Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 118, in

clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert

'to grant permission, in the form of a licence, to a person, business or organisation to provide—

(a) the sale by retail of alcohol,

(b) the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club,

(c) regulated entertainment as set out in Schedule 1,

(d) late night refreshment as set out in Schedule 2,

where it would otherwise be an offence without such a licence; and further to promote—'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this we may discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 8.

Amendment No. 107, in

clause 5, page 3, line 30, leave out from 'premises' to '; and' in line 31.

Amendment No. 66, in

clause 5, page 3, line 31, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 65, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, after 'children', insert 'and other vulnerable persons'.

Amendment No. 67, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the protection of the quality of life of communities'.

Amendment No. 68, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the protection of the environment'.

Amendment No. 69, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the protection of public health'.

Amendment No. 70, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the control of alcohol sales at licensed premises'.

Amendment No. 71, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the regulation of licensed premises providing a leisure amenity for the general public'.

Amendment No. 88, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

(c) the safeguarding of cultural activity.'

Amendment No. 134, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert

'and

( ) the protection of residential amenity'.

Amendment No. 73, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert

'which shall in particular set out the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers to justify the exclusion of children from free access to licensed premises.'.

Amendment No. 74, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert

'which shall in particular set out the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers justify the prevention of any licensing authority from restricting the number of licensed premises, regulating the type of licensed premises, or imposing a generalised closing time in any part of a town centre of other locality within the licensing area.'.

Amendment No. 119, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert

'and

( ) the encouragement of the development of social, cultural and sporting facilities for persons living and working in that area, or visitors to that area, in such a manner as is consistent with the licensing objectives.'.

Amendment No. 79, in

clause 6, page 4, line 20, at end insert—

'( ) In drawing up keeping under review or revising a licensing policy, a licensing authority must take into account the need to promote such live music, dancing and theatre as it considers to be for the wider cultural benefit of its local community.'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The key Opposition amendment in this group is No. 118, which would add to the list of licensing objectives. During our debate, we have discussed what activities should and should not be included in the scope of a licensing Act. That has exposed a fundamental flaw: during the translation of the proposal from the White Paper to the legal framework, the whole purpose of licensing seems to

have been lost, with overdue attention being paid to what has been termed as the licensing objectives.

The purpose of licensing in any activity or business is to give permission for something to occur that would otherwise not be permissible. Much has been said about the effects of the Bill as it stands, but little so far about its fundamental purpose. Few would disagree that the sale of alcohol should be regulated; the need to acquire a licence strengthens the effect and efficacy of the enforcement of that regulation. However, it is different to claim that the objective of the licence is to prevent crime and disorder, protect the amenity of the area and protect the public from harm, which is what the Bill sets out as its objective. The licence merely gives permission for alcohol to be sold and states the conditions under which it must be sold. The so-called licensing objectives that appear in clause 5 are much more duteous on those holding the licence—they should uphold them since knowingly contravening them can result in the removal of permission through the revocation of the licence.

It is questionable as to what activities should be licensed under the Bill. It is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but nowhere does it actively seek to promote the social life of the country. The main purpose of providing a licence is to give permission to do certain things and our amendment would make it clear that, in considering a licence, the promotion of social, cultural and sporting activity is as important as the promotion of public safety, nuisance issues and the prevention of crime and disorder.

Amendment No. 42, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, deals with amenity. Government amendment No. 8 would delete huge sections of clause 5(2)(c), which deal with amenity. It is important that we tease out from the Government why they are so much against amenity and in favour reintroducing the concept of nuisance to the Bill. The Secretary of State said in Parliament on 24 March 2003 that the Government did not intend to accept the amendment made in the other place to add the protection of amenity as an objective—that intention is clear from Government amendment No. 8.

The introduction of a licensing objective under which amenity generally may be considered can only constrain the ability to address public nuisance if the existing public nuisance objective is removed from the Bill. However, it is agreed in some quarters that that objective should remain. In fact, the term ''public nuisance'' may constrain the ability of licensing authorities to take into account all the potential adverse impacts that licensed premises may have, as it is a phrase that has been given a specific and relatively narrow meaning by the courts in the context of environmental protection. The term ''amenity'' does not have that disadvantage. It is wrong to suggest that amenity in planning terms solely concerns aesthetic and visual appearance. The word has been given a wide meaning by the courts in a planning context. In the case of Ellis v. Ruislip-Northwood UDC 1920, it was interpreted as

''pleasant circumstances or features, advantages''.

Under section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for example, planning legislation requires a local planning authority to have regard to the interests of amenity. Such provisions have never caused problems or difficulties of interpretation. Given what I said about amenity, will the Minister explain why the Government consider it necessary to remove from the Bill any reference to amenity, as amendment No. 8 would do? There is a place for amenity. Surely the Bill's objectives are to promote cultural and social activities. After all, most people drink in a social context when they go out to enjoy themselves. We recognise that that activity needs to be licensed, but surely we must accept that, if drinking alcohol is lawful, the objectives should encompass some definition of why people undertake such activities.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

Amendment No. 88 is a probing amendment. I have no intention of putting it to the vote. It follows from my intervention on the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading, when I suggested that a licensing objective should be the safeguarding of cultural activity. My thinking is not dissimilar to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. We must provide a little more balance within the objectives, such as safeguarding against disorder and promoting public safety, and child protection. It would be helpful to have an objective by which cultural life was safeguarded to ensure that we achieve that balance. It may provide some comfort for the representatives of the culture industry who have lobbied so hard on the Bill.

