Clause 3 - Licensing authorities
Licensing Bill [Lords]

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 60, in

clause 3, page 2, leave out line 40.

Amendment No. 61, in

clause 3, page 2, leave out line 41.

Amendment No. 64, in

clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—

'( ) The University of Cambridge,'.

Amendment No. 62, in

clause 7, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 63, in

clause 8, page 5, line 33, leave out subsection (10).

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for reminding the Committee of where we had reached at the end of our sitting on Thursday. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) had alerted me to that fact a moment ago. We were discussing whether the licensing authorities should be those bodies and people listed under subsection (1). My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) suggested that we should at least consider whether there was justification in moving from licensing justices being the licensing authority for liquor licensing to being the authority for all licensing purposes as set out under amendment No. 59. If I have misinterpreted the amendment, perhaps my hon. Friend will correct me.

I want to concentrate on the other amendments in the group. They could be considered to be contradictory in spirit. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would remove paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection 1, which refer to the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple. Amendment No. 64 would make the university of Cambridge a licensing authority. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire did not table them for their intrinsic merit. He was looking for a philosophy from the Government about which bodies they want to be liquor-licensing authorities.

There has been no great difficulty, certainly not in my constituency, with liquor licensing resting with licensing magistrates. Will the Minister explain why those responsibilities are to be transferred to local authorities, which are elected by the local residents, yet the Government are proposing the inclusion of two people who are not elected by local residents? Indeed, so individual are they that further on in the Bill it becomes impossible for them to appoint a sub-committee. A sub-committee cannot be appointed from a committee of one. That is my interpretation of amendment No. 62.

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

The Bill will extend the historical privileges that apply to the City of London. Both the Middle and Inner Temples are partly in the city of Westminster and, for historical reasons, licensing matters have rested with the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple. I do not want to speak on behalf of the Government; I am sure that the Minister has words of wisdom to pass on to us. Rather than interfere with that process, I suppose that the Government thought it sensible to maintain the long-standing privileges of the City of London.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I must confess that I like that argument. If the Government wish to maintain historic privileges and traditions, I am all for that. If the amendment were subjected to a Division, I would be happy to vote against my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire who wants the removal of the two paragraphs. However, I support strongly his amendment No. 64 to include the university of Cambridge. We should undoubtedly maintain some of the historical privileges of that secondary institution, but why does the Minister propose the retention of some historical privileges and traditions but not others? What is wrong with the Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743, for example? What do the Government so dislike about that Act to make them repeal its provisions in this Bill?

What is wrong with retaining the powers of the university of Cambridge? Is the Government's decision something to do with the cross-border nature of the university? Some of its colleges are outside the boundary of the city, therefore, exactly the same geographical considerations apply as to the Inner and Middle Temples. The university is a cross-boundary institution and it is not convenient for licensing power to rest with either one local authority in the more conventional meaning of that word, or another. Will the Minister explain?

I am happy to go down either the road of removing all historical privileges and traditions or of retaining them, although I would be happier to retain them. I cannot see why the Minister is riding two bicycles in opposite directions in this clause.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

Or him.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman says ''Or him'' referring to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, but my hon. Friend is riding two bicycles because he is trying to draw information out of the Minister.

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

That was quick. It is a great pleasure to see you chairing this Committee on a Tuesday morning, Mr. Benton.

Amendment No. 59 is similar to one moved on Report and on Third Reading in another place which was debated extensively. The subject is central to the modernising elements of the Bill. Schedule 7 to the Bill repeals the Licensing Act 1964, so amendment No. 59 cannot stand alone—there would no longer be a section 2 of the 1964 Act and no definition of what licensing justices are or the extent of their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding those flaws, Amendment No. 59 would maintain the licensing justices as the licensing authority for the sale of alcohol by retail. It would transfer control of entertainment and late night refreshment to the licensing justices from the local authorities and duties in respect of registered members clubs—which will be replaced in the Bill by qualifying clubs—from the magistrates courts.

The amendment does not propose the status quo, as has been suggested, but wholesale change, which is unjustifiable. The Bill deals with six existing licensing regimes, not only with alcohol licensing. Integrating those regimes is a key way of reducing red tape. Five of the regimes—public entertainment, cinema, theatre, night cafes and late-night refreshment—are under the control of local authorities and only alcohol is controlled by the licensing justices. It does not make sense to transfer five licensing regimes to the justices, when integration could be achieved by bringing one under the control of the local authorities.

