Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 48, in

schedule 1, page 109, leave out line 10.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 111, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 32, leave out paragraph 3.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Would it be in order to speak to amendments Nos. 49 and 50, too? They are pretty much on the same subject.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I am perfectly happy to allow the hon. Gentleman to talk to those amendments, but if we are to proceed down that road, I had better introduce a caveat that I have given on other occasions. I am happy to have a broad-ranging debate on schedule 1 on the understanding that it is unlikely that we will have a stand part debate on it later. That is for the convenience of hon. Members, because this is a comprehensive schedule covering a wide range of interlinked issues. However, if the hon.

Gentleman speaks to amendment No. 49 now, he cannot spend much time speaking to it when we reach it.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful for that guidance.

Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 and 111 are linked with the parts of the Bill that deal with entertainment facilities. Amendment No. 50 would delete paragraph 1(3), which deals with entertainment facilities, and the others are consequential on that. The other purpose of the amendments is to elicit the Government's reasons for including ''entertainment facilities'' per se. We would like a clear and unambiguous definition of what that term entails.

The Bill seems to be directed towards licensable activities. If it goes too far in that direction, and an attempt is made to license the mere provision of facilities, the Bill will cease to focus on the potential mischief—that is, the activity—and will create a whole new tier of unnecessary and onerous regulation. Surely it is the entertainment activity alone, not the premises, that gives rise to problems, and raises the question whether to regulate it for reasons of health and safety, noise, pollution or crime and disorder. After all, those facilities could have been dormant for a period, or could lie unused for long periods.

We have tabled the amendments in order to probe the Government on why they have included the catch-all definition of ''entertainment facilities''. In our opinion, it is entertainment activities that are critical for regulation, not the facilities—which may not, after all, be used. There is no need to define entertainment facilities in the schedule. All that is needed is simple permission to allow music, dancing, and similar forms of entertainment to take place within the regulatory framework, subject of course to the conditions deemed necessary and appropriate. That is what we have tried to achieve with amendment No. 111. Permission for the public to participate should be included in paragraph 2(1), as, indeed, is proposed in the Bill.

These are probing amendments tabled to discover why, if the Government's intention is to have light-touch regulation and to avoid it wherever possible, they have deemed it necessary to include entertainment facilities in the catch-all way that I have outlined.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Before we proceed, I ought to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that because he has spoken to amendment No. 49 with my consent, he would ordinarily have had the opportunity to push it to a vote. That amendment has not been moved. I take it from what he said that it is a probing amendment, but if he wishes to press amendment No. 49 to a vote, perhaps he would be kind enough to make that clear.

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

These probing amendments are fascinating. They would remove the concept of entertainment facilities from the Bill, although that concept is part of the definition of the ''provision of regulated entertainment''.

As a starting point, it is important to appreciate the difference between the words ''entertainment'' and ''entertainment facilities''. Under schedule 1, the word ''entertainment'' includes, among other things, a performance of dance, including, for example, ballet

or clog dancing performed for an audience. It would not cover dancing in a discotheque that is performed not by individuals intending to entertain an audience, or even the other dancers, but by members of the public dancing for their own personal satisfaction and entertainment. I suppose people might be strutting their stuff to impress another dancer, but that is something different.

Similarly, ''entertainment'' includes a performance of live music, but only in the presence of an audience for the purpose of entertaining that audience. An ''entertainment facility'' would be one that provided musical instruments or karaoke equipment for use by the public, even if only the individuals using the facility themselves were being entertained.

The Bill deals with that difference by recognising that in such circumstances the provision of the facility should be covered—the dance floor or the karaoke machine provided for the members of the public at the venue. If it did not do so, music and dancing that might give rise to public safety problems or noise nuisance would escape control.

Clubbing gives rise to serious public safety issues because the people dancing at clubs are often, I am afraid to say, in a vulnerable state as a result of taking drugs. Last year, the Home Office published guidance entitled ''Safer Clubbing'', which advises club operators of the potential dangers of the heady mix of drugs and certain types of music and dancing. It points out that the key dangers from drugs like ecstasy are from dehydration and overheating, which are made worse by dancing in overcrowded conditions in poorly ventilated premises to hypnotic music. ''Safer Clubbing'' recommends that licensing conditions tackle such issues.

As I have done my rounds, I have spoken to the owners of nightclubs—the entrepreneurs—who tell me that the cost of providing adequate air conditioning in some of the big clubs is huge and prohibitive and that it forms a large part of the capital outlay in building clubs. Those people recognise that there are special conditions.

