Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 75, in

clause 6, page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (1).

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 80, in

clause 6, page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment No. 135, in

clause 6, page 4, line 26, after 'policies', insert

'including policies relating to the management of cumulative impact and saturation,'.

Amendment No. 136, in

clause 19, page 12, line 8, after 'application', insert

'unless a saturation policy is in place,'.

Amendment No. 137, in

clause 31, page 17, line 31, after 'made', insert

'subject to the adoption of a saturation policy by the licensing authority,'.

Amendment No. 138, in

clause 35, page 20, line 18, at end insert

'unless a saturation policy is in place.'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Amendments Nos. 75 and 80 are fairly simple and are essentially probing amendments. The Government need to justify why they deem it necessary to prescribe matters in this way, particularly with regard to the duration of the licensing policy. Why must each licensing authority publish a licensing statement every three years, which will follow on from fairly extensive consultations each time? In any event, subsection (3) asks each licensing authority to take into account the views of people in the local area. Subsection (4) provides licensing authorities with the power to revise policy at any time. It is not necessary to prescribe at the outset that a local authority has to go through that hoop every three years.

The Government have required local authorities to carry out reviews of all sorts of things at three-year intervals, so they are bringing this matter into line with what they have already asked authorities to do. If it is not necessary to do it, why make a requirement to do it? If a process is working well, we see no need for a review to be prescribed. If it is not working well, there is provision for reviews to take place as and when the local licensing authority deems it important and necessary to do so.

The Government protest all the time that the Bill is deregulatory, but the clause contains an instruction to

local authorities that they must set up a completely new licensing policy or review the one that they have got every three years. Unless the Government come up with good reasons, there is no need for that over-prescription.

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

We will keep coming back to the fact that the Bill is an attempt to balance the effectiveness of local government licensing authorities, which rightly seek freedom and flexibility, with the interests of the industry which wants a stable and transparent business environment within which to thrive and, above all, the interests of citizens and consumers, who have a right to live and spend their leisure time in a safe and pleasant environment.

As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) told us, amendment No. 75 probes one of the key provisions of the Bill. The clause requires licensing authorities to determine and publish their policy with respect to the exercise of their licensing functions every three years. Before determining their policy or revising it, they must consult local bodies and those with an interest in, and who are affected by, licensing matters. The consultation is with the police, the fire authority, representatives of holders of premises licences, club premises certificates and personal licences, and representatives of local residents and businesses. It is important to keep that policy fully informed as a result of consultation and up to date. I understand that the industry wants as little change and upheaval as possible, but the requirement to determine the policy every three years will balance the industry's need for stability against the flexibility and room for manoeuvre that licensing authorities will require to tackle local issues effectively.

The hon. Gentleman asked why there will be a three-year basis and why, if things are going pretty well, authorities should have to do this at all. The three-year basis reflects the requirement on local authorities to set out their crime prevention strategies every three years under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It makes good sense to match up and integrate those documents rather than to follow a somewhat vague idea of a licensing policy period or have no regular review of the policy.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Does the Minister mean by that that the review of the licensing policy should be coterminous with the review under the 1998 Act, or will there be different three-year periods?

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

No, there may well be different periods, although if a local authority wants to make them coterminous there is no reason why it should not. We have chosen three years because that is a fair length of time and provides a good balance, offering a good sense of continuity. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have pointed out in previous sittings, things can change very quickly, especially in city centres. New businesses can arrive and others can close down. Three years is a pretty good balance.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I accept that argument, but as I said in my opening remarks, that is covered by subsection (4), which says:

''During each three year period, a licensing authority must keep its policy under review and make such revisions to it, at such times, as it considers appropriate.''

We have there in the Bill the wherewithal for authorities to react to changes in circumstances, which the Minister mentioned. The question of why we should have a formal three-year assessment is still not answered.

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

In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has made the case. Few changes and little tweaking may be required, but three years is a good period for a local authority to ensure that its licensing policy reflects any changes that may have taken place.

