Clause 14 - Authorised persons, interested persons and responsible authorities
Licensing Bill [Lords]
Public Bill Committees, 10 April 2003, 10:00 am
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 178, in
clause 14, page 8, line 42, leave out from 'person' to end of line 45 and insert
'or a representative of a business or body whether incorporated or otherwise likely (in his opinion) to be affected by the grant or rejection of an application,'.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
It may be helpful to the Committee, if I offer an explanation of the grouping of amendments under clause 14. Members will note that with Government amendment No. 11, I have grouped Government amendment No. 15 and the stand part debates on clauses 143 and 151. My antennae have picked up that one or two people have been wondering why those are so grouped. The answer is that Government amendment No. 11 deals, under the terms of clause 14, with matters relating to children, as does amendment No. 15, which applies to a later
clause. The two stand part debates also refer to matters specifically relating to children.
The Chair groups amendments to facilitate a broad debate on related subjects. As this is the first occasion on which such an issue has been introduced, the Clerk and I felt it appropriate to stimulate debate now rather than later; otherwise, it is clear that we shall have the same debate three times. What I am saying to the Committee is that this is its chance to talk about kids.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)
On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Can I confirm that if we later want to table amendments to clauses 143 and 151, we will be entitled to do so, or is now our one and only opportunity?
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
It is in order for the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member to table amendments to relevant clauses, but at the end of the debates on those amendments there will not be a stand part debate because we are having it this morning.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
Amendment No. 178 deals with the narrow description of an interested party. I shall furnish an example of an interested party that in my opinion, is not covered by paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3). It is certainly not covered by paragraph (e) and would be even less covered by it should the Minister achieve his objective of removing that paragraph. The example is a hospital. A hospital is not a person; it is not
''a body representing persons who live in that vicinity'';
or
''a person involved in a business'',
unless, of course, it is private hospital; or
''a body representing persons involved in such businesses''.
Neither is a national health service trust covered by subsection (4).
If someone—it might be not the Isle of Wight council, but a private individual—aimed to promote a pop concert or festival on land abutting a hospital, the representatives of that hospital would not be a relevant person or ''interested party'' in terms of objecting to the application. The subsection is drawn too narrowly and ought to include any body, whether an individual or a corporate or unincorporated body, that may be affected by an application.
I understand that there has been criticism from other sources of the use of the word ''vicinity'', because it does not mean a specific distance. Is the vicinity of the premises confined to the road or neighbourhood in which the premises are situated, or would it comprise the whole town or village in which they are situated? Is the vicinity the area over which one could hear amplified music, were the licence to be granted? If so, I understand from some of my constituents who were around at the time of the Isle of Wight pop festivals in the early 1970s that it was possible to hear the sound of the festival from Totland to Newport. For those who are not as familiar as the Minister with the geography of the Isle of Wight, that is a considerable distance. I understand that it took the Minister about an hour to traverse that distance by car last year.
Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)
I am not familiar with the distances on the Isle of Wight, but I am familiar with the fact that the Isle of Wight is opposite part of my constituency. Could the noise from the Isle of Wight pop festival have been heard in parts of Fareham? Would Fareham be in the vicinity of such a pop festival?
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
The pop festival was held at Afton farm in Freshwater, so although the sound could have been heard from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and possibly even from that of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), it is unlikely that it could have been heard in Fareham. Had the pop festival taken place in the grounds of Osborne house, which is not something to which I think that the Minister aspires, it is certainly possible that the sound would have been heard in Lee-on-the-Solent, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the adjoining villages in the southern and coastal parts of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). My hon. Friend does have a coastal part to his constituency.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. First, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that this cannot turn into a conversation. He is addressing a Committee. Secondly, although I am an ageing rocker and have an affinity with some of the things to which he is referring and a deep affection for the Isle of Wight, I have to say that he is going rather wide of the mark in defining the simple word ''vicinity''.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
That is my problem, Mr. Gale. How wide is the definition of that word?