In certain venues, conditions will be attached that require the provision of free drinking water, adequate ventilation, ''chill-out'' rooms, where dancers can escape the loud music and safe capacities that prevent overcrowding. If the Bill did not include the provision of entertainment facilities, those sorts of protection could not be imposed and enforced.

On music, the potential for disturbance is no different whether professional performers are entertaining an audience or members of the public are entertaining themselves using facilities that have been provided for that purpose. In the latter case, the potential for noise nuisance and disturbance to neighbours may be even greater.

I resist the amendments. Some hon. Members believe that noise nuisance legislation is enough to control such problems, but the Government disagree. Legislation that controls noise is reactive and it would usually take a neighbour some time to obtain

satisfaction—if, indeed, he could obtain it. Licensing allows pro-active action to ensure that problems do not arise in the first place, especially in densely residential areas.

Under current legislation, there is a package whereby conditions imposed under the licensing regime, whether they relate to alcohol, entertainment or late-night refreshment houses or cafes, complement health and safety and environmental protection controls.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

The Minister referred to the licensing regime and said that the Bill is pro-active on noise and disturbance. Does the Bill cover funfairs? My constituents are concerned about the funfair on the outskirts of the constituency. Noise regulations do not seem to be effective.

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

I am sure that, within minutes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman whether funfairs are covered. I do not know at present, but I shall find out.

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

I agree with my hon. Friends about why we need to license facilities. Let us consider a pub or club with a small stage or raised area in the corner, which the licensee has no intention of using for entertainment. Will the licensee still require an entertainment licence for a facility that he had no intention of using?

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

I do not believe that the licensee would have to have an entertainment licence. He would have to have the intention of putting on entertainment of a licensable description if he wanted permission to hold entertainment. He would not be required to have a licence simply because of a structure that happened to be in a pub, a club or a bar.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) asked an interesting question. The Minister seemed to say that the activity generates the need to apply for a licence, not the facility. That is why I tabled the amendments. I am still not clear why the facility needs to be engaged. If it were dormant and not being used, it would not be included in the licence. What triggers off the application for a licence is an activity, be it dance or music.

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

I can cast a little light on the problem. I have received information from a source. Music and dancing at funfairs would be licensable when they were not incidental to the main activity. Local authority byelaws also regulate funfairs. I assume that when part of a funfair has a dance floor, which is common on the continent, for example, that would be a licensable activity because that is the main purpose of that part of the funfair. It is incorporated as part of the entertainment.

Some hon. Members believe that noise nuisance legislation is enough to control such problems.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Will the Minister answer the question that I asked a moment ago? He was kind enough to answer that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), but he has ignored my question.

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

That is because I forgot the hon. Gentleman's question. If he can remind me of it, I shall try to answer it.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I alluded to the good question asked by the hon. Member for Waveney. He implied that it was not the facility that triggered off the application for a licence, but the desire to put on an activity in that facility. If a dance floor were redundant or dormant, the Minister said that a licence was not necessary. I am still not clear why entertainment facilities are included, as it is the activity, not the facility that gives rise to problems of noise, nuisance and crime and disorder.

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

I refer to licensed premises that could mount music, dance, drama or whatever. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) has a famous pub in his constituency called the Latchmere that I remember from 30 years ago, which became a great centre of drama. The fact that the holder of the licence has that facility does not mean that he would necessarily want to put on drama, music or anything else on the premises. Under the present regulations, the licensee would have to pay dearly to take out a licence to put on music—in central London, perhaps as much as £20,000 for one year. There would be no sense in the licence holders doing that simply because they have a building in which they could put on such activity if they wanted to. That is the best answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman's question. We may return to this matter.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on the matter by alluding to what takes place now. Under present legislation, a pub landlord would describe the activities that he hoped to hold on his premises—be it music, dance or whatever—when applying for a public entertainment licence. There would be some attachment to the premises; the activity would take place in that location. Is that simply replicating in a different form of words the conditions attached to a PEL at a pub for, say, music, or is it a move beyond that—an additional regulation encompassing facilities?

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

I acknowledge that it is a difficult question. The key point is the intention to provide the facility for the purpose of providing entertainment. If the facility is not to be available for regulated entertainment, then no licence is required. If the Bill focused entirely on activity, many types of entertainment would be caught that should not be caught. For example, if the playing of music is the licensable activity, then playing in a music lesson would be licensable, but it is not.