There is also a common misunderstanding about the status of the licensing justices, which do not sit as a magistrates court. They were established by statute as an administrative committee elected by the magistrates in the relevant petty sessions area. They are not bound by the normal rules of evidence and they are technically free to receive and consider hearsay evidence and petitions. I make those points to stress that they are administrative not judicial bodies, although in certain circumstances they will have a quasi-judicial quality. If Parliament had wanted a judicial process, it would have given the job to magistrates courts, not licensing justices.

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

In fairness to the Minister, I have served on a London local authority and was on the licensing committee for some time and there is a quasi-judicial element to licensing within local authorities—not least in the fact that votes on such matters cannot be whipped. The same, of course, applies to planning. It is a little disingenuous to suggest that there is no sense of licensing committees being quasi-judicial. Indeed, legal officers involved with such committees make it clear that the role of the council is quasi-judicial and that the committees are therefore not to be persuaded by party-political considerations.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expanding on that point, which is important.

Once it is accepted that licensing is a regulatory and administrative process undertaken in the interests of the community, the question arises of which body should most appropriately represent those interests.

Licensing justices are accountable only to the magistrates that elect them to the licensing committee and the higher courts. That cannot be said to provide democratic accountability to the community. I stress the words ''democratic accountability'' because administrative processes should be in the hands of the democratically elected representatives of the local electorate. Regulatory processes should be entrusted to those best placed to undertake, on an informed basis, the balancing exercise of deciding what is in the wider community interest in respect of licensing decisions.

Indeed, if the licensing authority does its job badly, it should be possible for local people to give the authority an electoral kick, if that is justified. Licensing justices are elected by magistrates and at the moment only they can deliver such kicks. It is not just the Government who have drawn such conclusions about the scope for reducing red tape and the principle of accountability. The Better Regulation Task Force, acting on behalf of industry, also recommended to the Government that the local authorities should have that role in future.

Now that I have established the points of practicality and principle that justify the approach taken in the Bill, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will not press amendment No. 59 to a vote. Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 would remove the ability of the Inner and Middle Temples to act as licensing authorities. Those bodies are not arcane institutions from which privilege should be stripped. The Committee may be unaware that they are local authorities in their own right. I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) is listening, because I have sought special advice on the subject. The university of Cambridge is not a local authority; it was granted a privilege by royal charter to sell wine within the boundaries of the university. The Temples and the university are very different organisations in that sense. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

To those of us who represent areas of the country that are not like that represented by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), or like the ancient university of Cambridge, the system seems archaic. The Bill would establish the local authority as the licensing authority and given that the Temples have shown that they wish to continue in their role as licensing authorities and that the other London local authorities are in agreement—that is important—it makes complete sense for them to act in that way. I hope that the amendments will therefore be withdrawn.

On amendment No. 64, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge university, through his ability to grant licences to sell wine at the university, enjoys a privilege that cannot be justified in modern times. His authority is based on an ancient charter. Once again, what of proper democratic accountability? It is extremely difficult to imagine any justification for allowing a university to act as a licensing authority, other than some kind of over-nostalgic harking back to traditions that are of neither use nor ornament today. I hope that that amendment, too, will be withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Part of the basis for tabling the amendment and speaking to it in the way that I did and the justification for the major switch from licensing justices to local authorities, was the argument that was in the White Paper and that the Government have been using for the past couple of years—that a considerable saving of £1.9 billion justifies a fundamental shift. The Minister has not even begun to deal with that matter.

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

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have published a good deal of information, although I sense from his contributions that he does not accept that. He quoted a particular pub chain, which I guessed was Stuart Neame's—the hon. Gentleman indicates that his lips are sealed. I have been living this Bill for too long and I recognise the hand of Stuart Neame when I see it. He led the ''Kill the Bill'' the campaign, although he is not a one-off, as Tim Martin of JD Wetherspoon also worked with him on that campaign. Stuart Neame has a particular view on the Bill and, on a whim, has changed his estimated costings by as much as 900 per cent., depending on which argument he uses at any given time. I do not accept that Mr. Neame's views are typical of the licensed trade.

The Government conducted a survey 10 times the size of that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire quoted in Committee and arrived at very different conclusions. The evidence that we have provided in the impact assessment is convincing—I am convinced by it and I am the most sceptical person in the world on this matter.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

It seems strange that a business man, who shall remain nameless but who has a chain of about 300 pubs, arrives at a different figure from those of the authors of the White Paper and the impact assessment, who used a sample of about 360 pubs. The magnitude in difference of outcome is in the order of a factor of four. Is the Minister saying that the particular individual who should remain nameless does not know his business? We are talking about the costs involved for his business. Does the Minister care to repeat—what I think I heard him say—that he stands by the figures in the White Paper?