A balance has been created in planning. When I was a member of a planning committee, we balanced the important regulation and control of land use with the need to stimulate and encourage economic development. Similarly, we want the licensing committee to balance the need to sustain and generate a good quality of life for citizens with the economic benefit that cultural life can generate. That economic benefit was well documented through the 1980s and 1990s, when John Myerscough carried out an excellent examination of the economic benefit of the arts in cities, such as Glasgow and Birmingham. Such work has continued and the Department fully supports it. We must balance that benefit with the need to protect against public disorder, to ensure public safety and protect children from harm.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Is not the problem the fact that the clause defines culture? Some people think that morris dancing and high art are culture, while others consider that Newcastle brown and football are part of the culture in the north-east.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

That was an interesting intervention. It may be up to individual licensing authorities to decide whether they want to protect Newcastle brown and football in the north-east. They may well want to protect such things—it is not for me to say. One of the benefits of the Bill is that it delegates such decisions to local communities, and they can judge which cultural activities to safeguard.

I have an example of a balance that has been difficult to achieve within the existing licensing of

public entertainment by local authorities. I have already mentioned to the Committee that I used to be a member of Mendip district council, which is the licensing authority for the Glastonbury festival. That festival is probably the most important and significant cultural festival in Europe, especially for young people. It is of great significance to youth culture. However, huge public safety, disorder and public health problems are presented when a community of 200,000 people is temporarily created in a farmer's field in Somerset.

Despite the precedents—the Glastonbury festival has existed for some 25 years, after starting as the Pilton pop festival—a consistent problem is that the local community is understandably ambivalent about whether the festival should go ahead. Michael Eavis struggles to obtain licences because elements in the local authority care as lot about crime and disorder, public safety, the protection of children and so forth, but do not balance potential problems with the need to protect the cultural life of the nation by allowing the Glastonbury festival to go ahead. The negotiations continue.

In many ways, that example informs my reason for tabling the amendment. I wish to ensure that licensing committees balance the two concerns when they make their decisions. Glastonbury festival is an extreme example, but similar points could be made about the folk festivals in Weymouth and Swanage, both of which take place in my constituency. I am sure that we in the Committee are all united in wanting to encourage and enhance folk music and other such activities.

I would like the Minister to respond to my concerns and consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce an amendment on Report, because I will not press my amendment to a vote. The Secretary of State responded to my intervention on Second Reading by saying that she was worried that we would overload committees by giving them too much to think about, but it is reasonable to ask licensing committees to balance the objectives in the Bill with safeguarding the cultural life of their areas.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

I would like to say a few words about Government amendment No. 8, but first I shall say something about amendment No. 118, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. He usually argues the case for his amendments logically and sensibly, but on this occasion he has lost the plot. The distinction between functions and objectives is relatively straightforward. The function of the licensing authority is to push bits of paper around, but surely that is not its objective. We continually ask ourselves, ''Why are we doing this?'' and, ''Why do entertainments need to be licensed?'' The answer cannot be, ''Because we want to issue bits of paper''; it must be, ''We are doing this for the greater good''. I shall discuss what the objectives are, but amendment No. 118 has missed the target.

On Government amendment No. 8, I regret that the Government wish to repudiate the amendment made

in the House of Lords, which strengthens this part of the Bill significantly, not least for the reasons described by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). We are asking the authorities to perform a balancing act, and if the objectives simply comprise the avoidance of four public perils, but do not counterbalance that with the promotion of anything positive, the entire function seems to be one of trying to avoid catastrophe, rather than promoting anything that is worth while or good. The notion of a balancing task in sub-paragraph (c), which was drafted by the Lords, is a good basis on which to work.

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was correct in putting forward arguments about the fairly well established legal definition of public nuisance. The courts require high standards of proof for public nuisance, and what constitutes public nuisance is well explored and well trodden ground. The legal textbooks contain examples of such things as running a brothel, letting off fireworks and other exceptional acts of antisocial behaviour.

We are talking about extending pub opening into the early hours of the morning; I share that general goal, and I would sign up to it. The Government are correct in trying to end our outdated drinking hours. However, behaviour that would not constitute a public nuisance in the middle of the afternoon can be unpleasant for people living or sleeping in the close vicinity of a public house in the early hours of the morning. Cars coming and going, the opening and closing of car doors, the starting of engines and conversation in the street could be perfectly acceptable at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, but can be unpleasant for people at 3 o'clock in the morning.

None of those things comes anywhere near constituting the type of public nuisance established in legal precedent. The Government are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The measure suggested by the House of Lords would allow licensing authorities to exercise some common sense, and give them some discretion to consider whether the premises in question were located near housing, and so forth.

