asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the purpose of the neighbourhood renewal unit is to drive forward delivery of the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, which is designed to tackle deprivation in England's poorest communities. This financial year the costs of the central unit are expected to be nearly £7 million. The unit's work is overseen by a Cabinet sub-committee and a steering group of Permanent Secretaries from the principal government departments involved.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take the matter seriously. I am glad that it is he who is answering the Question, because he has an enviable reputation in your Lordships' House for doing his best to look into problems. Perhaps he will look into the unit and bear in mind that complexity of organisation tends to exacerbate problems, not to solve them. The organisation has no fewer than seven divisions and 14 sub-divisions—sub-units, or whatever they are called.

Its habit of breeding, which is endemic in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has spread to boroughs. It may be news to the Minister that in the borough of Tower Hamlets alone there are at present 28 committees, which so far, as far as residents of the borough are aware, have achieved no concrete results. All that is being done in the name of "joined-upness". At the end of the day, the Government will be able to congratulate themselves on producing an indissoluble union between gobbledy and gook.

My Lords, I am more than happy to answer the noble Lord's questions. The central unit has approximately 157 staff. It is co-ordinating expenditure of hundreds of billions of pounds of central government money in the 88 most deprived areas of England. I am not saying that everything has been a success, because the unit has been going for only a couple of years, but I could read out a success list of its achievements.

The private sector is involved—the chambers of commerce are involved in the business broker scheme—because we cannot renew the community unless we ensure that business is up and running. Crime has been reduced. Rubbish has been removed from estates. In one area, 620 tonnes of rubbish were removed from an estate, which helped to cut the dumping of cars by 80 per cent. If people know that an area is being looked after, they are more likely to look after it themselves. That is why the effort is targeted on those 88 most deprived areas of the country. There is a big success list, and those achievements are, by definition, in the 88 most deprived areas of the country.

The unit is designed to provide safer communities and higher quality schools. I appreciate that that is not how things were done in the past, but because of past neglect—that is not an issue between us in this House—the nature of the problems is different and they require a different solution.

My Lords, how are the various projects under neighbourhood renewal initiated? Is the initiation local? Do proposals then have to be put forward to the central office and await its comment, or can they be proceeded with?

My Lords, it is essentially local. Local strategic partnerships are being set up, which are sometimes led by the voluntary or private sector, not necessarily by local authorities, to get decisions made at the neighbourhood level. The 88 specified areas are set out in the public prints, based on census information and indices of deprivation. We want the strategy to proceed from the bottom up. Obviously, we must be careful with the massive public expenditure involved. We are considering the grand total of government expenditure, but the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and the New Deal for Communities alone total more than £700 million this year, and will rise to £900 million by 2005–06.

It is essential that initiatives start locally. It requires co-ordination across various government departments to obtain value for money and ensure that what occurs is sustainable, but the scheme is not imposed from the centre—it is not a top-down exercise.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the co-ordinating role of the neighbourhood renewal unit is vital, especially to places such as Burnley, as is shown by the experience last year when an examination was conducted into the troubles of 2001? The unit played a vital role in bringing together the local authority and a local strategic partnership, which was invaluable to those people in the deprived areas of Burnley. Does he further agree that the unit should be encouraged to do as much as it can in such areas?

My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly right. I do not want to oversell the unit. It is less than two years old; it was established in April 2001. Various initiatives have resulted, such as the street wardens programme. The business brokers pilot, to which I referred, was launched only last February. The fund for post offices in deprived areas was launched only last December. It is vital to maintain infrastructure, rebuild communities and give everyone involved in them, including business, confidence to invest for the future.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm what I think I heard him say: that hundreds of billions of pounds are involved in neighbourhood renewal and regeneration? Is it hundreds of billions of pounds or rather less? If hundreds of billions of pounds are involved, is he concerned that the bureaucracy involved in neighbourhood renewal and other regeneration programmes is becoming top-heavy and that the organisation so colourfully described by my noble friend Lord Peyton is becoming a little overladen?

My Lords, it may have sounded like a slip of the tongue; but it was not. I have double checked that because I was looking at the figures anyway. The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, the New Deal for Communities and the New Venture Fund are the unit programmes. I mentioned that the budget this year is £727 million, rising to £917 million. But the purpose of the central unit is to harness the hundreds of billions of pounds of central government expenditure right across the piece; to ensure that in the 88 areas identified, we receive good value for money across the piece, rather than having time-limited funds.

There is work to be done here. There is the £700 million for the unit, but it is also responsible for ensuring that we receive value for money for the totality of government expenditure in those areas.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am not denying the existence of a very serious problem? Will he take a serious look at the existing organisation, which might possibly be rather too complicated?

My Lords, I freely admit and accept that the access to various streams of funding to localities is complicated for people to understand. It can appear like a bowl of spaghetti. We are doing our best to sort that out.

I am happy to take on board the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. However, one of the targets for the whole exercise is that within 10 years or so no one in this country should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live, which is what happens at present. That is a target and we must do something about it. It is part of the whole exercise. However, I shall be happy to look at the extra bureaucracy to which the noble Lord has drawn attention.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, self-assessment is operating successfully. The National Audit Office, in its most recent report on income tax self-assessment in July 2001, said:

"Our overall conclusion is that self assessment has improved the administration of income and capital gains tax. It has made assessments more straightforward and allowed a more focused approach to compliance work".

In July 2002, the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee reported the findings of its review of self-assessment. It made a number of criticisms and recommendations and we have accepted all but one of those recommendations.

My Lords, the Minister has given a somewhat un-self-critical answer. Perhaps he would agree that, whatever else, the new system has been an absolute bonanza to accountants, rather less so for those who cannot afford accountants and who are intimidated by complex income tax forms. Will the Minister give some idea of how many people have been paying fines for late presentation? Will he confirm that, generally speaking, those are the people who are less able to pay? Surely it is an endemic weakness in the new system that incompetence is treated as cupidity? Is there any proposal to change the system? How many people nave been paying fines and, in particular, have there been any custodial sentences?

My Lords, that is a large number of questions. Yes, of course the Inland Revenue keeps these matters under review. I am not especially aware that this is a bonanza for accountants. Certainly I, who used to employ an accountant, can now successfully complete the form on my own and submit it before 30th September. I am therefore saving money, for a start. If that is self-interest, then so be it.

As to the issue of whether the people who can least afford it are being penalised, yes, of course there are fines for late submission. But those fines are capped. If anyone owes less than the amount of the fine, the fine is reduced. The criteria for inclusion in self-assessment is whether the correct amount can be deducted at source; it is not based on total income. However, we are making continued efforts to eliminate from the scheme people on lower incomes who make straightforward returns. We have developed a short return form to achieve that. I am sure that there have been no custodial sentences.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that although I am fairly stupid I am not entirely stupid and I am quite incapable of filling in the form myself? Therefore, I have to employ accountants. Is he further aware that this year I have had to take out insurance in case they also make a mistake? The accountants must have some brains.

My Lords, I am always willing to come up to Scotland to help the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, fill in her forms. In a debate on this issue about two years ago, people asked for "idiot's guides". There are no idiots in your Lordships' House.

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that it has been reported that this year a number of self-assessment forms have been lost in the post or elsewhere and taxpayers have been asked to resubmit. Will the Minister give some idea of the extent of the problem?

My Lords, that is difficult Clearly, there is the possibility of forms being lost in the post, and the possibility that forms may simply be lost. After all, there are millions of forms at tax offices. We do not know the figure for the number of returns at 31st January this year because we have not yet reached that date. However, if I were challenged as to the numbers, there is no reason to suppose that it is different from previous years. In that case, the number is in hundreds rather than thousands.

My Lords, does my noble friend know how many people do not manage to submit their returns by the end of January? Perhaps I may add, as someone who does not use an accountant, that I have always found Inland Revenue staff incredibly helpful.

My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We do not yet have this year's figure. In previous years, the number of people submitting forms on time—by the end of January—has been approximately 90 per cent.

My Lords, speaking of those who can least afford it being penalised, will the Minister confirm that the self-assessment system is enabling the Government to extract £3 billion a year in income tax from people living below the Government's official poverty line?

My Lords, the self-assessment system does not change the rate or incidence of taxation; it simply affects the way in which it is collected.

My Lords, I declare an interest, given the remark by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. The senior tax partner of my old firm does submit my tax return—on time, I am happy to say. This is not a party political issue. Surely, it should be a matter of the most efficient method in line with the public interest. In those circumstances—I have not read the latest National Audit Office report—what percentage of returns submitted are found to be in error? My noble friend says that some 90 per cent are submitted—although although I am not sure how he can know that, given the tax evasion which, unfortunately, occurs.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord means tax avoidance, not tax evasion—or perhaps he means both. No, I do not know off-hand the number of forms that have to be sent back. I shall have to write to him. The evidence from the National Audit Office and that submitted to the Treasury committee last year by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales are very supportive of the tax assessment system.

My Lords, if it is proved that tax offices have lost the forms, will late payers still be fined?

No, my Lords, certainly not. If it can be found that it is the responsibility of the Inland Revenue, there will be no fine. But, as we know from wider experience, it is very difficult to determine whether a communication has been lost in the post, or whether that is an excuse. "The cheque is in the post" is one of the most famous excuses in the world.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest—not a financial one—as president of the Haemophilia Society.

My Lords, we have enormous sympathy with those affected by this tragedy. Sadly, it was not possible at the time to make blood products free from hepatitis C. We do, however, recognise the public health importance of hepatitis C and have published a strategy to improve the effectiveness of prevention, testing and treating services for people with this virus. An action plan to implement the strategy will be produced in the next few months.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Is he aware that last month, for the third time, haemophilia patients were notified that NHS blood products they were prescribed trace back to a donor with variant CJD; and that the Department of Health, with no tests for the disease, cannot say whether they have contracted it?

Over 1,000 haemophilia patients have now died from the HIV and hepatitis C viruses transmitted by contaminated NHS blood products—a huge toll for a small and already stricken patient community of only 5,000. Is it not then cruelly unjust to deny those who survive the safer recombinant treatment that would remove their fear of further infection?

Again, is my noble friend aware of the Market Research Bureau's finding that the UK now has the lowest availability of recombinant for haemophilia patients in the developed world?

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his presidency of the society. This has been a tragic event that has occurred in this country. The previous government decided that the general rule should apply in those cases: that there could not be an exception to the rule that compensation or financial help is given only when the NHS or individuals working in it are at fault. The current Government reviewed this decision by the previous government some years ago and decided that they could not move from that position.

So far as concerns recombinant synthetic factors 8 and 9, Ministers are currently considering the case for the provision of recombinant clotting factors and hope to be able to make a decision shortly.

My Lords, what approximately is the number of people now infected in this way, and the number of their dependants as at present?

My Lords, the figures that I have indicate that about 8,000 people are still living who are infected with hepatitis C through blood products and blood transfusion.

My Lords, will the Government please explain to the House the difference in the circumstances of the relatives of people who have died as a result of contracting HIV through no cause of their own, and those of someone who has died of cancer of the liver caused by hepatitis C?

My Lords, these are very difficult judgments. I do not think that anyone who has gone into this matter—in the previous government or the current Government—has found making a decision in this area at all easy. At the end of the day, after careful review, we came to the conclusion that we could not make an exception to the compensation rule.

