Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 82, in

clause 10, page 6, line 17, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (2A),'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 83, in

clause 10, page 6, line 26, at end insert—

'(2A) Regulations made under subsection (2) may not make provision for—

(a) the public to be excluded from any meeting of a licensing committee or subcommittee, or

(b) the public to be denied access to the agendas and records produced in respect of those buildings.'.

Amendment No. 139, in

clause 10, page 6, line 26, at end insert—

'(2A) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall as far as possible have the effect of the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act.'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 deal with the power delegated to the Secretary of State under the clause, which may—I use that word judiciously—prevent the public from attending licensing hearings. Under current legislation, magistrates are the licensing authorities and the public are rightly allowed to attend the licensing proceedings, which ensures the openness and accountability of the system. The potential is there, through the instigation of the clause, for closed-door decisions.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform highlighted such matters as a cause of potential concern. Its recent report stated:

''Clause 9 enables regulations (subject to negative procedure) to make provisions about proceedings of licensing committees and their sub-committees. Matters such as public access and publicity for local authority committees are already provided for in primary legislation (e.g. Part VA of the Local Authority Act 1972). The House may wish to enquire what use might be made of this power as the regulations could not override primary legislations.''

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport responded by saying:

''Given the administrative nature of these matters and the fact that in many respects the proceedings of the licensing committees will be determined by local authorities' own standing orders, it appears sensible and appropriate for these matters to be left to secondary legislation, and for the negative resolution procedure to apply.''

The Government do not recognise the importance of such matters in their response to the Select Committee, especially in the light of their need to

provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to regulate the conduct of licensing committees. The Select Committee did not receive an adequate response about what use may be made of the Secretary of State's powers, given that the regulations are necessarily overridden by the primary legislation.

Why is the provision included in the Bill, when the powers delegated to the Minister by its inclusion cannot override the Local Government Act 1972 and other legislation? What use would such regulations be in that case?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I apologise to the Committee for having arrived after my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) had started speaking.

Amendment No. 139 has an objective similar to that of amendments Nos. 82 and 83, but its approach is slightly different. I want to ensure that as far as possible, regulations should be the same when applied to different local authority committees. I was surprised that the Minister felt it necessary to give himself the power to write regulations in respect of the conduct of what is, after all—if I may use this term—a bog standard local authority committee.

We already have licensing panels and planning committees, and they exercise quasi-judicial functions. I find it difficult to understand what additional regulation could be required. Is the Minister proposing a different regime, and would it be more difficult, for example, to require a licensing committee or sub-committee to have the same notice provisions as other committees? Is he proposing that public access to papers should be restricted on other grounds than those that apply to other committees?

I am concerned that members of the public might be confused about whether they have the same rights of access to information about applications for licences as for other proceedings of local authority committees. I am sure that the Minister will demonstrate that a range of different arrangements are necessary, but I have not yet seen anything to convince me of that.

There is another issue. It is not whether the Minister will detract from the general basis of local government legislation—for example, by restricting access to information, or by not requiring licensing committees to give the same notice or have the same quorums as other committees—but whether he will go further. I gently encourage him to do so in one respect—in defining the word ''urgent''. It is defined in regulations covering school governing bodies, but not in general local government legislation. It is important that we understand what ''urgent'' means, particularly as at our previous sitting the Minister prevailed upon me to withdraw my amendment about urgency. Perhaps he will be prepared to make such a provision himself.

At the moment, ''urgent'' can be—and, as I know to my cost, is—interpreted by committee chairmen in local government to mean that when officers cannot, for some reason, get a report out in time, they can say, ''We'll pop it on the table five minutes before the meeting, and that will be adequate, because it is 'urgent' ''. That denies the public, and councillors,

reasonable opportunity to scrutinise and question reports that come before committees.

One can imagine what would happen if the licensing policy were cooked up by the chairman and two officers five minutes before a meeting and then handed to the licensing authority. Those who drafted it might say, five minutes before the meeting, ''We've been drafting this for a long time, and this is the draft available now. We've got to get it all done within six months because the Government say so. Take it or leave it.'' That, I regret to say, is the approach of the ruling groups on some local authorities. That is why it is important to have a definition of urgency.

I will not give examples, because I do not wish to upset any member of the Committee, but it is a fact that the chairmen of ruling groups on some local authorities—and, indeed, some officers, following the rather poor example of their chairmen—tend to adopt that approach. In school government regulations, an urgent matter is defined as one that is so urgent that it would not be possible to call a further meeting of the committee of the governing body to consider an issue. In other words, something is urgent if it would be impossible to call another meeting before the time limit was up.