Without the critical concept of protecting amenity, which the Lords introduced, people will not even have the right to make representations under clause 19, because under subsection (6) they would be confined to making relevant representations

''about the likely effect of the grant of the premises licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives''.

The whole thing tracks back to the list of objectives that we are considering at the moment. The other place helpfully introduced a balancing act that gives the licensing authority plenty of scope to exercise sensible discretion, and also allows those who believe that they will suffer from other people's all-night drinking to have their say.

The principle of moving the decision making from the magistrates to the local authorities was designed precisely to invite a sensible considered analysis of representations on such issues by the committees. If we do not incorporate some concept of amenity, we would adversely narrow the scope of the discretion and the

task carried out by the licensing committees. I urge the Government to think again. Perhaps sub-paragraph (c) is not perfect and could be further polished, but I believe that it introduces something worth while. To throw it out and go back to the straightforward concept of public nuisance would be regrettable.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am in sympathy with the case that the hon. Gentleman makes. Does he recall that on previous occasions the Minister suggested that matters of amenity were planning, not licensing, matters? Does he agree that it is all very well to talk about planning matters, but in many cases planning permission has already been given, on the assumption that the premises will close at 11 or 11.30 pm?

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he says that many of the premises will have been given planning permission many years—indeed, decades—ago. However, even if that were not the case, I would not believe that planning was a complete solution, for the reason I gave earlier: what may be perfectly reasonable at 3 o'clock in the afternoon may be completely unreasonable at 3 o'clock in the morning. I would not expect planning permission for a public house to be denied because of people opening and closing their car doors at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, but it might be reasonable, on the basis of protecting residents' amenity, for the public authorities to insist that it did not stay open, thus causing that noise, until 3 o'clock in the morning.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for North Devon are right to say that this is an important part of the Bill, not least because getting the licensing objectives right will have a knock-on effect. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that all the protections set out in clause 19 will be for naught if the particular subject areas do not fall within the confines of the licensing objectives.

A stranger, seeing that my name had been attached to Government amendment No. 8, might think that there must be broad-based agreement between us on everything in the Bill. Of course that is not entirely so, because that amendment suggests reverting back to including public nuisance as one of the objectives. I have no particular concerns about that. However, in my view we should consider having a fifth objective—that of residential amenity. It is with that in mind that I favour re-instituting the concept of public nuisance. That is an important concept and should appear in the Bill. There was a long and fruitful debate on the subject in the other place, and the Lords tried their best to find a sensible compromise that would ensure that the need to balance various interests was brought to the fore.

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said earlier. Also, we have been greatly helped by the Civic Trust and the Local Government Association, who helped to prepare briefs on our behalf. Some local authorities need to feel that they can take into account the cumulative negative impact of a high concentration of premises, and customers, on local communities. Local

authorities across the country are increasingly reporting problems of noise in the street.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, anyone who goes on to the streets of Soho in the early hours of Saturday or Sunday will see an enormous amount of antisocial behaviour, from urination in the street to drug taking and loud disorder. An underlying assumption that the Government make all too often in the Bill is that the areas under great stress are city centres with no residential population. As I have pointed out in Committee, Soho and Covent Garden have enormous residential communities, and there is little doubt that the same applies to the centres of such cities as Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle.

The interests of local residents need to be protected, as do the interests of local businesses. We should not think of this as an ''us or them'' issue. It is perhaps all too easy for local residents associations to be perceived as simply representing the interests of the residential population. I appreciate that there is a great danger that in tabling some of the amendments, Opposition Members run the risk of considering only one side of the argument. Business interests need to be maintained—certainly in central London, given the importance of the tourist trade, and there are long-standing business interests both in central London and beyond. There are family restaurants, bars and pubs that have been around for many decades, which I hope will be around for many decades to come. The biggest worry is that if we do not get the Bill right, at the next economic upturn many small family-run businesses will be bought up by the large chains, which will undermine the consumer choice that we all crave.

I am developing some very bad habits as a young new Member of Parliament. One of them, which I think I learned from the apostles of new Labour, is to look at focus groups. Over the past few months I have got in touch with a number of my local residents and their associations to find out about their views on the Licensing Bill as a whole, and this is an appropriate moment to put on the public record some of the concerns that they expressed.

One of the residents groups that I had contact with is in the Marylebone High Street ward, which is north of Oxford street and therefore just outside Soho and the main west end stress area. I received a substantial number of responses—about 60 or 70. A fair few—about 40 per cent.—were from residents who did not have many concerns about the idea of 24-hour licensing and the extension of licensing. It is therefore fair to say that the residential population do not by any means universally object to licensing regulations or say that they fail to take account of residential and other amenities.

I shall pass on a few brief comments from local resident associations throughout Westminster. As in any city centre, although a lot of attention is paid to places such as Soho and Covent Garden, there are also smaller stress areas, such as around Victoria station, in Bayswater, where Queensway is becoming an active commercial zone all day and all night, and in places such as Marylebone high street.