When people go to a nightclub there may be dancing, but that dancing is not entertainment—the dancers are not entertaining an audience, they are there for their own pleasure, dancing with each other.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I think we are getting there. Can I ask the Minister another question? Let us consider morris dancers for example. If they perform inside on a dance floor, that would presumably be an entertainment facility, but if they dance outside, what becomes the entertainment facility then?

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

We will be coming to that. If we agree that morris dancing indoors is an entertainment, then clearly we would have to agree that the holder of the licence would have to apply for an entertainments licence for the premises.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I will in a moment. I will answer the question first. Let us suppose that the morris dancers are part of an Easter festival. I remember making a film about some morris dancers outside the Bodleian in Oxford. I think it was at Easter time because it was very cold. The local authority may regard that area outside the Bodleian as one that can properly be licensed for entertainment. It may do that now because other festivals may be held there.

If the activity is regarded as licensable for the purposes of entertaining people, a licence will be required for those premises, whether they are indoors or outdoors. Incidental entertainments may be taking place. Carol singers or even morris dancers may be wandering along the road. Under those circumstances, very different rules may apply. I am sure that the Committee will agree that we could discuss this in a more structured way when we come to the relevant amendments.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Does not the system that is imposed simplify things? If someone applies for a liquor licence and a public entertainment licence, there is no onus on him to put on entertainment every night or even every month. There is flexibility, whereas at present if someone has a stage that is used only occasionally, such as the one described by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, he would have to apply for a public entertainment licence for that performance. This system makes it much simpler for people who want to put on entertainments.

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

Indeed. There is more than an element of truth in that. That flexibility is important. I would feel aggrieved if I were the holder of a premises licence who happened to have inherited a stage at one end of a bar but who hated the idea of putting on music, that I would have to have permission to put on entertainments.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I do not claim any particular expertise in the art of morris dancing, although I was an Oxford city councillor at one time. To the best of my recollection, the council never regulated entertainment provided in university premises. Would the Bill make a difference to that? Is the Minister genuinely saying that morris dancing of the kind provided by the Headington Quarry morris dancers outside the Chequers pub in Headington Quarry, which was in the ward that I represented on Oxford city council, would have to be licensed? Is the pub required to be licensed now?

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

The moment I said Bodleian, I realised that there must be someone here who served on Oxford council. I will try to find out the position with regard to putting on entertainments on university premises. The university may well be the authority that seeks the entertainment licence.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Does outdoor morris dancing have to be licensed now?

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

Yes. It depends where the dancing is, what form it takes and how well it is enforced by the local authority. As we have gone around the country

to see how well or astutely the currently laws are enforced, we have found big differences. Some local authorities are much more assiduous than others. Some, with a nod and a wink—I suppose that is rather appropriate when we are talking about morris dancers—allow morris dancers to continue without any licence. Others are quite strict. That seems to apply to dancing performed indoors as well as outdoors. The situation is mixed around the country.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

This discussion illustrates to some extent the can of worms that has been opened by this Bill. Many people were unaware of the requirements that already exist in relation to public entertainment. The Minister may be aware of a controversy in Dorset just before Christmas over a mummers play outside a pub, which was shut down by the local authority, West Dorset district council, because it did not have a licence. Does he agree that one of the benefits of going through the legislation and tidying it up is that we can sort out inconsistencies and clarify matters for people?

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

Yes, I agree entirely.

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

Will the Minister give way?

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

In a moment. The hon. Gentleman, being from the Cities of London and Westminster, will be very interested in what I have to say. Outdoor morris dancing would be licensable in London and on private land outside London if wholly or mainly in the open air, but not on public land outside London. It would normally require local authority and police permission.

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

I was intrigued by the Minister's comments a moment ago on the differences between areas in the way in which the regulations are enforced. That goes to the centre of many of our concerns. Does the Minister feel that the right way forward is to have an entirely centralised plan, or to have a plan that is left open to local authorities' discretion? Such discretion will inevitably mean differences between local authorities, perhaps even neighbouring ones.

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

We are certainly trying to clarify the situation because it is very confused at the moment, as I have tried to communicate to the Committee and as other Committee members have given witness to. We need to have clarity but, where flexibility is concerned, success will depend in many ways on local authorities' ability to interpret the guidelines in what they perceive to be the best way. That is very important. For example, some local authorities are very strict in the way in which they allow carol singers to sing in shopping centres at Christmas time, whereas others seem far more relaxed about that. We want not to close options but to keep them open. We shall examine issues raised by amendments in another place relating, for example, to educational establishments. The last thing that we want is to see creativity—an important part of our society and economy—constrained in any way by what we do in this Committee and this House. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Under current legislation, a package of conditions imposed through the licensing regime, whether they relate to alcohol, entertainment or late night refreshment houses or cafés, complements health and safety and environmental protection controls. If we

removed part of that package, such as the ability to enforce conditions attached to licences for the provision of entertainment facilities, we would destroy the efficacy of the protections that ensure that licensable activities take place responsibly and promote the licensing objectives.