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
May I help the hon. Gentleman? The word ''vicinity'' can mean an area and a neighbourhood. We have chosen not to define that in the Bill to allow for flexibility and responsiveness to circumstances. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to let the Committee know his views on the matter. I am sure he understands the logic from the point of view of those who attempt to administer difficult situations, which are sometimes—exceptionally—like the one he mentioned back in 1971.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I am pleased the Minister believes that the word ''vicinity'' may be interpreted flexibly by the licensing authority. I believe that the licensing authority will have to do that anyway. Certainly, it will have to err on the side of generosity to those making representations on the granting of a licence, rather than being unduly restrictive and determining that representations are not relevant under the Bill. That helps me considerably. I am also glad that we discussed the extent to which the sound—what some might call the noise—of the Isle of Wight pop festival could be heard on the mainland.
I have dealt with a side issue in my amendment and I revert now to its substance, which is that the Bill does not cover public bodies that are not businesses.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
This is intriguing, because I am not entirely familiar with the definitions. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman this: an NHS trust is in business. I assure him that hospitals will be able to make representations if they are in the vicinity and if members of the boards of hospitals happen to live locally there will be an additional means of representation. Perhaps that will help him in trying to understand that hospitals are incorporated in the Bill.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
That is helpful. Perhaps the Minister will also tell me whether Her Majesty's prisons of Parkhurst, Camp Hill and Albany are businesses for the purposes of the legislation and whether the proposed inhabitants of HMS Daedalus in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, who are likely to be asylum seekers, will be living in the vicinity.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the Committee that some of the expressions of contemporary culture, for example, Robbie Williams playing at a live concert on the Isle of Wight, could be considered as a form of torture by the inmates of the prisons he mentioned?
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. We are not going any further down this route. Even my legendary tolerance is being stretched. It would be a good idea to come back to the point.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I accept your guidance, Mr. Gale. My concern was not whether that might be torture, but whether a prison, a camp established for asylum seekers or a children's home is a business and therefore entitled to make representations under the proposed legislation.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
My advice is that the same arguments apply to prisons as apply to hospitals. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to give me a list of establishments about which he is worried. Children's homes certainly would be included and if asylum seekers were housed in some accommodation, they would be able to make representations if an application were put forward for such an event or licence.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
The Minister has demolished the case for the amendment, but this debate has been useful because he has put his interpretation on the record and that will be relevant in any judicial proceedings. Therefore, unless he wishes to speak, I will not press the amendment.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 10, in
clause 14, page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (e).
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 170, in
clause 14, page 9, line 1, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 2.
Amendment No. 179, in
clause 14, page 9, line 2, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 3 and insert
'local councillor of the local authority,
(f) the council for the parish (in England) or community (in Wales) in which the premises are situated.
(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3) ''local authority'' means the district or county (in England), county or county borough (in Wales), or London borough in which the premises are situated or the City of London or the area of the Council of the Isles of Scilly being the authority in which the premises are situated.'.
Amendment No. 180, in
clause 14, page 9, line 2, after second 'ward', insert 'or electoral division'.
Amendment No. 181, in
clause 14, page 9, line 2, leave out 'or ward' and insert ', ward or division'.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Clause 14 sets out those individuals and organisations that are the ''authorised person'', ''interested party'' and ''responsible authority'' for the purposes of the part of the Bill that deals with premises licences. It provides that ''interested party'' means any of the following:
''(a) a person living in the vicinity of the premises,
(b) a body representing persons who live in that vicinity,
(c) a person involved in a business in that vicinity,
(d) a body representing persons involved in such businesses,
(e) the Member of the European Parliament, the Member of Parliament and the local ward councillors for the constituency or ward in which the premises are situated.''
Members of the European Parliament, MPs and local ward councillors were added to that list by an amendment in another place. Government amendment No. 10 would remove them from the list. I note from amendment No. 170 that Conservative Committee members are almost but not quite of the same mind as the Government on this issue.
Under part 3 of the Bill, interested parties may make representations about applications for premises licences and may also apply to the relevant licensing authority for reviews of premises licences. Therefore, the amendment that was made in another place would allow MEPs, MPs and local ward councillors to make representations about applications for, and apply for reviews of, premises licences for any premises in their constituency or ward.
