannot remember any circumstance in which I have seen a dart thrown when drink was not in fairly close proximity. The issue with regard to a licence would certainly be in play, although I imagine that there could be some circumstances when that was not the case. The noble Lord referred to darts in a pub; we are obviously talking about licensable premises in that case, which would be covered by the licence for which it had applied.

The noble Lord rightly said that not all sports were contact sports, but sport is sport, and bridge is not a sport. I think that we can agree on the two ends of the definition. We are seeking to indicate that there are a number of indoor sporting events with a fixed roof. I shall refer to the intermittent contraption or sliding roof in a moment. Let us deal with those events that are definitively indoors. They are currently covered by the requirements because indoor arenas can have large crowds. Indoor arenas have substantial capacities for sports such as cycling and athletics, to say nothing of boxing.

We do not intend to exclude any entertainment covered by the current licensing regime. Such events are covered because there is a public interest in terms of health and safety on such occasions. Indoor sporting events can attract sizeable crowds and generate an atmosphere of excitement owing to the competitive nature of the activities provided. Bridge does not quite fit into that category, which is not to say—I seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—that bridge is not competitive. Although it engenders emotions among onlookers, it does not produce quite the same response or involve such huge numbers as the sporting events we seek to cover with this provision. We believe that the events should continue to be licensed because only regulation through such a system can ensure public safety and prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder. To exclude indoor sporting events without proper justification would lead to serious problems. After all, a number of issues are raised in relation to external sporting events although the arenas are not very different from the indoor arenas we seek to cover. We shall come to a relevant amendment later. 'The amendments were grouped at one point but they have been decoupled. The amendment I have in mind relates to retractable roofs. I shall reserve my salient remarks until we reach that amendment.

It would help many of us if the Bill referred to incidental activities. The reason for licensing is for the primary activity, not for darts, bridge or whatever. The licence would be granted on that basis. I have not yet understood whether a supplementary licence would be needed in relation to a park, for example, if a pub suddenly decided to put on a wrestling match for which entry was charged.

We should expect the pub to ensure that it had a licence that covered its normal practice—the sale of liquor—and one for entertainment if it had facilities for wrestling or boxing, if it was that sort of pub. There are some. Under the present regime, it would have to apply and give guarantees of public safety with regard to such provision. We are not seeking to change that regime in any way.

I want to pursue the questions raised in relation to darts. The Minister said that a pub with a darts board would be covered by the licence for the premises. However, if it did not have an entertainment licence, does that mean it would have to apply for a variation to add an entertainment licence under the guidelines?

No. We are concerned with events that generate a significant audience involving public safety and health and different from the normal licensing operation governing the pub. When there is a facility for a boxing match, an additional licence is required. The noble Lord discussed darts. There might be three or four people around who take a pas sing interest in the darts match. That would not raise a specific consideration.

I raised that example because, although darts can be played by as few as three people, I have been to many pubs, particularly in rural areas, that stage darts competitions that can attract hundreds of people. That is a completely different area and would probably fall under the auspices of the conditions as described by the noble Lord.

I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I underestimate the drawing power of darts in terms of an audience. As the noble Lord said, pubs with darts boards can stage competitions to which the public come—they do so in addition to drinking in the pub. That would be an event and increased numbers of people would come to the pub to see it. That would be covered by our proposal.

The pubs in my part of the world have weekly darts competitions. All local pubs do; they even hold darts leagues.

I want to pursue the comments of my noble friend and to declare a past interest, from some 35 or 40 years ago, as chairman of the Melbourne and district darts league in south Derbyshire. It had the sort of league that my noble friend mentioned. Weekly competitions were played in all the pubs throughout the Melbourne area. They were very popular events, attended by reasonably substantial numbers of people. We were not unique. Similar leagues, as my noble friend said, exist in many parts of the country. They are very popular events. People go especially to pubs to attend them and visit other pubs, of which they are not normally habitués, to follow their team.

Darts is not the only game of its kind played in pubs. I point out what appears to be an anomaly. I was also many years ago—even more years ago than when I was chairman of the darts league—a member of the second Aunt Sally team at the Plasterer's Arms in Oxford. That extremely popular game is played in the open air. The Bill appears to require that entertainment at darts league matches would be licensable but that Aunt Sally matches, which were of a similar nature—all the pubs in the Oxford area played in a league—would not be subject to licensing. What is the logic in that, considering that both events are of a sporting nature? One of them happens to take place in the open air and the other does not, but both are closely associated with pubs.

It would help us all to bring realism into this debate; otherwise, we shall be discussing the Bill in Committee for about 10 days, which would be in nobody's interests. The fact surely is—as stated several times today and at Second Reading when, unfortunately, I was not able to be present—that if the darts playing is incidental to the activity for which the licence was granted, it is not covered by an extra licence condition. If, however, people pay not for beer but to attend the darts match, surely it is covered. Is that not the end of the problem?