My Lords, does that mean that there is a lack of conviction about the cost or about the treatment?

My Lords, I do not believe that those are the issues that are paramount in considering this matter. There has long been a general rule that compensation is given by the National Health Service only when the service itself or individuals working in it are at fault. In this case, there has been no fault.

My Lords, what number of patients in general are suffering from hepatitis C; and is adequate treatment being offered to them, whether or not they are haemophiliacs?

My Lords, the current information I have is that the prevalence of chronic hepatitis C infection may be around 0.4 per cent of the general population: that is about 200,000 people in England. Therapies are available for treatment, most notably the combination therapy interferon alpha with Ribavirin. There is also a combination treatment which includes pegolated interferon, which is currently being reviewed by NICE. There is also currently a clinical trial assessing treatment for mild disease. That is due to report later in the year.

My Lords, I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but I do not follow why the National Health Service has the principle of no compensation unless there is fault; whereas, every year, millions of pounds are handed out to victims of criminal activity—to those who are injured by criminals. In that situation, there is no fault on the part of the Government; in fact, many would say that there is no moral obligation. In this case, there is a strong moral obligation because the NHS has caused the trouble. Will the Minister please explain whether there is some special rule for the NHS; and, if so, what is its justification?

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has raised this matter on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. I believe that the cases are very different and they have been recognised as such both by this Government and by the previous government. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme makes payments to victims of violent crime. The scheme recognises society's sympathy with the victims of such deliberate and malicious acts of violence. I believe that those circumstances are very different from the circumstances in which the NHS provides treatment to patients.

My Lords, following on from the previous question, I understood my noble friend to refer to the issue of "fault". Given that, as the Question says, people have been infected,

"by contaminated National Health Service blood products",

will the Minister express more clearly how the National Health Service can say that there is no fault when its product has caused the complaint?

My Lords, it was possible to eliminate hepatitis C from blood products only in 1985, when heat treatment was introduced. The cases that we are discussing, in which people were infected through blood products, relate to people who were infected before that date.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, 98 per cent of NHS trusts provide single-sex sleeping accommodation for planned admissions; 95 per cent of NHS trusts meet the additional criteria set for mental health facilities; and 93 per cent of NHS trusts provide properly segregated bathroom and toilet facilities for men and women. A further 2 per cent of NHS trusts have works under way to deliver the required standard, affecting 32 wards, which will be completed by the end of the financial year. Overall, 98 per cent of NHS wards meet our guidelines. The remainder will comply once current PFI and other building projects are completed.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe that the Government have done their level best to meet their manifesto commitments and, indeed, commitments to this House and another place to eradicate mixed-sex wards from the National Health Service. Is the Minister aware, however, that some cases of which I have heard suggest that some National Health Service hospitals do not share his, and the Government's, enthusiasm? That was illustrated by the case of our late colleague, Lady Young, who was treated in a mixed-sex ward and found it a very traumatic experience indeed.

I ask the Minister to keep on with this matter and ensure that progress is maintained and there is no slippage in what the Government obviously intend should be the policy.

My Lords. I well understand the concern that members of the public have had, as patients, about having to be treated in mixed-sex accommodation. That is why the Government embarked on the strategy to remove mixed-sex accommodation from the NHS as much as possible. We have made considerable progress. There are a limited number of accommodation areas on which further progress still needs to be made, and we shall redouble our efforts to ensure that that happens.

My Lords, does the Minister consider wards that consist of a number of small bedrooms with a few beds in them, some of which contain women and some of which contain men—in other words, a room full of women and a room full of men—to be mixed-sex wards? Is he referring only to Nightingale wards? Does he share the concern of many about the safety of women in mixed-sex wards, even when they are of the first type that I described—namely, a ward subdivided into smaller rooms?

My Lords, I understand that there are sometimes safety concerns within NHS institutions and hospitals. We encourage the NHS to have a clear concern about ensuring that we have the right measures to secure safe provision for patients. As for definitions, it is acceptable for segregation to be achieved in wards that accommodate both men and women through the use of single-sex bays and individual rooms.

My Lords, the Minister talks about percentages. Will he tell us what that means in terms of numbers of patients?

My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness what it means in terms of numbers of patients. In terms of ward numbers, however, there are an estimated 10,000 general wards in use across the NHS of which more than 98 per cent comply with single-sex accommodation guidelines. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would wish us to inquire, through no doubt very bureaucratic processes, for the figures that the noble Baroness wishes to see.

My Lords, I cannot rise to that challenge. I only wish that I could shower the Minister's department with compliments. I am very disappointed that I cannot.

My Lords, I am ever mindful of the strictures of the noble Lord. He will be pleased to know that I now head a task force in the Department of Health to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

moved Amendment No. 121:

Page 5, line 5, at end insert—

"( ) Where a licensing committee receives licensing applications which involve its own local authority, it shall refer such cases to a magistrates' court for determination."

I, for one, believe that my noble friend deserves some support on his amendment. One aspect of the Bill that I do not like at all is moving responsibility for oversight of the licensing law from magistrates to the local authority. That is a backward step. I hope that we shall make much more of that point on Report.

A brief look at the Explanatory Notes shows the relationship between the licensing authority and its committee. I was going to say that the committee would be its child or its servant, but it seems that the licensing committee will be the master of the situation with very little to stem its bureaucratic habits.

I warmly support my noble friend. I hope that the noble Baroness will not draw wrong conclusions from the fact that not everyone on this side of the Committee has been on their feet to say that the amendment deserves very careful attention. It deals with the complex and difficult relationship that will exist between the licensing committee and its parent.

There is no doubt that the Committee will have given the amendment careful consideration. As the Committee will appreciate, the straightforward fact is that there is nothing new in the proposals in the Bill. The Bill does not introduce self-licensing and self-regulation for local authorities for the first time. It is already well established in law. The Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 have given rise to no problems relating to the self-licensing of local authorities. They are well practised in this area. The Bill extends the areas in which local authorities will be asked to exercise a licensing function.

Local government performs a multitude of functions. It is not uncommon under the current regime for one part of the licensing authority to apply to another part about a particular matter. I do not believe that there is a conflict of interest in the proposed system or that the existing legislation governing local authorities gives rise to real concerns in this area.

The amendment would create an unnecessary complication to the licensing system, inevitably introducing additional costs. The licensing committee is required to act objectively under the measures provided by the Bill. That is safeguarded in the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

I promise to read carefully what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps he will correct me if I have got it wrong. I understood him to say that a local authority can presently give itself a licence. That is ill right, but he then suggested that giving the local authority the total power over licences was a comparatively minor step. On this side of the House, we do not regard it as such. I think it a major and regrettable step. I hope the noble Lord is clear about that.

I appreciate what the noble Lord says and I understand his anxieties. Local authorities are licensing authorities under existing legislation. That has given no cause for concern, as identified in the amendment, that they are obliged to be objective when exercising this authority and that from time to time other parts of the authority may bring the issue to the fore. Local authorities are used to that activity in their present licensing role. The Bill makes no change in the principle; it simply extends the areas over which local authorities will exercise a licensing function. It does not change the nature of the role they are asked to perform. That role has been performed adequately and effectively under legislation some of which has existed for 40 years. I am merely contending that the anxieties expressed have no substance.

We are all conscious that in judicial issues the law and the courts have become ever more careful to ensure that there is not only no actual conflict of interest, but no perceived conflict of interest. As I understand what the Minister said, undoubtedly the powers of local authorities to grant licences to themselves will be extended under the Bill. Has the Minister considered situations in which that might be controversial with some members of the public who may oppose the grant of a licence by the local authority to itself? Does the Minister feel comfortable that such members of the public will consider they are adequately protected by having one half of the authority consider another halls application? Does he not think that they may perceive they are engaging in a tough labour and that there is a conflict of interest? This is a serious topic that warrants further consideration.

I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I referred to transparency in my opening remarks. Transparency is being lost here because of the way the thing is being structured. As the Minister said, this is an extension. It is an extension into a highly commercial and competitive area. We heard in earlier debates about the social consequences of the sale of liquor and extended opening hours for pubs and social clubs. There are great risks of a perceived conflict of interest if the local authority gets involved in such a highly competitive commercial situation. I do not wish to divide the Committee, but I do not find the Minister's response entirely satisfactory. I shall read it carefully and I may wish to come back to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 122:

Page 5, line 5, at end insert

"(8A) Nothing in this Act shall detract from the right of an elected member of a council that is a licensing authority under this Act to address or write to the licensing committee or licensing authority in order to make representations to them on behalf of the residents of the ward, or other electoral Rib-division, or the authority which he represents.

(8B) No elected member making representations on behalf of local residents under subsection (8A) may participate in any decision made by the licensing committee or licensing authority concerning a matter about which he has made representations to them, either in public or in private."

We support these amendments and have added our names to them. The problems of conflict of interest need to be looked at. I hope the Minister will give a satisfactory response.

I have a question that goes back to a previous amendment about the licensing committee being quorate. If a pub in the ward of a member of the licensing committee came under discussion, would it be possible for the committee to be quorate if that member had to stand down at that point, as would happen under the amendment? The Minister laughs, but I find that slightly worrying. If a board representative could face a direct conflict of interest, they might not be allowed to stand down because the committee might not be quorate. In that case, how would the conflict of interest be dealt with?

I want briefly to add to the comments already made, and to support them. One of the important aspects of the Bill that has not been widely or fully understood is the difficulty that it places in the way of objections and objectors. It is drafted in such a way that there are extremely limited grounds for objection. For that reason the need of the local councillor, almost above everyone else, to be able to represent the objections of their constituents is paramount.

Let me clear up my indication of amusement at what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was saying. I did not want to be discourteous; I was merely reflecting on the fact that it is his amendment that creates the problem with regard to the quorum. He is asking me whether I feel that there would be difficulties over the quorum, but I will seek to resist the amendment, thereby solving all such problems so far as concerns a particular councillor making representations. I do not have a direct answer to the point that he raises, but that indicates that the nature of the amendment creates difficulties for the legislation. That is why I will resist it.

I share with all Members of the Committee the concern graphically expressed in this short debate on the role of local authorities and councillors. It is entirely reasonable that elected members should be able to write to the licensing authority or raise matters on behalf of the people whom they represent. I merely wish to assure the Committee that nothing in the Bill prevents that. In fact, the Bill defines interested parties in several places, including as local residents and their representatives. That would clearly cover local councillors.

I do not believe, therefore, that there is any need for the first part of the amendment. I seek to give the assurance that we recognise that a proper role is to be played by the elected councillor for a ward in which the issue crops up and for which representations need to be made.

The second proposed subsection, which raises the issue of conflict of interest and would prevent councillors taking part in a decision that they had made representations about to the licensing committee, is also entirely unnecessary. As we have already discussed, elected members are already under certain duties related to conflict of interest.

The Bill does not raise issues of conflict of interest anew. Local authorities have many powers that relate to the proper action of the councillor when there might be a conflict of interest, which is either declaring it or, in certain circumstances, not participating because he identifies it as of such significance and magnitude that he or she ought to be inhibited from participating. We already have that in legislation. The Bill merely seeks to extend an area of responsibility for local authorities, but does not change in any way, shape or form the role of local councillors or their obligations in such circumstances.