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

Yes, I have no difficulty in standing by those figures. The hon. Gentleman would be ill advised to accept the word of one owner of a chain of pubs and to disregard the evidence that has been given on many occasions by the great majority of much larger chains. He should carefully consider the agenda that that individual might have on the Bill and on licensing policy in general. The operation of licensing by magistrates requires a hearing in almost every single case. Hearings will be vastly reduced under the new system and should be far less of a burden on the licensed trade in general. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is properly trying to make an argument and he says that not one of the licensees to whom he has spoken is in favour of the Bill's changes. I understand his hon. Friends have said much the same thing.

Prior to the White Paper's publication, a review of licensing law was conducted in close consultation with the licensed trade and many others. Many licensees

pointed to failures with the current system, including licensing justices, inflexibility and the multitude of permissions that were required across lots of licensing regimes. It is uncanny that the view has changed since the White Paper was published: the problem was in the licensing regime, but that is now likely to be the local authorities. I do not blame the licensing business for having done that: it wants to make its life as easy and smooth as possible. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire must be circumspect about some of the results that he has seen.

The Committee is doing a proper thing, and I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his honest and forthright response, and for the fact that we now have it on the record that he believes that there will be £1.9 billion of savings as a result of this change. We will look carefully at results from this sector of the industry in the future to ensure that his assessment was correct.

I began my remarks by saying that this was a probing amendment that attempts to get the Government to justify this substantial shift. Although the local authorities have welcomed it in some respects, there are already mutterings from the Local Government Association that it is all very well lumbering authorities with additional responsibilities, but if they do not have the resources to meet them they will find things extremely difficult. Certain councils can see problems: if the resources do not match the responsibilities, council tax will have to go up yet again, as it is the only means of financing extra work and bureaucracy.

In view of the Minister's comments, I shall withdraw the amendment. There is some inconsistency in the listing that the Government have used in the clause. However, I accept that if local authorities are going to be the main source of licensing permissions in the future, the university of Cambridge does not fit into that pattern, despite the fact that it has an ancient right. 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. 44, in

clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert 'or'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment Nos. 45 and 6.

Amendment No. 140, in

clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—

'(a) to maintain a national register of personal licenses granted under Part 6 of this Act, and'.

Amendment No. 99, in

clause 4, page 3, line 10, after 'Act', insert—

'( ) to act as licensing authority for premises licences where the applicant or owner of the premises is the licensing authority for the area in which the premises are situate,'.

Clause 4 stand part.

Government amendment No. 25.

Clause 110 stand part.

Government amendments Nos. 26 to 28.

Amendment No. 108, in

clause 6, page 4, line 7, after 'authority', insert

'other than the Central Authority'.

Amendment No. 109, in

clause 6, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

'(3A) Before determining its policy the Central Authority must consult—

(a) the Secretary of State for the Home Department;

(b) such persons as represent—

(i) chief officers of police,

(ii) chief fire officers,

(iii) holders of premises licences, and

(iv) holders of club premises certificates, and

(c) holders of personal licences'.

Amendment No. 92, in

clause 6, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

'(3B) Before the licensing policy of the Central Authority shall take effect its licensing statement shall be laid before each House of Parliament for twenty-eight days and may be referred back to the authority for further consideration by resolution of either House.'.

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

The Committee is now dealing with another area in which well meaning but misguided defeats were inflicted on the Government in another place. This group of amendments overturns those defeats and restores the original drafting of the Bill. However, I reassure those on the Opposition Benches that their handiwork in another place was not entirely in vain: it has prompted the Government and their key partners, including the industry, the local authorities and the police, to accelerate their work to honour the White Paper commitment to set up a national database.

Before I proceed, I will try to clarify for the benefit of the Committee the difference between a national database and a central licensing authority. The distinction is crucial, and I am sorry that, for whatever reason, it was not grasped in its entirety by some of those in another place. We must discuss that significant distinction.

The White Paper stated:

''To enable licensing authorities and the police to check readily the validity of licences and the licensee's history they will probably need to support a national database. It may be possible to include on a single national database details of personal licences, premises licences, punishments and sanctions imposed, door supervisor registrations and Home Office guidance.''

The Government will honour that commitment, and I shall say more about that in a moment.