Hon. Members are aware that the Government strongly believe that the licensing system should be managed by democratically accountable bodies. That is why we are transferring responsibility for alcohol licensing from the licensing justices to local authorities. We also believe that local residents and businesses should be given the opportunity to have their say about the licensing of premises in their vicinity. That is why those groups are included in the list of interested parties. Any local business or resident living in the vicinity of the premises may use any representative to put their case. That could be a solicitor, friend or relative, an MP, a ward councillor, an MEP, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales or a body representing the amenity interests in the vicinity. However, why should any of those individuals have a say in their own right? In every case that I have cited,
''representative'' is the appropriate word. If no local resident or business in the vicinity wishes to exercise their right to make representations or apply for a review—they might be enormously pleased to see a new licensed premises opening nearby—who would the MP, for example, be representing?
I understand why many hon. Members might find the amendment that was made in another place attractive. When I read the initial drafts of the Bill, I exploded with self-important rage that I as an MP would not be able to come in on this, but a little later—after a full, frank and adult discussion—I saw the sense of what was being proposed.
I was interested in the different views that were expressed on this subject on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) said that he wanted to be able to do something about the representations on alcohol sales that he receives from his constituents. The Bill as originally drafted, and as it will stand, if amendment No. 10 is accepted, would allow him to represent them if they ask him to do so.
On the other hand, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) suggested that we should remove ''Member of Parliament'' from the list of interested parties and replace it with ''any peer of the realm living in the district in question''—which I thought was very witty. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not want to give peers a specific role in the new licensing system, but I hope that his suggestion shows that he agrees with our amendment.
The inclusion of councillors, MPs and MEPs makes sense. They are available if a local resident wishes to use their services, but they should not express views on a resident's behalf unless they have been consulted. We are given rights to make representations to protect those who are directly affected by the activities to be carried out on the premises concerned. It is not for others to tell residents that they know better.
I shall set out the Government's arguments on local ward councillors specifically, as they are the subject of amendment No. 170. The reasoning that I have already set out regarding MPs applies equally to ward councillors. They will be able to make representations if they live in the vicinity of the premises or if they are asked to do so on behalf of their constituents. However, they should not be able to exercise a veto over the wishes of local residents and businesses or to gainsay the views of experts on individual licence applications. There is also a danger that arming ward councillors with the power to make representations in their own right, even if they do not live near the premises concerned, would lead to a hearing in almost every application. That would significantly undermine the deregulatory gains and savings that the Bill is designed to deliver.
Similar arguments apply to parish councils and, in Wales, to community councils, which are the subject of amendment No. 179. Nevertheless, nothing in the Bill
prevents a parish council from becoming involved on behalf of a local resident or business if asked to do so.
Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 would increase the flexibility of the provision by incorporating the concept of the electoral division. I understand that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight tabled them to reflect the particular local authority arrangements in his constituency. In view of the Government's intention to remove ward councillors' ability to make representations, the amendments are unnecessary. I hope that they will be withdrawn and not pressed to a vote.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I shall speak to amendment No. 170, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say about Government amendment No. 10. We had a frank and adult discussion about it and I am persuaded of his case by the power of his argument.
As the Minister said, the Bill was amended in the other place. I understand that the circumstances in which the amendment was carried were not as would have been wished. I shall not go into details, but I believe that a break was required and, lo and behold, the vote was won during the break, although that was not necessarily the intention.
Conservatives certainly did not want MEPs or MPs to be directly involved, but we thought that ward councillors ought to be involved. As the Minister pointed out, if subsection (3)(e) is left in place, they will have the power to do that of their own volition rather than as representatives of local people. If, as the Minister says, ''a body representing persons'' in subsection (3)(b) covers ward councillors and MPs if they wish to become involved, we are happy.
Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
I support Government amendment No. 10, and I am delighted that they tabled it. When my noble friends came with beaming smiles to inform me that they had amended the Bill so as to add subsection (3)(e), I thanked them less than profusely. The idea that MPs should make representations simply because they are MPs is entirely wrong. I am sure that many members of the Committee, like me, become involved with planning problems from time to time. If constituents come to me with a planning issue, I make it as clear to them as I can that I am willing to make representations on their behalf. Occasionally, they say that that is not what they want; they want me to make representations on my own behalf. I explain to them that I will not do that, because I do not consider that I have any locus. If the planning application were for the building next door to where I live, I would complain as a private individual, not as a Member of Parliament, so the Government's line on the matter is right. The same argument would apply to the local ward councillor, which is why Government amendment No. 10 is a better solution than the alternatives in the same group.