However, in local government more generally, it is possible for people to say, ''We're not going to have another meeting for three months''—or a month, or whatever—''We've got to cram this item into the agenda, despite the fact that notice wasn't given, that the papers aren't available and members of the public may not be able to scrutinise it.''

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, and I wonder whether he could give an example. When I, like many hon. Members, served in local government we were quietly governed by the standing orders and offers of advice from the chief legal officer, which would not have allowed us to simply bang such a thing on the agenda at the last minute without notice.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I only wish that the standards adopted by the hon. Gentleman and the local authorities with which he has been connected were general throughout the country, but they are not—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) says that they are, but they are not. Local authority officers allow such things all too frequently. I have said that I am not going to embarrass Committee members by talking about any political party—although the Minister himself pointed in the direction of a particular political party a moment ago.

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

All too often, where there is a culture of allowing decisions to be made under delegated powers, urgent decisions are made and ratified at the next full committee meeting. That applies especially to planning committees now, and it could apply to licensing committees unless there is a tightening up along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I agree that matters can be considered under delegated powers. Of course, a decision made

under those powers before the introduction of the new arrangements for local authorities would have been a decision by officers, who tended to consult the chairman of the committee first, to see whether he could deliver a majority for that decision and ratify it in due course. The chairman would then make the decision and bounce it through the committee six months later on the grounds that it had already been made and it was all water under bridge, so it was too late.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

I am not sure in what strange councils Conservative members have been operating. Perhaps they could give an example of a planning application, or any controversial decision, being dealt with under delegated powers. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give an example of the things he mentions actually being done.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Small variations in planning consent issues are frequently made by officers under delegated powers, but that does not mean they have not consulted the chairman to check that he will, some way down the road, deliver a majority for a decision.

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

In the lodge.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am not sure whether the lodge to which the Minister refers is a masonic lodge, or some kind of building.

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

An NUM lodge.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am not familiar with such a building.

We need a framework that, on the one hand, does not depart so far from general local government law as to confuse members of the public—that is why I tabled my amendments in the form I did—but which, on the other hand, defines those things that are not defined in general local government law. Does the Minister intend to take advantage of the powers with which he intends to vest himself, and define urgency? That is one of the most important aspects that he might wish to define under the powers.

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

Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 seek to make compulsory public access to all meetings of the licensing committee and to all agendas and documentation produced in the meetings.

The approach taken throughout the Bill, which is accepted by the Regulatory Reform Committee, is to leave technical, procedural and administrative matters to secondary legislation—where appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) reminded us, those will, in some cases, be determined by the standing orders of local authorities. I assure the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that we take the Select Committee's words seriously. One does not get far with legislation in the House if one offends my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who chairs that Committee.

Our approach ensures that there is sufficient flexibility to respond to changes and act quickly in the light of experience, if necessary. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State may make regulations providing for, among other things, public access to meetings and records of meetings. The negative resolution procedure

will apply to the secondary legislation, which we aim to publish in the early summer. There may be some occasions when it might be inappropriate for the public to have access to meetings. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman hinted at that. For example, when commercial confidentiality is involved, public access could inhibit free and open discussion.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Does the Minister accept that that is already covered by general local government legislation?

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

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot allow a local authority to improvise on a theme, when he has just condemned that practice in some instances. He has made my point—there must be flexibility. That is precisely what we are trying to enshrine in the clause. The Bill is drafted to ensure that that the necessary flexibility in respect of licensing committees will be of benefit to local authorities and to residents.

Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)

Perhaps I can help the Committee by asking a question. In the event of a conflict between the Bill and a council's standing orders, which would take precedence?

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

That would have to depend on the case in point, on the circumstances and on the representations that might be made to the Secretary of State on that issue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want central Government to determine matters that could often easily be handled by the local authority itself, and which are now handled by local authorities on a day-to-day basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those procedures will be made clear in the regulations.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

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

In a moment. First I want to respond to the points that were made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. The existence of the power does not mean that it will be used, or be used for all the matters described. In the absence of provisions in the regulations, and subject to provisions under subsection (3), it is clear that the licensing committee will regulate its own procedure.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

Can the Minister assure the Committee that if regulations are made about public access to meetings and agendas, the presumption must be that those meetings will be held in public, and agendas will be publicly available? The Bill is trying to encourage more public involvement in licensing decisions. If we do not make that presumption, the danger is that people will feel excluded from the process.