It is not that I do not share the anxieties raised about the proper conduct of local councillors; I merely say that they are dealt with in legislation and in the nature of the roles that councillors play across their activities as local authority representatives. The Bill raises nothing specific on the matter. That is why, although we respect the arguments made, we do not think it necessary to put the obligations in the Bill. That is why I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Perhaps the issue that I was trying to enlighten myself about was that of conflict of interest. I am particularly concerned about small authorities with small quorate memberships. The Minister said that he would not address that question, but that is our particular question. If there is a conflict of interest and the licensing authority is small, does that mean that that member cannot stand down? Would they then just say, "I have a conflict of interest on this issue"?

The noble Lord comes back to the point, so I shall address it a little further. Clause 9 clearly identifies a role for the licensing committee and enables it to regulate its own proceedings, and provides for regulations to prescribe proceedings including the quorum of the meeting. In an earlier debate, we identified particular issues where the authority might be so small that the whole authority was the licensing committee. Such a local authority could not conceivably act in circumstances where everyone had to be present and correct in order to form a quorum if it also had a rule that indicated that someone could not be there to count as far as a quorum was concerned because there were proceedings and requirements for a councillor to withdraw and not be present.

The majority of councils will not be in a situation in which the whole authority is the licensing committee, so the issue will not arise for the majority of them in quite that form. It will be necessary for those councils involved to act in such a way to be able to protect their proceedings, to ensure that they can make progress.

Such councils need to do that on a range of other activities. Local authorities are planning authorities, and the issues of conflict of interest can come up in those and a whole range of activities in which local authorities get involved. Where those issues crop up, they have conducted themselves sensibly, intelligently and to the satisfaction of the nation. We pride ourselves that, on the whole, most local authorities are above reproach as regards such issues. By heavens, we rely on our ever-vigilant press, not to say our elected representatives, to bring to the attention of their locality and the nation any infringement with regard to conflict of interest. That has gone on for all the years in which local authorities have been governed by the legislation that I quoted on an earlier amendment. All that I am saying is that the measure does not need such provision in the Bill.

I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister's response. As I made clear, we are talking about a quasi-judicial function. I hear what he says in relation to the role of local councillors, and the responsibilities to be impartial that they take on when they become local councillors. However, we are talking about issues that often involve huge financial implications either way. We feel that the amendment would be a helpful compromise, if I may put it that way, with regard to the need to win the hearts and minds of those who feel passionately that we should not move from a licensing system that is dealt with largely by magistrates to one involving local authorities because, as I mentioned at Second Reading, of the need for that "not in my backyard" approach.

From experience some years ago as a district councillor, I know that there were occasions in relation to planning matters where it was perfectly in order and normal for ward members to have not only to declare an interest, but remove themselves from the decision-making process. That is a quite common situation across the country on different councils that choose to take that sensible approach, whereby proper representations can be made.

I am glad that the Minister made it clear that there was no need for our concerns in relation to the amendment, and that those representations could be made by individuals to their local authorities and councillors without fear of any partiality within their own wards. However, we feel that this is a good opportunity for the Government to encourage councillors to consider removing individuals on a committee if the decision in relation to a particular application impinges on an application in their ward. I heard what the Minister said and we shall consider his comments with care.

We feel that the problem is made worse by the Government's refusal to reconsider the need to have all members of a licensing committee present. The Government should consider being more flexible in that regard. As we have already indicated, we will probably return to that on Report. If there was more flexibility in terms of the numbers sitting on a licensing committee from council to council, this sensible compromise could be practically applied. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I understand that my noble friend Lord Brooke has been restrained by his modesty from repeating his arguments, valid as they were, because he spoke to the point earlier. I should not like the Minister and her advisers to think that objections to the clause have been entirely dealt with in view of my noble friend's shyness.

moved Amendment No. 124:

Page 5, line 10, after "certificate" insert "and all relevant contact details that the Secretary of State may by regulation require"

I rise to support these eminently sensible amendments, which have severe implications in terms of the costs to local authorities of implementing the Bill. We support the amendments in particular because—this was raised earlier—the licence will be financed by a cost-recovery system. As I understand it, if the system for imposing the licence is extremely expensive, that will make personal licences extremely expensive. I seek some guidance from the Minister on that issue because it would have severe implications for the proposed costs set out in the White Paper for personal licences. These sensible amendments go to the heart of the Bill, which involves deregulation. We believe that they address one of the problems that has cropped up in the Bill; that is, that it has become more complicated between the publication of the White Paper and the drafting of the Bill. It need not be so complicated. If the Minister does not consider this issue closely, I hope that the noble Baroness will return to it at the next stage.

I am glad that my noble friend drew attention in Amendment No. 126 to Clause 8(2). We have over many years got used to central governments treating local authorities with increasing contempt. Is it really necessary for Ministers or Secretaries of State to spend their time directing local authorities not merely to keep a register but how and where to do so? It really does seem absurd. Not all local authorities are as moronic as central government seem to believe. One of the reasons why people get fed up with and withdraw from local government is because they are not given any responsibility.

I am not making a party point; there was a time when I complained about the way in which some of my noble friends made a habit of filleting local government. Here is another Government telling local authorities how to blow their noses or, if they are to have a dog, to keep it in a kennel. It should not be necessary to give such minute directions as are apparently contemplated to sensible and capable authorities. If I have missed an explanation for this subsection I would be interested to hear it.

I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because he knows so much about these matters. However, there is an argument for proposing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has in one of her amendments, that if the registers were kept in a form accessible via the Internet it would be much easier for people to find them. If people have to go to the local authority offices where the register is held, they will have to find out first which office it is and who they will have to ask to obtain the information. If the registers are in a prescribed form on the Internet, everyone will know how to access them and it will not make any difference whether they live in Durham or Bodmin; the way of obtaining information via the Internet will be identical.

So there is something to be said for the noble Baroness's suggestion in Amendment No. 128 that the Secretary of State should, under subsection (6), arrange for the duties to be discharged by having one or more central registers common to all local authorities in terms of method of access even though the information may be collected by individual local authorities in whatever way they choose. The information must be the same so that it can be fitted into the software to enable anyone to have access to it. That is paramount, because it is essential that members of the public who need this information are not put to great trouble in obtaining it.

Amendment No. 128 is inconsistent with Amendment No. 126 seeking to leave out subsection (2), because prescription will be required if the Secretary of State is to ensure that the data are harmonised and presented in a single medium on the web.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for presenting an argument that substantially accords with that I intended to propose on how prescriptive one needs to be to local authorities. We share the view that a national register would be desirable. It would provide ready access to the information, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated. It would assist in ensuring conformity across the country and it has many obvious advantages.

Our problem is how to get from here to there. We are rightly wary of suggesting that we should prescribe that the Secretary of State creates a national register before the legislation can be implemented, given the difficulties that we know exist with regard to compiling an extensive database of such complexity across the country. We propose working towards the national register by building it up over a period of time. That is why it is right that local authorities should have the primary obligation as the licensing authority to collect the data. However, a minimum of prescription is needed, not to tell local authorities how to blow their noses, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, but to ensure that they record the information in such a way that we can build up the national register from local achievements.

The prescription is merely to seek a standardisation in the Form. Our local authority colleagues share that aspiration. There are trials taking place among a group of local authorities of licensing online, a prototype integrated licensing system under the aegis of the Local Government Association, using funds from the Invest to Salve budget. We hope that this work will be a pointer to obtaining the information in a manageable—and, crucially—publicly accessible form so that the register can fulfil the role defined for it.

That is the basis on which we say that to demand a central register at the moment the legislation receives Royal Assent and is implemented is asking too much, but we will work towards that objective against a background where the local authorities will enjoy, as the licensing authority, the responsibility for developing the information in such a form that would guarantee that it can be included in the national register in due course. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Before the Minister sits down, two issues spring to mind: first, the development costs of such a register will be substantial. Will it be a self-recovery system so that the development costs for setting up the register on a local basis will be met by the local licence holders? That will lead to a variation in the costs if it costs more to set up a local register in one area than in another. Secondly, we support the Minister's argument about premises licences, but I hope he will address the fact that the same argument cannot apply to personal licences, which are not fixed in one locality.

Before the Minister replies, the contiguous point is that since magistrates' courts are already the licensing authority, I presume that they have registers which they could pass across to local authorities, which would speed the process up no end.

I am grateful for that helpful suggestion. We are clearly not starting from the year dot with the legislation, but are seeking to develop a new licensing system on the basis of the information already obtained. We have much further to go under the Bill's provisions for more extensive information. I return to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about access to such information; that is why we are seeking for it to develop in such a form.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about costs. We are seeking to ensure that there are not additional costs to local authorities. We have said that the costs involved in operating the licensing system will be met by the fees levied. That will take into account the development of the register. There is no intrinsic reason why a sophisticated system of intelligence gathering properly applied should be more costly than a rudimentary system, which can be costly for local administration because it does not use the information technology available. The point of the central position is to seek to give guidance on how local authorities can most economically and effectively be involved in the development of the information. The issue of costs ought not to be irksome to the local authorities.

We are seeking to avoid a situation where the local authority has to work out almost from first principles every detail of the information that they need to garner. We are seeking to give them clear guidance from the centre on that which is required, consistent with the requirement of the legislation, in order to ease the burden on local authorities so that each one of them is not involved in a fresh exercise. That is why I made reference in my earlier remarks to the fact that activities are taking place already among a group of local authorities to see how the information can be garnered and integrated in order to keep costs to the absolute minimum.

There is a point which needs to be clarified. Will the Secretary of State be responsible for the development of the software, the database and the access software, or will there be a consortium of local authorities? If that is so, how is that consortium to come together? For example, it is not a matter which the LGA would normally have undertaken. However, if it is to be undertaken by the Secretary of State, would there not have to be some power in the Bill to precept the capital costs involved?

No. I can respond to the noble Lord by now giving some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that we are not expecting that the Secretary of State will set out a series of stipulations, particularly as regards the most cost-effective measures, and impose that on local authorities, assuming that the Secretary of State was so all-knowing as to be able to carry out that activity. Here is an issue on which it is quite clear that in the first instance local authorities will take responsibility as the licensing authorities. Very intelligently, they are already setting up processes. A group of local authorities is coming together for a pilot study on the way in which they could most effectively develop a system for the collation of this information.

The Secretary of State will inevitably act benignly in support of systems which prove to be effective. The local authorities will take responsibility for this. It will not be the first time that local authorities have taken responsibility for developing systems which are common to a number of them, or even all of them, rather than being dictated to by Whitehall.

I have tried to reassure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will have a very clear interest in seeking to reassure himself that the information, and the way in which it is garnered, does not create such terrible inconsistencies between local authority approaches to this matter as to completely inhibit the eventual development of the national register to whose value he has already attested.

Amendment No. 124 would require the licensing register to record personal contact details as may be required by the Secretary of State. The Bill, as drafted, contains the power for the Secretary of State to prescribe matters other than those on the face of the Bill, which must be kept on the licensing register. These matters may well include the kind of information suggested by the amendment. I am not hostile to the intent of the amendment, but merely indicate that Amendment No. 124 may not be necessary. I do not believe that there has been a clash of significant principle in the Committee on the register. I hope that I have given assurances that enable noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.

