Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 96, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out 'regulated entertainment' and insert 'premises for public gatherings'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 97, in

clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out 'regulated entertainment' and insert 'premises for public gatherings'.

New schedule 1—Provision of Premises for Public Gatherings—

''The Secretary of State shall make regulations which shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure and which—

(a) define ''the provision of premises for public gatherings'' to have the normal meaning of those words save that they exclude premises which have planning permission (or established use certificates) for use for public gatherings of the size contemplated, and—

(i) have a valid fire safety certificate; or

(ii) have regularly in the last five years been used for public gatherings of the size contemplated; and

(b) define ''the size contemplated'' to mean contemplated by the organizer of the gathering.'.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I have not had the privilege of doing so before. I am sure that you will chair the Committee with great fairness and a desire for us to proceed as rapidly as possible through the business, so I do not propose to take too long on these amendments and proposed new schedule 1.

The amendments would remove the provision to regulate entertainment and would replace it with a provision to license public gatherings where there have not been regular public gatherings before. They would do so for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) outlined from the Front Bench.

Schedule 1 defines ''entertainment'' in great detail. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) referred to motocross events—I believe that that is another term for banger racing. Such events took place near Wanborough in her constituency and caused great concern to local people. The schedule does not cover that type of event and I am sure that hon. Members can think of many other events that are not covered.

Hon. Members will know that, in another place, many efforts were made to add to the list of exemptions. For example, there was an exemption for garden fêtes, garden parties and other such entertainments, and amendments on unamplified music. Is the schedule effective, or is it merely confusing? If it is not very effective, is it really necessary? Is there a better way to regulate such entertainments?

I assume, from what the Minister said on Second Reading, and having heard that debate, that the purpose of the regulation was to ensure that people's quiet enjoyment of their own property was not disturbed and that disturbance was not caused to the public in general. I assume that there is no prejudice against outdoor wrestling, compared with outdoor motor cycle events, that it was not thought that scratch race meetings held on private property cause less, or more, trouble than outdoor wrestling, or that it was not because we have a view on whether it matters that a play is or is not scripted.

Would the mime artists in Covent Garden be covered by the Bill? I believe they would be covered, because there is no script and there is a provision for off-the-cuff entertainment. Under the schedule, a single person could put on a play. That provision is slightly arbitrary. There should be some reasoning behind the content of the schedule. I considered the matter another way, by asking what is the problem that the schedule is attempting to put right? The problem is large numbers of people converging on a place and causing noise or other inconvenience to members of the public, either outdoors in public places or in their enjoyment of their private homes and business premises.

The schedule is unnecessary. We should not go to the trouble of defining every different entertainment with a range of inclusions and exclusions. Hon. Members may be taken with this part of my argument, if by no other. It is not necessary to deal with all the amendments printed on pages 506 to 509 of the amendment paper. We should not try to define what is and is not an entertainment; we should instead try to remedy the problem of what is noisy and disruptive.

Public nuisance and environmental health legislation contains provisions to protect people, whether on private premises or in public, from excess noise—excess amplified music—and other types of nuisance, such as smoke. If somebody desires to hold a bonfire in a public place where it has not traditionally been held, that could cause difficulty to some of their neighbours. That would be covered by existing legislation. It is not necessary to regulate entertainment. What is necessary is the regulation of large numbers of people coming together in a particular place, regardless of their purpose.

The Bill covers too many activities that have taken place quietly and without trouble. My intention is that amendments Nos. 96 and 97 should remove the effect of schedule 1. We could limit the application of the regulations by defining public gatherings. If hon. Members turn to page 522 of the amendment paper, they will see that new schedule 1 would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that define both public gatherings and the size that is contemplated for a public gathering. I would have preferred the definitions to be included in the Bill.

Under new schedule 1, the Secretary of State would be able to define a public gathering within

''the normal meaning of those words''—

that is, not a private gathering to which people are invited—

''save that they exclude premises which have planning permission (or established use certificates) for use of public gatherings of the size contemplated''.

Clearly, such a gathering is acceptable—whether it is noisy is a matter for environmental health or public nuisance legislation. Those excluded premises must

''have a valid fire certificate'',

which is a necessity, or they may

''have regularly in the last five years been used''

for this purpose, whether it is for a church fete that takes place once a year in the vicarage garden, or a barn dance that takes place three times a year in a farmer's barn, or whether it is in a town.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

There are circumstances in which the precedent of regular use over the previous five years does not necessarily mean that it is not important to have a valid fire certificate. I promoted an event at the Edinburgh fringe using a room that was converted into a venue every year. I had to put in a scaffolding auditorium and a lighting rig and it was very important that fire safety officers checked what I had done.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Yes, I concede that point. I am sure that the new schedule could be improved on. I am trying to establish the principle that it is more important to regulate the gathering and the noise that it generates, than to regulate the entertainment and, therefore, have to define what is and is not an entertainment.