It is important to understand that setting up a national database is not the same as setting up a new statutory body—the central licensing authority—which would be the effect of the Opposition amendments made in another place. The database refers to the development of an electronic system that allows the police, licensing authorities and other responsible authorities to exchange information easily and freely, to allow people to apply for

licences online and facilitate the update of their details—for example, a variation in the supervisor of a designated premises. That would further reduce bureaucracy.

This is a database, not a new body corporate entrusted with statutory functions. Once the Committee understands that important distinction, the argument in favour of a central licensing authority would tend to evaporate. The simple fact is that no one—not the industry, the police, or the local authorities—wants a central licensing authority. It is rather like the great aunt at the party: it seemed like a good idea to invite her, but as soon as she turned up with that bottle of flat dandelion and burdock everyone started secretly praying for her to leave.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister has just said that the local authorities do not want a central authority. I do not know when he last met the LGA, but I met it last week and I was told that it does want a central licensing authority.

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

I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman tells us is true, but I can only tell him what we know. Perhaps that says something about the diplomatic skills of the LGA—I think we could learn a lot from it.

We would gain nothing from having such an authority, and it would certainly add to the bureaucracy, cost and delay. The public, most of whom are eagerly awaiting our reforms, are unlikely to react well to delays when our only lame excuse is that we must set up a central licensing authority. Who wants or needs another arm of Government to carry out what should be a relatively simple administrative process? I must confess that I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of such a thing, given that he is a member of the Conservative party. I know that the Conservatives are great friends of the Musicians Union and other trade unions, but they seem to want to extend the machinery of the state and set up another quango. One wonders what happened to the bonfire of the quangos. There would be costs associated with such a body, for which there would be no justification.

Having said that, I must add that there is much merit in a national database, which is why the Bill provides a framework within which it could be developed. The Government are totally committed to working with partners to set up such a system.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

I have listened to what the Minister said, and his general line of argument—that a database would be adequate, but a central authority might be gilding the lily—is persuasive. He said that the Bill provided the framework for the establishment of the database. Could he guide me to the part of the Bill that provides for that? The matter of who has access to the register, and in what circumstances, is important for data protection, so the database ought to be on a statutory footing.

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

We are working on the collection of data; a working party is currently looking at the best way of setting it up. The LGA is a partner on that working party, so I am surprised that it told the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that it

opposed the idea of the database, but not the authority.

On the matter raised by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), I understand that clause 9(6) is the relevant part of the Bill.

It is important to recognise that we live in a world of practical considerations and none of us should be under any misapprehension about the complexity or magnitude of the work involved, especially considering that the measures would need to join up the licensing functions of around 410 authorities. There is still no extant example of a joined-up system of any significance covering every local authority in England and Wales. If we are to take maximum advantage of the opportunities to minimise costs and burdens through electronic service delivery, the situation is further complicated. Work has started, however, on the central database; we are building on the experience of others in the sector—for example, on the local government planning portal and the project to integrate local land and property gazetteers.

It is true that the national database will not be up and running before the beginning of the transition period, which is why we have identified a separate project on data standards that we will be driving forward in the run-up to the first appointed day. The aim of that project will be to ensure that all licensing authorities record the same information in the same way to facilitate the migration of data to the new system when it has been put in place. In doing that, we will encourage the full adoption of Government interoperability and metadata standards.

We have received wholehearted support for that approach. It is the right one, because it allows for the right system to be set up according to the appropriate time scales, without the nightmares that seem to have afflicted other Government IT projects. Problems that seemed to start when the Opposition were in power have certainly continued, but we have made huge efforts to overcome them.

What will happen before the national database has been set up? We have drafted the Bill to allow for a simple system based on effective communication between licensing authorities, which can be up and running from the date of Royal Assent, and for a central register to be developed in due course when the experience and technology is in place. I am confident that the local system will work well up to that point. The administrative burden on the licensing authority will be small. The licence holder will be given a duty to notify the licensing authority of a change in his or her address, as well as other relevant details such as convictions for relevant or foreign offences. It will not be a case of the licensing authority having to track down the licence holder.

We expect approximately 155,000 applications for personal licences during the transition period. Although I recognise that the calculation will not be this simple, that averages out as just a shade fewer than 400 applications per licensing authority. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster told us, the situation will be more intense, and there will be more applications, in some areas than in others.

Given that the vast majority of applications will be dealt with administratively, we do not think that they will be overly burdensome. Similarly, we expect there to be a turnover of roughly 6,500 personal licences annually, which averages out at about 15 or so licences per licensing authority. It should be within the capacity of even the least outstanding licensing authority to manage a task of that magnitude.