To ensure full consultation and an open and transparent process, the Secretary of State will be able to set, through secondary legislation, a framework of rules to apply to the determination and revision of that policy. Subsection (7), with which amendment No. 80 deals, provides the means through which the Secretary of State may set out such a framework to ensure that there is a level playing field. It is intended that licensing authorities will have considerable latitude within that framework to give them the flexibility to tackle the needs of local individuals and businesses. The regulations could cover, for example, the way in which policies should be drawn up and revised, but they will not dictate the content of the policy.

I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

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

I apologise for being slightly late this afternoon, Mr. Gale.

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 135 to 138, which deal with cumulative effect and saturation. Notwithstanding the words of encouragement from the Minister on the allowance for local authorities to have their own policies in place, there are some grave concerns, particularly in the parts of central London that I represent. I suspect that they are replicated all over the country in stress areas of the large-scale alcohol and entertainment industry.

Interestingly, entertainment saturation is one issue that has failed to be addressed in the draft London plan put forward by the Mayor of London and undergoing extensive consultation, much of which involves a sensible sense of vision—I fear that that will not necessarily be executed under the current incumbent. There is little doubt that deregulation and changing lifestyles have resulted in entertainment venues staying open longer and closing later at night than ever before. The growth in the late-night economy means that more people are out at night and that in turn has led to an over-concentration of entertainment venues in particular areas at the expense of residential and other business users.

Residential users have not gone away. They remain an active part of life in many cities and it is important therefore that fuller emphasis is given to entertainment saturation when setting up a statement of licensing

policy. As I have said, there is a concern that the proposals in the Bill are overly prescriptive. Inevitably, there will be some opportunity for local authorities to have some say, but the worry is that we are tweaking at the edges rather than fundamentally reviewing the effects of cumulative impact and saturation.

Obviously, the Government have listened and I give the Department some credit for listening. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear!''] I hasten to add that ''some'' is the operative word. One does not know for what I was about to give credit—perhaps I should stay silent on that point. That is always best, rather than putting both my feet into it.

The Government have partially reversed their position and accepted that it is necessary for some licensing authorities to be able to deal with the overall problem of saturation. There is still a concern that there may be too great a concentration of licensed premises in particular areas. I appreciate that there is a danger that that may sound like special pleading and I accept that Soho and Covent Garden in my constituency are not typical areas. They are exceptional areas and it would be wrong to couch the whole of the Licensing Bill with Soho and Covent Garden and nothing else at all in mind. However, it would equally be a concern if the Bill ignored the residential interests in our inner cities.

All hon. Members are committed to the rebuilding of our inner cities. Indeed, some cities have already made considerable progress. One needs only to look at the centre of Manchester or Liverpool, which had become extremely derelict by the 1980s. In the past decade, under Governments of both colours, there have been significant improvements in those areas and their vibrancy should not be lessened.

We do not want an overly restrictive licensing regime, but if those areas are to continue to thrive and to have an active residential population, it is important that some balance is reached. There is understandable concern about saturation and the need to give the licensing authority some safeguards so that it can take account of cumulative effect.

The Minister will rightly point out that some of those matters are in the hands of planning authorities. It is perhaps idealistic to assume that planning and licensing will be two entirely discrete areas. I very much agreed when the Minister said this morning that the last thing that business or, for that matter, anyone else wanted was an uncertainty of regime, in which the authority gets a second bite of the cherry and can say, ''We lost as far as planning is concerned, but we will now throw the licensing book at you.'' That would be wrong, but one must accept that planning and licensing matters will not be entirely divorced from one another, particularly when it comes to aspects such as the saturation that affects many of our larger cities.

I hope that the Minister will give considerable thought to the representations that he will continue to receive on the matter and that there will be no question that local authorities, particularly in the middle of our bigger cities, will be able to consider cumulative effect and saturation in drawing up their policy; in other

words, that they will be given an opportunity to devise a statement of licensing policy under clause 6 that will take account of local factors that may not necessarily be widely seen throughout the rest of the country. Without that safeguard there is an understandably real fear that some of the good intentions underlying the Bill will come to naught.

