My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 to 31, 33, 34, 85 and 86.

I must begin by making it clear to the House that, although we are debating the principle of off-sales from clubs, noble Lords will note that Amendments Nos. 27, 29, 33, 34, 85 and 86 contain references to the mandatory conditions relating to the showing of films, the principle of which we will debate in a later group.

On Report in this House, my noble friend Lord Evans of Parkside moved an amendment designed to remove the Bill's prohibition on the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to or to the order of a member of the club for consumption off the premises. The Government resisted that amendment, but we agreed to meet my noble friend to discuss the issue further, and he graciously agreed to withdraw the amendment.

Following our meeting and further consultation with the clubs movement, we moved these amendments in Committee in another place. The Bill now, therefore, allows clubs to make off-sales to their members, though not to their members' guests. Registered members' clubs under existing law, which will become qualifying clubs under the Bill, include political clubs—Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative—working men's clubs, ex-services clubs and the Royal British Legion, clubs for certain professions and activities, miners' institutes and many sports clubs. Such clubs enjoy a different status to premises that operate under justices' licences and will, under the Bill, operate under premises licences, because they have a particular role to play as meeting-places in the community. The clubs are, however, limited in their activities. Alcohol can be supplied only to members and guests and not to the general public.

Registered clubs are permitted by current law to supply alcohol to their members for consumption off the premises. It is likely that that was included for clarification purposes, as the provision by a club of its own alcohol to its members for their personal purposes outside the club would not be a licensable activity. The Bill, as originally drafted, made no provision for the supply of alcohol to members for consumption off the premises because it was decided that such supplies had little to do with clubs' traditional role as a meeting-place in the community. However, following further consultation with the Committee of Registered Clubs Association, we have taken the view that, as members of clubs already own the alcohol stock between them, it would be churlish to deny them the right to take alcohol home. Allowing them to do so poses no significant risk to the achievement of the licensing objectives.

The House will note that Amendment No. 31 sets certain conditions relating to club premises certificates authorising off-sales from qualifying clubs. A club premises certificate may not authorise the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises, unless it also authorises supply to members for consumption on those premises and that a club premises certificate authorising the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must include three conditions. The conditions are: first, the supply must be made at a time when the premises are open for the purpose of supplying alcohol, in accordance with the club premises certificate, to members of the club for consumption on the premises; secondly, any alcohol supplied for consumption off the premises must be in a sealed container; and, thirdly, any supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must be made to a member of the club in person.

I hope that the House will agree that, with those conditions in place, there is no good reason to prevent qualifying clubs supplying alcohol to their members for consumption off the premises.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for accepting the spirit of the amendment that I moved on Report. I also thank Ministers for their courtesy in meeting me and representatives of the various club organisations. We are grateful for what my noble friend has done on behalf of all the club organisations in Great Britain.

My Lords, we support the amendments, and we are grateful for them.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 46, 47, 48 and 49. It is appropriate that I speak first, before the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, moves Amendment No. 2A.

I assure those on the Benches opposite that their handiwork in pressing amendments on this topic prompted the Government and their key partners, including the industry, the local authorities and the police, to accelerate their work to honour the White Paper commitment to set up a national database for personal licences. Before I make progress, I shall clarify for the benefit of the House the difference between a national database and a central licensing authority, which is what was proposed in the amendments that were carried during the passage of the Bill through the House. The distinction is absolutely critical although it is somewhat technical.

It is important to understand that a national database is not the same as setting up a whole new statutory body—the central licensing authority—which is the effect of the amendments made here. It refers to the development of an electronic system to allow the police, other responsible authorities and licensing authorities to exchange information easily and freely, and for licensees to apply online and facilitate the update of their details—for example, a change of address—thereby reducing bureaucracy. It is very firmly a database and not a new body corporate entrusted with statutory functions.

Once we understand this important distinction, the argument in favour of a central licensing authority tends to evaporate. There are no advantages to be gained in having such an authority to administer personal licences over the scheme provided in the Bill as introduced to this House. All matters pertaining to an individual applicant or licence holder will be with one authority where records are maintained and required to be accessible. The simple fact is that no one—not the industry, nor the police, nor the local authorities—actually wants a central licensing authority or would benefit from one.

It would add bureaucracy, cost and delay for no advantage. Who wants or needs another arm of government to carry out this relatively simple administrative process? The costs of setting up a new arm of government in this way—I understand that the sponsors of this amendment are talking about a body like the DVLA or the Security Industry Authority; I do not accuse them of wanting to set up another Criminal Records Bureau or Child Support Agency—will cost millions and take years to set up. In the mean time, the vast majority of the responsible public will be asking just why they are waiting.

Having said that, there is a great deal of merit in a national database. That is why the Bill provides the framework within which it can be developed. The Government are totally committed to working with partners to set up such a system. We have already met key stakeholders on a number of occasions with a view to producing an initial specification. We shall drive the work forward in parallel with the Bill to ensure that a system is available at the earliest opportunity. We have also facilitated meetings and seminars with the Office of the e-Envoy, and work on a business requirements document—the first step in the process—is well advanced. The business requirements document is being drafted in consultation with all key stakeholders.

We are also taking forward a supporting project with the aim of ensuring that local authorities have the advice and support necessary to enable them to record information in a mutually consistent format. That will in turn facilitate the interchange of information when the central database is up and running.

None of us should be under any misapprehension about the complexity or magnitude of the work involved when we consider that it would need to join up the licensing functions of around 410 authorities. There is still no extant example of a joined-up system of any significance which covers every local authority in England and Wales, although progress is being made across a number of fronts.

Work has started on the central database. We are building on the experience of others in this sector—for example, the local government planning portal and the project to integrate local land and property gazetteers. It is true that the national database will not be up and running before the beginning of the transitional period. That is why we have identified a separate project on data standards that we shall be driving forward in the run up to the first appointed day. The aim of this project will be to ensure that all licensing authorities record the same information in the same way to facilitate migration of data to the new system when it has been put in place. In doing so, we shall be encouraging the full adoption of existing government interoperability and metadata standards.

We have received wholehearted support for this approach. In the mean time, the Bill provides a simple, accessible system that can be up and running from Royal Assent. I am confident that the local system will work well up to the point where the national database can be up and running.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I begin by expressing my appreciation for the time that the Secretary of State and the Minister have given to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and myself in their efforts to agree on as much as possible with regard to the Bill. Those opportunities have been greatly appreciated.

However, we are disturbed by the response in another place to our amendment, which we achieved in this House with regard to the need for a central licensing authority. It was made clear in another place and again today by the Minister that the Government are honouring a commitment to set up a national database. However, it remains unclear what that actually means, and who will pay, implement and manage that system. It is clear that everyone involved is now deeply concerned about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made clear the reality, which is the huge cost exercise involved in setting up the system. Central government want to shift the licensing system on to local authorities from the magistrates, who, many continue to believe, were carrying out their duties perfectly adequately. Someone has to pay for that shift. Local authorities say that they will not be able to afford the necessary system, and industry is rightly worried that local authorities will look for ways in which to deflect costs on to it.

We are deeply concerned about the importance of filtering applications for personal licences, to assist licensing authorities and the police in ensuring that only legitimate applicants apply for licences and renew their licences wherever they live in the country and no matter how many times they may have moved in a 10-year period in this very flexible and often transient industry.

The Minister made it clear that setting up the database will cost millions of pounds, and that key stakeholders are already involved. I assume that "key stakeholders" means local authorities. There is clearly a lack of trust here, as local authorities are coming to us and saying, "Please press the Government for a central authority". They 1,A, ant something akin to the DVLA or the Security Industry Authority.

We feel that the matter is sufficiently important to hope that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will press his amendment.

My Lords, I have heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have said about the amendment. I should say straightaway that I appreciate the concerns of local authorities. After all, all the functions have been performed by licensing justices in the past, and it is a very considerable shift for local authorities to be given the responsibility for licensing.

However, that does not mean that one particular element—the organisation of personal licences—should be taken away from local authorities and given to a central licensing authority. All other aspects of the licensing regime set out in the Bill, including the registration, control and administration of premises licences, are to be the responsibility of local authorities. It seems strange that this one particular element is now being queried and that it is proposed to take it away from local authorities.

I understand the concerns of local authorities about entering into new territory and about money. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, queried the cost of a database. I cannot give a precise figure for the cost of the database. A central licensing authority would have its own staff and would be a non-departmental public body or something of that kind—exactly what it would be is not spelt out in the amendments that were passed here. I can give an assurance that the cost of such an authority would be substantially more than the cost of a database.

The supporters of the amendment are asking for an authority performing statutory functions. I can give an idea of the likely cost of such an authority, by analogy. The new Gambling Commission costs, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny over the next year, are expected to be from £10 million to £13 million pounds a year. The Security Industry Authority, which was mentioned when the proposals were made earlier this year in this House, incurred £6 million in set-up costs alone last year.