The idea that the Member of the European Parliament should get involved borders on the insane. MEPs in the south-west cover 51 parliamentary constituencies. That they should be bothering themselves with the entertainments and
alcohol licences of every establishment in that area is completely ludicrous. I am delighted to see amendment No. 10 and support it wholeheartedly.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)
I confess that the comments of the hon. Member for North Devon sum up the absurdity of a system of proportional representation. List systems of large numbers of our so-called representatives are a core problem, especially with the European Parliament. In London, we have 10 MEPs who represent, in my view, absolutely nobody and nothing. No one knows who they are and there is no link to a vicinity or constituency. That is a worry and the hon. Gentleman is right—an MEP who happens to live in Penzance could be lobbied by a lot of residents outside Taunton about licensing-related issues.
I have one concern. I was glad to hear the Minister say that local councillors will be considered an ''interested party'' under clause 14 (3)(b) because they should have a say. All Members of Parliament are lobbied from time to time and, dare I say, just before general elections we all feel a greater obligation to get stuck in. During the last two weeks before the last general election, the biggest single issue in my constituency was a licensing and planning-related matter in Mayfair. I was dragged into it, slightly against my will, but it was an important issue. I wanted to do what I could to stand up for local residents but, as Members of Parliament, we should divorce ourselves in part from some decisions, especially those made by the local authority. If licensing becomes a matter for the local licensing authority rather than a magistrates court, that is even more reason for us to explain to our constituents that decisions are in the hands of another body. None the less, we should continue to bring to the attention of the local authority cases involving a great strength of interest, when constituents have made representations to us.
Under the current proposal, one might be left with an absurd situation. For example—I am sure that hon. Members can think of legion others—a local councillor who lives in one ward but represents another will have greater standing than the local councillor for that ward under this rule, because that person lives in the vicinity of the premises. I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that local ward councillors will be considered under subsection (3)(b) to be members of
''a body representing persons who live in that vicinity.''
Otherwise, an absurd situation might arise.
I can think of another example, although I accept that my constituency is an exception. As a person living in the vicinity of premises, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), who happens to be a Soho resident, could object strongly to a licensing application. I am sure that the hon. Lady has more sense than to get actively involved in such a matter, but she would have more standing than I would as the constituency Member of Parliament, which would seem absurd to many local Soho residents. Also, it may put me in a somewhat invidious position.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the sane advice given by the hon. Member for North
Devon. There is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman representing his constituents if they have asked him to raise the matter because they are worried about a licensing application. The provision would not place him at a disadvantage compared with someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, who has a very nice house in Soho.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)
It sounds as though the Minister has regularly attended the house on his fact-finding missions in Soho in the early hours of the morning.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
If only.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)
It must be that cantankerous husband of the hon. Member for Stevenage who prevents new Labourites from coming through the door of Meard street.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. There is a certain amount of personal grief that is best not discussed in public.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)
Or, indeed, where do we end?
I hope that the Minister will put on the record the fact that he will ensure that the interests of local ward councillors are taken into account, particularly those who happen not to live in the wards that they represent, or who work in larger rural areas, where living in the vicinity and living in the ward will be two separate things, compared with the situation of a councillor in central London. With that in mind, I endorse the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
For the sake of clarification, I am sure that the Minister can satisfy my worry about people living in the vicinity of the premises. They may not live in the area covered by the licensing authority. Under amendment No. 11, they would have to be recognised by the licensing authorities for that area for them to be considered as an interested party. Am I interpreting that correctly?
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. No, Mr. Sanders, we are on amendment No. 10. We will come to amendment No. 11—which will be a major debate—shortly.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I am happy with the Minister's introduction of his amendment. I understand that my amendments Nos. 179 to 181, now become redundant. However, I want to question one assumption that he makes. I suspect that the distinction may be too academic for most licensing authorities to consider that it is worth paying attention to. A councillor or for that matter a Member of Parliament, if he were so foolish as to become involved, is only representative of people if they have asked that representations be made. That seems to be the Minister's assumption, but it is one that I would question.