The position we set out in the Bill is sensible and pragmatic. It allows for the development of a central register in due course, without delaying the commencement of the new arrangements unnecessarily. It does not provide for a central licensing authority, largely because that would require the unnecessary creation of a new statutory body for little added value. It makes sense to return to that pragmatic position, which has been reinforced by my commitment today to honour our White Paper promise to set up a national database. We will come good on that promise and in the light of that commitment I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill.

In view of what I have said, it should be clear that the Government agree with the sentiment behind amendment No. 140, which would require the Government to maintain a national register for personal licences. However, I cannot accept the amendment. Some of our stakeholders have indicated—in certain cases, firmly—that they would like to see the national database reflect the policy set out in the White Paper, and cover all aspects of licensing. The police and the LGA are of that view. Some in the industry wish the scope to be restricted to personal licences, and discussion on that continues. Amendment No. 140 would immediately impose a restriction on the database as it would relate only to personal licences, which would frustrate our intention to create a truly national database relating to all forms of authorisation.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister said that originally, before a new clause 4 was moved in the other place, there was provision in the Bill for the design and creation of a central register. Where exactly in the previous draft of the Bill was that provision?

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

In the previous Bill?

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Yes, in the Bill as presented to the Lords.

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

I do not have a copy of that draft of the Bill with me, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly provide an answer in writing, if he likes.

Given the firm commitment that I have given to set up a database, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. Amendments Nos. 99, 108, 92 and 109 would be dependent on the retention of the central licensing authority in the Bill. [Interruption.] I have just got the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Clause 9(6) was part of the original Bill, as was clause 9(7). I hope that in the light of our debate, the amendment will be withdrawn.

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

I thank the Minister for his comments. I will leave it to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to

determine whether we are satisfied with the proposed changes. It seems that the debate in the other place was sensible, given the grave concerns that were expressed. I am pleased that the Minister felt able to take on board a number of the issues raised then.

I would like to concentrate on a relatively small factor that applies to several parts of the Bill—the transitional arrangements, to which the Minister briefly referred. One of the Opposition's concerns is that a rushed through transitional arrangement might lead to chaos. Although there may be only an average of 15 licence applications per authority, a lot of those will come through at the 11th hour, in the last few days of the transitional arrangements. There could be grave concerns about how easily the system will continue to operate.

It would cause great problems if there were logjams of licences, particularly in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. I suspect that in his constituency, many licence applications are made for relatively short times, such as during Cowes week and in the summer, given the importance of the tourist trade there. If the transitional period is too short there may well be utter chaos for months, both before the end of that period and when the new system is supposed to operate.

Clause 55, on fees, is central to that, but I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that we will have when we consider that clause—and I am sure that you would not allow me to, Mr. Benton. However, there is a grave concern that the fee structure proposed is far too inflexible. The real risk is that residents and businesses will suffer if there is an overly inflexible system of fees set on a centralised basis, which does not take account of local circumstances in any way. I am just highlighting our concerns about the transitional arrangements, in relation to the amendments.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister said that he thought that the other place had got it wrong when it put the formula into the Bill, and I think that he was right. The idea that a central licensing authority should grant personal licences does not bear much examination. The advantage of dealing with licensing at local level is that if the applicant has, shall we say, a colourful past, it is more likely that the local licensing authority will have some insight into that than a central licensing authority would. Therefore, the House of Lords went too far by suggesting that a central authority should be the licensing body.

The Minister repeated his commitment to a national database. That is welcome, and the practical arrangements he described for how it would work are sensible. My concern is that although the Bill provides that such a register can be established, which is welcome—the Minister drew our attention to clause 9(6) and (7)—it does not go into much detail about what the statutory footing of that register would be.

It is not so much the administration of the register that I am concerned about. We should not overstate the scale of the task. The Minister said that 155,000

personal licences are likely to be sought. That is not a huge number in data processing terms: hon. Members' constituency agents routinely process electoral records for about 75,000 voters. I am more concerned about the legal footing. Who will have access to the register? The Minister said that the police and other responsible bodies would. Will the magistrates, when they are hearing appeals and so forth, have ready access to it? Such issues would bear being fleshed out in more detail—if not in primary legislation, at least by order—because they will become quite sensitive from time to time, when people are caught up in the middle of them.