This has been a worthwhile debate because clearly we need to understand a little better the Government's thinking behind the requirement to keep a register. There is definitely considerable agreement in terms of the principle of keeping a register which can be applied as uniformly as possible across the country. That makes sense. In that case, if the Government are clear that we want to avoid inconsistency, I question why the Bill is not a little more straightforward. Under Clause 8(2) why should not the Bill say,

"Regulations shall require a register kept under this section to be in a prescribed form and kept in a prescribed manner"?

Under Clause 8(6) we have suggested an amendment that,

"The Secretary of State shall arrange for the duties conferred on licensing authorities".

The Government are clearly not keen to be seen to be too forceful on the face of the Bill as regards how the register should be kept. I wonder whether that is because they want to avoid the question of costs. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for pointing out the question of costs because it is clearly something that is terrifying the industry. The Government have said that the local authorities will not incur additional costs. The industry itself is very much concerned about the costs that will fall on it in setting up these systems and administering them.

I read the Government's response as being, "We are not quite sure that we want a national system up front because we would have to pay for it. If we start with a system from the local authorities and build upwards, that way we avoid the cost of setting it up, but we can, if we feel like it, and when we like, prescribe how it should be administered and what form it should take". If the Minister is clear as to how this matter should be developed, the Government should be a little more up front, a little clearer in the Bill, as to what is expected. I believe that we are going to have some pretty robust debates in relation to the fees before the Committee stage is complete because it is very hard to believe that it will not add enormous cost for whoever has to pick up the tab. At the moment it appears that it will be the industry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 134:

Page 8, line 3, at the end insert—

"( ) any other person who, in pursuance of arrangements made with the licensing authority, is so authorised, and any employee of such person,"

Clause 13 sets out those who are authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities in relation to premises licences for the purpose of the Bill. Clause 68 makes similar provision in respect of club premises certificates. The categories of authorised persons are identical. Authorised persons are given certain powers under the Bill for inspection purposes. For instance, Clauses 58 and 94 provide that authorised persons may enter a premises to inspect it when an application for a premises licence has been received in respect of those premises. Clause 174 provides authorised persons with the authority to enter a premises with a view to seeing whether a licensable activity is being carried on and in accordance with an authorisation.

Authorised persons do not, however, have exactly the same powers in respect of licensed premises operating under club premises certificates as those operating under premises licences. The power that I have just described, for instance, does not apply when a premises is used under the authority of a club premises certificate only.

The amendment would extend the persons defined as authorised persons to include any other person authorised by the licensing authority and their employees. The powers of inspection and entry in the Bill, which are necessary to support and monitor compliance with its provisions to ensure that we have a fully effective and efficient licensing system, are by their very nature intrusive. Those powers are essential, though, for the success of the system but we must make sure that only those who are needed to supervise and inspect the system—that is, professional experts—have those important powers along with the police.

The right of entry provided by Clause 174, for instance, should only properly be exercised by local authority officers who have been authorised or by the police. It would not be appropriate to allow licensing authorities to subcontract third parties to exercise powers of that nature. Although I accept the noble Lord's remarks about the development of subcontracting in many other areas, I am advised that local authorities do not wish to subcontract in this area.

A licensee whose premises might also be his home would be reasonably comfortable about letting a local authority officer who had a recognised role inspect the premises but the licensee might not feel the same about someone working for a private company operating under contract. Similarly, I would not want to see a licensing authority engaging a private company and providing it with the power to enter premises to see whether the appropriate safeguards were in place for the activities being carried out there.

I do not believe that the amendments are appropriate and I hope very much that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw them.

I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit of her reply and the fullness of the detail she set out. I shall read her remarks carefully before we return to these matters on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 135:

Page 8, line 10, leave out "statutory functions" and insert "legal powers"

The noble Viscount may be reading more into Clause 13(2)(d) than is there. That subsection simply describes an environmental health officer—nothing more. By including that officer in the definition, such officers are conferred with the powers of an authorised person for the purposes of the Bill.

Substituting "legal powers" for "statutory functions" would not alter that and might be confusing by departing from an accepted definition of that official. The same point applies in respect of Clause 68. Local authorities and their officers may only exercise the functions that have been conferred upon them. Against that background, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness for addressing the points that I raised. I understood exactly her remarks but I am not sure that I understand many of the implications. I shall not go further today but I wish to consider the Minister's reply against the advice that I have received and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 136:

Page 8, line 12, at end insert ", the prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring the safety of the public and protecting children from harm"

I support Amendment No. 136. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 297 and 298.

As to Amendments Nos. 150 and 297, at present when a local authority considers an application for a new public entertainment licence or a variation to a licence, it will have before it a report in which local authority officers will set out any grounds for objection or representations. These may come from the district surveyor, environmental health, or from the licensing officers themselves. As the Bill is drafted, relevant representations, which we have already mentioned, would be able to be made only by interested parties and responsible authorities.

Clause 13(4)(d) provides that a local authority can be a responsible authority, but only in respect of certain narrowly defined functions, including environmental health. What is not included are the important functions which the local authorities now carry out under the Crime and Disorder Act in combination with the police. It is only right that given the links between alcohol and crime, the local authority should be able to make relevant representations in respect of its duties under the Crime and Disorder Act.

I turn to Amendment No. 151 and its consequential Amendment No. 298. The local weights and measures authority carries out important consumer related functions in relation to licensed premises and as such it should not be precluded from being able to make relevant representations in respect of licensing applications. If, for example, it has been found that an unscrupulous owner of licensed premises has been selling short measures, it is surely only right that the local weights and measures authority should be able to make representations if that person applies for a new licence elsewhere, and, more importantly, it should be able to apply for a review of an existing licence under Clause 50.

I support the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and my noble friend Lady Buscombe. The common cause between the two sets of amendments is the prevention of crime and disorder. The concepts that lay behind the Crime and Disorder Act had been contemplated by the previous government before 1997. However, I am the first to say, certainly on the basis of local experience in inner London, that we have been considerable beneficiaries of the Crime and Disorder Act. The degree of collaboration and co-operation between local police and local authorities in central London in dealing with a whole series of problems, and the fact that this power would be extended by the amendments powerfully recommend them.

I hope to persuade the Committee that all of the objectives of these amendments are already covered by the Bill, but in order to do so I shall refer briefly to the definitions mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when speaking to a previous group of amendments.

An authorised person is a person who is given powers of entry, inspection and, in the case of an officer of a licensing authority, enforcement. An authorised person is also charged with monitoring compliance with any conditions or restrictions attached to licences or certificates. An interested party is a local resident or residents' association or local business or trade group that wants to make representations about applications or apply for a review. Responsible authorities are expert bodies which will be able to make representations often amounting to a recommendation or objection to applications or to seek a review. The complaints or objections of the interested parties and responsible authorities must be relevant to the licensing objective.

When we add to the list of authorised persons, as some of these amendments seek to do, we must remember that we are adding to the people who have access to premises for inspection and to investigate breaches. We suggest that we ought to be cautious about doing that. Licence holders and qualifying clubs are engaged in legitimate business. We should not lightly add to their burdens by letting any group have this kind of access. When we add to the interested parties and responsible authorities, we add to the bureaucracy of the system. I know that the Committee is anxious to avoid that. The more responsible authorities that become engaged, the more paperwork there is. The burden falls on industry and on any authority that we involve. The costs have to be recovered through licence fees. We must be absolutely certain that involvement is absolutely necessary.

Among authorised persons we do not include the police because they already have the many necessary powers of entry. Where there is any doubt the Bill refers to them by using the term "constable" rather than "authorised person". We include any local authority or officer authorised by the licensing authority for the purposes of the Act. We include the fire authority and those entitled to inspect on issues related to health and safety. We include environmental health officers and those responsible for the safety of passengers on boats and ships. We can prescribe others if we want to.

Among responsible authorities we include the police, the fire authority, those responsible for health and safety, environmental health officers, licensing authorities in whose area the premises also lie if they are in more than one area, navigation authorities in the case of boats and other more specialist authorities. This is a comprehensive list. We do not include the licensing authorities themselves as they will receive the objections and decide on their merits. We would not wish them to be judge and jury. Therefore, the responsible authorities are intended to include technical and professional experts. That includes the local authority acting as the environmental health authority. The Secretary of State can add to the list by regulation.

Amendments Nos. 151 and 298 in Clauses 13 and 68 seek to add trading standards officers to the list of responsible authorities. When considering the licensing objectives in connection with an application to grant or vary a licence, the issues of crime and disorder are primarily for the police. Those concerning health and safety are for local authorities and, in special circumstances, for maritime agencies and the Health and Safety Executive. Those concerning nuisance are for the police, the local authorities and local people. Those concerning children would engage them all.

So there really is comprehensive coverage of those whom it is necessary to include in the definitions of "authorised person", "responsible authorities" and "interested parties". Trading standards officers are mentioned in the Bill in connection with test purchasing, for example, when they send minors into licensed premises with the intent to purchase alcohol. Then they can pursue prosecutions. That is done in collaboration with the police. If trading standards officers want to initiate a review they have only to pick up the phone and speak to their colleagues in the police. On the issue of crime, it is sensible that they should speak with one voice. Therefore, we do not need to include trading standards officers.

Amendments to the definition of "authorised person", local authority officers responsible for statutory functions relating to crime and disorder, public safety and protecting children from harm are covered in Amendments Nos. 136 and 283. Amendments Nos. 150 and 197 add those with statutory functions relating to crime and disorder. We are now talking about the officials who along with the police will be given powers of entry, inspection and enforcement for licensing purposes. We are not talking about statutory consultation. "Authorised person" includes an officer of a licensing authority, which means the local authority that is authorised by the authority for the purposes of the Bill. In terms of entry, inspection and enforcement, the licensing authority can authorise any local authority officer to act for it for the put poses of the Bill. These amendments are therefore unnecessary.

I hope that I have covered all the ground in this set of amendments. I hope that I have given adequate assurance that we have the powers that are necessary to cover all of the legitimate points raised by the amendments, but no more.

I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I believe that there are hidden complexities that we need to examine further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 138:

Page 8, line 17, leave out "vicinity of the premises" and insert "locality"

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 139, 144 to 146, 148, 286, 291 and 293. I shall not follow the noble Lord on Amendments Nos. 140, 143, 287 and 290, partly because of the topography of the groupings page and also the fact that Amendment No. 140 is unlikely to come after Amendment No. 293 in the same group. However, I respond very warmly to the spirit with which he spoke to the earlier amendments.

I wish to add two random examples. As to Amendment No. 139, those living locally seem to me to have every right to take an interest in the fact that there is a bus stop close to the licensed premises as there is likely to be noise going on into the night as a result of its location.

As to Amendment No. 145—I declare an interest as the recently appointed Pro-Chancellor of the University of London—other bodies such as universities or, indeed looking across the Chamber, trades unions, equally have a right to express an interest in these matters. They are as likely to be affected as are residents in the areas concerned.

I briefly add to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Falkland. What the Committee hopes to hear from the Minister with regard to the word "representing" is that it means representing not in a formal legal sense, but in a broader sense.