A Member of Parliament is ipso facto representative of his constituents. A councillor is ipso facto representative of his electors. That is the basis on which our representative democracy is established. It would be unfair and, indeed, invidious to say to a Member of Parliament, ''You must reveal the name of the person who has asked you to make representations on his behalf, otherwise we will not take account of your objection.'' I know that the Minister did not say that, but the only way to establish whether a Member of Parliament, or a councillor, is a representative of an individual or individuals, not the body of his electors, is to ask him in the remotest eventuality to reveal the name of the person who asked him to make representations. To determine whether a representation is relevant, such matters may be pursued in judicial proceedings
I accept the Minister's amendment, but my suspicion is that councils will tend to interpret the words
''a body representing persons who live in that vicinity''
as including councillors or Members of Parliament, even when they cannot say that they represent an individual or individuals, because their constitutional position is that they must represent their electors, regardless of whether those electors want them to do so on a particular matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 171, in
clause 14, page 9, leave out line 14.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Government amendment No. 120.
Government amendment No. 121.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The amendment would delete subsection (4)(e). Paragraph 6.61 of the guidance, on page 42, says:
''Licensing authorities may not initiate their own reviews of premises licences. It would be improper for the authority to lay allegations of its own and then determine the outcome of a hearing to consider them. Officers of the local authority such as environmental health officers, who are specified as responsible authorities under the Act, may however request reviews.''
Subsection (4) says that
'' 'Responsible authority' means any of the following . . .
(e) the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated'',
and clause 51(1) says:
''Where a premises licence has effect, an interested party or a responsible authority''—
and we know from clause 14(4)(e) that the local authority is deemed to be a responsible authority—
''may apply to the relevant licensing authority for a review of the licence.''
So the guidance notes tell us one thing and the Bill—in my humble interpretation—tells us another.
I am not sure what we are supposed to think. Is subsection (4)(e) the result of an amendment in another place? I do not know. It seems, from
Government amendment No. 120, that the Government recognise that they may have got it wrong.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to know that Government amendments Nos. 120 and 121 would restore the Bill to how it was prior to changes made in another place.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. The Government amendments are restoring the status quo. That implies that local authorities would be judge and jury in their own case and that, of course, would be unacceptable to the Opposition. We touched on that issue earlier. The Government have tabled other amendments on the issue in addition to No. 120 and no doubt we will have a protracted debate on the subject. We will have to wait and see what the Government have to say about their amendments, but as far as we are concerned, the guidance and the Bill contradict each other. Our amendment would change the situation so that the issue was clear to those interpreting the Bill and clear in terms of natural justice. Local authorities should not be judge and jury in their own cases.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
I have a similar question, but on Government amendment No. 121. The premises to be licensed might be based in one local authority, while across the road—over a border—there was another local authority that had functions relating to the concerns clearly laid out in the Bill. In those circumstances, the first authority is a responsible authority, but clearly not for determining the licence application. However, it could have a right to make representation to the other authority, which is determining the application. I am looking for clarity on whether such boundary disputes will crop up from time to time, whether in relation to councillors who represent an area that is slap bang next to a ward where an an application, which will impact on that area, is being determined; or in relation to clubs and societies that have defined boundaries and will which have rights as interested parties under the Bill, but not in the area that is determining the application because they are adjacent to it. I wonder how such disputes will be dealt with.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
The eagle eye of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire spotted the contradiction between the words in the Bill and those in the guidance. He is right: our amendment restores our former position by removing the tension between what is in the guidance and what is in the Bill.
On the Bill's definitions of responsible authorities, Government amendments Nos. 120 and 121 will restore the position prior to the changes accepted in another place. The responsible authorities described in clause 14 include the police, the fire authority, the enforcing authority for health and safety law,
''the local authority for the area in which the premises is situated'',
and
''any licensing authority . . . in whose area part of the premises is situated'',
including the one considering the application. Other authorities include various bodies relating to
applications involving vessels and other persons prescribed by the Secretary of State.
A responsible authority is essentially an expert body to be consulted on licensing objectives when an application is made. For example, the police will consider carefully the applicant's proposals for preventing crime and disorder on his premises. If they are adequate, the police will not need to intervene. If the police are dissatisfied with the proposals, they have every right to make representations to the licensing authority.
When the Bill was amended in another place, it removed the reference from the original text to environmental health officers. It is important that such officers are consulted because they have vital expertise, for example in noise nuisance. They need to scrutinise the steps an applicant intends to take to prevent nuisance, and Government amendment No. 120 would restore them to the list.