The cost of a central licensing authority, as will the cost of a database, would eventually be passed on to the consumer. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it is no answer to say that the cost of a central database can be recovered from a licensee, since licensees will put up their prices if their costs increase and the consumer will pay in the end. It really does not matter how the intermediate arrangements are made.

I have already said, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that there will be a consistency of format in the way in which the personal licence system is set up from the very beginning, so that it can be "migrated"—that is the technical term—to the central database in due course.

The Government are not in the business of setting up new government organisations that are not necessary. We have a provision for a collaborative effort that will do the job perfectly effectively. We have no need to spend that extra money and involve ourselves in the extra bureaucracy. I hope that the House resists the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his erudite reply. We have gone over the issue of costs on a number of occasions. I was somewhat concerned when the Minister said that the measures would lead to a rise in costs to the licensee and then to the consumer. That implies that the Bill, which is supposed to be cost-neutral, has some in-built problems that will have to be reassessed later.

My Lords, I used the word "cost-neutral" because there are already substantial costs in the licensing regime through licensing justices. We are saying that a licensing regime through licensing authorities will be cheaper because less complex and bureaucratic than the licensing justices system. However, within that cost will be additional costs that would have to be passed on for a central licensing authority.

My Lords, there has been a fundamental disagreement about how those costs will be met and how onerous they would be. We believe that the amendment would benefit licensees throughout the country and make the Bill work more cogently and coherently. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, the original Question was that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 since when an amendment has been moved to leave out "agree" and insert "disagree". The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.

The licensing objectives and their promotion must be capable of being translated into conditions that have to be complied with by licensees as well as representing the overarching criteria against which the licensing authority must discharge its functions in the public interest.

Amendment No. 5 restored to the Bill the four licensing objectives that it originally contained. Those are the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. The House removed the prevention of public nuisance by an amendment in another place. Amendment No. 5 therefore reversed that decision and deleted the reference to public amenity, which this House had put in its place.

We believe that replacing "public nuisance" with "amenity" significantly weakened the Bill, in particular in terms of the protection that it affords local residents in relation to the carrying on of licensable activities. I recognise that that was clearly not the intention, but it was the effect. In our debates at that time, an impression was given that public nuisance was a narrow concept that would not cover some of the problems that might be caused to residents living near licensed premises. That was because the House was directed by contributors to the debate to the narrow definition of "nuisance" used in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That definition is misleading in the context of the Bill.

The Bill does not define "public nuisance". It retains the wider meaning that it has under common law; not that in the 1990 Act or in any other statutory definition. "Public nuisance" therefore retains the breadth and flexibility to take in all the concerns likely to arise from the operation of any premises conducting licensable activities in terms of the impact of nuisance on people living or doing business nearby.

On the other hand, "public amenity" is a narrower term derived from planning law and refers to the aesthetic and visual qualities of an area. It would not cover the problems of noise and many aspects of anti-social behaviour that we acknowledge, to which the operation of some premises could give rise. Planning law already provides local planning authorities with the tools that they need to address public amenity concerns at any premises, not only at licensed premises. It would therefore be repetitious to include them in the Bill. It is essential that the prevention of public nuisance remains one of the key licensing objectives of the Bill.

I can assure the House that in the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State we shall make direct reference to public amenity issues that might properly give rise to conditions attached to licences under the objective of preventing public nuisance. I remind the House that we shall have an opportunity to fully debate the statutory guidance before it is issued. I hope that that will go some way towards persuading the House not to oppose the changes made when the Bill was in another place.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

5A Baroness Buscombe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now return to an amendment that enjoyed much cross-party support when we moved it in your Lordships' House. The issue goes to the heart of the Bill. It concerns the impact of a licensed premises on everyone in the vicinity of those premises.

When we debated the matter at length in your Lordships' House, we asked—and we now ask again—the Government to recognise the need for licensing authorities, when carrying out their functions under the Act, to consider both the quality of life for all those living and working in the vicinity of a licensed premises and the interests of local businesses, local enterprise and their customers' enjoyment of the premises' facilities.

A fair balance needs to be struck. The licensing objectives set out in the Bill as originally drafted fail to address that need. Although one of the four licensing objectives was the prevention of public nuisance, it was and remains our contention that simply referring to public nuisance fails to address that need. The term "public nuisance"—here I strongly disagree with the Minister—is open to broad interpretation, which would make it incredibly difficult for licensing authorities to be sure that they were promoting the licensing objectives in a fair and proportionate way.

Noble Lords may remember that in Committee I took time to highlight the case law on the subject of public nuisance to show that the definition of "public nuisance" is open to different interpretations. What we now need is clarity for the benefit of licensing authorities when promoting the licensing objectives. Our amendment clarified the situation and was fair and in the interests of industry and local residents. I am amazed that Members in another place saw fit to overturn what made sense for all their constituents.

Let me remind your Lordships of the wording that we used. When we refer to amenity. we mean the prevention of unreasonable diminution of the living and working amenity and environment of interested parties in the vicinity of the premises, balancing those matters against the benefits to be derived from the leisure amenity of such premises. We believe that this amendment is entirely proportionate, fair and sensible. We therefore ask the Government to reconsider the matter. It is a crucially important issue that can surely do no harm to the legislation. In the interests of enterprise and residents alike, it would do a great deal of good. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Baroness Buscombe.)

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I, too, am unhappy and not persuaded by what the Minister has said. Incidentally, I congratulate him on his most recent attainment.

The truth of the matter is that guidance is no more than guidance. It has no statutory bite, and in any event it can be interpreted only within the ambit of the statute. If the statute, as proposed, refers only to public nuisance and not to the much wider and more balanced test to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred, which seeks to balance the amenity of local residents with entertainment and business factors, then it is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact that the guidance can be construed only in accordance with that public nuisance objective.

As has been said many times on Report, in Committee and again today, "public nuisance" is a very high hurdle indeed. A publican ambitious to extend his or her trade is encouraged by the existing draft guidance to apply for and obtain a 24-hour licence; there is a strong predisposition in the guidance to 24-hour licences. It would therefore be idle to pretend that normal behaviour at abnormal hours, such as the regular coming and going to a village pub at three, four or five o'clock in the morning, would not create a great despoliation of individual amenity—noise, light, traffic.

It is also idle to pretend that the conduct of a single person going lawfully and peaceably to a village pub at four o'clock in the morning, getting out of his or her car, slamming the door, turning off the engine, going into the pub, coming out sober, getting back into the car, starting the engine, slamming the door and moving off, could constitute a nuisance. It would not come remotely within the definition of nuisance. The Government should not therefore pretend that "public nuisance", the third of the four objectives, would be of any use at all to counter that amenity loss.

In conclusion, leaving the statute as it is—regardless, frankly, of what is put in the guidance—is to disenfranchise local people even from being able to make objection to the grant of a licence. One can make objection only on the grounds that one of the four general objectives is likely to be breached. If one cannot therefore establish public nuisance—and one will not be able to—one cannot even go before the licensing authority and say one's piece. That is a most extraordinary state of affairs in a so-called free country. Although there are other aspects to the Bill, the centrality of its key objectives will disallow ordinary residents from having any remedy at all. I therefore remain deeply unhappy about the position; I believe that I also speak for my colleagues.

My Lords, from these Benches I express my sympathy with the amendment. Every bishop in the land who lives in a town or city centre is aware of how the quality of life there has decreased. The clergy are often among the few residents who are still living in town and city centres. The increase in licensing hours and entertainment provision, and the opening of public houses, make it difficult to maintain quality of life in those places. I personally have had to move a clergyman who with his family found it impossible to continue to live where they were simply because the licensing authorities did not make allowance for his and his family's amenity in living near a city-centre pub in extending the provisions. From these Benches, I have considerable support for the amendment.

My Lords, will the Minister say whether loud music from pubs in the early hours of the morning will be adequately covered by the expression "public nuisance"? Or should we rely on the expression "living amenity"? The noble Lord the Minister said that "amenity" was imported from town planning legislation, but is it substantially modified by adding the word "living", which I imagine would include residents sleeping in close proximity to noisy pubs?

My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said so far by my noble friend Lady Buscombe and others on this amendment. To try and narrow it down to the action that someone might take is insufficient. The occasional opening and closing of a door at four o'clock in the morning would not probably constitute a public nuisance, nor would the continuous revving up of motorcycles, because if local residents were to report that to a noise officer, he would say, "This is an intermittent noise. There is nothing I can do about it, because if I put my machinery in, it will not be consistent. Therefore, I have no powers to act and I can make no recommendations". It is important that the Minister takes account of that point as well.