I turn briefly to amendments Nos. 49 and 50, because the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was brief in speaking to them. They would remove from the Bill the concept of entertainment facilities, which forms part of the scope of the definition of ''provision of regulated entertainment''. To start with, it is important to appreciate the difference, as I have said, between entertainment and entertainment facilities. Under schedule 1, entertainment could include ballet or clog dancing performed for an audience being entertained. I have tried to explain the difference between that and entertainment as understood by people who go to a discotheque.

The Bill deals with that difference by recognising that what should be covered in such circumstances is the provision of the facility—the dance floor or the karaoke machine provided for members of the public at the venue. If the Bill did not do that, the music and dancing might give rise to public safety problems and noise nuisance that might escape control.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I will in just one moment. If the Bill did not include the provision of entertainment facilities, such protection could not be imposed and enforced. In the musical context, the potential for disturbance is no different whether professional performers are entertaining an audience, or members of the public are entertaining themselves using facilities provided for that purpose.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney about intent, which I think the Minister touched on just before he gave way. If it is not the intent of the pub operator to provide a facility for dancing, but customers spontaneously dance, is that a licensable activity? Even if a pub provides a stage and no activities are to be carried out on it, paragraph 3 of the schedule refers to facilities enabling persons to take part in entertainment. I am not sure that intent is covered properly.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot conduct discussions with the civil service during a Committee.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I shall bring my intervention to a conclusion regarding the clarity of intent on entertainment facilities.

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

I will try to deal with that point. The purpose of the commission as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1 is to place a limitation on what is to be licensed as regulated entertainment. Paragraph 3 is crucial because it means that entertainment only becomes licensable as regulated entertainment if the premises had been made available for that purpose, or purposes including the purpose of enabling entertainment to take place.

If a group of friends and I go to a park, for example, so that I may entertain them—or, more likely, drive them demented—by singing a Cole Porter song, that is not a licensable activity because the premises of the park were not made available for the purpose of enabling the entertainment to take place. Similarly, if Conservative Members spontaneously broke into a rendition of ''Happy Birthday'' in a public house, that would not be licensable because the pub's facilities were not made available for that purpose. I could go on listing similar examples.

The hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading about live music were by and large concerned that such music should not be over-regulated. I am afraid that the amendments do just that. The two conditions in schedule 1 limit what is to be regarded as licensable activity in the provision of regulated entertainment and prevent informal and spontaneous singalongs from being caught. I do not believe that Opposition Members want regulatory control to be extended in that area, so I urge them not to press the amendment to a vote.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for a fairly lengthy answer to short specific questions. We got there in the end. I am sorry that I mentioned morris dancing, but the subject was so productive that I intend to return to it later.

The hon. Gentleman talked about local authority permission when a festival of morris dancers took place in a town. Permission to do what? Either an activity is licensable or it is not. I am not sure what the permission would be for. In Whittlesey, in my constituency, we have what is called a straw bear festival in early January, which is famous throughout the country. It attracts up to 30 teams of dancers from all round the country, who parade through the town, stop outside the pubs and in turn, each does a particular routine. If I understand the Minister correctly, none of that would be licensable unless they went into the pub grounds or the pub itself. Would they need local authority permission to hold the festival? Perhaps we can return to that later.

I understand the need to tie in the facilities. In other words, if a pub landlord applied for an entertainment licence to have dancing in the pub, the authorities would want to be assured that the facilities in the pub were sufficient to meet the requirements of the stated activity. That could be checked anyway, once the application for dancing was triggered. If the Minister believes that activities outside the Bill would be caught if things were not stated in such a way, I am prepared, at this juncture, to go along with that assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in

schedule 1, page 110, leave out line 19.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 53, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 20, after 'boxing', insert 'martial arts'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Again, these are probing amendments. Amendment No. 52 would delete the words ''an indoor sporting event'', removing paragraph 2(1)(c) of schedule 1. It is important that the Government define clearly what they mean by an indoor activity. There is a question about whether such activities are licensable at the moment. If they are not and there has been no cause for concern or alarm, how can the provision be justified as a deregulatory measure?