Amendments in another place also replaced environmental health officers with a description of the local authority in which the premises are situated. The local authority is the licensing authority and the effect of including it is to allow it to consult itself and therefore make representations to itself. Although I welcome the fact that amendment No. 171 would remove the local authority from the list of responsible authorities, it does not restore the important status of the environmental health authority and, given the effect of the Government amendments in this group, I hope that it will not be pressed.
A further amendment in another place duplicated our provision by including in the list all licensing authorities in whose area part of the premises is situated. The list originally included licensing authorities other than the one in receipt of the application only in rare cases where premises straddle local authority boundaries. Amendment No. 121 would restore those arrangements.
The amendments raise two important aspects of the Bill. The first is fairness. The local authority is the licensing authority and vice versa. If a licensing authority can make representations to itself, which means generating a hearing to consider those representations, the licensing committee would be prosecution, witness, jury, judge and executioner in the same court. That cannot be proper and it would no doubt generate an array of human rights issues, about which I know the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is concerned. But let us not get technical. In simple terms, it would not be right or fair. We are not hamstringing the licensing authority; where a local authority has a particular statutory responsibility for expert matters, which directly impact on the licensing objectives, it will be a responsible authority.
The environmental health authority is a functioning part of the local authority. The enforcing agency for health and safety is drawn usually from, and organised by, the local authority. The planning authority is a functioning part of the local authority. They are all responsible authorities for the purposes of the Bill. In those narrow and specialised capacities, offices of the local authority can make representations under the Bill
to the licensing authority. The licensing committee would then consider the representations fairly and properly and hear the views of the applicant on the matter. That is the appropriate way in which to proceed.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I am listening with care to the Minister. Is the authority the one in whose area the premises are situated at a particular time, or the premises in whose area the vessel is moored and, thus, the licensing authority for the vessel?
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
It is the premises in which the vessel is situated at any one time. It is a difficult issue in respect of vessels and, more importantly, trains, because they may go through many licensing authorities. We shall be discussing such matters. I suppose it depends on whether the driver is drunk.
I said earlier that two important aspects of the Bill would be affected by the amendments, and the second of those is deregulation. One of the ways in which savings in red tape can be generated is by reducing significantly the number of hearings to which licensing currently gives rise. Almost everything in the six licensing regimes generates hearings in one way or another. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that only disputes give rise to hearings.
Under the Bill, a hearing will be necessary only if one of the expert and professional bodies, a local resident or a local business is dissatisfied with the proposals in the operating schedule. If everyone is content, the application will be granted.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
In those circumstances, must the resident be a resident in the local authority area or will the hearing accept a resident who lives in a neighbouring local authority area that is responsible for the area most affected by the granting of the licence?
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
We will be issuing guidance stating that a protocol must exist throughout local authority boundaries. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise such matters. An extreme example is that of the Isle of Wight festival in 1971. We are not sure whether it could be heard in the neighbouring constituency. I bet that many people cannot remember whether it was heard there. Even if they did not hear it, they would probably claim that they did. I would claim that I heard Bob Dylan in 1971.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)
The Isle of Wight festival took place in 1970, or Jimi Hendrix would have been playing on a posthumous basis.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
There is nothing like history!
Clause 13 makes provision for the clarification of the relevant licensing authority in relation to an application for a premises licence. If those premises straddle more than one authority, only one authority is the relevant licensing authority under the clause. The other authority or authorities are afforded the status of the responsible authority, so that they can make representations about the licensing objectives to the relevant authority. The role of the other authority or authorities is not to determine the application. That is the responsibility of the relevant licensing authority, so
no dispute with the other authority or authorities and the relevant authority will arise. If the determination of the application does not uphold the representations made by the responsible authority, it will have a right of appeal to the magistrates court against the determination.
However, if a licensing authority can generate hearings whether or not the expert bodies and local residents are content, we will have opened the door to the old bureaucracy and red tape. We know that some—not all—local authorities could use the provision to generate hearings at which they would seek to vet applicants. They would revert to the old time wasting and subjective ''fit and proper'' test. If they did not like the applicant, they would immediately look for an excuse to reject the application. The deregulatory benefits of the Bill to industry could be swept away in some parts of the country if such authorities vetted everyone to find one bad apple. That is the old way.