There has been a tendency over the past 20 years or more for legislation to become minimalist, and for Bills to say, ''The Minister can do what he likes, when he likes and how he likes, and the details can be filled in later.'' I have no doubt that come the great day of the Liberal Democrat revolution, civil servants will impress upon us the merits of that approach as well. However, on this occasion there should be more detail about what the central register is for, who has access to it and in what circumstances.

The formula that I resorted to in amendment No. 140, which would keep some central body for maintaining the register, might be unnecessary. The body that would keep the register would be much smaller than the one granting licences, and this process does not look as if it will cost a great deal, so that is not an important issue. However, it would be a good idea to nail down how the database would operate and who would have access to it. I readily concede that it might not be necessary to have a central authority—a body corporate—to do that, but we need more detail on this point.

Mr John Grogan (Selby, Labour)

I rise to support the Government amendments. The Minister made a powerful case for a database. There has been a change in emphasis since the debate in the other place. That debate has made a difference: the Government are thinking again.

I chaired a meeting of the all-party beer group, which assessed some of the discussions in the House of Lords, in particular this issue. The meeting involved the police and the Local Government Association as well as the industry. They agreed to make a joint approach to the Department in favour of a national database, particularly for personal licences.

The case for a database for personal licences is stronger than it is for premises licences. Local authorities know the premises licences in their area. However, a personal licensee may move around the country five or six times in the course of their career.

I hope that this work, which is led by the LGA, will make rapid progress. A central licensing authority would be unnecessarily burdensome. As I have a majority of just 2,000, I am always on the lookout for what I might do if I lost my seat and being chairman of a national licensing authority has a certain appeal. The authority would be unnecessarily burdensome, however. The database is the key.

With regard to later amendments, the idea of setting up a committee of the police, the local authorities and

the industry to try to find a way forward is a model that might be followed in other areas.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 99, 108 and 109, but before I do so I want the Minister to examine what may happen in small authorities where the licensee or the applicant is well known—as is likely—to many, if not all, members of the licensing committee. I am not attracted by the notion of large central authorities. Indeed, for the most part, I welcome the argument against having a central licensing authority. There must be an arrangement, however, for those areas where the applicant is well known. Similarly, there must be an arrangement for premises licences when the applicant is the licensing authority. That one should not be judge in his own court is a well-understood judicial principle and I see no reason why it should not apply under the Bill. If the licensing authority also owns and controls the premises, surely it is important that an alternative authority issues the licences.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Is it not the case at present that local authorities can give themselves planning permission on land that they own?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

It is indeed. It is one of the greatest objections that many members of the public have to the planning permission system. I shall cite an example of what happened in Bournemouth just across the water from me. The local authority gave planning permission for a huge cinema complex on the front, on land that it owned, which it then sold to a developer for a highly advantageous price. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to visit Bournemouth recently will have seen the hideous building.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

It is good for the ratepayers.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Such action may or may not have been good for the ratepayers in that particular case, as allegations were made about who benefited from the granting of planning permission. However, I shall skate gently over that. It was a Liberal Democrat council at the time. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that it was a Tory council. At the time planning permission was granted, the council was controlled by the Liberal Democrats, but I did not rise to speak with the intention of throwing arrows in their direction.

There can be serious conflicts of interests in licensing issues. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) shakes his head, but I shall cite an example. Recently, my local authority decided to re-ignite the flame of the Isle of Wight pop festivals of the early 1970s. It had power under the original Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971 to control pop festivals and large assemblies and decided to do so on land that was within its control. The fact that the land was recreation ground in the middle of Newport, surrounded by houses in a Conservative-held ward did not daunt it one little bit.

The local authority estimated that such action would cost £2,000, but found that it would be more like £20,000. The fact that it cost the council about £300,000 did not daunt it either. It applied to itself for a licence and, lo and behold, granted itself a licence. Only the fact—unfortunate for council tax payers—

that few people attended that pop festival led to it not being a serious inconvenience to people in Newport. That local authorities have the opportunity to take such action under planning legislation is an error that should be corrected. It is entirely wrong for a local authority to be judge and jury in its own case. That is why I tabled the amendment that proposes that the central licensing authority should be the authority for the granting of premises licences,

''where the applicant or owner of the premises is the licensing authority for the area in which the premises are situate''.

I recognise that the central licensing authority need not be that authority, it could be the licensing justices as they are now constructed or another body. We will have the opportunity to discuss whether it should be the licensing justices when we reach amendment No. 177. However, the Minister should consider the matter when he decides whether the clause should be amended as he has proposed.

Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 would be redundant should the clause not stand part of the Bill. They are an attempt to tackle the term ''licensing authority'' in clause 6(3), which clearly includes the central licensing authority, when the provisions in that subsection are inappropriate to a central licensing authority. Clearly, it is not possible for the central licensing authority to consult the chief officer of police for the licensing authority's area, because its area is England and Wales and there is no chief officer of police for England and Wales. That is why, in amendment No. 109, I substituted

''the Secretary of State for the Home Department''

and

''such persons as represent—chief officers of police . . . chief fire officers . . . holders of premises licences and holders of club . . . certificates''

and that the authority should consult ''holders of personal licences'' before amending its licensing policy.

Those are the reasons why I tabled the amendments. I accept that they will fall should the clause not stand part of the Bill. However, I would like the Minister to comment particularly on the first of those three amendments.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

At the heart of this series of amendments and the clause stand part debate is whether the Government's intention—as set out in the White Paper initially and in the Bill before it was amended in the other place—is to deal with potential real and practical problems, the existence of which both the Minister and his team and my Opposition colleagues recognise. Paragraph 41 of the White Paper states:

''To enable licensing authorities and the police to check readily the validity of licences and the licensee's history they will probably need to support a national database''.

I emphasise ''they''. The White Paper continues:

''It may be possible to include on a single national database details of personal licences, premises licences, punishments and sanctions imposed, door supervisor registrations and Home Office guidance.''

The Government were clear when the White Paper was being written that a central register where all such information was stored for ease of access was probably

needed—for the individual licensing authorities and also for the police. The question is whether that has been translated into the provisions in the Bill to a degree that provides a comfort zone. I have re-examined clause 9(6) and the wording is not sufficiently clear. It states:

''The Secretary of State may arrange for the duties conferred on licensing authorities by this section to be discharged by means of one or more central registers''

—why we need more than one, I do not know—but

''kept by a person appointed pursuant to the arrangements.''

If the Government said, ''We will remove the word 'may' and put in 'shall' '', the Opposition would feel that they intended to deal with the problem.

Last week, I spoke to someone from the LGA who was, at that point, still saying that it wanted a central register or authority. I understand there was subsequently a meeting involving the LGA. I recognise the difference between an authority issuing licences and a body keeping a central register. An authority may fear that the cost of operating such a system would get out of hand, especially if there were cross-checking throughout the country for personal licence holders applying in different local authority areas.

Looking at the practicalities, the chief officer of police for the area where a licence was originally granted is obliged to consider giving an objection notice to an application for an area outside of his jurisdiction. That could be 100 miles away. If a new application were made for a personal licence in Cornwall for someone who originally held one in Northumberland, for example, the onus of responsibility would be on the chief officer of police for that area. If the objection notice were served, the licensing authority in the original area should hold a hearing to consider the objection. I understand that that should be held regardless of the location of the new licensee, or the conditions under which they are living and operating. There may be a time gap between a person surrendering a licence in the first local authority area and thinking some two or three years later that he will become a licence holder again.

There are practical problems and there is merit in having a central register or database. But who should be responsible for that? The hon. Member for North Devon is attempting to tie that matter down with his amendment. I listened carefully to the remarks he made; he is on the right lines in questioning where in the Bill it is said that that will be done. How will it be done? Are we to sign off the Bill without knowing how such things, which are not yet in the guidance, shall be achieved?

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend said that he would have got more comfort from the Minister if the wording of clause 9(6) had been changed from ''may to ''shall''. He may have got more comfort if the Government had taken serious steps to amend clause 4, rather than trying to delete it, to assure us that the register would be set up sensibly and that it would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. So far, the attitude of the Government to the debates and the successful amendments in the other place has been to dump on them from a great height; they are chucking them out without even considering the real basis for the argument why the amendments were tabled. Perhaps, the Government do not want to go down the road of setting up a wholly new quango, as the Minister said. Certainly, we would not be in favour of huge costs. We must be assured that things will happen and that somebody, or some Department, will be held responsible for setting things up and ensuring they work.

If there were a central authority, which is the intention behind clause 4—originally the amendment in the other place—it would at least be identifiable, would be given a clear role and resources to fulfil that role and there would be one set of IT dealing with things. However, we are not sure about that and the Minister has not given us any assurance that the IT systems used by different local authorities would be able to talk to one another sensibly.