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

The amendments deal with concerns about cumulative impact and saturation. I understand the thinking behind them, but I remind the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), as he has reminded the Committee, that we have developed the policy since the Bill was published to deal with those concerns. We have tabled amendments to tackle them and we have also promised to tackle them through statutory guidance and have published a draft of what that guidance might say. Our changes make the proposed amendments unnecessary.

Amendment No. 135, which would affect the provision in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, would single out areas that do not in themselves comprise licensing objectives. It is not the purpose of the delegated power to prescribe the content of a licensing authority's policy with respect to the exercise of its licensing functions. The management of cumulative effect and saturation is not in itself a licensing function, as the hon. Gentleman told us.

The Bill tries to establish a workable and effective balance between the rights and interests of local people and businesses and those of licensees and the industry. The Bill provides for authorities, such as the police, fire and environmental health, as well as local residents and businesses to have a say. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise businesses because some will be keen to see a number of new licensed premises in the area. He mentioned Manchester and a number other cities where the big pub chains and developers in that sector of the economy are clearly, almost single-handedly in some places, responsible for the rehabilitation of the areas that he described. That is an important consideration. We certainly do not want that to be blighted or stymied in any way.

The Bill provides for those authorities to have a say in all applications for provisional statements, applications for new licences, and applications to vary operating conditions, and to call for the review of existing licences. When one of the authorities makes a relevant representation, a hearing will be held. The necessary and proportionate conditions can be attached to the licence or statement to meet any relevant concerns.

We have introduced a package of measures to allow licensing authorities to deal effectively with cumulative effect. For example, as a result of a Government amendment that was accepted in another place on Report, we have added the local planning authority to the list of responsible authorities identified in the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know, because he will have been lobbied as hard as I have been by the licensing industry, that they are suspicious and worried

about that. I made a point of saying this morning that there must be some degree of proportionality. We cannot have companies spending huge amounts of money going through planning processes only for the result of that process to be blocked further down the line on the whim of a local authority. It is important to remember that.

A further Government amendment places a duty on the licensing committee to consider reports from other local authority committees where a matter that relates to a licensing function and another function of the authority is referred to the licensing committee. In effect, that means that if the licensing committee were considering a licensing matter on which representations had been received about saturation from, say, the local planning authority, it would consider a report on the matter before arriving at a decision. That is a big step forward and a variation in the way the Bill was originally framed. It will ensure that all relevant factors, including cumulative effect where that has an impact on the licensing objectives, can be taken fully into account. In guidance, we make it clear that licensing authorities will be in a position to take the cumulative effect of licensed premises into account where that exists and where it has an impact on the licensing objectives.

As the hon. Gentleman said, each application would need to be considered individually because there will be some good applications which will do a great deal, even for areas where there may already be many licensed premises. For example, a good quality restaurant or music venue—instead of what we have referred to as vertical drinking establishments—might add to the existing mix, which will be welcome. Cities in Europe often have a greater cluster of licensed establishments, but the mix is inevitably greater. That is a civilising influence—I make no excuse for using those words—which makes the environment more attractive for all sorts of people, including young people aged between 18 and 24 who want to become legless and fall over before 11 o'clock. The licensing authority would still have the power to refuse to grant a licence or issue a statement on the basis of cumulative effect when it would impact on the licensing objectives.

We want business to thrive for the sake of investment, employment and local and national economies, and not to be subject to unnecessary burdens or restrictions. That is why, when no representations are made, no hearing will be required. It is also why representations will not be considered when they are not related to the likely impact of the grant of the licence or its variation on the licensing objectives, or when the same representations are made repeatedly, frivolously or vexatiously. Frankly, I believe that when a licensing authority has gone to the trouble of framing an effective policy and, among other things, makes reference to local problems of saturation in respect of certain types of licensed premises, it is improbable that an application would be granted without any representation.

I hope that I have given the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire the reassurance he seeks and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister's counter-argument to amendment No. 75 that we should look again at the mandatory three-year review is that he believes that it is a pretty good period. We also believe that it is a pretty good period, but that does not mean that we should pluck ''three'' out of the air and shove it into the Bill.