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

Yes, indeed; that is a fair point. The presumption must always be that we have as much access and openness in those matters as possible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, rather than see a drift towards secrecy and denying people access to something as important as permissions and the granting of licences, the presumption must be the other way.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I alluded to the fact that hearings in front of magistrates in respect of licences for alcohol

are open to the public now. Can the Minister confirm that? What has prompted his Department to include the subsection in the clause? Is it to do with licensing alone, or is there similar legislation that affects local authorities—not just their licensing committees—and the way in which they run themselves, and affects their standing orders?

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

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman about other legislation affecting local authorities. I have lived and breathed the Bill, and I am not aware whether there are moves in the same direction in other Departments. I will make investigations if he wants, and I will give him anything that I come up with.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for offering that help and advice, but by the time it arrives we will have moved on from clause 10 and will not be able to continue debating this critical issue. If we are witnessing a Government move to try to slip something into the Bill, they may to do the same with other Bills. It is a fairly draconian move on the part of Government to give a Secretary of State of any Department the licence—if I may use that word—and the flexibility to intervene in all sorts of things that the Government feel that local government is not doing properly. That undermines, or could undermine, the basis of local government.

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

There is no reason why the public should be excluded as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) suggests. Clause 6 places a positive duty on the licensing authority to consult representatives of local residents on statements of licensing policy. That is standard practice. There are situations in which some local government committees do not meet in public. I am thinking of social services meetings, where issues of a sensitive nature that involve individual families and children may be discussed, and to which the public are not admitted. We must bear that in mind.

Mr. Turner rose—

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

I must make a little progress, but I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

The intention of amendment No. 139 appears to be to ensure that any regulations made under the delegated powers in the clause that relates to the proceedings of licensing committees are in accordance with existing local government legislation covering that area. The amendment does not specify which Local Government Act, or which provisions, it is referring to. That is important because the amendment should be resisted on that basis alone. However, it is also unnecessary. Any provision in local government legislation that impacts on committee proceedings will apply under the new system unless there are specific provisions to the contrary in the Bill. After those reassurances, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

That is a wholly unsatisfactory response, and I shall explain why. The Minister said that local government legislation would apply unless there were alternative provisions in the Bill. Those provisions are in clause 10(3):

''Subject to any such regulations, each licensing committee may regulate its own procedure''.

That is an alternative provision in the Bill. It means, in the Minister's own words, that the provisions of Local Government Acts do not apply, because alternative provision will exist in this primary legislation, which will allow each licensing committee to regulate its own procedures, and that of its sub-committees. Unless the Minister makes regulations, the licensing committee may meet in secret, without giving any notice of its meetings and without publishing any of the papers relating to its meetings.

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

I replied to the intervention by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) by saying that the Government would issue regulations—and those regulations will be clear on that point.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I accept that, but I am trying to understand why the Minister feels it necessary to demolish a whole set of local government legislation in subsection (3), which is about committee procedure, yet re-erect it by allowing, under subsection (2), regulations that may differ from normal local government procedure. That seems an entirely circular and time-wasting process. What is more, if the Government omit something that is in normal local government legislation, confusion will arise among members of the public as to what applies and what does not.

The Minister drew on my example of consultation before the statement on licensing was produced. I said that unless there was a definition of urgency, the local authority's officers could, having taken account of consultation, and in consultation with the chairman of the appropriate committee, amend the draft licensing statement and put it on the table five minutes before the authority met to approve the statement. I accept that I gave an extravagant example—

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

The hon. Gentleman has accused me of doing that.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I have, because throughout the proceedings on the Bill, the Minister has taken the most extreme examples of bad behaviour by the promoters of public entertainment and used them as a reason to legislate them to death. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire describes this as a Sodom and Gomorrah syndrome.

My example of the foolish behaviour by local authorities that is possible under the Bill is no more extravagant than the Minister's examples, but still he chastises me. Unfortunately, extravagant behaviour is not limited to the promoters of public entertainment. It is occasionally found among local authority officers and members, especially in places where tradition is lax, and in my experience, there are parts of the country where that is the case. The further one goes from metropolitan areas—

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

Watch what you are saying.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am not talking about Wales.