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

I am sorry to intervene so early on. Games played in pubs fall within the definition of indoor sports decided by Parliament in 1987—the laws defining and governing them are relatively recent.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful for that definition. However, I did not mention pubs; I mentioned only indoor sporting events.

We believe that the inclusion of indoor sporting events has unnecessarily wide ramifications. For example, it may concern swimming tournaments in school swimming pools, charity darts or snooker matches in pubs, or any similar tournaments where friends and families attend in support of the players. The pub sector apparently raises some £120 million a year for charity. It appears that, under the proposals, a charity indoor sporting event in a pub, such as a darts tournament, would be a licensable activity because it would normally be a public event, not a private fund-raising event. The industry is concerned that the provision may deter licensees from holding charity events. Such events are, of course, often linked with community interests and concerns.

Is it necessary that such events should be specified in the schedule? If it is, the entertainment section of the operating schedule and the final premises licence document will have to be very prescriptive. Surely, that is not in the interests of a less bureaucratic and more straightforward system. Must all the listed activities be licensed? Would it not be simpler to have a general permission to provide entertainment? The kind of entertainment could be outlined in the operating schedule, and the scale of the proposed activity would trigger the necessary control.

The matter of indoor arenas with sliding roofs was queried during the deliberations on the Bill in the other place, but I do not think that it was answered satisfactorily. When does an outdoor event become an indoor event? One would not wish to license the Welsh rugby team playing in the national stadium with the roof closed, as opposed to when it is open. It may be helpful if we had clarification about what constitutes an indoor event.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend, or the Minister, tell me whether a bandstand has to be licensed?

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us when he responds.

On amendment No. 53, we understand and accept that boxing and wrestling, as types of entertainment, need licensing. The activities have one thing in common: they are violent forms of entertainment and have given rise to serious public disorder,

sometimes involving mass brawls and serious injuries to people in attendance. Perhaps such things will be more likely in future as we see an increase in audience participation in an active rather than a passive sense, particularly at wrestling events.

We have no problem with the requirement in paragraph 2(1)(d) to license boxing and wrestling. However, we fail to see why other violent—if I may use that category—sporting activities such as kick-boxing, karate, judo, tae kwon do and other so-called martial arts are exempt. The reason may be that there have been few complaints from the public or instances of disorder. Why does that apply in that case, but not in the case of other activities such as music and dance, about which, equally, there are no noise and disorder complaints from the public? If it is a health and safety issue, and if that is not covered by current legislation, all sporting events that are similar to boxing and wrestling should be included.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

I did not intend to speak on this group of amendments, but they are useful probing amendments and I was rather surprised by something that the Minister said in an exchange with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. If the Minister is right in saying that 1987 legislation defines games in a pub, which I presume means skittles, pool, table football, darts and so on, as indoor sports, can he confirm that, under the Bill, any pub that anticipates holding a skittles match against the pub in the next village will have to tick the entertainment box and go through whatever additional regulation the entertainment regime brings? Pubs probably are not aware of that and have not taken it on board. There may be another campaign raging before the Minister knows where he is.[Mr. Mark Field in the Chair]

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

Paragraph 2 lists the descriptions of entertainments for the purposes of the Bill. Those descriptions include ''an indoor sporting event''. Amendment No. 52 would remove such events from the list, so they would not fall within the scope of the Bill. Amendment No. 53 would add martial arts entertainments to the list of descriptions.

The Government do not wish to exclude any entertainment that is covered by the current licensing regime. The competitive nature of the activities means that indoor sporting events can attract sizeable crowds and create an atmosphere of excitement. These days, that may not apply to the Welsh rugby team—I visited my allotment in the second half on Saturday. Indoor sporting events should continue to be licensed because only regulation through such a system can ensure public safety and prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder. To exclude indoor sporting events without proper justification would lead to serious problems.

There has been some speculation in the press that the Bill signals the end of some traditional British pastimes such as darts, an idea that was repeated a moment ago by the hon. Member for North Devon. I assure the Committee that that is not the case. The Bill introduces nothing new in terms of the licensing of pub

sports. Traditional games such as skittles, darts, billiards, snooker, pool or table football are played by ordinary members of the public for personal enjoyment. Those games do not require licensing and will not do so under the Bill.