I come to some amendments with a more rational approach. The Minister admitted that the reviews will not be coterminous and if part of the objective behind the Bill is to look at crime, disorder, nuisance and such problems, it would have been sensible to tie that in so that both reviews were considered at the same time. However, I take on board the Minister's response to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 76, in

clause 6, page 4, line 3, leave out from 'section' to end of line 6 and insert 'relevant period' means—

(a) in the case of a council whose members are wholly or partly elected every four years, a period of four years beginning with the date of coming into force of this Act;

(b) in the case of council whose members are wholly or partly elected every three years, a period of three years beginning with the date of coming into force of this Act.'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 77, in

clause 6, page 4, line 7, leave out 'three year' and insert 'relevant'.

Amendment No. 78, in

clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out 'three year' and insert 'relevant'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

As I mentioned, the amendments follow on from the group that we have just discussed. Amendment No. 76 is sensible and pragmatic and has the support of many local authorities and councillors as well as the Beer and Pub Association, so there is also support for it within the industry. It would require the licensing policy review to be tied in with the four-yearly elections to any council when the composition of the council and its political hue might change and, therefore, the outlook on licensing policy might also change. It provides that when a council is reconstituted with new councillors after a democratic election, it should consider its licensing policy. It may well consider all sorts of other things—in fact, new councils invariably do—but that would be a logical time to sit down and consider licensing policies. Depending on the political composition of that council, it may take a different view, but it should at least communicate its policy clearly and unequivocally.

The amendment would allow four-yearly reviews that tie in with local elections. After all, the Government have argued consistently that the Bill is a shift to a more democratic system, not least because licences are going to be issued by local authorities as opposed to magistrates. People will have a democratic opportunity to oppose and object in a way that they are not allowed to at the moment. The Bill is couched

in terms of allowing better representation for ordinary voters who vote in council elections, who will determine the licensing policy.

The amendment is logical and the Government in their over-prescription—by determining the three-year period and whom councils should consult—are overriding the flexibility and local democratic input that local authorities feel is very important.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I support the amendment. Before he moved it, I was scribbling some notes on the possible impact of a three-year rule.

Elections are taking place later this year in many districts throughout the country. They will take place again in 2007 and 2011. The Bill may come into effect in 2004, which will mean that the triennial review of the licensing policy will take place in 2007. That is wonderful because it will coincide with local elections, but the next triennial review will take place in 2010. It is almost inconceivable that a group taking control of a local authority in 2011 would not want to review at other points, even if there were no other reasons for reviewing the licensing policy. They would then undertake a review in 2011, but the next triennial review would come up in 2013. The subsequent local elections would be in 2015. We are going to end up with a series of staggered reviews.

Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot see any opportunity for getting out of that three-year round—based on the date when the Bill takes effect—even if there is a further and perhaps just as broadly based and widely encompassing review between the triennial reviews. A council cannot say, ''We have done a review that is good enough. We can leave the arrangements as they are for another three years or until we feel it is necessary.'' The provision is simply an example of the Government being over-prescriptive. I agree with my hon. Friend.

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

This is a question of balance. Industry would like a period longer than three years. Some local authorities would like the review to be more frequent. In the Government's view, three years strikes the right balance. I hope that in the light of the longer debate that we had earlier—I have nothing new to add—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister did not use the words ''a pretty good figure'' again. He avoided that. We are still not persuaded by the Government's arguments. In my discussions with local authorities, I have not come across anyone representing the Local Government Association or local authorities who wanted the period to be shorter than three years. Most of them wanted a longer period before the review took place. The Government are obviously not going to move on this point and there are other more important things to discuss, however. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in

clause 6, page 4, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'businesses' in line 18 and insert—

'(c) holders of premises licences issued by that authority;

(d) holders of club premises certificates issued by that authority;

(e) holders of personal licences living in or carrying on business in the area of that authority; and

(f) '.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 103, in

clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out 'issued by' and insert

'resident in or carrying on business in the area of'.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

This matter is only one marginal step up the pecking order of what matters are more important for discussion. I do not claim that it is of huge importance, but it illustrates the Government's approach and, perhaps, that of some local authorities although I am not sure about that.