Secondly, how representative? Does the body concerned have to purport to represent all local people or, as I would hope, will it be sufficient for the body, for example, to represent informally a group of local people who have come to a public meeting which has been advertised specifically to mount objection to a particular licensing application? That is quite common. A village notice board may ask all those concerned about the proposed 24-hour opening of the White Hart to come to the village hall on Tuesday night.

I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that such a meeting, which would be made up of course of one party—those opposed—would nonetheless be a body, and that the person or persons who at the end of that meeting were so charged would be a body representing persons who live in that vicinity within the meaning of this subsection.

I follow on in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has just asked the Minister in relation to Clause 13(3)(b). A great deal turns on the meaning of the word "representing". As a past chairman of the Goring and Streatley Amenity Association, I know that if we had not carried out our function, albeit in a very informal way, of representing that body in relation to some applications within the local area, our lives would not have been worth living. That is why such groups exist, to be the eyes and ears—the bush telegraph or village pump—of local areas. Therefore it is tremendously important that bodies such as amenity associations and local pressure groups should be allowed to represent people within their local area.

An interested party is a local resident or residents' association, local business or trade group. These may want to make representations on applications for premises, licences or club premises' certificates or to apply for a review of the licence or certificate after it has been granted. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the reassurance that they seek. They do not have to represent everyone in the area, but only those who have requested them to act on their behalf in objecting to a particular licence. However, if we expand these groups too far, we add to the bureaucracy of the system. That places a burden not only on industry but also on the licensing authorities. Simplicity is something we should value.

One of the aims of the Government in bringing forward this legislation is to give a real voice and influence to local people who will be affected by the decisions taken. The industry understands that but has some anxiety about it. Local economies need the investment and employment that the hospitality and retail businesses bring. But these businesses also need some certainties if they are to make the necessary investment. Therefore a balance has to be struck.

Amendments Nos. 138, 142, 145, 285, 289 and 292 focus on the definition of a local resident. The Bill describes such a person as living in the vicinity of the premises but it does not define vicinity. That is a matter for the licensing authority to judge when receiving a representation or an application for a review. This is a matter on which the courts may have to rule if a challenge is mounted against the decision of the licensing authority.

The amendments substitute the broader term "locality" and in doing that, sever the direct link made to premises by the Bill. Their intention is to extend the range of people who might object to those living further away. This again raises the issue of nuisance caused by some customers of licensed premises when they may be hundreds of yards away. Once customers are beyond the vicinity of the premises concerned, it will be enormously difficult to say which venue they were at They may have come out of a private house drunk and disorderly.

The purpose of the Bill is to give a voice to those living near to the premises who will be more directly affected by what happens on those premises and would be able to demonstrate that concern at a hearing. The use of the term "locality" would muddy the waters and make it more difficult for licensing authorities to decide if a representation was in the frame. Severing the direct link to premises makes much more difficult, if not impossible, the proper consideration of any application on its merits. The focus of a premises' licence is the activities to be permitted on those premises, not the behaviour of individuals half a mile away and beyond the control of any licensee. If people do engage in anti-social behaviour, they have to be dealt with under the law as individuals. There is no sensible substitute for personal responsibility before the law. The Bill sets out the proper duties and obligations to be placed on licensees. If we go beyond that, we reduce the credibility of the licensing system. Other crime and disorder prevention strategies deal with those broader anxieties.

Our amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 139, 148, 294 and 286—take a slightly different tack by referring to persons legitimately or simply affected by the use of the club or licensed premises. As we are dealing with primary legislation, the use of the word "legitimately" must be largely redundant. The arguments are essentially the same. I appreciate that some noble Lords believe that the impact of licensed premise; may fall as hard on those living near to taxi ranks, fist-food outlets or, indeed, a bus stop where customers may go after visiting licensed premises. How far away from the premises are we talking about and which premises? If we are talking about cumulative effects of many licensed premises, that is a matter to be addressed more broadly. We have already debated that.

Licensing can be only one strand of a much more complex approach. It is certainly not a panacea. I would be the first to accept that. The right approach is for the licensing authority to judge when an individual lives in the vicinity of the premises and if an objection through representation or a complaint through an application for a review is legitimate under the terms of the Bill.

Finally, Amendments Nos. 144, 146, 291 and 293 seek to expand the term "business in the vicinity'' to include any organisation. There are many possibilities; schools, churches, hospitals, perhaps a prison or a trade union, as has already been suggested. Businesses are listed because livelihoods may be at stake. If disorder, disturbance or nuisance drives customers away from another business, jobs may be lost and the business may fail.

I made the point earlier that the more we extend the number of people that may make representations, the more we increase the number of potential hearings. That would make the system more bureaucratic and more expensive and would add to the burdens of both industry and licensing authorities. We must approach with caution any expansion of these definitions. I have great sympathy with the idea that schools should be able to make representations about an application and if that were denied by the Bill, I should certainly agree to consider the proposed amendments. However, in the case of a school, it would not be difficult for the school to encourage a parent, a pupil, a governor or a teacher living in the vicinity or indeed the local residents' association to make the necessary representations. In practical terms, I do not believe any of these organisations or bodies will be inhibited from objecting where necessary.

If the governors of the school represent a group of people who are drawn from the vicinity, then they must be allowed to make representations.

That is exactly what I said. The Bill would indeed allow that.

I said as governors, not as individuals. It is clear that they are representing the school and not individual parents.

They can make representations as governors as long as someone associated with the school, living in the vicinity—normally governors do live in the vicinity— requests them to make such a complaint.

I turn now to Amendments Nos. 140, 143, 287 and 290. Those amendments had been grouped separately but because they put forward the same argument, rightly, the noble Viscount included them in this group. The amendments provide that the Bill would explicitly state that a local residents' body would be one the licensing authority considered was representative. We have made it clear that it is for the licensing authority to decide in the first instance whether a body is representative of local residents. I do not believe that the wording of these amendments adds anything to that. It would be down to the judgment of the licensing authority, and, if necessary, the courts. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Before the noble Viscount withdraws the amendment—I had misunderstood and thought he was not moving Amendment No. 140 and its associated amendments—perhaps I may ask the Minister whether a Member of Parliament or a councillor is in her view entitled to act as a representative on behalf of those who want to make complaints. Frankly, there has hitherto been some doubt whether that opportunity will continue to be available to Members of Parliament and councillors, or whether the Bill is intended to take them out of the chain.

The answer is yes: a Member of Parliament could act as a representative.

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for responding to this great raft of amendments in such a helpful and detailed way. I apologise to the Committee for running on in my enthusiasm to a later grouping—the fault of my highlighting pencil—but the Minister was kind enough to say that the amendments were related and to respond to them.

This has been an interesting debate. Those outside the House who take a close interest in the Bill will find the Minister's remarks and the contributions of other noble Lords extremely useful. This is one area of the Bill where we do not know what will happen when it is enacted. The Government take a slightly more optimistic view than do some Members on this side of the Committee, although it is actually not a party political matter. Some government Members may take a not very sanguine view of the ability under the Bill to obtain alcohol at all hours of the day and night. There will undoubtedly be difficulties.

If I interpret the Minister's remarks correctly, she is not prepared to acknowledge that we live in a highly mobile society. The whole business of "vicinity" and "locality" is the subject of much concern. After all, people may come out of a club that does not properly control the amount of alcohol sold to people who are clearly unable to hold it. One hopes that those people will return home by public transport, not in their cars. Happily, that is one area of our culture that has changed. Such people now know that it is illegal and improper to drive their cars. But people will move about in areas well removed from the source of the problem.

We shall carefully study the Minister's remarks, as I suspect will those outside the House. The cause of much concern is whether sufficient protection is in place under the liberalisation—with which we agree in theory—that the Government are introducing. That is what the amendments were intended to winkle out—to use that unparliamentary expression—from the Government. I thank the Minister for her complete answer. I shall carefully consider it and return to the matter later.

Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, to assist the House, will the noble Baroness, after the debate, consider her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville? I think there may be a misunderstanding. I understood the Minister to say that an MP could under the subsection be representative of people living in the vicinity of a pub. That may not be right, in that the "interested party" definition is either of persons living in the vicinity or having a business in the vicinity or a body representing such persons. I do not understand how an MP could fall within the definition of a body representing persons.

Or a councillor.

Or a councillor, as my noble friend says.

Finally, there may have been a misunderstanding about what was said vis-a-vis school governors. I think that the Minister said words to the effect that a board of governors could, if one of them lived in the vicinity of a pub, thereby become an interested party. That is undoubtedly true, but what was being suggested was that if, let us say, a primary school in a village had threequarters of its pupils coming from the village, the primary school committee could be a body representing those of the children who came from the village. I do not want the Minister to be drawn into those refinements now—this is hard for everyone—but it may be appropriate for her to consider the matter and communicate further.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 147:

Page 8, line 20, at end insert—

"( ) the Member of the European Parliament, the Member of Parliament and the local ward councillors for the constituency or ward in which the premises are situated"

Perhaps I may rejoin the debate, having missed a little of it. I declare my interest as a member of a local authority.

I support my noble friend's amendment, especially as it concerns ward councillors. It is strange that there is nothing in subsection (3)(a), (b), (c) or (d) by which a ward councillor could be identified. In my experience of licensing panels, ward councillors tend to become involved not only in their own interest but in the interest of those whom they represent.

My noble friend is correct. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) contain nothing that could be translated into the terms of her amendment. If, in due course, we are left with the list of interested parties in the Bill, there will be continued debate about whether a ward councillor can attend—unless someone has a copy of Hansard to hand to look up the reference. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us again on that point. I believe that she has done so previously.

The amendments would make Members of the European Parliament and Members of Parliament "interested parties" for premises within their constituencies. Councillors would be interested parties for premises within their wards. Under the Bill, interested parties may make representations about applications for licences or certificates. They may also apply to the relevant licensing authority for reviews of licences or certificates. Therefore, the amendments would allow MEPs, MPs and councillors to make representations about applications for licences and to apply for reviews of licences and certificates for any premises within their constituency or ward.

The Government believe that the licensing system should be managed by democratically accountable bodies. That is why we are transferring responsibility for alcohol licensing from the licensing justices. We also believe that local residents and businesses should be given the opportunity to have their say about licensed premises in their vicinity. That is why those groups are included in the list of interested parties.

It is the case that any resident living in the vicinity may use any representative to put his or her case. I hope that that answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The representative could be a solicitor, a friend, a relative, a Member of Parliament, a ward councillor, an MEP, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales or of a body representing the amenity interests in the vicinity. Therefore, a person can nominate any individual to act on his or her behalf. But why should any of those individuals have a say "in their own right"? In every case that I have cited, "representative" is the appropriate word. If no local resident in the vicinity wants to exercise his or her right to make representation or to apply for a review, whom would those representatives be representing?

The representatives are available if a local resident wants to use their services. However, views should not be expressed on a resident's behalf when he or she has not been consulted and has not made a request. The rights given are to protect those directly affected by activities to be carried on at the premises concerned. It is not a matter for others to tell residents that they know better.

In the light of what I have said I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Before my noble friend sits down, I listened to the earlier points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I found the Minister's response to the amendment rather difficult. If anyone can represent a person living in the vicinity of the premises, what is the point of the special mention in subsection (3)(b) of,

"a body representing persons who live in that vicinity"?

If it is either a person or a body, the subsection should say so. Alternatively, there is no need for paragraph (b). I find it rather difficult to understand. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain whether I have misunderstood the provision.