Such games played in pubs fall within the definition of indoor sports decided by Parliament in 1987. That definition is based on sports that have a history of disorder and/or public safety issues. Normally, the sports would be played not for the entertainment of spectators, but for the personal enjoyment of participants. As such, they are not licensable activities under the Bill. However, as at present, major competitions such as national or international darts competitions staged for spectators would be licensable under the Bill, not least to ensure the safety of the public and contestants.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful for the clarification. Just to be sure that I have the matter spot on, the Minister is confirming that if a charitable darts competition were held in a pub, with two, three or more teams competing, it would be a licensable event. Similarly,

a swimming gala for charity, involving some form of competition, which was open to the public and so had entertainment value would be licensable. Are those new licences under the Bill, or, as the Minister alluded earlier, are they requirements under existing legislation?

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

I believe that they are requirements under existing legislation. They are licensable activities because they are designed to make profit. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is an element of emotion in the matter, because the events may be held for charity. Of course, they may not be for charity, and we cannot differentiate between a profit that is raised for charity and one that is not. We will be issuing statutory guidance to licensing authorities to help them to discharge their duties under the Bill.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked about bandstands. A bandstand is an entertainment facility when it is used for the purpose of making music. It could be in a park in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or in mine. A famous orchestra or band may use it. Under those circumstances, other musical entrepreneurs in the area or owners of venues may have something to say if such an event were not licensed, given that they would have to have a licence for relatively small venues such as a country pub. A bandstand would require a licence for such an event.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

Does a bandstand require a licence under current legislation? If so, how many bandstands have a licence?

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

I cannot answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. At present, if an event were staged before an audience to make a profit, it would require a licence.

We will be issuing statutory guidance to licensing authorities to help them discharge their duties under the Bill. That will cover the licensing of indoor sporting events. As we have said in respect of the licensing of music, we expect licensing authorities to deliver the Bill with a heavy dose of common sense. The hon. Member for North Devon is laughing. I do not know why.

On the suggested inclusion of outdoor martial arts within the licensing regime, I want to make it clear that indoor martial arts events can be covered by the Bill's provisions. Historically, outdoor boxing and wrestling have been covered by the entertainment licensing regime, but martial arts have not. That is because the problems that need to be controlled by the licensing system have arisen at boxing and wrestling matches, but not at martial arts events. It is worth remembering that licensing is about the carrying on of activities in a manner that promotes licensing objectives, including public safety and the prevention of disorder. The activity in question is the provision of regulated entertainment.

The Bill is not aimed at protecting performers and participants from harm. It does not allow the licensing authority to become involved in whether boxing is safe

for boxers. If the aim of the amendment were to give the equivalence of protection for martial arts fighters, it would not have that effect, but I do not believe that that is its aim. We do not have evidence that there is a serious problem about the licensing objectives of public safety or of public disorder at martial arts contests, which would justify our bringing them within the licensing arrangements. That is the case now, but I think that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was hinting that that is not necessarily the end of the matter. He referred to kick boxing. That is increasingly becoming commercial entertainment.

The Bill provides a power for the Secretary of State to alter the definition under schedule 1. It may be used if experience shows that other forms of entertainment should be licensed and it would be in the public interest to extend the scope of control in that way. If I am proven wrong and martial arts contests become a serious focus of trouble, safety or nuisance problems, we can deal with that within the controls over the use of the power under schedule 1.

I am willing to consider the case prepared by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. If I am convinced that there is a pressing need for outdoor martial arts events to be covered by the licensing regime, I shall happily include them. With that reassurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment. I shall announce the result of our considerations about martial arts on Report.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Is the Minister confident that the Bill's powers allow local authorities to use common sense? It is not my experience that local authorities are uniform in their application of that attribution. If the Minister is to issue guidelines that require them to exercise common sense, they must be confident that they at least have the legal power to do so. My concern is that once the Bill is enacted, local authority solicitors and others will scrabble around in their usual business of trying to find something to do and they will discover that these things are licensable. They may or may not have been licensable in the past, but they will know that they are licensable now and they will wander from pub to pub looking for darts competitions and trying to find out whether they are licensable. They will spend an infinite amount of time on that. They will conclude that they are regulated entertainment and that they do not have the discretion to ignore a failure by a publican or others to apply for a licence for that purpose: that is my concern. Regardless of how good the Minister's guidelines are—I would like to see them before we progress much further—I do not believe that the Bill provides for local authorities to use common sense.

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

I beg to disagree. We have had long and fruitful discussions with the Local Government Association and others and they are aware that we will be watching carefully: the guidelines that we issue will have statutory powers so that they can be judicially reviewed if authorities try to prevent activities that are not licensable. The Bill introduces nothing new in terms of the licensing of pub sports: the situation will be the same as it is now.