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The Government seem to be taking a rather cavalier attitude to all the offences covered by the simple phrase "public nuisance". People always assume that they understand the public, but many do so wrongly. There is an unusual volume of evidence showing that the public simply do not understand that cavalier attitude to the offence of public nuisance. I understand the difficulties of enforcing it, but I hope that the Government will understand that and that they will not think that "guidance" is a simple alternative to forbidding an offensive practice. The world is littered with guidance. The roads are paved with guidance and people walk all over them. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.

My Lords, along with my noble friends, I congratulate the Minister. I also appreciate everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has done and the assiduity with which she attends to questions put to her in writing—offline, as it were—which have a bearing on the matters that we are discussing on the Floor of the House.

I ask the Minister to respond to one of those matters; that is, the assurances that were given on the final day on Report, on 4th March, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She said,

"I recognise the genuine concern that because of the exploitation of the current A3 use class, 'superpubs' have been allowed to spring up by the back door".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; col. 779.]

She went on to describe the statement in another place by the Minister, Mr Tony McNulty, about the changes to the use classes order which would put pubs and bars into a separate class.

As the superpub is the source of a great deal of the public nuisance with which we are concerned in this amendment, will the Minister tell us what has happened in the three months since that assurance was given in this House? I am extremely concerned that if that change does not come into effect until after the Bill has reached the statute book, there will an incentive for the owners of premises to rush through changes while the loophole still exists. They will be able to do that, because they will be free of the restraints on opening hours and undertakings that are provided in the existing licensing regime. Will the Minister explain how that matter will be addressed under the licensing objectives that he proposes, and what interim arrangements will be put in place to prevent users taking advantage of the loophole that will exist between the date on which the Bill comes into force and that on which the A3 use class is split into two categories?

My Lords, I do not know whether it is fully appreciated, but the provision for public nuisance as opposed to public amenity is being criticised from two completely opposite sides. On the one side, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, criticised the broadness of the definition of public nuisance. I have already made it clear in introducing the amendment that we are using the common law definition of public nuisance. The noble Baroness thought that a broad definition was not a good idea. I suggest that the broadness of the definition is actually helpful, because it enables licensing authorities to respond to individual circumstances. If we were to narrow it to amenity—and I repeat how narrow is "amenity" for the purpose of protecting the public—we would be losing something very significant.

From the opposite direction, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, described public nuisance as a very high hurdle. In the flexible way in which it can be interpreted for the purposes of the Bill—in other words, in the common law sense rather than in the sense of the 1990 Act, which he did not refer to again, but which was the basis of his argument when the Bill was in this House— "public nuisance" provides all the protection that noble Lords could wish for.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me about loud music in the early hours of the morning. That certainly is public nuisance. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, car doors slamming and people coming and going is of course a public nuisance. It does not involve public amenity. Public amenity is a narrower term that is derived from planning law.

My Lords, I accept the Minister's comments about the question of continuous loud noise. That would undoubtedly qualify as "public nuisance" that would be taken into account. Surely the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned do not amount to public nuisance, but they still affect the lives of those people living in the area. So, at the one stage it is a broad definition of public nuisance, but I cannot see that people going about their normal, legitimate lives, going to a public house at 2 or 3 a.m., inevitably causing noise while doing so, can be said to be causing a public nuisance. Whereas, the interests of those people living in the area may very much need to be taken into account in deciding whether it is appropriate to have a licence in that area at all.

My Lords, I am also grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Is the Minister seriously telling the House, and if so is it on the authority of those who advise him on legal matters, that a person—or indeed many people—coming and going to a village pub at 3 a.m. in a perfectly normal way will in respect of any of them constitute a private or public nuisance? I can assure him, not merely from long practice as a lawyer who has dealt with these matters, but as someone who has looked at eight of the standard textbooks, that that use, that behaviour, does not remotely constitute on the part of any of those individuals a public or a private nuisance.

My Lords, there are two answers to that point. I thought I had made both of them in my original speech. The first—which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, does not give any credit to, and I understand his position, when he says that guidance is not strong enough to protect the public in this case—is that we are talking about statutory guidance that has the authority of Parliament and has to be approved by Parliament. I have given the undertaking that the statutory guidance which will follow the passage of the Bill will cover the points made in the original amendment in this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, read out the wording of Clause 5(2)(c). I cannot give her an absolute guarantee that that precise wording will be introduced into the statutory guidance, because the wording is always a matter—the noble Baroness is a lawyer and I am not—for parliamentary counsel, and departmental lawyers will undoubtedly wish to pick that wording to pieces. However, I can give her the absolute assurance that the wording that will appear in the statutory guidance will reflect the spirit of the amendment that was carried in this House.

My Lords, on that point, can the Minister tell the House how Mr and Mrs Bloggs, living in a house and suffering from intimate noise—either by cars or loud music—from time to time are going to find a lawyer, legal aid or a means of pursuing their case? Someone will say that this is new legislation, that the statutory guidance is not very clear and that they cannot therefore recommend legal aid or whatever. Has the Minister taken into account that factor—the way that the individual will be faced with the problem and an undermined amenity as a result?

My Lords, these are intractable matters and are much wider than the issues presented by the Bill. There are difficulties. What does one do about a district nurse, for example, who returns from a night call and who has to slam her car door? These are not matters for licensing legislation. If there are faults with the wider legislation, then let us address those issues. However,—

My Lords,—

My Lords, I am not even allowed to finish a sentence in this House.

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister's sentence and again I am grateful to him for giving way. He really is, if I may say so, in danger of misleading the House when he correlates a district nurse making a visit at 3 a.m. with the predictable and invited attendance of members of the public to a pub at 3, 4 and 5 a.m. It is not being fair to the House to present that as any sort of parallel. I repeat my question. I indicated earlier that as a matter of law the Government were arguing that a person arriving at a pub at 3 a.m.—normal behaviour, normal use of car—and coming out again is a public nuisance, although there is no anti-social behaviour, nothing that one could complain about, except the fact that it is 3 a.m. and that starting and stopping motor cars and opening and closing their doors causes a great deal of noise and light. Is the Minister seriously telling the House that that could conceivably constitute private nuisance, let alone public nuisance?

My Lords, I did not say that. I am saying that the provisions of the Bill, as we provide for it, with the combination of "public nuisance"—for the kind of examples that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, gave—and the statutory guidance, which will cover the issues raised in the House of Lords amendment, cover the point, not only adequately, hut very significantly better than changing the words "public nuisance" to "public amenity". "Public amenity" is a narrower concept.

My Lords,—

My Lords, I have to be allowed to pursue my argument. "Public amenity" derives from planning law and relates to the aesthetic and visual qualities of the area. It does not cover the problems of noise and aspects of anti-social behaviour that we agree can happen from licensing legislation. By the way, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, that there is no question of legal aid. These are matters for representations to the licensing authority. I give way again.

My Lords, I am most grateful. The Minister is again, I am sorry to say, not using the language of the amendment that is sought to be overthrown. It does not talk about "public amenity", which I agree is a planning term. It talks about "living and working amenity". That is quite different and wholly unrelated to planning law concepts. The Minister claimed earlier that there was a remedy in respect of people who were ordinarily arriving and departing from pubs at 3, 4 or 5 a.m. I ask him again: is it the Government's position that there is a remedy under "public nuisance" for such a normal use of a car park, of a pub at 3 a.m.?

My Lords, I did not say that it was "public nuisance". Legitimate activities pursued at illegitimate times are matters for licensing authorities. They will be concerned with them because they will be covered in statutory guidance. I do not even know what the words "living amenity" mean. The regime that we propose in the Bill, a combination of a broad public nuisance criterion—which applies throughout the Bill—together with explicit statutory guidance covering the points raised by noble Lords when they passed the amendment in the House, is a better regime than importing from planning law a much more limited and ill-defined concept, which is the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

My Lords, I promise that this will he my last intervention, but it is important. The Minister is again inadvertently misleading the House. The issue is not one of planning law at all. When the Minister says that the licensing authorities will be able to have regard to the guidance, the fact is that if "public nuisance" is the only objective dealing with amenity, local residents will not be able to make their case to the licensing authority. That is the point, because they will not be pursuing one of the four objectives in the Bill. If we claim—and I am certain that we are right—that there is no public nuisance in the normal use of a local village pub at 3, 4 or 5 a.m., then one is not even within the realms of being able to make representations. That is the point. Finally, regarding the Minister's concentration on guidance, Clause 5(3) says that the licensing authority only has to have "regard" to guidance. The Minister has not answered the point that if "public nuisance" is restored to the Bill, the guidance will not be able to reintroduce the words of our amendment that is being thrown out. The guidance must be within the context and contours of the Bill. We cannot have guidance that extends the scope of the Bill.

My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord would set out his arguments in his first speech instead of letting them out in dribs and drabs in this way. He has not raised the issue of what can be complained about before, which is a different point. I shall try to recapitulate on the various points that he made and to emphasise how much they are at variance with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who actually tabled the amendment. She is saying something quite different.