The Ashley Gardens Residents Association expressed great concern about the character of residential areas in large cities. It felt that in London there was a risk that ill-thought-through licensing legislation that took no account of residential amenity would in time result in areas being wholly altered, and there would be a lack of incentives for landlords to keep reasonable order. In fairness, it should be said that the Strand, Aldwych and Trafalgar Square Association, which represents predominantly licensees, was broadly supportive of the introduction of the Bill in its current unfettered form. However, the Leicester Square Association, which comprises a vibrant mix of residents and business people, was worried about the local atmosphere becoming that of a wild west frontier town, which it felt was already the case at weekends. That association does not want drinking hours to be extended.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is adopting new Labour tactics. When he conducted his survey, did he point out to the residents in his constituency that under this Bill they will have a direct say in the granting of licences for the first time? That fact may have been withheld from them until now.

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

Although I am adopting new Labour tactics, it may be wishful thinking to imagine that I would be able to deliver on these matters—and even if I could, that might be taking new Labour tactics a step too far.

The rhetoric of the Bill has been about devolving power to local groups—taking it away from what might be perceived as a distant magistrates court, and putting it in the hands of a local authority. However, the real proof of the pudding will be whether the approach is highly centralising. That theme has come up before; I have mentioned it on a number of occasions in this Committee, and on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. The real concern is that without protection to cover public nuisance and, more importantly, residential amenity, the notional powers and protections in the hands of local residents and small businesses will be somewhat illusory, because the operations with the largest and deepest pockets will be able to benefit most from a highly centralised system. That is one of the reasons why we are keen to encourage residential amenity.

The South East Bayswater Residents Association, which has done sterling work over a long period, and has briefed a number of Lords in the other place, highlighted a great concern about the proposed disadvantages of deregulation. What would happen if advantages were not apparent, and crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour continued, or even increased, under any new regime? The association expressed the concern that that could lead to major problems, against which there would be no protection, and the Bayswater area would become less attractive. The association said that there was a lack of infrastructure for policing and enforcement in the early hours of the morning, and also a lack of reliable public transport to allow people to leave the area.

The Soho Society made some important contributions to the debate in the other place, and I am grateful for all the help that a number of its key members have given me during the past nine months in understanding a little more about the Bill. It raised the issue of human rights with the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Comparisons have been drawn with cities such as New York and Paris, where regulations have been introduced to prevent over-concentration. In Paris, a new full liquor licence has not been granted since 1915, and New York has the 500 ft rule—in Paris it is called the 75 m rule—which specifies the minimum distance between each licensed premises. Again, residential amenity is an integral part of the thought process. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should adopt such a prescriptive approach, but what lies behind the approaches in those two important capital cities, which are comparable to London, is the sense that residential amenity needs to be protected.

One of the great things about the history of much of inner London is that the population in particular pockets has begun to rise for the first time in two centuries. As I said earlier, that applies in particular to the City of London, which needs a vibrant residential population to ensure that its population continues to rise. That population will include families, which inevitably need schools and all the associated infrastructure. That then becomes an important residential amenity that must be protected.

The Soho Society concluded by saying that it was determined that the power should remain in the hands of residents and the local council, and that to provide such protection, either there should be some sort of amendment relating to the protection of residential amenity, or the Government should accept the amendments from the other place.

I also spoke to the British Hospitality Association and the Tourism Alliance, which were, in the broadest sense, keen to support Second Reading. They feel that the tourism industry stands to gain much from the removal of some of the complexities of the law, but that facilities for tourists should be provided when and where they are needed—on demand, rather than dictated by central Government—or local government. There would be concerns, even under the new regime, about whether the needs and aspirations of the tourist market and its consumers would be ignored. Inevitably, there are lobby groups on both sides of the fence, which makes it all the more necessary to achieve a balance.

I shall end by quoting one or two of my local residents. I shall concentrate on those who are against the Bill and the licensing objectives, with the caveat that a significant minority of those whom I have contacted have said that they are in favour of the Bill. A couple who had lived in Marylebone for some 25 years said that they were very much opposed to 24-hour licensing; there were four pubs within 100 yards of the block of flats in which they lived, and in the summer the noise was a serious nuisance until 1 o'clock in the morning.

Another couple said:

''Whilst the idea of a 24 hour city for commercial premises may appeal to some, this freedom is at odds with domestic leases that stipulate 'quiet enjoyment' of owners' homes''.

They felt that restrictions should be imposed on the playing of music between, say, midnight and 8 am. Another local resident in Marylebone said:

''At present the licensing laws are draconian, particularly compared to Europe, and need to be liberalised.''

However, the resident did not agree that licensing functions should be taken from magistrates and given to local authorities or others, because they considered that the present system was objective and free from a perception of political bias.

Above all, it is evident that residential amenities are much in the forefront of people's minds. I am worried that the licensing objectives in the Bill are far too abstract and vague. They lay the whole process open to several legal challenges, which would serve no one, least of all local residents or hard-working people with small businesses who are determined to ensure that their businesses remain a success.