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

That is a reasonable argument. At the moment, there is hardly a single system encompassing all local authority systems. Everybody is trying to achieve interoperability, but so far they have found it difficult to achieve. We cannot let that problem hold back the Bill. We may not be able to see a way of achieving interoperability in the immediate future, but we will work towards it and that is precisely why we need flexibility.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I hear what the Minister says, but it is a weak argument. During the gestation of the legislation, going back to discussions prior to and since the White Paper, the issue has not been properly addressed—not even at this late hour. The Opposition believe that a central database is absolutely vital and that the LGA and the police share our view. We shall vote against the Government's amendment to leave out clause 4, because until we get any indication otherwise that is the only reassurance in the Bill that a central registering database will be taken seriously.

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

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman will vote against the amendment as I am not sure that I understand the logic of his position.

I shall first try to answer the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. The Government are in regular and detailed discussion with the LGA and the Association of London Government about transition. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as having a large number of applications, local authorities will receive a large number of licence fees. It should be noted that during transition the licensing authority will not have an enforcement role. The fee revenue would therefore be more than adequate to cover set-up costs and see it through a difficult period. We are confident that the licensing authorities can manage the transition process.

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

Does the Minister fully understand that the so-called enforcement role does not simply cover policing, but giving advice and support? The notion that the need for that will disappear during the transition period is fundamentally mistaken. Local

authorities have an important role in giving general advice and support to business, but it is often assumed that enforcement is all about coming down hard on people. Local authorities use the carrot, as well as the stick, approach.

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

Yes, indeed. I want to encourage that approach. As a Minister who was responsible for trading standards officers departments, I advocated that approach as it is the way to tackle many of the problems that arise.

The hon. Member for North Devon made some important points about access to information. Questions of access, privacy and data sharing are part of the detailed discussions being held with various partners. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must be clear about those questions and I certainly would not want a creep—if I can use that word—towards access being increasingly opened up to what might be very sensitive information. Some information may shade into information that is commercially confidential and that could cause difficulties.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised some interesting issues about who might know whom when decisions are made. All Members of Parliament will have come across some odd decisions, especially about planning. The situation is never perfect. We have one of the least corrupt planning regimes on the face of the earth and it has served us well. However, it could be refined in several ways, some of which the hon. Gentleman pointed out—at least, he suggested some directions that could be pursued.

I am sure that hon. Members will recall that the Bill replaces the rather vague ''fit and proper person'' test with a much more open and transparent criteria. In the vast majority of cases, the situation that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight describes should not arise. Local authorities can apply for public entertainment licences and that illustrates many of the tensions that he mentioned.

I assure the Committee that we have looked into this matter and we are confident that existing provisions governing the way in which local authorities discharge the functions vested in them ensure that where it is improper for an individual to be involved in a licensing decision, self-disqualification would take place. Therefore, there is no need to amend the Bill to ensure that, for example, where councillors have a financial interest in the outcome of a decision, they will not be party to any decision.

I have every confidence that local authorities will be able to carry out their many functions effectively and impartially and that existing standing orders governing issues of propriety offer effective safeguards. The system set out in the Bill will ensure that licensing decisions benefit from the participation of councillors with knowledge of the local area and from a joined-up approach that allows licensing to be seen in the wider context of other local authority responsibilities.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I want to make some progress first. We will return to this matter when we discuss the role that MPs, MEPs and councillors play in notification and objections.

Clause 9(6) is drafted as it is because the requirement to keep and maintain a register bites as soon as the provisions come into force and a central national register will not be available at that time. Therefore, the word ''shall'' is inappropriate in the context of that requirement.

In the current draft, ''may'' is a strong word. A provision should not be included in legislation if there is no intention to use the power that is being given. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested, the legislation has to be drafted to reflect a practical problem: the appropriate machinery must get into the national register, if I can use that expression. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the difficulties that might arise from a case. He said that the inquiry might be in Cornwall when the initial licence was granted in Northumberland. That is a good example. The expense could be just as great if the case involved Cornwall and Devon. It is true that the application for the renewal of a licence is made to the authority that issued the original licence. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that would be an administrative process. As the hon. Member for North Devon pointed out, the numbers involved are not huge by any standard, and in the few cases where a hearing is required, all the relevant details would be available to the police and the licensing authority as a result of the provisions in the Bill that require an identification of convictions.

The hon. Gentleman asked who would lead the database project. We are leading it—although I am not sure whether that gives him any confidence. We are leading an initial scoping phase and once we have a clear and detailed business case, we will be in a better position to determine ownership models and so forth. It would be wrong of us to pre-empt the results of those discussions.

I hope that those remarks answer at least some of the doubts and questions that have been raised.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 5.