Most activities of this type do not require the elaborate work that is required to establish a lighting rig. For example, if a pop concert is held on a field provided by an agricultural society for the county show, it is covered by the schedule, but if a religious meeting is held in exactly the same place, using exactly the same equipment and involving exactly the same number of people, that is not covered. There is an inconsistency in the Bill—one that in my view is better covered by public nuisance legislation, rather than by regulation of the type of entertainment proposed.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

When reference was made earlier to ''Bangor'' racing, I was wondering whether the Minister—albeit he has a south Wales background—might be able to tell us what was going on in north Wales, until I realised that it was the pronunciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that had made a difference.

My hon. Friend has introduced the proposed amendments skilfully. I appreciate that only regulated entertainment will, by its nature, be regulated under the Bill. Can the Minister tell us if aspects and areas of unregulated entertainment have emerged in the past five to 10 years? Is it his intention to keep an eye on which areas of unregulated entertainment need to come within the confines of schedule 1? Will there be regular updates to ensure that residents will not be upset by groups who try to

bypass the provisions of the Bill because their entertainment activity does not fall within the confines of either clause 1 or schedule 1?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

The amendments would remove the provision of regulated entertainment as a licensable activity as well as schedule 1, which defines the provision of such entertainment and sets out various exemptions and interpretations.

Before I continue I shall point out what the amendments do not do, as that is important. They would leave the provision of regulated entertainment as a club qualifying activity—for which authorisation of a club premises certificate may be applied—unsupported by any definition. It would be left to the licensing authorities and the courts to decide what, if anything, the provision of regulated entertainment includes. I do not want to introduce an element of self-interest into the debate—not this early anyway—but every Labour, Conservative and Liberal club in the country would be mightily concerned about that omission.

Leaving that confusion aside for a moment, the amendments would replace the provision of ''regulated entertainment'' with the provision of ''premises for public gatherings'', which would become a licensable activity. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight explained, the phrase ''premises for public gatherings'' is to be defined in a new schedule, which would give the Secretary of State an enabling power to make regulations relating to that. The regulations would prescribe that the expression should have its normal meaning, except in certain cases. The exceptions are when premises have planning permission for use as a place of public gathering and a valid fire certificate and when premises have been regularly used for the past five years for gatherings of the size contemplated.

The changes would mean that the Bill licensed not just the entertainment activities listed in paragraphs 2(1) and 3(2) of schedule 1, but any premises where public gatherings of any kind were held. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, that could include religious or political meetings. We should ask seriously what the amendments would cover. The potential breadth of meaning of ''public gatherings'' suggests that the changes could be far-reaching.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is testing us. He said that he is quite willing for his new schedule to be considered and modified. However, the potential breadth of meaning is an important consideration. In addition, one can expect any court seeking to give ''premises'' its normal meaning to turn swiftly to the Bill for help. The Bill defines ''premises'' as ''any place''. The same definition has applied in licensing law in London for 40 years—London is different.

The hon. Gentleman is contemplating licensing public demonstrations, which are one of the great and fundamental rights in this country. I am sure that he recognises and supports that right, but his amendments put it in jeopardy. Things would have come to a pretty pass if nobody in this country could demonstrate unless they had a licence. I am sure that

countryside and peace campaigners on the Isle of Wight, which is a wonderful part of Britain, would have something to say about that.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I attended a demonstration by peace campaigners from the Isle on Wight in St. James's square, where demonstrations of that kind have been held regularly over the past five years. Similarly, I attended the countryside march in London. It took place over a route that has been used regularly over the past five years for such demonstrations. They would not be covered by my amendments.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I think that they would, but we can debate that.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) raised another point. He did not mention motocross, but the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did. I was confused about ''Bangor'' racing as well. They do some pretty strange things in north Wales—never mind the south. The matter is outside the scope of the Bill, but the antisocial behaviour White Paper expresses the intention to regulate off-road biking and a number of other things. If the hon. Gentleman specifies what kinds of activities may or may not be covered by this Bill, I will find out whether they are covered in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, so that the matter can be considered further.

Under the proposal, a valid fire certificate would become a sort of carte blanche. If a building were given a fire certificate as a meeting hall and people decided to put on a play, which would give rise to all sorts of additional fire risks, licensing law would have no say in the matter. A nightclub with planning permission as a place of public gathering would almost certainly have a valid fire certificate, but the safety and noise issues that arise from the entertainment that takes place there will often go far beyond what can be controlled by planning law or even fire safety law.

The Committee must remember that young people at such premises will often be in a vulnerable state either because of alcohol or drug use. We may not like that, but it is a fact. Normal fire and safety precautions associated with discotheques will not necessarily be adequate. Even the Bar, Entertainment and Dance Association—the trade association representing the nightclub industry—agrees with that view.