Given the numbers in Committee, the Government can railroad through their ideas. None the less, I hope that we can hold sway with the amendments that we have tabled and the Minister will come back on Report, having given some thought to achieving a balance. All of us want a system that will succeed. I apologise for arguing in some detail, but the clause is of key importance. Without achieving the right licensing objectives, we run the risk of having a system that will be beset by bureaucracy, red tape and perhaps by umpteen legal challenges.

It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly said that amenity was misunderstood by the Secretary of State when it was dealt with on Second Reading. He referred to a case that took place in 1920, which was 83 years ago. We will have a blizzard of litigation if we do not get that aspect of the Bill right. I hope that the Minister will give considerable thought to our arguments.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I had not intended to speak to the amendments but I wish to follow on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and the hon. Member for North Durham. If we do not ensure that the objectives contain some reference to residential amenity or that broader issues are taken into account by licensing authorities when determining their policy and its implementation, residents will feel disfranchised from the process. We say that we are giving them a voice through the Bill, but they have a voice in a similar quasi-judicial process—planning. They often feel disfranchised from that process and consider that their objections have limited impact because of the nature of the planning process, the fact that policies are set out and that there is Government guidance. The views of local communities are often overridden by the quasi-judicial nature of that process.

If there is no reference under the Bill to important issues for local communities, residents and businesses, I fear that their views will not be properly taken into

account when determining the statement of licensing policy, notwithstanding the guidance in the Government's draft document. If we are to ensure that licensing authorities have a broader perspective of their objectives under the Bill, we must tackle residential amenity. Without that, local communities will consider that they do not have a proper voice in forming policies, ensuring that they are properly implemented and that their local community is protected from excessive free licensing of pubs or other entertainment venues.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, I had not intended to speak at length on the amendment, although I had intended to talk to my amendment No. 107. However, that disappears into insignificance when compared with Government amendment No. 8. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, that makes it impossible to object legitimately to the granting of many licences.

Dr. Howells indicated dissent.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

The Minister shakes his head. He says that he sighs rather than snorts.

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

That is total rubbish.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

It is not rubbish. As the hon. Member for North Devon clearly said, a person can object only within the context of the licensing objectives, which are set out in the clause. If those objectives require only the prevention of public nuisance, its statutory definition—perhaps I should say, ''The court's judgment about what is a public nuisance''—comes into play. I hope the Minister will deal forensically with that assertion rather than simply say that it is rubbish.

The hon. Member for North Devon outlined a serious, genuine objection and I will try to back that up with reference to paragraph 4.10 of the Minister's draft guidance, which says:

''no Statement of Policy should override the right of any person to make representations on an application or seek a review of a licence or certificate where''

—and I emphasise this—

''provision has been made for them to do so in the Act''.

My reading of that paragraph is that there is no provision in the Bill for anyone to make an objection, except within the context of the licensing objectives.

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

This is called the Alcohol Licensing Bill, just in case the hon. Gentleman had forgotten; it is not about controlling society or running wider objectives for society.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I have not forgotten, but I did not know that there was any reference to alcohol in the title.

The Bill is not to do with controlling society, but it is to do with the consequences of a much more liberal licensing regime on those who may suffer under it. I am not suggesting that the licensing regime should not be liberal; I am suggesting that local authorities should be required to pay proper attention to the consequences, among which are the noise and other effects of people gathering in the streets late at night. The Minister has accepted that, because he has

justified staggering closing hours—there not being a fixed closing time—by saying that that measure will reduce noise and disruption in the streets of our towns and cities between 11 and 12 o'clock and 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.

The Minister accepts that the Bill will have consequences and I am arguing about those. I do not dispute that there will be an alleviation of the consequences of everyone flooding out of pubs between 11 and 12 o'clock. However, there may be additional noise and some displacement in towns that do not have a significant problem at that time of night.

Many of my constituents contend that noise at 3 am is less acceptable than noise between 11 pm and midnight. I say that with absolute confidence because I live in the centre of Cowes and during Cowes week people are prepared to put up with noise between 2 and 3 am, but they would prefer not to put up with it at that time every week throughout the summer.

Such noise is acceptable during some special events and people are prepared to put up with it, but they do not want to be disturbed every night, especially on week day nights, particularly if they are in the serious business of providing public services, such as transport, postal or ferry services and have to be up in time to drive the first bus or operate the first ferry. People worry about the noise consequences and about the leakage of noise—not just noise caused on the premises, but that caused by people assembling outside. The draft guidance says that the local authority

''statement of policy should make clear that licensing law is not a mechanism'',

which the Minister has already asserted,

''for the general control of anti-social behaviour by individuals once they are beyond the direct control of the individual, club or business holding the licence''.

Of course, it is not meant to be such a mechanism, but my examples would be consequent on allowing many licences. Indeed, that is acknowledged further on, because the guidance refers to cumulative effect.