I am grateful to Members of the Committee for their overwhelming support for my question about darts competitions. These questions are in themselves small but they are symbolic of the fact that the Bill overall lacks clarity. Similar questions have been raised today seeking more clarity in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, at this rate we will be here far longer than is necessary.

I urge the Government to think again about the Bill's wording. We on this side of the Chamber are certain about our interpretation of the Bill, although that interpretation appears to be rather different from the Government's. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has been in touch with us expressing deep concern about what is meant in relation to indoor sporting events. It asks for clarification about whether parents watching their children might be deemed spectators in terms of public entertainment.

Good questions continue to be raised. I understand that the Government's view is that the Bill answers those questions, but we assure them that it does not. I urge the Government to look again at this and earlier amendments. I shall read carefully what they said in Hansard and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 109, line 12, after "boxing" insert ", martial arts"

Perhaps I may raise one question in relation to this amendment, although it could well have been raised with regard to any amendments to paragraph 2 of the schedule. I hope that this is not unfair; if it is, the Minister will no doubt write to me. The point referred to by many noble Lords concerned cases where entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and—this is the point—is provided for the purpose of entertaining an audience or for purposes which include the purpose of entertaining that audience. I believe that it would put many of our minds at rest if we had a little guidance on what is meant by,

"or for purposes which include the purpose",

of entertaining the audience. We have already had the example of young people taking part in a sporting competition with their parents present. If the parents are there to see their children perform in a competition—for example, in an indoor badminton competition, although it could be any other type of competition—would that be taken as falling within paragraph 2 as the parents would be there for purposes which include the purpose of entertaining that audience? It seems to me that the matter can be argued either way. However, if, either now or later, the Minister could assure us on that point, I believe that it would take out of purview a great many of the more marginal prospects about which people are worried.

I turn, first, to the closing comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I shall certainly write to him as I believe that my immediate answer to the point that he raised will probably be inadequate. The concept behind an "audience'", or possibly a paying audience, is rather more objective than where parents go along to see, and support, their children. They do form an audience because they are watching, but their participation in the event is not quite that of the public audience, which we are seeking to identify and safeguard in relation to these issues. The noble Lord may consider that response to be less than precise and I shall write to him before the next stage of the Bill.

In relation to the general matter of the martial arts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, rightly identified, we know that boxing and wrestling and their audiences present a significant issue with regard to public safety. As the noble Baroness said, the relationship between wrestling and its audience is particularly engaging, and its showmanship can engage the audience very directly. But, as has been known for many decades, boxing also engages passions. From time to time, boxing bouts have aroused as much vigour in the audience as in those participating in the ring—in some cases, rather more than occurs in the ring.

In this measure we are seeking to ensure that boxing and wrestling fall within the necessary requirements of licensing. However, I am having some difficulty in accepting the noble Baroness's depiction of the martial arts. I am not sure that I am totally familiar with every single one of them, but I do not believe that martial arts normally set out to engage the audience in quite the same way as do wrestling or boxing.

Does the noble Lord agree that boxing is growing in popularity but that it is very under-regulated at present? The noble Baroness is correct in that.

Would it help the Minister to take up my suggestion of using the expression "contact sports", which would cover all these matters?

That is, of course, a helpful suggestion. The noble Lord is always helpful. But this is a deregulation measure. We are not looking for additional elements to bring within the framework of the regulation. The Opposition Front Benches are raising an issue about martial arts which we believe has occasioned very little public discourse. We have received no representations from the sport. No one who has attended martial arts performances has said, "By heavens, do you know just how dangerous or what a threat to public health this is?". We have received no representations on the matter. If noble Lords have received some, no doubt they will convey them to us.

At present, the martial arts are a fairly limited sport in terms of public presentation. They are conducted within a framework which gives us no cause for anxiety. Therefore, I resist the amendments on the grounds that I am not seeking to include sports, activities or pursuits but am seeking simply to continue with our process of deregulation.

I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. While we would not look for ways to include other sports just for the fun of it, we have a serious purpose in tabling these amendments. As I said, the martial arts can attract audiences where there will be a possibility of violence, and perhaps considerable violence where drink is involved. In some ways, martial arts may be seen as a minority sport. In that case, it is hard for us to understand—perhaps that is the reasoning—why sports such as wrestling and boxing should be included but martial arts excluded. There seems to be discrimination in favour of minority sports, such as the martial arts.

It is not our purpose to add regulation where it is not necessary. Indeed, as I shall say when we debate the next amendment, our concern is that the Government are regulating where it is entirely unnecessary, including areas such as carol singing. There is seriousness in our purpose. As Her Majesty's Opposition it is important for us to show all those individuals and organisations who are watching closely the passage of the Bill our will and our wish carefully to scrutinise it. We need to show the outside world that we are serious in our purpose. On that basis I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.