I have agreed that intermittent ordinary behaviour is not public nuisance and that it has to be covered by statutory guidance. However, the combination of many people in the vicinity of premises and the noise generated would change the nature of ordinary behaviour so that it could become—I cannot say in any specific circumstances—a matter of public nuisance to those in the vicinity of the premises. That is a question of fact that has to be determined on individual cases. It cannot be done entirely by law.

Can appeals be made to the licensing authority? Of course the licensing authority, having followed the statutory guidance, is under an obligation to see that the conditions that it applies are adhered to. Therefore, there is a reference to the licensing authority. I was asked about the views of the industry. A recent article in The Publican Newspaper was concerned that the Government had overturned the public amenity test because they viewed it as a less onerous criterion—less onerous not for the people in the vicinity, but for the licensees. Are we on the side of the people in the vicinity or on the side of the licensees when there is a conflict?

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, very reasonably and understandably, wants us to reflect the spirit of the amendment that was agreed to, and that is what we shall do. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is pursuing a point of view directly opposite to what she is saying. His view is actually confirmed by the industry as favouring licensees rather than the public.

We fundamentally disagree with the limitation of the powers of the licensing authority that would be reintroduced by the amendment overturning the Commons amendment. We now have a combination of effective statutory guidance and a strong but not particularly high hurdle of public nuisance under the common law that will meet the requirements of the licensing authorities, the licensed trade and, above all, local people. I ask the House to resist Amendment No. 5A.

My Lords, is the Minister not going to deal with my argument?

My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Of course, his question about the A3 use class is nothing to do with the amendment, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed that pubs will be placed in a separate use class so that planning permission will be required to convert to a superpub. The Bill will not have any effect on that until at least 2005.

I thank the Minister for his response. I also want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hylton, my noble friends Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough for their invaluable contributions to this important and worthwhile debate. The Minister clearly feels that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and I are coming from different quarters. I actually said that "public nuisance" is open to differing interpretations, as our debate makes absolutely clear. What we need now is clarity.

To some extent, I am assured. I would have much preferred to see our amendment remain in the Bill rather than go into statutory guidance. I hear and accept much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. However, I want to trust the Minister—if I may put it that way—on the basis that the words for which we ask will appear in the statutory guidance, at least in terms of the spirit of what we are really looking for, which is a fair and proportionate balance between the lives of people who live in the vicinity of the premises and enterprise and local business.

The many examples raised today are helpful in terms of what we are trying to achieve. I hope that the Government have very much taken on board the concerns that clearly continue to exist in the House and beyond. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to ensure sufficient wording to meet our needs in the statutory guidance and for saying that "public nuisance" will include the definition of, we hope, something akin to "living and working amenity". On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I have to announce that there was an inaccuracy in the figures given for the previous Division, although the result remains the same. There voted "Contents", 113^*, "Not-Contents", 117, so the "Not-Contents" still have it.

[^*The Tellers for the Contents reported 113 votes. The Clerks recorded 112 names.]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. I must open debate on the amendment by indicating clearly that the Government do not intend to oppose the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the House does not agree with the Commons in its Amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16, 20 and 21.

In Committee in another place, we overturned amendments made in this House adding references on registered interests, restoring the Bill to its original position. The amendments altered the balance of control over a premises licence too far away from the licence holder and too far towards the interests in question. Since then, however, we have had extensive consultation with the industry, and I believe that we have reached an accommodation. I undertake that the Government will give effect to that accommodation when the Bill returns to another place.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

6A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on that very generous assurance given by the Minister, I beg to move.

Moved, That,as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Redesdale.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to discuss with the industry what we believe to be an entirely sensible position in relation to registered interests. I gave early warning to his officials that I would like to use the opportunity, with the leave of the House—I do so because we are talking about those involved perhaps as owners of premises and licensed premises—to ask him to confirm, with regard to provisional statements, that it will be open to any operator who is able to submit an operating schedule in accordance with the Bill to apply for a premises licence, even where a premises is under construction or yet to be built.

My Lords, the point made by the noble Baroness is important. There should be proper planning and use of resources in a way that is reasonable for the construction of new premises. I would like to have that assurance also.

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend. I declare an interest of which the Minister is aware; I am a director of a regional brewery that operates 1,500 public houses. It is to give some certainty. The phraseology used on Report in another place was not clear. I wrote to the Minister about the issue. I hope that he can reassure us on that point. It will also be important for his officials to review paragraphs 6.50 and 6.51 of the draft guidance issued on the 13th February, because it does not fit in with the agreement that he has reached with my noble friend. His officials might also review paragraph 82 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.

We would be comforted by that assurance and by the further assurance that the guidance notes and Explanatory Notes will be revised to reflect what I hope he will say.

My Lords, I am happy to give the assurance asked for. If a building is under construction or has not been started, provided that the plans are clear enough to justify an application for an operating licence, if a licensing authority is satisfied—as it would have been if the building had been completed—an operating licence can be granted. There is therefore no risk of double jeopardy.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.

Under Part 3 of the Bill, interested parties—local residents and businesses and their representatives—may make representations about applications for premises licences and may also apply to the relevant licensing authority for reviews of premises licences. The amendments in another place removed the extension of the ability to make representations on their behalf, inserted in this House, to MPs, MEPs and local ward councillors in relation to any premises within their constituency or ward.

The Government believe firmly that local residents and businesses should be given the opportunity to have their say about the licensing of premises in their vicinity. That is why these groups are included in the list of interested parties. Of course, any local business or local resident living in the vicinity of the premises may use any representative to put their case. This could be a solicitor, a friend, a relative, a Member of Parliament, a ward councillor, an MEP—although that is slightly unlikely—or a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, or a body representing the amenity interests in the area.

However, there is no reason why any of these individuals should have a say in their own right when local residents do not wish to put representations forward on the application. If no local residents or businesses in the vicinity wish to exercise their right to make representations or apply for a review, possibly because residents are pleased to see a new licensed premises opening nearby, whom would the ward councillor, for example, be representing?

The inclusion in the Bill of councillors, MPs and European representatives is not appropriate. These representatives are available if a local resident should wish to use their services, but views should not be expressed on a resident's behalf when she or he has not asked for them to be made. The rights we are giving to make representations are to protect those directly affected by activities to be carried on at the premises concerned. It is not for others to tell residents that they know better. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10.

Within the definitions of responsible authorities in the Bill, Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 restored the position prior to amendments accepted in this House. When the Bill left this House for consideration in another place, the responsible authorities it described were several. They included the police; the fire authority; the enforcing authority for health arid safety law; the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated; any licensing authority in whose area part of the premises are situated, including the one considering the application; various bodies concerned with applications involving vessels; and other persons prescribed by the Secretary of State.

A responsible authority is essentially an expert body to be notified when an application is made, which can make representations about the licensing objectives.

For example, the police will consider carefully the applicant's proposals for preventing crime and disorder on his premises. If they are adequate, the police will not need to intervene; if the police are dissatisfied with the proposals, they have the right to make representations to the licensing authority.

When this House amended the Bill, it removed the description in the original text of environmental health officers. It is vital that they be consulted, because they have technical expertise in areas such as noise nuisance. They need to scrutinise the steps an applicant intends to take to prevent nuisance.

Amendment No. 8 restored them to the list. The amendments in this House also replaced environmental health officers with a description of,

"the local authority in which the premises are situated".

The local authority is the licensing authority. The effect was to allow the licensing authority to make representations to itself.

It may be helpful if I remind the House that amendments were moved in another place by the Official Opposition that would have removed the local authority as a responsible authority, but would not have restored the important status of the environmental health authority, which was the added effect of the government amendments. The government amendments were therefore preferred. In the House of Commons, both sides of the House were in relative harmony on this matter.

While the Bill was being considered here, a further amendment by this House also duplicated part of the changes by including in the list of responsible authorities all licensing authorities in whose area part of the premises are situated. The list originally included only those licensing authorities—other than the one in receipt of the application—in whose areas part of the premises are situated; namely, where premises straddle local authority boundaries. Amendment No. 10 restored this arrangement.

The amendments raise two important issues for the Bill. The first is fairness. The local authority is given the functions of a licensing authority. If it can make representations to itself and by that means generate a hearing to consider those representations, the licensing authority through its licensing committee would be prosecution, witness, jury, judge and executioner in the same court. That cannot be proper, and it would trigger a number of human rights issues. Let us not be technical about it; it simply would not be right or fair. I hope that the House will agree.

We are not hamstringing the licensing authority; where local authorities have particular statutory responsibility for expert matters that directly impact on the licensing objectives, they are responsible authorities. The environmental health authority is the local authority. The enforcing agency for health and safety is normally the local authority. The planning authority is the local authority. These are all responsible authorities for the purposes of the Bill. In these expert capacities, the local authority can already make representations, and can be heard fairly and properly by the licensing committee.