The amendments are interesting because the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is coming at the matter from a very different angle. However, they are flawed and, worse than that, in some instances they could be positively dangerous. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps acknowledge that some parts of them have not been entirely thought through. Perhaps I am wrong, but no doubt he wants to regulate Conservative clubs more than commercial premises. I am sure that he does not want to regulate political or religious meetings, public demonstrations or to put the young and vulnerable at risk, so I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am happy to go a little way towards the Minister's position, although I find it hard to understand why he feels that clubs would be regulated even were the amendments carried. I understand why he says that clubs would be covered by simple

omission from the amendments, but the principle of whether we should be regulating individual activities or the noise and nuisance caused by assemblies is, as the Minister acknowledges, an interesting one that does not appear to have been covered previously in discussion on the Bill.

I have absolutely no intention of regulating Conservative, Labour or even Liberal clubs, where they exist, more than they are regulated at the moment. I do not believe that the amendments would do that. I am happy that the Minister has given some thought to the matter, and if we have a future opportunity to consider the legislation, we may look at whether we need the detailed regulation of individual types of entertainment and definitions contained in the schedule. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No.1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out

'for consumption on the premises where the supply takes place'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 16 to 24.

Government amendment No. 33.

Government amendment No. 34.

Government new clause 1—Club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

The amendments will remove the Bill's existing prohibition on the supply of alcohol by, or on behalf of, a club to a member of the club for consumption off the premises. Clubs will be allowed to make off-sales to their members but not their members' guests. An amendment was tabled in another place to provide for qualifying clubs—now known as registered members clubs—under current legislation to conduct off-supplies of alcohol to their members. The Government undertook to consider the issue further and amend the Bill if necessary. That is precisely what I am going to do today.

Under existing law, registered members clubs, which will become qualifying clubs under the Bill, include political clubs—Labour, Liberal and Conservative clubs—working men's clubs, ex-services clubs and Royal British Legion clubs, as well as clubs for serving professions and activities, miners' institutes and many sports clubs. Such clubs enjoy a different status to premises that operate under justices' licences. They operate under premises licences because they have a particular role to play as meeting places in the community. They are, however, limited in their activities—for example, alcohol can only be supplied 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 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 the club's traditional role as a meeting place in the community. However, following further consultation with the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations, we have taken the view that as members of clubs already own the alcohol stock it would be churlish to deny them the right to take home beer—or any other tasty drink. We also believe that allowing them to do so does not pose any significant risk to the achievement of the licensing objectives.

However, new clause 1 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 the premises. Also, a club premises certificate authorising the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must include three conditions. First,

''the supply must be made at a time when the premises are open for the purposes 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.''

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 Committee will agree that with these conditions in place there is no good reason to prevent qualifying clubs from supplying alcohol to their members for consumption off the premises.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

We are grateful that the Minister and his team have looked carefully at the amendment proposed by their Lordships, and that they have reached a practical outcome with regard to it. However, I have a brief question for the Minister. He refers to alcohol leaving the premises in sealed containers, such as bottles or cans, but what about draft beer that is put into plastic bottles with a screw top? Is that technically a sealed container, or must the seal be something that can be broken?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

It is a long time since I have drunk beer from a screw-top container, but I believe that that is classified as a sealed container.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I have to take the Minister's word for that, but we must wait to see whether it will stand the test of time. A screw top is not a seal because a quick twist will undo it, but if the Minister is happy with the wording of new clause 1, I will say no more.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

First, I must declare an interest. I am a member of the Sacriston working men's club in the great county of Durham.

I welcome the amendment. Working men's clubs—certainly those in the north-east—have enjoyed the right to do off-licence sales for about 60 years. It is important to deal with working men's clubs and registered clubs differently from public houses.

Working men's clubs in the north-east know their members, and they are an important part of the community. In many of the smaller villages, they are the only place where off-licence sales can be supplied. Therefore, the provision will be welcomed by clubs in the north-east. It is a sensible move forward.

The point about the sealed container is important. We do not want health issues and risks surrounding beer being put into inappropriate containers to arise. A sealed container must be the bottle or can that the drink is sold in. I do not want beer that is put into any type of bottle to be carried out of a public house.

The provision will be welcomed. Working men's clubs are responsible. They know their members. They have had this right for 60 years, and the provision will mean that they continue to have it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in

clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—

'(6A) For the purposes of this Act ''normal trading hours'' are those between 5.00 am and midnight.'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 36, in

clause 18, page 11, line 10, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 37, in

clause 18, page 11, line 15, at end insert

'and

(d) where the application is for opening hours to include those beyond normal trading hours, by an environmental impact assessment.'.

Amendment No. 38, in

clause 19, page 12, line 7, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (11)'.

Amendment No. 39, in

clause 19, page 13, line 18, at end insert—

'(11) Where an application is made in accordance with section 18(3)(d) the licensing authority may grant the licence having considered the environmental impact assessment.'.