The question is whether a local licensing authority should be required to consult representative bodies—or such persons as it thinks are representative—or the people whom its policies affect. Amendment No. 104 simply removes from clause 6(3)(c), (d) and (e) the words

''such persons as the licensing authority considers to be representative of''.

That means that the authority would be required to consult the holders of premises licences, club licences and personal licences, not their representatives. Under amendment No. 103, it would be required to consult the holders of personal licences

''resident in or carrying on business in''

the local authority area.

The amendments were drafted when there was still a central licensing authority in the Bill, but it still seems appropriate that, even where a personal licence is issued by another authority, all personal licensees responsible for premises in the area of the licensing authority should be consulted.

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

The Bill has been drafted to give licensing authorities the flexibility to decide who are the appropriate people or bodies to represent licence holders in local circumstances. It has been drafted to balance the requirement that consultation should be open, transparent and thorough with the need to guard against it becoming an unnecessarily lengthy, bureaucratic and costly exercise. I hope that I can convince the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 103, although laudable in its aim, is a little misconceived. The statement of licensing policy will in most cases set out the policy on personal licences by the licensing authority, rather than on how individual personal licence holders resident in the licensing authority's area go about their business. That aspect of licensing will be managed largely through the operation of premises licences, rather than personal licences. It therefore makes sense to consult those to whom the licensing authority has issued personal licences.

In addition, many personal licence holders may live or work in the relevant licensing authority area, but by no means all of them would be specified on a premises licence for premises in the area. They might not even

work in the area. The licensing authority would not know who those individuals were or at which premises they were working. If a personal licence holder is resident in the area, the Bill already identifies them as a consultee—as a person or persons considered representative of businesses and residents in the area.

Furthermore, under the system set out in the Bill, the licensing authority that issues a personal licence continues, throughout the life of that licence, to function as the relevant licensing authority. Developments in licensing authority policies may affect holders of personal licences issued by that authority, so it is only right that they should be consulted on any such developments. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I am perplexed by subsection (3)(e). If Fareham borough council issued a personal licence to someone who then moved to Newcastle, or became the licensee of the village inn in Sacriston, who would Fareham borough council contact as the representative of that person no longer resident in the borough?

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

When the personal licence holder was appointed as the designated premises supervisor, he or she would have been registered with the licensing authority as the person who should be contacted with respect to whatever was going on in that licensed premises. They would be that person.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I call the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to reply.

Mr. Moss rose—

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. I am sorry. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has to reply.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is not the only one who is confused. I was confused not by you, Mr. Gale, but by the Minister's reply. I accept that amendment No. 103 is redundant because the central licensing authority has disappeared, but the situation is hard to understand and perhaps he will clarify it. Does the clause require the authority only to consult persons who are representative or can it consult licence holders? Does the clause include all licence holders if that is what the local authority has decided? If that is so, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

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

I am happy to answer that question. In preparing its policy, the licensing authority is required by the clause to consult various bodies: the police, the fire authority, representatives of personal licence holders, premises licence holders, club premises certificate holders, representatives of business and residents. Those consultees have been described to ensure that there is consistent and full consultation from licensing authority to licensing authority. The bodies will have to be consulted regardless of local circumstances and the individual decision of a licensing authority. That will help to ensure that policies are determined following the fully informed input of the stakeholders in the industry and both professional and local experts.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for that answer, which is informative but not so informative that it answers the question. Do such persons include the licence holders? Is an authority permitted under the clause to consult everyone who holds a licence at a particular time?

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

Yes. If the licensing authority believed that the appointed representative of the personal licence holders was someone whom they did not believe reflected what personal licence holders in that area actually felt about an issue, there is nothing stopping them from contacting the personal licence holders directly. I hope that that is clear enough for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.