The second important issue is deregulation. One way in which we are deregulating in this case is by reducing significantly the number of routine hearings to which licensing currently gives rise. Almost everything in the six existing licensing regimes generates regular and routine hearings. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that only matters of proper and relevant dispute give rise to hearings.

Under the Bill, a hearing will be necessary only if one of the expert and professional bodies, or a local resident, residents' association or local business is dissatisfied with the proposals in the operating schedule. If everyone is content, the application will be granted and the operating schedule will come into force. But if a licensing authority can generate hearings whether or not the expert bodies and local residents are content, we have opened the door back to the old bureaucracy and red tape, which could in some areas—I do not say all areas—reduce the deregulation effects of the Bill. So, we are focusing here on problem premises. We are targeting resources there and on an effective operating schedule.

For those reasons—fairness and the desire to reduce red tape—I hope that the House will welcome the changes made to the Bill in another place.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 23, 50 and 52. Indeed, I shall speak in favour of Amendment No. 50A to my own Amendment No. 50.

The protection of children from harm is one of the four licensing objectives of the Bill. No one here would want to deny children access to the village shop, which also happens to be the off-licence. No one here would want to deny children access to a supermarket, Pizza Hut, the cinema or the theatre, even though all are licensed premises.

None of us would want to see children in lap dancing clubs, gaming clubs or seedy bars that are associated with drug dealing or under-age drinking. But between those two there are many shades of grey, where, in given circumstances, we would anticipate that children should be given access to licensed premises. We moved two amendments in another place to remove Clauses 143 and 151 on the grounds that they were undesirably restrictive. A number of children's representatives with whom the Secretary of State consulted agreed with that position.

Among other things, Clause 143 raised a raft of issues over the definition of licensed premises in subsection (2), and Clause 151 raises issues of practicality. It would effectively require under-14s to be accompanied in supermarkets and corner shops. I hope that the House can agree to the removal of these clauses on that basis.

Having said that, we have listened carefully to the many powerful arguments put to us over the past few months. In its place, I shall later move Amendment No. 50A, which proposes that the House agrees with the Commons in their amendments and agrees to a further amendment in lieu to the Bill to the effect that it will be an offence to admit children under 16 to certain categories of premises where they are not accompanied by an adult. Those premises are as follows: those exclusively or primarily used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises; and those open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises by virtue of Part 5—permitted temporary activities—which, at the time the temporary event notice has effect, are exclusively or primarily used for such supplies.

So, a garden fete, for example, which has a temporary event notice, is not being used exclusively for that supply, and, therefore, unaccompanied children can properly be allowed in. It will also be an offence to allow an unaccompanied child to be on relevant premises at a time between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. when the premises are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption there. The scheme is designed to put in place a statutory barrier to the unaccompanied access of children essentially to pubs and night-clubs, but to allow access to restaurants, cafés, cinemas and theatres.

The Secretary of State and I have been keen throughout the development of the Bill to take into account the views of organisations with an interest in the protection of children from harm and to consider how they can be reflected in legislation. We have consulted a range of bodies including the NSPCC, the Children's Society, the Methodist Church, the Salvation Army, Turning Point, Alcohol Concern, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Association of Chief Police Officers. We have developed a balanced package, which will ensure access, where appropriate, to children in a family-friendly environment, while providing them with protection.

The protection of children from harm is a key licensing objective, and we need to ensure that licensing decisions have expert input on that objective. Amendments made in another place added the local area child protection committees, or their successor bodies, to the list of responsible authorities that can make representations on licensing applications, new or variations, and raise issues of concern relating to any of the licensing objectives through the review provisions.

I have already indicated what is on the face of the Bill. In statutory guidance we will cover factors which indicate a licensed premises' suitability for access by children, from those where it is felt that the risks to children, whether supervised or unsupervised, are too great; for example, premises where there is the possibility of children being exposed to drug taking or dealing, gambling, adult or sexual entertainment or illegal selling of alcohol to minors, through to premises to which unsupervised children under 16 should be permitted access. We will also emphasise that where any access for children is permitted, the licensee will still have to demonstrate clearly the steps that it is proposed to take to promote the protection of children from harm in the operating schedule. My officials will continue to work with the child protection organisations and take their views into account in preparing the final version of the guidance.

I believe that this balanced package offers the best way forward on this issue.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, when I intervened earlier I should have declared an interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread. However, I have done it so many times in the course of the Bill that it is probably well known.

On this particular point I intervene to thank the Minister for Amendment No. 50A and for the other point that he raised, which was one that I raised earlier. I believe that we now have provisions that give adequate protection for unaccompanied children. That is a real improvement in the Bill. The Government have responded satisfactorily to our concerns.

My Lords, it will not surprise noble Lords to hear me say how enormously grateful I am to the Minister for the amendments. I believe that the amendments are here today because of the pressure that was put on the Government by noble Lords when this matter was debated at length in your Lordships' House. I pay particular tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and others, who supported me through the discussions on those amendments.

This is a tremendously important subject. We are grateful that the Government, as a result of pressure from your Lordships, have now consulted widely and will continue to consult on the matter. Perhaps our amendments were unduly restrictive, but the Government took on board the spirit of what we were trying to achieve. I am grateful to them for that. The Bill as originally drafted did not protect the interests of children. I believe that now, with these amendments, the Bill will protect the interests of children and help parents to cope. I am grateful to the Minister.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. I shall speak also to Commons Amendment No. 56.

On Report in another place, the Government tabled an amendment that was accepted, the effect of which was to add to Clause 172 premises which, at the time the activity that would otherwise be a licensable activity is carried out, are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the Armed Forces of the Crown to the list of locations at which activities would not be licensable. Therefore, the amendment has the effect of exempting messes, canteens and other service facilities from the Bill's provisions.

I can go into more detail if necessary, but I do not think that the amendment is controversial.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos.13, 14, 17, 22, 32, 55, 82 and 83. Those amendments are about the admission of children to film exhibitions. Amendments Nos. 27, 29, 33, 34, 85 and 86, which were debated in the context of off sales from qualifying clubs are, in part, consequential on the principle of the amendments relating to this group.

The protection of children from harm is one of the central objectives of the Bill. To reinforce our commitment to protecting children from harm and to emphasise that under the Bill children would not be free to see age-restricted films classified by the British Board of Film Classification or by licensing authorities themselves, the Government tabled amendments at Report stage, which were accepted, providing that a mandatory condition should be imposed by licensing authorities on premises licences and club premises certificates authorising the exhibition of films to the effect that the premises must comply with age restriction classifications given to films either by a body designated under Section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984—at present that is the British Board of Film Classification—or by the licensing authority itself, which would preserve the rarely exercised current power of local authorities to classify films themselves, including in relation to individual films.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

15A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Redesdale.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

16A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree"—(Lord Redesdale.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.

Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 51, 53, 54, 68 to 81 and 84. This is a group of minor technical amendments made at Report stage in another place. Government Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are minor amendments perfecting the drafting of the Bill in relation to applications to vary the individual specified in a premises licence as the designated premises supervisor. It is only for premises licences authorising the supply of alcohol that a designated premises supervisor is required, because of the particular issues that arise from the supply and consumption of alcohol, and the responsibilities which go with that. The centrality of the concept of the designated premises supervisor has been discussed at great length in both Houses.

Clause 37 provides that the holder of a premises licence may apply to vary the licence to specify a new premises supervisor. Government Amendment No. 18 will ensure that where premises licence holders have applied to vary a premises licence under Clause 34 to add the licensable activity of the supply of alcohol to other licensable activities, they may apply to vary the licence to specify premises supervisors, and this right is not restricted to just those who already hold licences authorising the supply of alcohol.

Government Amendment No. 19 makes it clear that any applications under Clause 37 which may be given immediate effect for an interim period under Clause 38 must be applications in respect of premises licences which already authorise the supply of alcohol.

Government Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 are technical amendments to improve the drafting in Clauses 149 and 152. Amendment No. 54 perfects the drafting of the Bill by changing "disturbance" at the end of subsection (3) to "nuisance". That will ensure consistency and avoid any confusion about what the police must have regard to.

Government Amendment No. 70 adds part of the schedule to the Common Informers Act 1951, which refers to two other pieces of legislation, to the list of existing legislation to be repealed by the Bill. Both pieces of legislation, the Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743 and the Sunday Observance Act 1780, are themselves repealed by the Bill as they no longer include provisions which can have effect. I am rather pleased to be involved in repealing the Sunday Observance Act 1780. The repeal of the latter fulfils a commitment given by the Government to include it in the Bill.

Amendment No. 72 adds a section of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to be repealed. Government Amendments Nos. 81 and 84 correct minor drafting errors.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

20A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.

Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

21A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 34 en bloc.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 34 en bloc.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, in moving that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 to 45, 57 and 58. The system of temporary event notices set out in the Bill is very light touch, designed to avoid the need to involve ordinary people in administrative procedures, hearings and the like. When the limits are complied with there can be no representations except from the police, and even then only on grounds of crime prevention. Local residents have no input at all, which is why in order to ensure the necessary balance there must be limits on the length, frequency and numbers attending temporary events to ensure that they are adequately protected.

The system set out in the Bill as originally drafted provided that a non-personal licence holder may give up to five temporary event notices in any one year and a personal licence holder may give 50 but it limited the number of notices which could be given in respect of any particular premises in one year to 12. It also set a limit of 72 hours for each event. In practice, that meant that there was a maximum of 15 days every year—five events each three days long or more frequent shorter events.

Following debates in Committee and representations from a large number of people concerned, the Government agreed to look again at the matter to ensure that the Bill would not have the unintended effect of discouraging those who wish to organise ad hoc events for clubs, including sports clubs, village and community halls, voluntary and charitable groups and so on, from carrying on such events.

At the same time, it is sensible to ensure that local residents are not worse off in terms of the safeguards which go along with any liberalisation. We have tabled amendments that would have the effect of increasing the number of temporary event notices that could be given in any calendar year in respect of the same premises from five to 12—sensibly once a month —setting an overall maximum of 15 days in any calendar year (the same maximum implied in the Bill as originally drafted) and increasing the length of time permissible for any single temporary event from 72 hours to 96 hours, for example, for a long bank holiday weekend. A power is provided for the Secretary of State to amend these limits, as well as the maximum number of event notices that an individual may give in a calendar year and the limit on the number of people who may attend an event—at present a maximum is 499—by order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

As well as meeting the concerns of the groups that the limits in the Bill would not allow to hold the types of events that they now hold under the current regime, these measures also ensure that the residents' concerns are fully protected. The power to make changes to the limits will allow the Secretary of State to respond to the experience of the new regime. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Government on a helpful series of amendments. I ask for a small point of clarification. I find the inter-relationship of the various amendments over several clauses a little complicated. I have just returned from a Dorset music festival a week or so ago. I can cite examples of the country houses where such events are held.

I refer to the amendment to Clause 105, which deals with counter notices. Subsection (3) is not amended in terms of the number of temporary event notices held. That subsection applies,

"if the relevant premises user"—

that is, a person who has given notice under Clause 98—

"does not hold a personal licence";

in other words, a person authorised to supply alcohol under Clause 109.

As I understand it, the house owner can only hold, or apply for, five events The next subsection means that anyone else, such as a charity or some other organisation, can apply for the same premises. Therefore, a house owner could have, say, five events for which he or his family had applied, and others could apply for the remainder. This means that one could hold 12 events in the premises during the year.

However, I am not quite sure that I have got it right. If one has a country house and holds two or three concerts as part of a music festival, as well as making the house available to other charities, I want to satisfy myself that it is possible to have up to 12 events. It seems to me that perhaps the applications have to come from different persons. I may have got it wrong. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the matter. If I am right in thinking that up to 12 events can be held during a year, that would be extremely helpful. It is a satisfactory way out of the problems that a number of us identified at an earlier stage.

My Lords, it was the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on behalf of music festivals that led us to think again about the matter. The answer to the question is that the country house owner cart apply 12 times. We have increased the limit from 5 to 12, so there is no reason—no, I am sorry, I am wrong. The owner may have to go via a round-about route. However, I believe that the noble Lord has accepted that it is not too much of a pain. In any case, we have given the Secretary of State power to change it if necessary.

The two points are as follows: first, yes, there can be 12 events of one day, but not more than 15 such events in respect of one house. Secondly, the protection for the neighbours of the maximum of 15 days is maintained.

My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I am glad that my interpretation of the complex wording was right. It will have to be made clear to owners that applications may have to be made by separate bodies because the actual owner of the house or his family are limited in that respect. Others can make application to hold events in the same house as long as the total number is not exceeded. I believe that that is perfectly workable. I am very grateful to the Government for having made the changes.

My Lords, we are also grateful to the Government for the changes that have been made.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 45.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 45. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 58.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 58.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. This is the privilege amendment.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61.

The Government have considered very carefully the amendments made to the Bill in this House. Some of those defeats were overturned during Committee in another place; some of them we have compromised on, bringing forward significant concessions. Indeed, some we have accepted wholeheartedly, subject to necessary technical modification. The issue of incidental live music, which is the subject of these amendments, falls into the third category.

I hope that the House will allow me to make one matter clear. Regardless of all the myths and misinformation surrounding the Licensing Bill in relation to regulated entertainment, the Government are firmly committed, and have always been so, to improving the range and diversity of cultural provision available to the public, and preserving those important musical traditions that help define the character of the country. That is why the Bill was designed to make it much easier and cheaper for venues to get a licence to put on entertainment, and why it removes the perverse disincentive of the two-in-a-bar rule.

Having said that, we accept that there was more that could be done in the Bill to further that aim, which is why we have come forward with a range of concessions since the Bill was introduced. We have exempted places of public religious worship; we have amended the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who perform at unlicensed venues and do no more, will not be committing an offence. We have announced that we will exempt church halls, village halls and other community buildings from fees for entertainment. We shall use the statutory guidance to ensure that only necessary and proportionate conditions are attached to licences.

As part of that package of concessions, we have accepted in entirety the broader of the two amendments made in this House, which would exempt incidental live music as well as incidental recorded music, subject to technical modification to ensure that the effect of the amendment is perfected.

Government Amendment No. 61 removes an anomaly that arose as a result of amendments made in this House. The spirit of the amendment to paragraph 7 of Part 2 of Schedule I was to exempt all incidental live music as well as incidental recorded music. Paragraph 11 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 provides an exemption for unamplified incidental live music. As the Government have accepted the principle that all incidental live music should be exempt from the requirement to obtain a licence, whether amplified or not, that further exemption is unnecessary and has been removed from the Bill. We have accepted the broader of the two amendments made in this House. The effect of the amendment that the Government overturned in the Commons is subsumed entirely within the one that we accepted. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, we thank the Government for accepting this amendment. We support the amendments that they have put forward.

My Lords, we also thank the Government and support Amendment Nos. 60 and 61.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62.

The amendment made in another place reverses an extremely damaging amendment made by this House. That amendment, which was called—misleadingly, in my view—"Exemption for small premises", exposes the public, particularly children, to great safety and harm risks, leaves residents without a voice to protest against nuisance and strips away the powers of the police to control crime and disorder at vast swathes of venues across the country, many of which may be totally unsuitable for the provision of regulated entertainment.

I received a letter today from Councillor Simon Milton, the leader of Westminster City Council, who says that if our amendment were not made, 62 per cent of the licensed premises in Westminster would no longer be subject to licensing. He says, in particular, that since virtually all strip clubs are for fewer than 250 people—I am sure that that applies to all of them— there would be no licensing of such clubs. Imagine what that means.

I understand the sentiments behind the amendment and the deregulatory intention.

My Lords—

My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it might be better if I made my speech before he has an opportunity to intervene, after which I can respond to him.

The intention was to exempt a kind of genteel, low-level and perhaps traditional music made in small premises from the perceived burdens of the new licensing regime. I stress the word "perceived" because the Licensing Bill strips away most of the burdens and costs associated with the existing licensing system. I agree with those sentiments, but the amendment is seriously misguided. It is unfortunate that the world does not consist solely of sophisticated jazz trios playing to well-behaved and civilised audiences. However, I used to go to a jazz club in Paris where the sensitivity of neighbours was so great that the audience was not allowed to applaud; instead they simply click-click-clicked their fingers to show appreciation. Perhaps that system could be introduced in this country also. The amendment would have destroyed all the protection, including the kind that I have been describing.

I hope that it does not come as too much of a shock when I say that the world is not like that. The most popular forms of live music in this country consist of loud and sometimes quite aggressive rock and pop music that provoke audience reaction. Many forms of entertainment give rise to serious issues of crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. It should come as no surprise that both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government Association are vehemently opposed to an exemption of this nature.

The Bill sets out a simple, flexible and proportionate system designed to address those issues while sweeping away unnecessary barriers that stop performers entertaining the public.

The amendment made in this House would exempt any entertainment from the provisions of the Bill provided the audience does not exceed 250 at any one time and the entertainment finishes by 11.30 p.m. Entertainment, in the Bill, includes the playing of recorded music and performing live music, dancing, performing plays, exhibiting films, indoor sports entertainment and other entertainment of a similar description. All those types of entertainment would be covered by the exemption.