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

Not in this clause.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

No. The guidance also requires an objector to do something that to all intents and purposes is impossible: to lay an evidentiary base for the assertion that the addition of the premises in question would produce the cumulative effect claimed. How can one possibly prove what will happen in the future? It is simply impossible. It is possible to assert or offer evidence of what has happened on previous occasions, but it is utterly impossible to prove what will happen. The guidance is therefore wholly unreasonable.

In case the Minister thinks that I am drifting away from the object of the amendments, I am concerned that the licensing objectives are drawn too narrowly. If subsection (2)(c) is amended in the way proposed by the Minister, people will find it even more difficult to object. In their amendments, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench proposed adding a range of things and I concede that the hon. Member for South Dorset also

made a good point: decisions should be a matter of balancing the cultural benefit. Cowes week has a cultural as well as a major economic benefit and that is the type of cultural activity that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting should be safeguarded.

My great concern, however, is the narrow definition of public nuisance, which is already covered by environmental protection legislation. As one of his reasons for the requirement to license, the Minister suggested that such legislation was retrospective rather than prospective, which I accept. That is a good reason why the licensing authorities should look ahead. The licensing authority needs to look beyond the narrowly drawn definition of public nuisance to the social amenity of those who live in the area that is likely to be significantly affected by any noise consequent upon the granting of licences.

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

These are important amendments and we have had an interesting debate on them. I will deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for North Devon, but I am leapfrogging for a moment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster describes an accurate picture of what goes on in the streets of Soho and the other pressure points in his constituency, but such activities are the perverse effects of the current licensing laws. He is right to say that we must try to improve the licensing laws to tackle some of those problems, but the activities that he describes are a result of what is happening now. I hope that he remembers that. The new system is designed to reduce crime, disorder, antisocial behaviour and public nuisance.

I will attempt a forensic description of ''public nuisance'', as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked me to do. It is also a problem that, if people believe that the area is like the wild west—as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said—things can only get worse. We are offering a chance to make things better. The situation at the moment is a direct product of our current laws. The anxieties are an argument for change, not for the status quo, which is why the hon. Gentleman's comments worry me.

The new system will give the hon. Gentleman's constituents a stronger voice than ever before. They will be able to call for a review of an existing licence, which could result in conditions being imposed on the licence that improve matters for the residents in the area.

I want to answer some of the questions before the knife falls. I do not have much time to do that because there are some big questions to address. Before I discuss the specifics of this group of amendments and the arguments outlined, especially by the hon. Members for North Devon and for Isle of Wight and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset in amendment No. 88, I should explain that the licensing objectives are not relevant simply for the licensing authority in carrying out its licensing functions. Individual applicants for premises licences and club premises certificates must explain the steps that they intend to take to promote them in the operating schedule that must accompany each application. As a consequence, the licensing objectives and their promotion must be capable of

being translated into conditions with which licensees must comply as well as of representing the overarching criteria against which the licensing authority must discharge its functions in the public interest.

It is impossible to expect licensees to promote the aspirational—and sometimes wonderful, as in the case of my hon. Friend's amendment No. 88—objectives proposed and I will try to explain why. Amendment No. 118 is one of those amendments, although I suspect that its intention may be to probe the Government about the workings of the new system. It sets out again one of the key elements of the new regime—namely, that a licensing authority will be expected to grant a licence in the absence of representations from responsible authorities or interested parties. I hope that I can reassure the Committee that the Bill is clear on this point: clause 19 states that in the absence of relevant representations the licensing authority must grant a licence, subject only to such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application. That is very important.

The amendment is therefore unnecessary. The granting of permissions is already a function of the licensing authorities. It would also create a licensing objective that it would be impossible for individual licensees to promote, however much they might like to be responsible for granting themselves licences. Although the licensing system provided by the Bill requires applicants to make assessments for themselves, the Government are not putting in place a system of self-regulation.

I now turn to Government amendment. No. 8 and those relating to it—amendments Nos. 66 and 42 are probably the most important of them. Amendment No. 8 would restore to the Bill the four licensing objectives it originally contained: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm.

The hon. Member for North Devon raised several issues. The idea of the prevention of public nuisance was removed by an amendment in another place, and Government amendment No. 8 is designed to reverse that decision. We believe that replacing the idea of public nuisance with the idea of amenity significantly weakened the Bill, particularly in terms of the protection that it offers local residents in relation to the carrying on of licensable activities. That was not the intention of the amendment in another place, but it was its effect.

In the debate in another place, an impression was given by some contributors that ''public nuisance'' was a narrow concept that would not cover some of the problems that might be caused to residents living near licensed premises. That was because those contributors had regard to the narrow definition of ''nuisance'' in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That definition is misleading in the context of the Licensing Bill. The Bill does not define ''public nuisance'' and it therefore retains the wide meaning it has under common law, rather than that in the 1990

Act or any other statutory definition. The term ''public nuisance'' therefore retains the breadth and flexibility to take in all the concerns likely to arise from the operation of any premises conducting licensable activities, in terms of the impact of nuisance on people living or doing business nearby.

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

Can the Minister confirm that according to his understanding of the term ''public nuisance'', it covers everything in the House of Lords amendment—in other words, that in his view the amendment made in the other place is superfluous, and that ''public nuisance'' covers all the concerns set out in subsection (2)(c)?