The new way will focus on likely problem premises and target resources there. If the operating schedule is likely to generate problems, interested parties and responsible authorities could be expected to intervene. People not likely to cause problems in relation to the licensing objectives could be left to get on with their business. For two important reasons that I have set out—fairness and a desire to reduce red tape—I ask the Committee to welcome this group of Government amendments.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I thank the Minister for clarifying the issues relating to the relevant sections. In the light of the Government amendment and the explanation supporting it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 120, in
clause 14, page 9, line 14, leave out
'for the area in which the premises are situated'
and insert
'by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health'.—[Dr. Howells.]
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) a body which—
(i) represents those who, in relation to any such area, are responsible for, or interested in, matters relating to the protection of children from harm, and
(ii) is recognised by the licensing authority for that area for the purposes of this section as being competent to advise it on such matters,'.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 15.
Clause 143 stand part.
Clause 151 stand part.
As I have already indicated to the Committee, this is the opportunity for a fairly wide-ranging debate on matters relating to children and licensed premises.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Thank you, Mr. Gale. That is an important element of the Bill, and I know that we shall have a good debate on it.
As hon. Members know, the protection of children from harm is one of the four licensing objectives of the Bill. No one would want to deny children access to a village shop that also happens to be an off-licence, nor would we want to deny children access to a supermarket, Pizza Hut, the cinema or the theatre, even though all are licensed premises. None of us would want to see children in lap dancing clubs, gaming clubs or seedy bars, which are associated with nefarious activities such as drug dealing or underage drinking. Between those two extremes, however, are many shades of grey where, in given circumstances, we anticipate that children should be given access to licensed premises.
Part of the problem in this regard is that few people understand the current regulatory framework, and even when they do, they cannot comprehend the logic of it. I admit to the Committee that when I was made aware of existing regulations and laws on the admission of children to licensed premises, I was at first disbelieving, then incredibly surprised at how complicated they are. It is especially amazing when one hears that a child of five in some parts of a licensed premises can be given whisky if it has bought by an adult, but we shall come to that later.
A framework that allows a five-year-old to drink spirits, provided the drink is bought by an adult and consumed away from the bar area, is a topic on which we ought to focus. It is a framework that allows clubs to provide alcohol for children and allows a child of seven to enter a nightclub at 2 am and stay there, provided the child keeps away from the bar area. It is time to change that framework, and the only question is how we do that.
On Report in another place, the Opposition moved two amendments, now included in the Bill as clauses 143 and 151, which seek to achieve what we all want: to ensure that children can enjoy access to appropriate licensed premises as conducive environments for them. However, I do not believe that those provisions will have the desired effect, and they do not provide a flexible and responsive framework, which is what we want to achieve. Among other things, clause 143 raises a raft of issues about the definition of licensed premises in subsection (2), and clause 151 raises issues of practicality and the interpretation of
''premises . . . licensed principally for the sale by retail of alcohol''.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been keen throughout the development of the Bill to take into account the views of organisations with an interest in the protection of children from harm, and to consider how these can best be reflected in the legislation and in guidance to achieve the right environment for children.
We have consulted a range of bodies including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children's Society, the Methodist Church, the Salvation Army, Turning Point, Alcohol Concern, the Association of Directors of Social
Services and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The outcome of that were the proposals outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 24 March. Those represent a balanced package that will ensure access, where appropriate, for children in a family-friendly environment, whilst providing them with protection.
As I said earlier, the protection of children from harm is a key licensing objective, and to ensure that licensing decisions have expert input on that objective, amendments Nos. 11 and 15 will add local area child protection committees, or their successor bodies, to the list of responsible authorities that are notified of, and can make representations on, all licensing applications—new or variations—and that can raise concerns relating to any of the licensing objectives through the review provisions. That will be a positive and welcome addition to the process.
The organisations that we consulted also took the view that it was not appropriate for the Bill to refer to age limits in relation to access by children to licensed premises. We concur with that view, and we therefore propose to overturn clauses 143 and 151. I shall expand on our concerns about those clauses.