I am not sure why the subsection uses the term "a body" rather than "a body or a person". I suspect that the lawyers will tell us that when drafting legislation of this sort "a body" includes a person as well as some form of organisation. That person might be an MEP or an MP. However, the point is that we cannot concede that any of these bodies or persons should complain in their own right without a request from people or businesses who live in the vicinity. I believe that that is clear.

The ward councillor or MP might happen to live in the vicinity of the establishment. In that scenario, he would not be representing only himself; he might also be representing his constituents.

Of course.

I fear that I am not happy with the Minister's reply. From it, I understand that a body such as a local ginger group or an amenity association can come under the terms of Clause 13(3)(b) but not a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament. There is confusion here. I am not happy with the Minister's reply. It is important that Members of Parliament—be they Members of the European Parliament, Members of the national Parliament or local ward councillors—should be able to represent persons living in the vicinity, whether in terms of what might be classed a public right or in their own right.

I am not happy with the Minister's reply, which conflicts with an earlier response. On that basis I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 149:

Page 8, line 28, leave out from "authority" to end of line 31 and insert "for the area in which the premises are situated"

:Anything that I might say on Amendments Nos. 186 and 189 would simply go back to the amendment that the noble Viscount so ably moved. I am delighted to support him.

:We have a difference of approach, as is reflected in the amendment. I will seek to defend the position represented in the legislation, and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will accept that the amendment is undesirable.

The principle on which we are working is straightforward. The licensing authority's discretion is engaged only when relevant representation has emerged. In seeking that objective, we are seeking to support the concept behind the Bill as a deregulation measure, keeping bureaucracy to the absolute minimum. Under normal circumstances, when no one has objected to the position, the licensing authority is carrying out a straightforward exercise of accepting a licence application to which no one has raised any objection. That will reduce bureaucracy, when no one outside the authority has shown any cause for doubt and the licensing authority—which is the local authority—is able judiciously to use its judgment on the licence, to which no one has objected. The problem with the noble Viscount's amendment is that it brings the licensing authority into conflict with itself, having raised objections that were raised by no one else.

The amendment would make a straightforward exercise into a fundamental issue. The local authority on which the premises or club is situated would be able to object to an application for the grant or variation of a licence or certificate, or to complain about certain premises, and give rise to a review of a licence when no one else had done so. That would run counter to the philosophy behind the Bill, which is to keep the system as clear, straightforward and unbureaucratic as possible, and would bring the local authority into a particular relationship when it is itself the licensing authority.

That is the argument and concept behind the clause, and why the amendment should not be accepted. We should consider who has not objected to the application. The police, the fire authority and the local residents have not objected—no one who has a direct interest in the issue has objected. The local councillors have not been active on behalf of anyone else, because no one else has raised an issue with regard to the application. Suddenly, the whole local authority, which is the licensing authority, is part and parcel to an objection. That clearly does not fit with a measure in which there is ample provision for those who object to be able to do so, and there are proper procedures for them to do so. The amendment would introduce a massive complication for the authority in its licensing role. On that basis I hope that the noble Viscount will reconsider the amendment.

We shall discuss aspects of the other amendments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, referred, on Clause 18. They would broaden the issues to much more general points than the technical grounds on which professional local officers such as environmental health officers can make representations and object. If the amendments were accepted, absolutely any area would be open to objection, with the local authority making representations accordingly.

We are seeking to keep a balanced, proper and correct procedure, which certainly gives the opportunity for those who wish to object and feel the obligation to do so. When no one in the community has objected and no professional body has done so, it must be right to regard the local authority as able to act in its straightforward licensing role and not get involved in the process that the amendment would impose.

:The Minister made reference to Amendments Nos. 186 and 189, which I simply prayed in aid of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. One purpose of Amendment No. 186 was to allow police officers and the local authority to make representations in relation to premises supervisors in any circumstances required to promote the licensing objectives. Of course, it is likely that the police will have views on a particular individual as regards licensing. Those who have been inspecting on behalf of the local authority also have detailed knowledge, however, and it seems a pity that that knowledge should not be available when the decision comes to be made.

:Perhaps I was not entirely fair to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I apologise if that was so. We shall have a major debate on the issue when we discuss other amendments.

As the noble Lord rightly said, the relevant issues for individuals specified in a premises licence will concern the police. I emphasise that we are seeking to develop a system in which managers can move from premises to premises with the minimum of hindrance. Any objection that was laid against such a manager would inevitably be a police matter, because it would relate to criminal law and to a lack of fitness of the individual to continue in that capacity. We shall have a debate on that subject later, but I emphasise that the issue is one not for the licensing authority but for the police.

:I was about to speak before, but the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, put the matter much better than I could have done, as one would expect.

The Minister made an interesting and clever speech, knocking down my Aunt Sally. I confess that my amendment is a difficult concept, but he cleverly kept off the licensing objectives, which are at the core of the question. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, there is no reason why the local authorities should not have the right to feel that there was a reason that the licensing objectives were not met.

I take all the points that the Minister made about added bureaucracy, but many of us feel that the Bill will create more bureaucracy anyway, rather than reduce it. On the face of it, the project of removing the licensing of alcohol and entertainment from magistrates to local authorities is a simple one. However, as we are finding out, it is a complex issue, and we would not be debating the matter in Committee for five days if it were not. We do not yet have the guidelines.

We shall deal with the licensing objectives later. However, I take what the Minister says, and compliment him on the clever way in which he made my amendment look irrelevant and obscure. However, I hope that he understands me when I say that we would like to reconsider the points that were raised. We have been advised that the issue is important, and we shall, if necessary, return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 152:

Page 8, line 43, leave out paragraph (g).

I support the amendment, to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added. It would be otiose to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. I apologise to the Committee for being so dilatory in not thanking the Minister at the beginning of our debates today for her letter dated today. I am reminded of it by the reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to the lack of draft guidance. I am pleased that the Minister's letter has confirmed that draft guidance will be available in time for Report.

We are all extremely grateful that the Minister has seen fit to strengthen her team to ensure that sufficient resources are concentrated on the production of the guidance. We are grateful that she has listened to our earnest pleas for sight of the guidance before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. Many of the practical implications of the Bill will be dealt with in the guidance. I am grateful to the Minister for making strenuous efforts to ensure that we shall be able to have the guidance at our side when we debate the Bill on Report.

I support the amendment. I listened to the Minister say how precise and clear the list is and how we do not need to extend it. However, he then shoots himself in the foot under paragraph (g) by saying that the Government will have anybody else that they like at the time prescribed. There is no logic in that. The Minister has talked eloquently and persuasively, while I have been sitting here quietly, about how all the earlier categories under subsection (4) are exhaustive, exhausting and explicit. Then, lo and behold, he goes and does this. I cannot see how he can logically defend it.

This is a case of girding one's loins. I shall clearly do my best to keep the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in what he indicates has been a benign frame of mind for the past half hour or so as we have debated these issues. I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, moved his amendment and to the noble Baroness Lady Buscombe, who, for the first time, mentioned her colleague the noble Lord, Lord Luke, who I understand is enjoying his 70th birthday today. That gives me the chance to congratulate him. I am sure that we all wish him well on such an auspicious day. He is fortunate not to be in my position on these challenging amendments.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, we regard our list as exhaustive. It is meant to be exhaustive and comprehensive, so I am open to chiding from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on why on earth we should have an open-ended dimension for the Secretary of State to add to a list that is meant to be exhaustive, as I sought to say earlier.

The answer is straightforward. There is nothing sinister in the proposals. We simply seek to make provision for the possible development of public authorities that we know not of at the moment. In due course Parliament and the executive may, in their wisdom, seek to develop fresh authorities, public bodies and—dare I say—even quangos, which may have an interest in this area. We cannot define them at this stage because they do not exist. However, it would not be right to have to go back to primary legislation to include the interests of any such body if it were widely recognised to have a proper interest and role to play. For example, the list contains the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as agents of the Secretary of State. We do not know whether it or any other body may have its name or role changed. Change occurs with such bodies. We are merely seeking to avoid the need to use primary legislation to bring them within the framework. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, Committee saw no reason to object to the provision. I am taking the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, at his word. This is a probing amendment and it F as certainly probed me quite deeply. I hope I have given a satisfactory response.

With that answer and the understanding that the Minister does not have any particular bodies in mind at the moment, I shall not press the amendment. It is unsettling that there is quite such a blank cheque. I am sure the industry will find that slightly unnerving, but I take the Minister at his word that the provision will not be used as an opening to include large numbers of other groups, or, especially, other quangos. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 154:

Page 9, line 5, leave out subsection (1).

I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 154 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 155 to 157 for reasons of preemption.

I make my customary declaration of interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread plc. I broadly support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, As every vote counts. I am sure that she will be very happy to know that that is so.

We cannot look ahead too far to future amendments, but it is none the less true that Amendment No. 155 would alter the reference to the designated premises supervisor. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, will come on to that relevant point. Later, the jumbo group in which the lead amendment is Amendment No. 160 will suggest changes in how the information about the premises supervisor would be handled. That relates to Clause 36 in particular, under which we might have an application to vary the licence to specify an individual as a premises supervisor.

I enter the discussion at this point because I think it important that we should not get into a mindset that perhaps relates a little to the past. I also want to indicate, certainly in relation to a good number of companies that operate in the sector—for example, pub-restaurants—that we would not normally expect to start with a blank cheque if there were to be a change. That will not actually happen. What will happen is that the personnel who will deal in such premises, whether as designated premises supervisors or premises supervisors, are likely in many cases simply to be transferred from another establishment. That is good management, and is the way things will operate. The people who are arriving are likely to have already been accepted as designated premises supervisors, if the term remains in the Bill, or as premises supervisors.

The principle on which we ought to work is that we absolutely minimise the need to question again the position of someone who has already been accepted elsewhere as a premises supervisor. That is true throughout this part of the Bill. The Government have done quite a good job on Clause 36, but it is very important that any changes made do not result in a situation in which we significantly reopen the issue when someone has already been accepted as capable and qualified to be a designated premises supervisor, if that remains in the Bill, or at least a premises supervisor. If we do that, we will not be matching the way in which the industry is developing. For example, substantial groups own a good number of pub-restaurants or pubs and move people around in the interests of good management.

I have tabled some amendments—Amendments Nos. 155 and 157—that come within this area. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we addressed those now, because my noble friend has eloquently spoken on the whole topic. She has been a good deal more radical than I had envisaged being in my amendments. I have been using a scalpel, and she has been using a cleaver. The cleaver is probably to be preferred in the end.

I do not want to repeat the points made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, except to say that the Bill is deregulatory. Ministers keep telling us that, but this part of it adds another layer of licensable persons. It really adds nothing to premises and personal licences, the concept of which we have broadly accepted.

As my noble friend said, the provisions have an illusory role. Perhaps I might give a practical example. There are about 70,000 public houses in this country, of which about half are owner-managed. In those cases, presumably the personal licence holder and the premises supervisor will be the same. There is only one person, because he is an owner-manager. Nothing will really be achieved. All the Bill would do is require more forms to be filled in and more people to be registered.