Amendment No. 40, in

clause 55, page 33, line 6, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 41, in

clause 55, page 33, line 7, at end insert

'and

(c) prescribe the additional fee for licensable activities outside normal trading hours in relation to the length of time the premises remain open after midnight.'.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

Clearly, many residents—not only those in central London, which is the part of the country that I represent, but throughout the land—are concerned about 24-hour licensing. That issue in the legislation has been highlighted, and it has made the headlines. The day before the last general election text messages went out to tens of thousands of would-be voters—not from the Conservatives, but the Labour party—saying, ''There were 24 hours to save the health service in 1997 and there will be 24 hours to save your liver perhaps in 2001''. Of course, what was threatened has not come to pass in the meantime. There are some

genuine concerns about the prospect of a blanket 24-hour licensing regime.

The purpose of the amendments that I have tabled is not to stop the Government allowing flexible hours and even, on occasion, allowing 24-hour licensing over a holiday season, for particularly strong reasons, given the location of licensed premises. They are designed, as part of the safeguard that should be in place, to establish a higher level of scrutiny and, indeed, a higher fee for new applications for premises that trade between midnight and 5 am. Those may be slightly arbitrary hours. As I am sure that the Minister is aware, 11 pm is the usual closing time for most licensed premises and therefore the amendments suggest flexibility. Amendment No. 41 calls for a higher level of scrutiny, and higher fees for the five-hour period in the middle of the night. I should like licensing authorities to be given some discretion when deciding whether to grant such applications.

The concern that has been expressed to me by many of my residents associations, of which I shall say more later, is that a national template is being put in place. The Government have, rightly and understandably, pointed out on a number of occasions that licensing regulations are antediluvian. Many licensing regulations were put in place during the first world war. During the 14 years between 1919 and 1933, alcohol was prohibited in the United States. It is interesting that many temperance associations worked closely with the suffragette movement at that time, in this country and worldwide.

It is clear that there needs to be a change. The great worry is that, unless there is flexibility and discretion in the hands of licensing authorities, there will be a feeling that a national template is being imposed. Although powers are being taken away from the magistrates courts, the licensing authorities will find that their hands are tied when it comes to making decisions that have to be responsive to particular areas.

With great respect to my hon. Friends, the reality is that each area is different, be it Fareham, the Isle of Wight or Cambridgeshire. I am sure that the Isle of Wight during Cowes week is extremely busy and it is understandable that there would be extensions to regular hours. Likewise, in central London, a different regime should apply. There is great concern about the Bill. One reason why we have tabled the amendments is so that the Government recognise different requirements. Licensing authorities should have some discretion to take account of those fundamental differences.

The amendments would ensure that applications for opening hours up until midnight were treated with the deregulatory light touch that the Government wish to put in place. I am sure that all hon. Members would welcome that. I believe that the additional hour will cater for the vast majority of people who demand longer hours throughout the country. It would ensure that we did not have the mad dash between 10.45 pm and 11 pm with more drink being consumed, thus creating the rowdiness, urination and other antisocial

behaviour on the streets at kicking-out time, which has become part and parcel of our pub culture.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Will not the amendment move the rush out to the streets that currently occurs at 11 o'clock to 12 o'clock?

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

No. The notional idea is that there should be flexibility between midnight and 5 am and acceptance that midnight would be the absolute minimum, rather than 11 o'clock. I appreciate that, whenever any hon. Members speak on the subject, there always seems to be an impression of special pleading. In my own area in Westminster, around the Soho and Covent Garden area that the ever-silent Whip on your side knows so well—

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. There is no Whip on my side and never has been.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

I am very disappointed; I assumed that there were about three. You are in great control, Mr. Gale. I am obviously much mistaken about the role of the Chairman in the Committee.

In places such as Soho and Covent Garden premises have late licences. More than 60 premises in Soho have licences to open up to 4 am in the morning. There are graduated closing times for many licensed premises in central London. I hope to see the imposition of an environmental impact assessment in advance to encourage all applicants to look at the potential adverse effects and impacts, and to build in measures that were specific to local communities from the outset to avoid, minimise or mitigate those consequences.

Amendment No. 41 would allow the Government to fix a higher fee based on types of activities and the length of time that premises are to be open after midnight. That establishes the principle that the polluter should pay and again allows for a certain amount of flexibility in a national template, rather than the matter being regulated and centralised.

Outside central London and outside the UK, a different regime comes into play. Every bar in Paris, for example, has to close between 3 am and 5 am. I am not suggesting that that should happen here, but there is a different regime, notwithstanding the fact that everyone remarks on how liberal much of the drinking regulations in Europe are. In Paris, there is a two-hour period every day when no licensed premises can be open. Likewise, Glasgow has a 1 am terminal hour. In New York, greater police numbers make quite a difference and ensure far greater enforcement, including fines for staff taking control of matters during the early hours of the day in the absence of an owner or manager.