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting comment. He said, ''Perhaps they have suddenly realised that there are powers that they should have been thinking about previously.'' I cannot answer for local authorities that have been sleepy in that respect, but I assure him that we will watch this carefully and that the guidelines will be strict. We want to encourage rather than discourage those types of activities.

I forgot to mention sliding roofs—probably because it is such a painful subject at the moment as the only sliding roof in any stadium of any size that I know of is the one on the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, which has been the venue of a series of recent disasters.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

I merely want to remind the Minister of the sterling performance of the Welsh football team in the Millennium stadium. I am sure that his constituents would want to hear that he strongly supports the team and that he celebrates its victory.

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

My punchline was nicked by somebody from South Dorset.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister should not have given way.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right.

That was a magnificent win and I was glad about it because it is nice that we win at something.

The Bill deals with sliding roofs in paragraph 16(2) of schedule 1. The Millennium stadium is treated as an outdoor stadium even if its roof is closed.

Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)

May I go back to the earlier point in the debate over local authorities? Is it not the case that the restraints on local government finance have led to a situation in which, where local councils have powers to impose fees and powers to license, they will use them to the fullest extent—not necessarily because they want to be that way, but because it is one of the few things that they can control? Will the Minister bear that in mind in drawing up the guidance?

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

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has pored over the Bill, so he will know that we are arranging fees centrally and we will certainly ensure that no owner of a licence in his constituency will be priced out of putting on entertainment in the venue simply because the local authority has decided it is a nice little earner. We want that fee simply to cover the costs and we will consider carefully how those costs are assessed, set out and audited.

With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will ask leave to withdraw the amendments.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister did not answer my earlier question about whether darts, for example, and swimming events that are held for charitable purposes are licensable under existing legislation.

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

I tried to answer the hon. Gentleman, but I do not know whether he heard me, or understood me. Such events are licensable at the moment and, yes, they are licensable for charities, too.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for intervening. On sliding roofs, I am grateful to him for referring to part 3, paragraph 18 of schedule 1, which I have read carefully for the nth time. However,

I am not convinced that the Minister's interpretation is correct. Paragraph 18(1) states:

''An 'indoor sporting event' is a sporting event

(a) which takes place wholly inside a building''.

Paragraph 18(2) states:

'' 'building''' means any roofed structure (other than a structure with a roof which may be opened or closed)''.

I would say that it is not included. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should not have sat down. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that indoor sporting events will include martial arts, which I admit I had overlooked. I was not thinking about outdoor martial arts events, which I did not know existed, let alone outdoor boxing and wrestling events. On a small point, does outdoor boxing and wrestling mean in the open air or does it include those events in a tent or a marquee? The definition of a building in paragraph 18(2) is that it has a roof structure, but it is a temporary structure.

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

The hon. Gentleman really threw me then; I thought that I was reading things wrongly. I think what he is confused about is that it is an outdoor arena—an arena with indoor sports. It is an outdoor arena even if it has got a sliding roof on it. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

It does not say that anywhere in the schedule but I will take it as read that that is what the Minister means.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

An entertainment that is often put on by the Bembridge branch of the Isle of Wight Conservative association is called horseracing, but it does not involve live animals. It can take place in a tent if the weather is inclement, which it seldom is in my constituency. If the tent is a moveable structure it is covered by paragraph 18(2) on page 113, which includes a moveable structure. However, if the roof can be taken off the moveable structure it is not an indoor event. Clearly, a roof can be taken off a tent at any time; does a tent therefore count as an indoor event or not?

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

I am sure there are lots of tents from which the roof can be taken. However, if the hon. Gentleman would put that down on paper and draw for me the kind of tent he has in mind, I will try to answer his question before Report.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in

schedule 1, page 110, leave out line 21.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 116, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 21, after 'of', insert 'amplified'.

Amendment No. 115, in

schedule 1, page 110, leave out line 22.

Amendment No. 113, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 22, leave out 'playing' and insert 'performance'.

Amendment No. 114, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 22, at end insert 'to the public'.

Amendment No. 110, in

schedule 1, page 110, line 25, at end insert—

'(i) dancing,

(j) making music,'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

We have arrived at one of the most contentious aspects, if not the most contentious, of the Bill. The provision on licensing music has caused more opposition and lobbying and been the subject of more print inches than any other. The question that the Government must answer is straightforward: why is it deemed necessary to license musical activities at all? Currently, we have the two-in-a-bar rule and we shall end up with a none-in-a-bar rule. I am not sure whether that is progress.