I reiterate that the description "exemption for small premises" is misleading. The exemption relates to the size of the audience, not the premises. The exemption would cover, for example, Fatboy Slim or Marilyn Manson playing music at full blast in the middle of a residential area so long as there were fewer than 250 people present at any one time. It would even exempt the Albert Hall if there were fewer than 250 people in the audience. Why should an audience of Fewer than 250 be denied the expert consideration of their protection, and why should local residents be denied a voice?

I know that the musicians' lobby argues that existing health and safety and nuisance legislation should be enough to protect the public on those counts. However, I note that the Musicians' Union publishes a code of good practice relating to the health and safety of performers that goes beyond what health and safety law requires—good luck to it. However, the Government disagree fundamentally with that view for several reasons.

Fire safety law is often enforced through conditions attached to licences under the existing regimes. Exempting vast swathes of entertainment from licensing removes the opportunity to ensure public protection from fire risks through preventative measures.

Existing health and safety legislation is reactive. Licensing offers the opportunity to prevent problems before they have an opportunity to arise. Health and safety legislation relies on an individual operator knowing what they need to do to protect the public at an entertainment event and actually doing it. One of the key aims of licensing is to ensure that that happens. For example, if I were to put on a live band at my local community venue, I would not have the first idea about what I needed to do to ensure that the public and performers were protected from hazards arising from staging, lighting and electrical cabling. But the experts who would have the opportunity to comment on my licence application would certainty know what is needed.

If we left the small premises amendment in the Bill, it would take public protection out of the hands of the experts and give it, in many cases, to amateurs. That is not right, and I do not think it melodramatic to say that it would put lives at risk. However, if we put to one side our differences on the issue of public safety and public nuisance, the exemption made in this House has very serious consequences for the two other licensing objectives in the Bill—the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.

The potential effects of the exemption in those areas are wide-ranging. For example, in the case of a small cinema holding up to 250 people—there are quite a number of those—a child of any age would be free to enter and watch a film classified for 18 year-olds. That is because the recommendations of the British Board of Film Classification have no standing in law. They are currently enforced through conditions attached by the local authority to cinema licences under the Cinemas Act 1985. The Bill will eventually replace that Act in England and Wales. It is intended that similar conditions will be attached to premises licences held for cinemas or other premises exhibiting films. But, without those conditions, the BBFC classifications would be wholly undermined. There would be no way in which a licensing authority for a particular area could seek to have a say in the classification of films exhibited in its area.

The effect of the amendment is to give young children unrestricted access to sex and violent films in cinemas. There was outrage when I said that in the House earlier. I say it again because it is true. We have received representations in strong terms from the BBFC on the issue. I understand that other noble Lords have been on the receiving end of those representations.

The amendment also has a serious effect on the crime prevention objective. The effect is wide-ranging, but I shall illustrate it by way of example. The exemption would allow an individual involved in the sale of drugs to organise entertainment, perhaps a disco, for 250 teenagers with a view to selling his target audience drugs. As the event would not require the authority of a licence or even a temporary event notice, the police would not be informed and they would lose their right to intervene on crime prevention grounds and have the event stopped. They could intervene only after the event if some nuisance or tragedy had occurred.

Is that the type of licensing system that we want? We want a licensing system that aims to facilitate the provision of diversity of entertainment in a responsible way, subject only to those controls that are absolutely necessary. Are we prepared to put that at risk? I do not believe that that could possibly have been the intention of noble Lords opposite when they carried this amendment. They have an opportunity to put things right by supporting the amendment made in another place. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

62A Baroness Buscombe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62, leave out the words from "that" to the end and insert "the House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof"—

Page 112, line 30, at end insert—

"Small events: live music

(1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where—

(a) the number of listeners or spectators present does not exceed 200 at any one time, and

(b) the entertainment ceases no later than 11.30pm.

(2) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of entertainment described in sub-paragraph (1) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.(2) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 62A, and to respond to, and substantially disagree with, several issues raised by the Minister this morning. He knows that we are sticking to what we have said in repeated debates in your Lordships' House and on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in another place.

We understand that the Government's concern is particularly with regard to health and safety. I will seek, as briefly as I am able, to deflect some of the Government's arguments. We contend that there is more than adequate existing legislation to meet the objectives of the Bill, making superfluous the imposition of specific conditions on a licence. We support the view that a small premises exemption is a feasible option within the proposed regime. On health and safety, there is a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for employers to ensure the safety of their employees and others who may be affected by what they do. Thus, publicans, event organisers and others already have a duty with which they must comply. They must ensure that their premises are safe for the use to which they are put, and that any equipment used on the premises is safe, not only for the user, but for all those in the vicinity.

When there is no employer, a similar duty is imposed on the person with control of the premises to ensure that the premises are safe for those using any plant or substances provided for them, which could include promoters or event organisers when premises are let to them to use. Breach of those sections is a criminal offence, with a maximum fine of £20,000 in a magistrates' court and an unlimited fine in a Crown Court. Publicans already have to comply with those provisions.

The enforcement agencies are also able to serve improvement and prohibition notices—the former requiring steps to be taken before an event can take place, and the latter preventing the event from occurring. Breach of those notices is an imprisonable offence.

The Government have suggested that existing health and safety legislation does not provide a sufficient safeguard because it is reliant on the duty holder complying with it, understanding it and taking steps to ensure the safety of patrons before the event. In other words, it is reactive legislation and imposes no site-specific requirements as licensed conditions would do. That is true, to a degree. However, such a statement fails to recognise two important issues: although conditions may be proactive in that they are placed on a licence prior to an event taking place, those imposing non-physical requirements—such as occupancy levels, the checking of fire doors and so forth—are still reliant on the licence holder complying with them.

There is already an existing obligation on every employer and self-employed person—which could include performers—to undertake an assessment of the risks to the health and safety of their employees, themselves and others who may be affected by their conduct under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Not only must a publican have already carried out a risk assessment of his premises, if he has a band, comedian or some other form of entertainment, he must undertake a new assessment considering the risks posed by the new activity. He may consider restricting the occupancy levels, ensuring that any staging is safe and so forth.

On fire safety, the risk assessment must also include consideration of any risk from fire. As from 2004, when the proposed Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order becomes effective, a specific duty will be placed on an employer or the person responsible for the activity being undertaken to undertake an assessment of the risk posed by fire.

I could go on. Noise nuisance is a concern. Concerns have been expressed about the inability of existing legislation to deal proactively with the potential noise nuisance arising from unlicensed premises. It is accepted that local authorities, when exercising their powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to serve noise abatement notices, tend to be reactive, and act following complaints. However, the officers have the power to serve such notices and must do when they are satisfied that a noise nuisance is likely to occur. Thus, when a premises is known to be a problem, a notice can be served requiring steps to be taken or works to be undertaken to prevent noise nuisance.

On anti-social behaviour, it would be wrong not to mention the Bill currently under scrutiny in Committee. The Bill provides councils with powers to deal with noise nuisance—among other issues—and creates a closure order that councils can serve upon premises holding a premises licence or a temporary event notice, closing them down immediately for 24 hours.

Although we accept that the safety of the public is a major consideration, there is a strong argument that the licensing regime for entertainment is overly restrictive and unnecessary due to existing controls, and potentially falls foul of the European Convention. If the requirement for a licensing regime is accepted based on the objectives stated in the Bill, we must decide whether a distinction can and should be made between events based on capacity and timing—namely, whether there should be a small premises or, preferably, a small event exemption. That is what we are putting before your Lordships today. By allowing events to take place and limiting the audience to 200 people, as in our amendment, and to a terminal hour of 11.30 p.m., the Government would surely be seen to be recognising a cultural need and desire, while ensuring that the local amenity is not unduly affected.

The health and safety implications of such an exemption would be no different from those affecting a public house showing live football to potentially many hundreds of patrons or a popular comedian entertaining an audience of hundreds in a like premises, both of which fall outside the definition of entertainment.

There is extraordinary inconsistency in the Bill. A limited amount of entertainment that is not broadcast will be unduly restricted, but a large plasma screen pouring out very loud music or the sounds of a football match to hundreds of people will be outside the remit of the Bill. Whatever the entertainment, each would have to be risk assessed for both general and fire risks, and each would be subject to noise control, not to mention the powers of the police. There is justification for such events to be treated differently.

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, but we feel very strongly about the issue. Unless I hear some new and overwhelming argument, I intend to press the amendment. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62, leave out the words from "that" to the end and insert "the House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment but do propose an amendment in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Buscombe.)

My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. She has covered the health and safety grounds for our amendment, so it is not appropriate for me to cover them again today. We have returned to the amendment on several occasions.

The amendment has been changed to take account of some of the concerns expressed at earlier stages of the Bill. However, one fundamental principle that should not be overlooked is that, although the Minister used some scare stories—even embellishing some of them—about drug pushers organising discos, we should not overlook the fact that drug pushers could get a temporary events notice, but they would still be undertaking a criminal act.