I hope that the Minister will seriously consider ensuring that there will be added discretion. We are not talking about amendments that run counter to the intention of the Government in any way. In fact, rather the opposite is true. One hopes, as all Members do on the Conservative Benches—although we are here to scrutinise the Bill—for practical and workable legislation whereby all parties are aware of what is going on. We hope not to see matters determined in the courts in the years ahead, but for local authorities, licensing authorities and businesses in the

entertainment and alcohol industry, alongside residents, to have a sense of certainty. I appreciate that there is an issue concerning the level of discretion, but hopefully that would be brought about by all local parties working together.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he tell the Committee about his intention that businesses should have to conduct an impact assessment? I am quite intrigued by that.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

Again, we are not looking at something that will be over-bureaucratic. A sensible assessment should be made in each area where extensive licensing—potentially 24-hour licensing—during the early hours of the morning is considered. At least some consideration should be given to the impact. Inevitably, one looks at the matter from the perspective of a constituency MP. Many people have no appreciation of how many people live in Soho.

Of the 5,000 people who live in Soho, many are young parents trying to bring up children, and a great majority live in social housing. They are not living there because they have decided to buy a house in the middle of a busy, vibrant area; they have little say in the matter. They are either council tenants, or live in Peabody Trust or other trust housing. It seems all too easy to put the interests of residents to one side—almost ignore them—and assume that because one does not see many residents out and about in the early hours of the morning, their interests should be bypassed, or that they do not exist at all. All I am saying is that I would like an environmental assessment survey to be undertaken. However, we would also have to consider infrastructure and I spoke about that on Second Reading.

One of the grave concerns in London about the prospect of much more extensive or all-night licensing is that there is no mechanism to allow people to leave the area. I am not making a narrow partisan political point, but the public transport system is simply not up to the job. I have to give some credit to the Mayor of London for the steps that have been taken with the bus network, but that will not solve all of the problems. We do not have a fully-fledged underground or rail system and, as we know, the police could not cater for extended licensing. Sensible regulation should be put into place.

It is easy for a London Member of Parliament to assume that the world revolves around the capital, but there are similar concerns in other areas, including in many of our county towns and in rural areas, particularly as the summer months begin. There should be some assessment to ensure that, in trying to deregulate—and that is an admirable aim—we do not undermine the charm and beauty of many parts of the country, and make life much more miserable for residents and, in the longer term, businesses.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

In making my first contribution, I thank you for giving up your time to chair our proceedings, Mr. Gale.

I oppose the amendments. Despite the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Cities of London and

Westminster, I believe that the amendments would, fundamentally, undermine the Bill and the Government's intention in introducing it. If the amendments were made, I would almost have to query whether there was any purpose in continuing with the legislation. I accept entirely that the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendments from perfectly sincere motives, and that he did not intend them to be wrecking amendments. Nevertheless, in my view, they are exactly that.

The amendments would effectively reintroduce the previous legislation by the back door. The entire thrust of getting rid of some of the draconian controls would be undone if we were to bring in the assumptions and control mechanisms underlying the amendments. If we simply wanted to move the standard closing time from 11 pm to midnight—that, effectively, is what the amendments would do—it would be simpler to amend existing legislation by deleting ''11'' and inserting ''12''.

I understand that there are problems in the heart of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and it is right that he should address them, but it cannot be right to introduce a nationwide system just to tackle the specific problems in his constituency. I encourage him to have more faith in, and give more of a chance to, the local licensing policies that the Bill invites local authorities to draw up. If those policies work as they should, they will provide solutions for local authorities that have trouble spots.

In areas saturated with licensed premises, including Soho and other parts of the Cities of London and Westminster, local authorities may well have particular considerations about opening hours in trouble spots. However, to invite the entire country and local authorities everywhere to introduce the assumption of closing at midnight is taking a sledgehammer to the problem. It would be desirable to have a more pinpointed and precise way of dealing with those problems. Every small pub in every village in the country would have to shut at midnight if we went down the route of the amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I intended to speak in support of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, and I may well still do that, because I do not believe that the difficulties that he mentioned are confined to London. Soho and the Covent Garden area are divided between two London boroughs, and other boroughs abut on to them. The problem spreads well beyond the boundaries of particular licensing authorities. That, of course, is not the case in my licensing authority. Does the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) accept that he is being a little harsh on my hon. Friend?

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

No, I do not, but I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that the problems are not unique to the Cities of London and Westminster. It is probable that there will be certain known pinpoint areas in almost every local authority, and I accept that local authorities will want to develop, through local licensing policy, an approach to deal with such areas. My objection remains that by inviting them to go down the route suggested by the

amendments, the old regime would effectively be reintroduced by the back door.