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

Yes indeed, but I will modify my agreement with the hon. Gentleman by saying that I do not expect licensees to have regard to the aesthetic qualities of surrounding buildings, for example. However, if behaviour is particularly rowdy, and antisocial behaviour can be proved to have been generated in the premises, what happens in licensed premises and in their vicinity may be said to have an effect on the aesthetics of the surrounding area, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. Apart from that, I would certainly agree with him. In fact, as I have argued, the provision actually weakens the power of the Bill in that respect.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

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

May I just make a tiny bit of progress first?

Case law has developed on the subject, and will continue to develop in relation to the provisions in the Bill—I just wanted to make that point.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Following on from the discussion between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster about public nuisance, may I point out that paragraph 6.61 of the draft guidance says:

''At any stage, following the grant of a premises licence, a responsible authority''—

it includes in that definition a resident living in the vicinity of the premises—

''. . . may ask the licensing the authority to review the licence''.

So reviews could take place at any time, instead of every three years when the licence is renewable, as is the case at the moment. In the context of his stated aim of putting the phrase ''public nuisance'' back into subsection (2)(c), does the Minister expect a plethora of objections and cases for review to come before the licensing authority, as a result of the definition of ''public nuisance'' and the power, under the guidance, for people to make a complaint?

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

No, because in my experience—which must be subjective, just as the hon. Gentleman's point or question is—most residents live in relative harmony with most licensed premises. There are exceptions, and we have to make sure that the Bill is framed so as to give residents the opportunity to ask for a review of the licence of any particular premises. There will probably be some objections. The right of residents to object, for the first time, to how licensed premises are run will be very welcome in respect of some licensed premises that I can think of, but will not name, in my

constituency. Although there may well be some objections, it is impossible to predict how many there will be, or what the percentage will be in each constituency. Clearly, some residents will take the opportunity to ask for a hearing on the way in which a particular—

Mr. Moss rose—

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

I have a lot to say on this subject—but go on; I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister did not answer the real question, which is whether he believes that there will be an increase. He ended up by saying that there would be some objections; however, if we get the wording in the Bill wrong, there may be an increase in the number. Obviously, that would force the licensees into court, and would involve legal costs and the rest of it. The Lords, through their amendment, were trying to achieve a balance. The local licensing authority had to balance residents' rights to object to a nuisance with the leisure amenity of the facility on a cultural and social basis.

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

I understand and accept that argument. I am saying that no universal rule will be applied, and there will be places where objections can be made. Because of the way in which the new system will work, with a more relaxed regime for closing times, we will not see the same spikes or peaks of antisocial behaviour, so there will be fewer objections from local residents as a consequence. This is not a simple question, and what happens to clause 5 is very much tied to the overall objectives of the Bill, one of which is to reduce those spikes and problems that occur when everyone is thrown out into the street some time between 11 pm and midnight.

The term ''public amenity'' is narrow and derived from planning law. It refers to the aesthetic and visual qualities of an area. It would not therefore cover the problems of noise, and many aspects of antisocial behaviour that we acknowledge and to which the operations of some premises could give rise. Planning law already provides local planning authorities with the tools that they need to address public amenity concerns about any premises, not just licensed premises. It is therefore essential that we restore the prevention of public nuisance to the licensing objectives in the Bill.

If the Committee accepts amendment No. 8, as I hope it will, amendment No. 134 would add a fifth licensing objective: the protection of residential amenity. The issue of amenity has arisen in the context of the debate on what has been called cumulative impact, or saturation; it concerns not the accumulation of licensed premises in and of itself, but the consequences that can sometimes flow from an accumulation of premises in a small and restricted area—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned this. For example, that can happen in Soho in London, and in other places throughout the country.

The licensing objectives chosen in the Bill are not random, but address the problems that decades of experience have shown—problems that can arise from

the co-existence in one area of a number of licensed premises. Of particular relevance here are the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The choice of objectives derives from experience in decision making about licensing. They represent the reference against which the licensing authority will balance competing specific interests to reach a decision on an application that is in the overall public interest.

The Government are committed to ensuring that licensing authorities have the powers to address both crime and disorder and public nuisance arising from the carrying on of licensable activities. We have consulted widely with interested parties, including most recently with the LGA, the Association of London Government and the London boroughs of Westminster and Camden to determine whether the Bill's powers are sufficient for those purposes. As a result of that consultation, our policy was developed. We have incorporated in the draft guidance clear statements about the way in which a licensing authority's policy may be developed under the Bill where the cumulative effect of licensed premises impacts on the licensing objectives. We have already moved a long way with the principle of cumulative effect since the Bill was introduced—so far, indeed, that amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 74 are unnecessary, and I hope that they will be withdrawn.