My Lords, I am sorry, but the only criterion for a temporary events notice is that the police have the opportunity to object for the purposes of crime prevention. It is not true that such people could get a temporary events notice.

My Lords, I am sure that anyone who was intending to undertake criminal activity would not put it in the temporary event notice. I also foresee a problem for the police in dealing with tens of thousands of temporary event notices, although I am sure that they will be notified and are extremely professional. We must examine whether all forms of criminality will he stamped out simply by achieving a temporary events notice. Perhaps that is a side issue, however. We have to remember what the purpose of this Bill is. We support this Bill. We support deregulation. The Government have attempted, rightly, to provide conditions which would expand the number of venues available for music. However, we also have to come back to the fact that, although this is a deregulation Bill, it would add a vast amount of regulation. This is one of the issues raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their Twelfth Report of Session 2002–3. On Page 17 they said:

"The Bill leaves a patchwork of different licensing requirements without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression for a licensing regime for public entertainment, and so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10.2".

The Government have raised the issue of health and safety. We understand those issues and believe they have been addressed. They raised the issue of the police being informed and I know the police are concerned over this. However, we also have to be concerned about introducing legislation that will restrict and curtail the right to expression, available up until now. On that basis I shall support the amendment.

I gave the Minister notice earlier of a particular question about the provision of folk dance. I know that it falls outside this amendment. However, I have had a large number of representations from the folk dance world. Kim Howells, his right honourable friend in another place has definite views on folk dance. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister could give some indication over how temporary event notices will work in relation to Morris men so that they may he reassured in carrying on their activities.

My Lords, I rise solely on the narrow question of strip clubs. The Minister tried to chill our blood by claiming that nearly all such clubs would be totally unregulated if the amendment of the noble Baroness were accepted. I am not a great expert on such places but I would guess that virtually no strip club closes as early as 11:30 p.m. and that none nowadays employ live music as opposed to recorded or taped music.

My Lords, I have been silent today as I was probably unnecessarily loquacious when the Bill was last in your Lordships' House. I shall be very brief now. I have had some passages of arms with the Minister on amendments to this and other Bills. I owe it to him, in his new capacity, to seek to repair my reputation for consistency. I wish to put on record that I have seen the letter from the leader of Westminster City Council to him and also the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead along similar lines. The Minister knows what they said in relation to central London. Indeed, he has quoted from them this morning.

I did not speak when the original amendment was carried in your Lordships' House because we were anxious to make progress. I shall not rehearse the arguments in the letters now when we are again anxious to make progress. However, I support the present position of the Government, particularly given the implications for central London.

My Lords, I found the Minister almost very persuasive on this argument. However this is not what the amendment is about. As far as I am concerned, this amendment is about trying to find premises to encourage young musicians. Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Musicians' Union, of which I have been a member for many years, Jazz Services and the English Folk Dance & Song Society have all agreed that further rejection of this amendment would be a disaster for the performing arts. The Government are going against their policy of trying to encourage young musicians, singers and actors. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, the Bill allows big-screen broadcasts and pre-recorded amplified music. It allows a play, musical performance, disco or dance at a garden fete or a church. But it insists on a licence when exactly the same event takes place at a school, pub or restaurant.

My noble friend has covered the noise and the public safety aspects. The Minister in another place, Dr Howells, has said that live music has been distorted for years by the two-in-a-bar rule and that jazz has suffered especially. The two-in-a-bar rule is currently the only form of limited exemption for live music. Both Ministers have said, in this and another place, that to take up a public entertainment licence it is just a matter of placing a tick in the appropriate box. It is not that simple. There is a worry that local authorities will become more involved. They will inspect premises and come up with alterations that must be made—a new fire door here, an exit there. The licensees are unlikely to want to take that risk. The two-in-a-bar rule becomes the none-in-a-bar rule.

I read carefully the debate on this amendment in another place. There, members of the Labour Party supported this amendment, yet when it came to the vote, they voted the opposite way. I have been co-chairman of the Parliamentary Jazz Club for many years. There are many members of your Lordships' House, unfortunately not in their places, who have lobbied for many years to get rid of this two-in-a-bar rule to encourage the provision of premises for young musicians. I hope they are outside and will vote for us. This amendment is about encouraging young musicians. Even if it is rejected, I hope the Minister will come up with some ideas as to how we might achieve this.

My Lords, I have just two points for the Minister. The first is that the Minister said in his first intervention that village halls were already exempted. If that is true, I should like to know where that is in the Bill. Secondly, I find it extremely difficult to believe that strip clubs and film shows would be covered by this exemption. I find it impossible to believe that a strip show or a film show would fall within the definition of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music. The points raised by the Minister are largely irrelevant.

My Lords, I am taken aback by the persistence of noble Lords. The Front Benches, in particular, have not even started to address or challenge the points I made in my opening speech. Our concerns are not just about individual parts of the licensing regime, but the whole of it. Amendment No. 62A would strip out huge chunks of all licensing legislation. The Government are concerned with public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder. We are concerned with the protection of public nuisance and with the protection of children from harm. When the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, talks about fire safety regulations, does she not realise that almost all fire safety regulations affecting cinemas are contained in regulations made under licensing law? The 1955 Cinematograph Regulations are part of licensing law, not of fire safety law. They would disappear if this amendment were carried.

When the noble Baroness says in her amendment that the entertainment should cease no later than 11:30 p.m., does she not realise that under her amendment it could start again at 11:31 p.m. and carry on for 23 hours 59 minutes? There is no protection against late night noise and nuisance or anything else in the Opposition amendment. Does she not realise that the difference between 2(X) and 250 is nugatory? This is not the issue at all. Is she more concerned with the safety of 8,000 people in the Albert Hall than with 199 or 201 young people in a basement club in Soho? Regulation under licensing law to protect these people in terms of public nuisance, fire and health and safety would be wiped out by this amendment.

The noble Baroness referred to noise nuisances. If the premises are outside the scope of the Bill because of an exemption, how are the local authority environmental health officers to know that a form of entertainment will take place that is likely to create a noise nuisance for the purposes of the 1990 Act? The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, was eloquent on this subject on an earlier amendment. She said that the local environmental health officers cannot do anything, because the noise is intermittent. Someone complains under the Environmental Protection Act—they cannot do it under licensing law—the environmental health officers come along, and, by that time—or perhaps because of a tip-off—the premise has been closed down, and it simply starts again after the visit.

That is not adequate. Health and safety conditions imposed on the licence will be based on experts' concerns specific to the premises in question. That is much better protection than that which is provided in more general health and safety law. That is not to say that health and safety law is wrong, but it is generalised. When one is talking about alcohol and entertainment, it is better to have an operating licence that ensures in advance that the protection is there. The operating licence will make it clear what a particular applicant for a licence must do to gain a licence. In health and safety legislation, duties are expressed in general terms only. The only power for authorities to intervene is if something goes wrong.

I can say something nice to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about: morris dancing. He will have heard, as I have, the moral law that only two things are absolutely forbidde—incest and morris dancing. I want to make it clear that when morris dancers arrive at a pub unannounced—for example, on the way back from another event—and have a pint in a pub garden, and start dancing, there is no need for an authorisation of this kind. They would not be providing entertainment that fell within the definition of the provision of regulated entertainment. No genuinely spontaneous activity—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, as well—whether it is singing, dancing, or playing a musical instrument, will be caught by the Bill.

I heard what the noble Lord said about the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Unfortunately, it looks as if the Joint Committee did not consider the department's reply of 10th April to its seventh report. Its officials have apologised for that. The context in which the quotation that he read out is made is the distinction made in the Bill, under pressure, after amendment, that there is a difference between churches and places of worship and other places. That is the context in which it makes that point.

Nothing that I said in my opening speech on this amendment has been adequately answered by this amendment. I put it to your Lordships that to allow this amendment through would be allowing huge risks of danger, physical danger, moral danger, and licence in the other sense—the lack of any reasonable and regular controls in this Bill.

They would take away protections that are essential, not only in central London—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is right about that—but all over the country. Those are essential protections for the people of this country. I urge the House not to approve Amendment No. 62A.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, although it was somewhat predictable. I am sorry that the Minister did not accept any of the arguments put forward, I felt quite cogently, regarding the many regulations that already exist. Employers complain daily that they must put up with those regulations—on risk assessments, health and safety and so on—to carry out their daily business.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The Government know that our interests are for those people who have been lobbying, including the 110,000 musicians and friends of music and entertainment who signed a petition that was delivered to Number 10 this week regarding the future of entertainment and live music in small premises We care passionately about the future enjoyment of all those who go to pubs in this country. Unless this amendment is made, that future enjoyment for all of us, as well as the livelihoods of musicians and entertainers, will be put at great risk.

We are not satisfied. We know that the Government are listening to us on one level, but they have simply failed to even try to come up with a workable solution that is acceptable to us. Today, we are providing a workable solution. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

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

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.