I am pleased that the Government have taken the view that the licence application fee will be set nationally within a banding system. I am sure that, as a thrusting deregulator, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster envisages that the environmental impact assessments will be straightforward, small-scale operations and I am sure that he has the most benign intention in suggesting that local authorities should be able to set a special fee for late night applications. However, just wait until those in local government, who are of a rather less deregulatory inclination than the hon. Gentleman, get their hands on this. They will reintroduce ludicrously punitive—[Interruption.] Yes, I have no doubt that Liberal councils will be among them; I am sorry that I cannot acquit them of culpability in this matter. The local authorities will all be as bad as each other. They will demand enormous impact assessments with bells and whistles that will cost everyone a fortune to commission. Should they be allowed to set their own fees for late night applications, they will be equipped with a remarkable variety of sticks and clubs with which to bang applicants over the head. That is a theme to which we will return as we deal with further clauses.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman intends there to be three checks: an assumption of a standard closure at midnight, the requirement for there to be an impact assessment for times after midnight and the ability to charge super-normal fees for premises that want to go beyond midnight. If those are added together, there should be fundamental queries about whether the purpose of the Bill is being undermined.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

May I challenge the hon. Gentleman on his suggestion that a local authority would not be justified in charging a higher fee for an activity that requires much more detailed scrutiny?

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

In having a range of fees that depend on the nature of the premises and the activities, the Government are, in a sense, intending that that should be so. That is reasonable—I do not suggest that there should be a single fee. However, alarm bells ring when I see what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is proposing. This is just the kind of opportunity to increase revenues for which some in local government have been waiting; they would grab it with both hands. I think that it is rotten. It undermines what we are trying to do. The group of amendments must be resisted. I hope that the Government will resist them.

Mr John Grogan (Selby, Labour)

I, too, oppose the amendments because they strike at the heart of the Bill. If I represented a village and there were a pub with a problem in a residential area, I am not sure that I would want normal permitted hours to be until midnight. The principles in the Bill, whereby extensions beyond 11 pm—the grandfather rights—should be considered in terms of crime, disorder, nuisance, and so on, are much better than those in the alternative system.

I was interested in the use of language by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. He used the words ''the polluter pays''. It is a pity to regard a hospitality industry that stays open after midnight, which does a great deal for both our rural and urban economy, as necessarily ''polluting''.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

The point that I was making was clearly environmental. I was making a comparison to the idea that ''the polluter pays''. Representing as I do this vibrant capital London, I would not wish to suggest that leisure and tourism was somehow a polluter. The principle remains that where there are additional costs to the public purse—both in environmental assessment and in extending hours to 24-hour opening—it is sensible that there should be some flexibility, within confines. That would avoid the problems that the hon. Member for North Devon has pointed out. There should be some flexibility in the fee-charging structure.

Mr John Grogan (Selby, Labour)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, although I still think that it is an unfortunate use of language. It mirrors the language used in the Institute of Alcohol Studies paper on the situation in Westminster. The institute is funded by the Temperance Alliance, which has an interest in these matters.

Some premises may have implications for public services if they stay open after midnight; a lot may not. In the case of a restaurant in a non-residential area, or a village pub in Selby, the implications for public services are fairly limited. If such a pub stays open until 1 o'clock in the morning, it is just a question of people walking home when it closes. To re-institute last orders at midnight is dangerous.

I received a letter from a barmaid that crystallised in my mind why last orders are a bad thing, whether at 11 o'clock or midnight. I will read a few paragraphs that reflect her experience:

''You spend hours, days, weeks cultivating a relationship with the regulars, charming newcomers, learning to pour that perfect pint, yet, the moment you ring that bell it all goes out the window.

Suddenly all eyes are upon you, then all eyes are upon the clock and the muttering begins; 'That clock's fast', 'Is it that time already', 'Give us a takeout', 'I've just put two quid in the jukebox', 'Down it we'll squeeze one more in.'

And the bar that you have served so efficiently all evening . . . becomes THE place to be, no joking, no social niceties now. It is each for their own, digging that elbow space, thrusting fivers in your face, no-one is going to risk returning to their mates empty handed.

Inevitably, there's always one, on the phone, in the toilet, didn't hear the bell—begging, pleading, demanding, but you can't give in, serve one and you'll have to serve them all you've made yourself really unpopular now . . .

You have to wander round the pub forcing people to down their drinks, shouting . . . 'Come on drink up folks, can I have your glasses please' . . .

In under half an hour you have gone from being a right laugh and everybody's friend to public enemy number one.''

That is the reality of our liquor licensing laws. That is the reality of 11 o'clock closing, and it would be the reality if you did it all at midnight. It is much better to consider each case on its individual merits. If the pub is in a residential area, 11 pm may be late enough, particularly if it has not been well managed in the past and there have been problems. In other circumstances, I cannot see any problems with 1 am or 2 am.

There is a big lobby from the City of Westminster, and I know that there are real problems there. I understand that there has been a decline in the number of licensed premises in central London over recent years. There are clear problems to be addressed there, but I look to other authorities up and down the country that are beginning to solve, or at least combat, some of the problems of crime or disorder through partnerships. It is not rocket science. For example, in Slough the authority has got together with the licensed premises; they have reached voluntary agreements on matters such as happy hours, moved taxi ranks and provided late night transport. Many of those problems can be addressed by partnership working. That presents a better route than a fixed closing time at midnight.