I shall say a little about how the Bill already allows licensing authorities to take into account the cumulative impact of licensing on the amenity of an area. As I have already explained, the expression ''public nuisance'' has been chosen for the Bill as a well known concept that is flexible and capable of application in a huge range of circumstances. The licensing authority, informed by the responsible authorities—the experts—described in clause 14, needs to be in a position to determine what constitutes public nuisance in each individual case. In certain circumstances, lower level nuisance—such as the slamming of doors by patrons leaving a premises late at night, as described by the hon. Member for North Devon—has to be taken into account. Public nuisance is not only about acid house parties, raves, loud music or the selling of drugs on the street in Soho, to which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred, although it might include those types of nuisance.

The Bill allows for a necessarily flexible approach. As is stated in the guidance that has been made available to hon. Members,

''The 2003 Act requires licensing authorities and responsible authorities to make objective judgements about what constitutes nuisance and what is needed, in terms of conditions attached to premises licences and club premises certificates to prevent it. These will not be easy judgements as one man's enjoyable music is another man's irritating noise. It is therefore important that in applying the relevant objective tests, licensing authorities and responsible authorities focus on impacts of the licensable activities at the relevant premises on people living, working and sleeping in the vicinity that are unreasonable.''

''Amenity'' is a narrow issue, which more properly arises in the context of planning applications and applications for a change of use of premises. To introduce it into the licensing objectives would cause an unnecessary duplication of the planning process. However, to allay worries about cumulative impact, we have included the planning authority as a responsible authority. It will be free to make representations to the licensing authority about the cumulative impact of public nuisance or disorder from large numbers of similar premises, when that relates to the promotion of the licensing objective.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Paragraph 8.31 of the guidance states:

''In the context of preventing public nuisance, it is again essential that conditions are focused on measures within the direct control of the licence holder.''

The planning authority can represent until it is blue in the face, but if the licensing authority does not have the power to take account of matters by attaching conditions that are not within the direct control of the licence holder, the planning authority's efforts will be in vain. That point has been made by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) to whom I referred in at our first sitting.

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

The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I wish to stress what I have said consistently throughout our proceedings in the House and in Committee. Licensing law must not become a rerun of planning. We must remember that many businesses employ a lot of people, and may have to go through hell and high water to receive planning permission. Under the regime described by the hon. Gentleman, they would then have to go through it all again. When local residents decided that they could not oppose planning permission that way, they would try another way.

The Bill is not designed to deal with the behaviour of patrons after they have long left the vicinity of the premises. It would be neither practicable nor reasonable to expect it to do so. Under the Bill, licensing objectives must be capable of translation into conditions that can reasonably be imposed on any licence holder. That is important. The conditions must be within his or her control, so that failure to comply can properly result in prosecution. It must be clear to the holder of the licence and the enforcement officers when the holder has transgressed the law.

It is easy to see how a licensee might encourage respectful behaviour as individuals are leaving his or her premises, even when they are getting into their nearby cars and driving away. A condition attached to his licence could therefore reasonably require him to do so. That could involve clear signs being displayed at exits. However, that influence will become quickly attenuated. When customers are beyond the licence holder's control, the onus for good conduct should fall squarely on the individual, and it is on the individual that enforcement efforts should then be focused.

In addition, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently published a White Paper that shows our intention to deal with antisocial behaviour by individuals in such circumstances. We are not ignoring the issue. The Licensing Bill must focus,

however, on the duties that we can place on licence holders and the actions that we can require them to take. A licence holder and his staff cannot exert absolute control over individuals after they have left the vicinity of the premises and may be hundreds of yards away. That is why the Home Secretary intends to equip the police with additional tools to control antisocial behaviour.

I ask the Committee to support Government amendment No. 8.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

We have had a good debate on the clause and the amendments associated with it. The Opposition amendments were intended to probe and find out exactly why the Government included some objectives and not others. The objectives fall under the general duties of the licensing authorities, not, as the Minister implied, under the licensee application, which must be accompanied by an operating schedule, which in turn must be directed to achieve the objectives as they are set out.

We want to consider proactively the role of local licensing authorities in so far as they consider their licensing function, not just in a negative sense. We should not simply say, ''No, no, no'' on the various grounds set out in the objectives; we should say, ''These are cultural and social facilities that we wish to endorse and support''—for example, in a community with a growing tourist trade, and in other similar situations. There must be a balance between the interests of local residents, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned in speaking clearly to his own amendments, and those of the licensed business community.

I am not convinced by the Minister's assuring me that there will not be many more requests for reviews under the heading of public nuisance. I can foresee a huge number of vexatious applications for review. I know the guidance; I have read it carefully. It says that not more than one application in any 12-month period should be acceptable. I know that the Government are attempting to plug that loophole; nevertheless, people in the licensing trade may be faced with increased legal bills for defending themselves against local people who have objected to a pub being there from day one, and who will continue to do so. During local elections, when local councillors are coming up for election, there may be vexatious campaigns based on such objections.

We tabled our amendments in the interests of balance. We cannot accept the Government's amendment, which would delete the portion of subsection 2(c) that resulted from an amendment in another place. However, on the basis of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, No. 8, in

clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out from first 'of' to '; and' in line 31 and insert 'public nuisance'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.