The further one moves away from a tendency to examine the detail of the legislation, the more likely it is that things drift and become lax.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the further we go from London into the sticks, the thicker the councillors are?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I accept that challenge, because it is sensible. I was talking about metropolitan areas, because I accept that near Newcastle, for example, there may be areas that are fairly metropolitan and influenced by metropolitan good practice.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Wait a moment, or I will forget what I wanted to say.

We find a tendency in some areas for people to be a bit more lax about the details of legislation. For example, morris dancing is not licensed in my authority area.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

It should be.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

My local councillors and officers have adopted a sensible and sane approach by not bothering about every detail of the legislation concerned—but I would not recommend that, because they should ensure that legislation is applied properly.

I shall now give way to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight).

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is digging well enough on his own.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

My point is that in some areas, application of the legislation is a bit lax. Given a loophole, councillors will occasionally sneak things through it—just as, in the mind of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), the promoters of public entertainment do.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

North Durham.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am sorry for that confusion; one Member here represents Devon and one represents Durham.

I hope that I have illustrated why the Minister's answer was inadequate. He has allowed for an escape route; he has demolished the whole of local government legislation, yet proposes, under subsection (2), to reinstate it. However, will it be reinstated in a manner that is confusing to members of the public? Regulations for the licensing committee will be different from those for other committees.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Select Committee gave us a clear steer on this when it said:

''The House may wish to enquire what use might be made of this power as the regulations could not override primary legislation.''

A wink is as good as a nod. The Government regard subsection (2) as the thin end of a big wedge. We accept that there may be occasions when the public should not participate in certain meetings. The Minister cited an example of matters concerning social services. However, his Department wants to take powers to itself to determine how committees and sub-committees of local authorities should operate.

That is a whole new ball game. It takes us into all sorts of areas. Why does the Department consider it necessary to put such provisions into the Bill?

I accept that the word used is ''may'', but we all know that that usually leads to the provisions being implemented. The Minister and the Department say that such provisions are a light regulatory touch, designed to make it easier for things to happen. They say that they do not want them to be too onerous, and that they want a reasonable fee structure, but such matters are still left in the air. I accept that the Bill can be promoted as a positive social measure, but the words used could lead to problems and difficulties. They are so prescriptive that they leave me speechless.

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

Not quite.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The words in the clause run counter to the stated aim of the Bill, which is to give local authorities more power by making them the licensing authorities for alcohol. The Government are giving local authorities more power under one part of the Bill, yet at the same time they are saying that they do not really trust the authorities to do the job properly. A provision will be left in the Bill so that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can intervene and set down requirements and provisions that may run counter to the local authorities' standing orders.

It is no good saying that each licensing committee may regulate its own procedures and those of its sub-committees, subject to the regulations that the Government may impose. That is not good enough because if they wanted to, the Government could take over all the responsibilities. The Minister has not attempted to answer a fundamental question. If he will not do so, I shall have to wait for his written answer. These are probing amendments, designed to enable such crucial matters to be debated. If we do not receive satisfaction in Committee, we shall return to the matter on Report.

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

Clause 10(3) does not demolish local government procedure. Under the Local Government Act 1972, there is a presumption that the proceedings of local authority committees will be open to the public, but that is subject to specific provisions under other legislation that covers certain functions. When the hon. Gentleman asked about occasions when proceedings would not be open to the public, I referred to social services, but there could be other examples.

Exceptional circumstances might occur with regard to licensing—for example, if a licence were being reviewed because a serious crime had taken place on the premises. When I was in Manchester, the police told me of cases when drugs had been put into the glasses of young women and rapes had taken place near the premises. In one terrible instance, a rape had taken place on the premises. When a rape had taken place on licensed premises and the identities of individuals needed to be protected to prevent judicial proceedings from being prejudiced, a degree of security that is not normal in local authorities may need to surround the hearing.

It is precisely to counter the level of inconsistency in some circumstances that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to that we seek to regulate some aspects. We must remember that we are talking about a new licensing function for local authorities, and a new committee procedure. That is why we see fit to include the provisions in the Bill.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

We still have not received the answers that we seek. I am pretty sure in my own mind that standing orders of my local authority allow it to go into closed session if that is deemed necessary and in the public interest.

The clause deals with more than public access to meetings. Subsection (2) could lead to a whole raft of interference in the standing orders of local authorities with regard to what they can and cannot do. One wonders why that applies just to licensing and not to all sorts of other areas of local authority responsibility.

I said that the amendments were probing, and there has been a good discussion, but we shall return to the matter because we are dissatisfied with the answers given so far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.