The idea that a village pub in Selby should undergo a regulatory impact assessment to stay open until 1 am on a Friday is almost beyond belief. Local residents will be able to make their voices heard to the local licensing committee in Selby, and I think that that is enough.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

As the hon. Member for North Devon and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) have told the Committee, this group of amendments goes to the heart of the matter. The amendments would impose new and significant red tape on businesses operating any licensable activities after midnight, and would undermine the benefits in terms of tackling crime and disorder that flexible hours would promote.

The amendments would inject a serious deterrent to any business that had it in mind to open after midnight. To supply alcohol or put on music and dancing—or even to sell a cup a coffee—later than midnight, an applicant for a licence for a pub, nightclub, restaurant, cinema, night café or theatre would have to go to the expense of producing an environmental impact assessment. In addition to that, the intention is that a higher fee should be paid. If those extra costs are not enough, the deterrent is completed by the apparent extension of the discretion of the licensing authority to refuse the application even if no interested party, such as a local resident, or no responsible authority, such as an environmental health department, makes a representation. I use the word ''apparent'' because, as it is worded, amendment No. 39 does not quite achieve that extension.

I have no doubt that Conservative Members will claim that they are against red tape and putting unnecessary burdens on the industry; I bet that they will make such representations when we debate designated premises supervisors and live music. However, from the outset, they have supported amendments that would place significantly more red tape and restrictions on such businesses—as the hon. Member for North Devon and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby made clear.

Under current law a nightclub can obtain permission to sell alcohol until 2 am in most of the country, or until 3 am in the west end of London, without producing an environmental impact

assessment; a casino can obtain permission to sell alcohol until 6 am without such an assessment; a restaurant can obtain permission to sell alcohol with meals until 1 am without such an assessment; and any of them can obtain a public entertainment licence until any hour of the night for music and dancing without the need to produce such an assessment. Therefore, this proposal is seriously regulatory, and it would rein back not only the Bill's provisions but the existing arrangements.

For what purpose is this red tape proposed? It is important to remember that licensing is not a re-run of the planning process: all such premises will have gone through the planning process before they seek licences. They may have gone through a series of appeals to the planning inspectorate, the Secretary of State and the courts. If all of that was set aside with regard to the new environmental impact assessments, it would be very bureaucratic and a wholly unjustified duplication of the process. A planning authority will have considered the environmental impact of a business. Why is further duplication necessary? The amendments would revisit that consideration for no sensible purpose.

In clause 14, the local planning authority is one of the responsible authorities that are entitled to make representations to the licensing authority about any application, including in respect of hours of opening. They have an opportunity to make points if they consider that there is an important issue regarding saturation or cumulative impact in relation to carrying on licensable activities. In that respect, these amendments are unnecessary.

We should not be mealy-mouthed about what is being proposed. The intention is to build into the Bill significant deterrents to minimise the number of premises opening after midnight. Many businesses would look at the potential for additional costs and fees and the higher risk of refusal, and they would settle for a midnight closing time. That would mean that the peak of disorder and disturbance that is now experienced soon after 11 pm would be shifted to midnight. A key aim of the Bill is to encourage longer and later opening hours because that would allow customers to drink more slowly and to disperse more gradually, and that would reduce the peaks of disorder and nuisance that are caused when hundreds or thousands of people hit the streets—and sometimes each other—simultaneously. These amendments not only represent the worst kind of red tape but would undermine our efforts through the Bill to reduce late-night crime, disorder and nuisance.

We have twice liberalised licensing hours at new year—we permitted continuous opening for 36 hours. Following the liberalisation in 2001, we wrote to every police force in England and Wales. No force identified any detrimental impact, and many saw benefits. The Police Superintendents Association said:

''In terms of licensed premises, few members report that any sizeable number of pubs or clubs took advantage of the facility to open for the full 36 hour period. However, the discretion allowed the licensee did cause a staggered closing time. As has been said in the past, this prevents large numbers of inebriated people being on the streets at the same time, which is welcomed by the police service.''

West Yorkshire police said:

''There were no serious disorder issues arising as a result of extended hours, possibly owing to the fact that there was no mass exodus on to the streets at 0030 hours. The premises that remained open were in the main quiet and of no problem to the police.''

The divisional commander for Rhondda Cynon Taff, my local authority, reported:

''It is fair to say the staggered closing of licensed premises throughout the area generally appeared to encourage people to act in a responsible and orderly fashion.''

Bedfordshire police commented:

''Interestingly, one of our divisional commanders commented that the total number of alcohol related incidents (and incidents generally) was lower than for a normal Saturday night/Sunday morning.''

The Government are not the only body to have drawn the conclusion that lengthening the current fixed and artificially early closing times would bring benefits in terms of reduced disorder and disturbance. In saying that, I remind the Committee that the Bill does not in any way ignore the legitimate concerns of the Civic Trust and others about the development of the late-night economy.