What grounds will the Government cite—I am sure that they are written down in the Minister's response—for regulating live music? There is a discrepancy in their argument. They say that they are licensing activities because they cause a nuisance—the noise problem associated with music, let us say. There is not much in the way of accusations that musical activity gives rise to crime and disorder, so the only real ground is probably noise. However, the Noise Abatement Society says that 81 per cent. of its complaints about pubs and bars are caused by noisy people outside the premises.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is a great concern. I have my own concerns, but as a former deputy leader of Mendip district council, which was the licensing authority for the Glastonbury festival, I say to him that certain musical licensing events do give rise to great public order and crime and disorder concerns. That is why his Conservative colleagues on that council consistently oppose the licensing of that festival.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out; I was coming to that point. We are talking about scale. What is there to say that all musical activity does not have the propensity to create noise and nuisance? I am not saying that it does not. I started with the two-in-a-bar level and planned to work upwards. The United Kingdom Noise Association says that complaints about live music are relatively rare. It receives more complaints about noisy recorded music. The Institute of Alcohol Studies, which canvasses the views of residents' associations about licensing reform, says that none has ever made an issue of live music. Residents' associations in Soho and Covent Garden—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will enlarge on this—accept that noise breakout from premises can be controlled by existing legislation.

I believe that certain legislation enables local authorities to seize the equipment that is causing the noise pretty well immediately and issue a £20,000 noise

abatement notice for compliance forthwith. In anticipation of a noise nuisance, they have recourse to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The police already have powers to close noisy pubs for up to 24 hours. On the ground of noise, therefore, the case has not been made that a great swathe of public opinion says, ''For goodness' sake, do something about music noise in pubs and clubs.''

What about the public safety aspects? I understand that a radical new fire safety regime for workplaces is due to be introduced in 2004, entitled the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. That order will apply to premises including cinemas, theatres, pubs and restaurants, and will cover the provision of entertainment irrespective of licensing requirements. Another Department is therefore already working towards the risk assessment where the onus is on the owner or manager to examine carefully the fire safety regime of their premises, and that requirement will come into effect in the next year or so irrespective of the licensing legislation.

Local authorities are, as we know, the enforcing authority for safety legislation in workplaces. Paragraph 9 of schedule 1 of the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 empowers them to regulate specific activities, including entertainment and

''practice or presentation of the arts.''

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 places a statutory duty on employers and the self-employed to make risk assessments of their work activities covering risks to employees and others in connection with their work. Failure to undertake such risk assessments could lead to criminal prosecution.

The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of employees and of non-employees who may be affected. Event organisers and promoters or licensees are bound by that duty to ensure that premises are safe and without risks to health. Trailing bare cables or blocking fire exits could lead to criminal prosecution under that legislation.

There is a plethora of legislation already on the statute book covering noise and public safety. Why do we need extra laws to govern activities, many of which are small scale, in pubs in the UK? The playing of music in pubs is not the only situation about which the Musicians Union and others involved in music are concerned, but it is a starting point. The two-in-a-bar rule—I am not suggesting that that should be retained, and have tabled amendments to that effect—at least means that some small-scale musical activity does take place daily and weekly in hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of small locations, and in pubs in particular. This legislation has the potential to cut that out entirely.

The cost or ease of application is not the issue. On Second Reading, the Minister made the point, which I accept, that it will be easy for a pub landlord, at the same time as he is applying for his premises licence to put in for an entertainment licence, and that it may not

cost him much to do so. We have not begun to discuss fees yet, of course. The problem relates to applications for public entertainment licences under existing legislation, and to what the landlord is required to do to his premises to satisfy the requirements of that licence.

I made a point of contacting my local brewery, Elgood and Sons in Wisbech, which has approximately 30 pubs in North-East Cambridgeshire, and saw specific examples in which landlords had to pay £2,000, £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 to carry out work and improvements related to health and safety or similar concerns, simply to be allowed a public entertainment licence. That is where the costs will be incurred.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman described the existing and potential health and safety legislation

for regulating those pubs. Would not those public houses have to carry out that work anyway, if they wanted to put on entertainment and obtain, for example, a fire certificate or a health and safety certificate?

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

They would have to do some work, obviously. However, if we are talking about small-scale musical activity on their premises—the current two-in-a-bar rule—it is possible that, in the future, someone may decide to change the requirements related to that rule.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half past Two o'clock.