As for those who are in the managed sector, that is another 35,000 people to be enrolled, registered and tracked. Every change would be re-registered. It is not clear to me from the Bill exactly whether it is envisaged that one could have a premises supervisor for more than one premises, or whether there is a maximum number of premises to which a person may be a supervisor.

There would be another layer of bureaucracy as a result of a deregulatory Bill. It adds nothing that is not there already, with the twin approach debated during the Committee's earlier sittings. There must be a strong argument for taking a much more radical approach and using, as my noble friend did, the cleaver to reduce the burden on the industry.

I do not believe that the metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, of a cleaver is fair. Basically, the amendment, which we support, brings the Bill back into line with the White Paper, which was debated by the industry and was the subject of much discussion for many years. The problem with subsection (1) is that it introduces designated premises supervisors, which muddies the waters between a premises licence and a personal licence. The strength of the amendment is that we would move away from that added form of bureaucracy and back to something that was envisaged in the White Paper. It has now somehow been changed for the worse through the translation of the White Paper into the Bill. I hope that the Minister considers the issue carefully. Although many amendments follow on from this amendment, the issue will be of central importance to the next stage of the Bill

I was intending to speak to later amendments but the general issue is raised in this regard. It may be helpful to the Minister and the Committee if one gets off one's chest what one wants to say. I begin by declaring an interest as a consultant to the Co-operative group and as the vice-chairman of the all-party retail group, which has a general interest in this sphere.

From what I have read I am, frankly, puzzled. I have had good information from a body called the British Beer and Pub Association, which also represents other bodies. I want to use the word "puzzlement". I am sure that the Minister will be able to help us. Reference has already been made to the position in the White Paper. The amendments seek to secure the understanding in the While Paper.

The BBPA. States:

"The White Paper stated that on taking up responsibility for a business the licensee should 'normally do no more than simply register his or her arrival with his local police and the licensing authority by a letter covering a copy of the personal licence"'.

That is simple, unbureaucratic and practical. However, the situation has now changed; I am sure that the Minister will tell us why. The industry proposed the original concept in a submission in 1999. That was taken up in the White Paper in 2000. I am told that none of the parties in the working groups that were consulted by the DCMS appears to want or believe it to be necessary to evolve such an unnecessary complex system. All that is required is that the police and licensing authority know who is responsible for any particular premises.

The Minister knows that the Bill has had a general welcome in the industry and among many other bodies and the general public. We do not argue against the Bill or even its principle; we argue against the manner in which the Minister and his colleagues consider it appropriate to take it forward. I should be grateful if he dealt with that point.

The principle of splitting the licence into a personal and premises licence is severely undermined through the requirement to name the personal licensee on the premises licence and treating a change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence. Frankly, I am puzzled about the reasons why. That leads to a great paper-chase every time there is a change of manager or tenant. We do not want that unless it is absolutely necessary. The Minister will doubtless tell us why it is absolutely necessary and we will have to cogitate on his case. This does not involve confusion; it is difficult to understand why that which was previously part and parcel of the rapport between the industry and the Minister had to involve the change that we are discussing.

In order to save time, I am going to make a long speech. As has been recognised in our debate, the amendment, which is the first in a series of amendments about the designated premises supervisor can cover the whole range of issues raised in subsequent amendments. By setting out where we stand on designated premises supervisors, I hope that I will be able to make shorter speeches when we consider Amendment No. 155, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 156, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 157, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 160, Amendment No. 161, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 187, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 214 and the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 273. I hope that I will be spared the necessity of making this general speech all over again.

As has been recognised, this is an absolutely fundamental concept in relation to the way in which the Bill has been drafted. We start straightaway with the central concept of the designated premises supervisor. Amendment No. 154 would efface effectively from the Bill the whole principle of the designated premises supervisor. I venture to suggest that if the amendment were agreed to, all of the groups of amendments to which I have referred would no longer be necessary.

As we made clear on Second Reading and beyond, the Bill is a balanced package—the balance is between reducing bureaucracy for the industry and maintaining safeguards to protect the public. The designated premises supervisor is the essential key to that balanced package. The Bill requires that every premises licence that authorises the supply of alcohol must specify a designated premises supervisor. That includes premises such as a pub, nightclub or supermarket. The designated premises supervisor must be the holder of a personal licence. I shall say in a moment what that involves. In practice, that individual will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the premises and will shoulder much of the burden on behalf of the premises licence holder.

I of course agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that with village pubs there will be no separation: the premises licence holder will be the designated premises supervisor and that role will no longer be significant. However, it must be recognised that in any larger organisation, which could be a business as opposed to an individual, there must be someone who is capable of ensuring that the conditions of the premises licence are adhered to. There could be a number of personal licence holders working in larger premises and junior and assistant managers could all hold those licences. There is no requirement in the Bill that they should be listed or that their names should be made available. There is no bureaucracy of that sort. All of those people would have satisfied the conditions for holding a personal licence to supply alcohol. They must be over the age of 18, have no unspent convictions for relevant offences and possess an accredited licensing qualification so that they will have at least some understanding of the social issues and potential problems associated with the sale of alcohol. The reason for having a designated premises supervisor is to ensure that there is always one specified individual among those personal licence holders who is identified and identifiable for the premises. One hopes that they will have experience relating to the supply of alcohol and alcohol-related matters.

We anticipate that the designated premises supervisor will be given day-to-day responsibility for running the premises by the premises licence holder. That is not to say that he must be present on the premises all the time. Restrictions on the hours of work would make that totally impracticable. But he occupies a pivotal position. In public houses we are increasingly seeing managed houses where a large pub-operating company would hold the premises licence and a manager would be installed to look after the pub. The business could be in London, the pub in Newcastle. Management supervision would be provided usually by the designated premises supervisor. By designating the premises supervisor in the premises licence—the amendments beginning with Amendment No. 181, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as the "scalpel", would leave the premises supervisor but take him off the licence—it is clear to all who is in day-to-day charge of the premises.

The industry does not like these provisions. I know that. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made that abundantly clear. We discussed these matters with the industry at great length.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is an important point. In my excitement to get to my feet earlier I forgot and probably should declare my interest for the purposes of today's debate. I am a non-executive director of a brewery and a pub operator.

Can a designated premises supervisor be for more than one premises or only one? If it is only one, that presumably means a pub-operating chain will have to have a personal licence holder and another layer of management in the shape of a designated premises supervisor. That does not apply to single operators. So the Government are imposing a layer of management on the bigger chains that is not being imposed on single operators.

That is wrong in two ways. First, a designated premises supervisor can be for more than one premises. Secondly, a personal licence holder is needed in order to operate the premises anyway. If that personal licence holder is the only personal licence holder, then he will be the designated premises supervisor. There is no additional layer. There is no separate person from the personal licence holder in the form of the designated premises supervisor. Those are absolutely minimum requirements to ensure accountability.

This issue is causing a degree of concern. Is the Minister saying, as I believe he is, that the designated supervisor does not have to be on the premises all the time? If so, then a pub can be run for large periods of time by just a manager with the requisite personal licence.

That is what I am saying.

Without wishing to take up too much of the Committee's time, surely that means that a large organisation is worse off than an individually-run village pub where the premises licence holder is also the designated premises supervisor. He is on site, managing and controlling the situation on a day-to-day basis. But in the case of a large organisation there has to be someone who is effectively floating from one premises to another, in which case there is not the same hands-on management. There is effectively a separate layer in this designated supervisor overseeing a number of establishments.

That is possible. The Bill does not rule it out. It is not what we would expect to be the normal situation. We would normally expect there to be a designated premises supervisor who looks after one premises. There is no additional layer of bureaucracy in that. But businesses can organise themselves as they think fit. For example, if there is a more senior manager, that senior manager may be given responsibility for more than one shop or more than one pub.

I know one publican who has four pubs. But it may be a pub chain with 30 pubs. If the designated supervisor can oversee more than one pub, does it mean that that person's name will be above the door of all four pubs in just a small chain, or all 30 pubs in a larger chain?

Much to my regret there is no provision which says that the name should be above the door. I believe it to be a good thing that it should say "Andrew Robert McIntosh" or "Rupert Mitford licensed to sell beer, wine and spirits for consumption on or off the premises". But that is not what the Bill says. It is sad but we have to put up with that.

The principle is that the designated premises supervisor is normally the person responsible for day-to-day management of the premises. If the industry can persuade us that a single person can be responsible for the day-to-day management of more than one premises, then that person will be registered as the designated premises supervisor. There is no mystery. We are trying to be as flexible as possible to the industry.

Although the industry does not like these provisions, the police and local authorities take a quite different view. The police and the licensing authorities who are responsible for enforcing the Bill consider these provisions essential for making enforcement effective. First, it is essential that the police or officers of the licensing authority can identify immediately the person at any premises selling alcohol in a position of authority. They can do so at the premises because a copy of the licence must be held there and a summary displayed. 'The Bill requires that the designated premises supervisor shall be named in the licence. That will ensure that problems are dealt with swiftly by engaging with that key individual. If the person was not named on the licence itself, as later amendments provide. passing officers or officials might have to check headquarters records. That would be neither helpful, nor practical nor efficient.

Secondly, it is essential that the police are able to object to the designation of a new premises supervisor where in exceptional circumstances they believe the appointment would undermine the crime prevention objective in the Bill. I shall come to the circumstances of objection in a moment. For very good reasons, therefore, we have given undertakings to the police that these arrangements should prevail. The provisions establish clear lines of responsibility. Where trouble flares up the police will be better able to take the necessary action quickly, with a minimum of confusion.

But we have not forgotten the desirability of light touch bureaucracy. We want business to thrive for the sake of investment, employment and local and national economies. But that has to be balanced against the need for effective enforcement in the interests of the wider community. All that we are asking business to do is to indicate the name of the premises supervisor on the premises licence while he or she is in post. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents an immediate change of that person if a business wants to do that.

Where a change of premises supervisor is to take place, the premises licence-holder—perhaps a supermarket chain or a pub-operating company—notifies the police and the licensing authority and shows that the individual concerned consents to taking on the role. That is a simple notification. It is far from being what my noble friend Lord Graham called a "paper chase". The whole licence does not have to be sent in for amendment. That would place a burden on the licensing authority itself. The Bill provides that a part of the licence may be submitted, ideally a schedule to the main licence, giving personal details of key individuals. That would be dispatched, amended and returned.

Fears have been expressed that the arrangements could hinder or slow down the movement of managers between premises. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that that is what happens in large groups. But nothing could be further from the truth. I refer to Clause 37. The premises licence holder can give notice that the appointment is being given immediate effect so that nothing hinders the change of premises supervisor. If the police intervene and object and the licensing authority upholds the police objection, the individual would have to be removed straightaway. But the premises licence holder would be able to give notice of a different individual to be given immediate effect, pending notification to the police.

I can assure Members of the Committee that I understand the concerns about some parts of industry. But as a result of the efforts we have made to accommodate the industry, those concerns—I know they have been expressed in representations to Members of the Committee—are unfounded

I realise that the Minister is trying to give a comprehensive reply, but he said that the take-over could take place with immediate effect pending notification of the police. As I understand it—he may correct me—the Bill later states that the police may take up to 48 hours to make checks. Is the Minister saying that the person could take over pending the police checking up and reporting, or does he have to wait for the go-ahead from the police, which could take some time?