Let us consider the range of provisions. A duty is placed on an applicant to set out in their operating schedule the steps that they will take to prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder in the vicinity of the premises. A stronger voice is given to residents living in the vicinity and to residents associations. The right of representation is given to planning authorities on issues such as saturation and cumulative effect, which relate to the licensing objectives. The police have a similar right relating to the impact on crime and disorder, as do environmental health authorities in relation to noise and other nuisance. The police will have expanded powers to close down rowdy premises instantly for up to 24 hours in the first instance. The antisocial behaviour White Paper recently published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shows our intent to introduce other legislation to tackle antisocial nuisance behaviour in our towns and cities.

The Government are taking a balanced and responsible approach. I know that the Civic Trust is concerned that the Bill puts a burden on local residents and residents associations to make representations and that some, for a variety of reasons, may prefer to rely on their local authority to act for them. It is claimed that we are not giving local authorities enough discretion to do that. That is simply not so. If residents want to sit back and rely on their local authority to act for them, they can do so. The local authority is the planning authority; it is the environmental health authority; and it will normally be the enforcing arm for health and safety. In those guises, the local authority, acting on its own initiative, can protect its residents' interests by making representations to the licensing authority. The concerns that have been expressed are met and dealt with in this balanced Bill.

Finally, in asking the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster not to press the amendments, I ask him to remember the consumer. Part of the desire to introduce greater flexibility into

licensing regimes relates to giving the consumer greater choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby, who has said many memorable things in his political career, once said that

''unlike Cinderella, not all of us have to go home at midnight.''

We should remember that. You and I may go home at midnight, Mr. Gale. In fact, if I have a pint at 10 o'clock, I usually have to go home at half-past 10, because I fall asleep. However, flexibility will be good for consumers and tourists, and tourists are vital to our economy. When balancing competing interests, let us remember the consumer, who is extremely important. Millions of people are employed in the industries in question; they are also important and we must bear them in mind.

I listened to the arguments that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made. Of course he is concerned about his constituents who reside in Soho. Indeed, Committee members are all worried about residents in our constituencies who live close to concentrations of drinking establishments and other licensed premises. However, I hope that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is balanced. It gives local residents, the police and local authority the means by which they can ensure that the welfare of people is properly looked after.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

I want to deal with one or two of the issues referred to by the Minister. It is fair to say that there is a certain balance in the Bill and that it has been assisted in the other place. It will be interesting to see how many of the amendments made in the other place are maintained when we examine the matter in the weeks ahead. I hope that some element of balance will have its part to play.

I accept the Minister's view that licensing has to be integrated alongside the planning system, but that integration involves a serious examination of the issues of cumulative impact and saturation. They should not just be seen as a planning matter; in my view and that of many Conservative Members, they should have a part to play in the licensing process. I do not wish to insult the Minister or accuse him of naivety about how the planning system works. I think that all of us might have read textbooks about how Government or Parliament works before coming here, and in those books planning procedures all seemed dry and straightforward. We all know that the practical reality is different.

The reality is that the planning process, particularly in central London for the bars in Soho and Covent Garden to which I have referred, is far less easy on residents, residents associations and the local authority than the Minister would have us believe. Large-scale operators, who rely on thousands of people being in their Soho or Covent Garden bars until 3 or 4 am on a Saturday or Sunday, will have deep pockets; they will go to court umpteen times to ensure that they get their way, notwithstanding the safeguards of various district policies. The real problem is twofold, along the lines that the Minister pointed out.

Small operators in areas such as Soho and Covent Garden will suffer. They include businesses that have been run by the same families for years. The owners

have a stake in the community, not least because the business is based there. Many owners and employees of such businesses live in the vicinity. They will suffer under a much stricter planning and licensing regime.

Moreover, consumer choice will be affected. One of the great charms of going into Dean street or other parts of Soho is the fact that, alongside the large national chains, small local pubs, restaurants, bars and cafés are open until the early hours of the morning. No one wishes to drive those organisations and institutions out of business, but the reality is that they are the most vulnerable businesses. Genuine consumer choice means that we should have not just a Burger King or a McDonald's. That does not represent a wide choice. We want a broad consumer choice that will attract tourists to London not just once but many times. I am concerned that the balance that all of us are looking for will not be achieved unless amendments such as those in this group are brought into play.

Obviously, the hon. Member for Selby has Bet Lynch as one of his correspondents. I must confess that the antics that he was talking about seem to be similar to what goes on in the Strangers Bar every night of the week, and that does not have a kicking-out hour. I am sorry that he and, indeed, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) assume that our amendments would encourage red tape—given my political persuasion, perhaps that should be blue tape. On this occasion, I will happily—but with a heavy heart—withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that serious consideration will be given to ensuring that we get the balance right on these matters, particularly as the subjects are pervasive, and come up in other parts of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.