Yes, he could be in post. But designated premises supervisors have to hold personal licences, which the police can check quickly.

I saw a degree of bemusement on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, when I talked about premises supervisors having responsibility for more than one premises. That is the case because the Bill does not forbid it. However, if one looks at the practicalities, if there were a chain of 30 pubs and the premises licence holder wanted to nominate the same person for all of them, the police would say, "No, that won't work, that would undermine the objective", and they would object accordingly.

I do not believe that that will happen. The Bill provides for one, two or three premises at most to be under the responsibility of a supervisor. We are trying to keep the provision simple and not to make it unnecessarily complicated.

The complexity of the existing alcohol licensing regime is not fully recognised. On every occasion where a new manager of a pub or supermarket takes over control of the premises there has to be a full application for the transfer of the licence, involving a full hearing before the licensing justices and court appearances by the police, whether or not they have any objections. We expect the majority of applications to be dealt with administratively with virtually no costly court hearings, which are a common part of the existing regime.

That is why I am justified in saying that this is a deregulatory Bill. We envisage a light touch bureaucracy but we have to balance it by giving the police a right to object and intervene, but only in exceptional circumstances. For example—this is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, was saying—a personal licence holder might have been allowed to retain his licence by the courts despite convictions for selling alcohol to minors, or he might have acquired convictions for the possession rather than the supply of controlled drugs. What if such an individual fetches up at a pub with a history of being used by under-age drinkers or an association with drug abuse? The police would surely intervene when such a personal licence holder and such a pub came together. That is why the provision is necessary.

Perhaps I may clarify my point. If the Minister reads Hansard he will find that I said that Clause 36 was a good clause. That is the clause about the application to vary a licence. I want to make sure that with the passage of the Bill we do not arrive at more difficult circumstances in relation to Clauses 36 and 38.

I am glad to hear that and I take it as support for the Bill's provisions.

We want a provision that allows for the industry's aims that the new regime should be simple and the regulatory burden should be as light as possible. The Bill replaces elements of more than 50 statutes currently impacting on licensing. Our estimate is that it will save the retail, hospitality and leisure industries almost £2 billion over 10 years. But there must be safeguards in place. I have set out the minimum safeguards involving the police. To remove designated premises supervisors would wreck the balance we have achieved between deregulation and protection.

I thank the Minister for his full response. He will not be surprised to hear that I am not entirely satisfied. Members on all sides of the Committee have good reason to believe that the function of the designated premises supervisor is unclear. I urge the Minister and his officials to consider between now and Report stage my points about the functions of the designated premises supervisor. We understand what he says about policing and the need to ensure proper management of all licensed premises, but if for smaller owner-run pubs it is all right for the personal licence holder to be the designated premises supervisor, why is it not all right for larger organisations?

We do not understand the need for the additional layer, not least for the reason I suggested, that there appears to be no particular function that such a supervisor could or should carry out over and above that—

A designated premises supervisor is a personal licence holder. There may be a number of personal licence holders working at the premises. The designation tells the police who is in charge; that is all. There is no additional layer of bureaucracy.

I am not satisfied that it is necessary to have a specific separate person as a designated premises supervisor. Will the Minister and his officials consider what Members of the Committee have said? The debate on this subject will continue on the forthcoming amendments. We recognise the complexity of the existing regime, but the Government would be well advised to return to the proposals set out in the White Paper—to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred earlier—and to reconsider whether it is necessary to have an extra layer which does not add to policing or the proper management of the premises. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 155:

Page 9, line 5, leave out ", in relation to a premises licence,"

The scalpel kills as surely as the cleaver if it is wielded inexpertly. I am not saying for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is inexpert; he is clearly extremely expert. If the designated premises supervisor is not identified in the original premises licence or any premises licence as subsequently amended at the time when the application is made, which is when full consideration is given to the circumstances of the licence, there is no opportunity to include what is entirely relevant to local people, the police, the licensing authority—everyone concerned with the licensing objectives of public protection, health and safety, public nuisance and so on: who is going to be in charge. Surely this is precisely the time at which we should name the person who is going to be in charge.

We shall return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Before calling Amendment No. 156, I must inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 157 because of pre-emption.

moved Amendment No. 156:

Page 9, line 6, leave out from "individual" to end of line 7 and insert "personal licence holder who has obtained the signed consent of the premises licence holder to such designation and served the prescribed form upon the chief officer of police and the relevant licensing authority"

In an earlier amendment the noble Lord said that powers were necessary because a designated premises licence holder in one place might not be suitable for another. He quoted as an instance the fact that a person had a conviction for selling alcohol to under-aged minors or that he had a conviction relating to drugs; and that the premises to which he was being assigned, presumably by the employer, had a history of one or other of such activities taking place.

It seems that there would be two classes of designated premises licence holders—those who did not have any conviction, so there could be no conceivable objection by the police to employers moving them from one place to another throughout the country; and those with some convictions recorded against them. They would not be sufficient for the individuals to be struck off the register but there would be limits on the nature of the premises to which they could be assigned.

If the only reason for the system is to allow the police to confirm the transfer of a person from one licensed premises to another, why not say so on the face of the Bill? Cannot employers be given total discretion to move personnel from one supermarket or pub to another as they see fit in exercising their management powers—so long as the employee does not have any criminal convictions? If the only reason for placing restrictions on the appointment of a person to a particular premises is that a conviction awarded by a court bears some relationship to the previous history of the premises concerned, that should be dealt with as a special case.

I support Amendments Nos. 156, 238 and 242 to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added.

I was asked for a robust response. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, can have a robust response. Frankly, these amendments are nonsense. Amendment No. 156 says that a designated premises supervisor would actively have to obtain the signed consent of the premises licence holder to fill that role and to notify the police that he had taken up the position. The designated premises supervisor is the person employed to manage the premises—or he is the person managing the premises who also holds the premises licence. I assume that Amendment No. 156 does not apply to those circumstances.

In what circumstances does an employer actively have to seek the signed consent of his employer to do his or her job? In real life, the contract of employment represents an explicit permission on the part of an employer for an individual to work at a particular premises. Imagine the situation where one applied for a position, got the job, then had to ask the boss for permission to turn up. That is what the amendment would require. The premises supervisor would be required to notify the police that he had taken up the job. That is the job of the premises licence holder; it is not to be shirked by putting the duty on the designated premises supervisor.

The Bill makes the premises licence holder responsible for variation of the licence, including the premises supervisor, for good reason—where one has corporate ownership. If a business wants to change its premises supervisor, that is the responsibility of the business, not of the premises supervisor, as Amendment No. 156 suggests. One would not employ a premises supervisor, then say, "Good luck. Welcome to the job. Now make sure you tell the police you have arrived." That is the responsibility of the business.

Amendments Nos. 238 and 242 would remove the bulk of Clause 40, which covers the procedures to be followed when an individual wishes to cease to be the designated supervisor for a particular premises. In recognition of the particular circumstances of some part of the industry, the clause contains safeguards for the industry. It requires the premises supervisor to notify the holder of the premises licence once he has made the final decision and notified the licensing authority of his or her intention—not just tell the licensing authority or the police, or both, but tell his employer. It is only right that the employer should be notified. The amendments would remove that requirement.

There is nothing burdensome about the provisions and I have set out the reasons for them. These amendments are particularly bizarre.

I asked for a robust response and I got one I admit that the purpose of the amendments is to make sense of the designated premises supervisor. The Minister's response clearly shows that I should move back to the position of earlier amendments and object altogether to the inclusion of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 158:

Page 10, line 26, at beginning insert "where the premises are of a prescribed description,"

I fear that the phrase "operating schedule" fills some people with dread. It has a bureaucratic ring to it. We might have alighted upon a happier phrase but it is the one we are using. I reassure the noble Baroness and people who are anxious about the issue that there is no cause for anxiety.

The average size pub will be able to list its operating schedule by filling one sheet of A4—perhaps two at the absolute outside. It is meant to be a non-bureaucratic exercise. It is clearly needed for all licensed premises. Therefore, we are ensuring that it covers every conceivable licensed circumstance.

We recognise the strength of the noble Baroness's point that for the small village pub the schedule should not be a draconian document requiring endless hours of burning the midnight oil for the pub to meet its obligations. Far from it. It seeks to specify the basis on which it operates as succinctly as possible. For some larger premises or events the document is bound to be a little more involved. However, I believe that the main burden of the noble Baroness's argument concerned small premises. I give way to the noble Lord.

Will the regulations make a distinction between the two types of premises so that the country pub will not be caught up in the bureaucracy that is envisaged for much larger premises? What will be the position as regards the regulations?

The licensing authority will be aware of the aspects on which it needs reassurance before granting licences in respect of premises with differing roles in the community. The licensing authority will be familiar with those roles. A licensing authority will be able to determine the significant difference between a small village pub and large urban premises that may carry on a whole range of functions which require a clear specification of the basis of the business and how it is to be carried out.

I do not seek to decry the significance of the operating schedule. It is a crucial part of the basis on which the licence is issued. It is also the crucial document that identifies for authorities seeking to enforce the law—primarily the police—what the nature of the licence is and what functions the relevant premises are entitled to carry out. We shall seek to ensure that local authorities discriminate between large and small businesses. Regulations will stipulate that businesses of a certain size carrying out a certain range of functions are to be defined differently to the small village pub to which reference has been made.

The strength of the legislation lies in its power to bring a wide range of premises within one framework for licensing. As regards the concern that the operating schedule may cause anxiety to a potential licensee, I point out that it will deliver benefits to the licensing authority, responsible authorities, interested parties and potential licensees. Licensing authorities will consider the operating schedule with any other accompanying material and must grant the licence as applied for unless representations have been made that are critical of it. We envisage that in the majority of cases the granting of an application will constitute an administrative process. But without the requirement to submit such a document, licensing authorities would not have the basic information they require to process applications without holding costly hearings. We should not forget that all applications and renewals and almost all changes to a justice's licence to sell alcohol require a full hearing before the magistrates' court which represents a significant investment of time and money. The operating schedule will do away with that and replace it with a much less onerous system.

The operating schedule may become the focus of a process of genuine partnership between the licensing authority and licensees. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. Anxieties have been properly expressed but clearly the measure will not constitute a great bureaucratic demand but one that differentiates between the small pub and the big enterprise with a whole range of obligations necessarily imposed upon it. It will give a clearer specification to the community and to the enforcement authorities of what is required. For the vast majority of small operations and small pubs the measure should constitute an enormous advantage rather than a disadvantage.

The noble Lord said that the operating schedule would not impose great bureaucratic burdens on the small village pub and that for the average size pub the schedule would comprise one or two sides of A4. However, he did not say what would be included in the operating schedule for larger establishments such as big clubs which might hold as many as 1,500 people. Obviously, as he said, there would be more stringent requirements for those establishments. We should like to know what they are. Will the operating schedule for large establishments extend to matters that go beyond what happens within the establishment itself but which are relevant to a local authority's consideration of an application? One obviously assumes that the operating schedule will detail the number of hours and the times at which the establishment would be open, but will it also refer to such matters as the management of traffic within the periphery of the establishment itself?

Will the operating schedule detail the measures that the relevant enterprise should take to prevent nuisance such as the scattering of litter in its neighbourhood and any other matters connected with the objectives of the Bill, including the reduction of crime and disorder?