Clause 143 is an attempt to focus our efforts on limiting unsupervised access by children under the age of 14 to premises where alcohol consumption is the primary purpose. There are a number of problems with that proposal. How does a licensee ensure the age of a child—what proof of age is robust and not open to forgery? When emphasis is placed on an accompanying adult, are we sure that that they will provide sufficient supervision for the children? We also have concerns about trying to define an establishment
''whose primary purpose is the consumption of alcohol.''
I noted earlier the many shades of grey between the extremes of licensed premises in respect of their suitability for access by children. How do gastropubs fit in with that? There are many good and respectable institutions, especially in rural areas, which increasingly find that the majority of their business—on Sunday certainly—is from the sale of food, which is consumed in a relaxed atmosphere where alcohol is also available for retail. Is their primary purpose food or alcohol sales—particularly as such businesses can generate more earnings from food than from alcohol sales, although perhaps only on certain days of the week? We need to ensure that our new licensing system is responsive and flexible.
Similarly, Clause 151 places a responsibility on a licensee not to sell alcohol in the presence of someone under the age of 14 unless they are accompanied by someone who is 18 or over. That throws up a range of questions, not least about what will happen in an off-licence, since such premises are licensed principally for the retail sale of alcohol. In addition there are questions of practicality—for instance, about whether a licensee always see children, particularly in a crowded bar area, and how to confirm proof of age.
The measures in the Bill and in guidance provide a package of measures that will provide adequate safeguards. I have already indicated what is in the Bill. In statutory guidance, we will cover factors that
indicate a licensed premises' suitability for access by children, ranging from those where it is felt that the risks to children, regardless of whether they are supervised, are too great—for example, on premises in which it is possible that children may be exposed to drug taking, drug dealing, gambling, adult or sexual entertainment, or alcohol illegally sold to minors—through to premises to which unsupervised children under 14 should be permitted access.
I stress that where any access for children is permitted, the licensee will still have to demonstrate clearly in their operating schedule the steps that they propose to take to promote protection from harm. My officials will continue to work with the child protection organisations and take their views into account in preparing the final version of the guidance. The balanced package that we propose offers the best way forward.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
We queried the inclusion of a stand part debate on clauses 143 and 151 at this juncture, because we intended to table amendments to those clauses later. I am pleased, Mr. Gale, for your direction that we may still do that.
The Minister mentioned the amendments from the other place, which are included as clauses 143 and 151. There was a lengthy debate in the other place in Committee and on Third Reading. Real concerns and fears were expressed and many of those who contributed to the debate felt that the Government had not got it right on the control of children in licensed premises.
I listened carefully to the Minister on clauses 143 and 151 and I have some sympathy with the arguments he put forward. As many questions are raised by the clauses as are solved by them. An arbitrary age of 14 is difficult, although not impossible, to ascertain, particularly when the persons involved carry no evidence to determine their age. There is also the question of whether children between the ages of 14 and 18 will be allowed unfettered access without control, which is not acceptable either.
The Minister has not reassured me—nor, perhaps, my hon. Friends—that the Government have got it right, and that after the two clauses are removed what is left will work. Certain clauses refer to the sale of alcohol to children under 18 and others refer to knowingly selling alcohol to someone who would supply it to children, or who would make it available to under-18s in club premises. Am I correct in thinking that if we leave the Bill as it is, it will allow children of any age to wander around in licensed premises with or without adults in charge or control?
Although there are penalties for selling alcohol, another question arises. Many licensed premises welcome children and are family friendly. I have no compunction in taking my seven-year-old grandson into many such establishments—it is important that he is part of a family in that context. How do we prevent young children in certain areas and establishments simply going into licensed premises—social environments—where they should not be without an adult? Indeed, I am not sure what they would buy
there. I am not sure whether the Minister answered those questions and whether the Bill deals with them. I recognise that this is difficult.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow. This is a complicated issue. He will be aware that four levels of supervision will be set out in the guidance: no access, access only for specific purposes, such as an under-18 disco, supervised access for children under 14 and unsupervised access. It is the last of those categories that worries me. As this is an intervention, I will not speak at length. The situation at the moment is complex. One of the great mainstays is that the licensee can say, ''Right, out of here, you're not coming in.'' The licensee's role in exercising discretion is still fundamental under the new arrangements. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman a little confidence. The situation at the moment is open to abuse, but is largely contained because the licensee has that power.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, which has helped to clarify the matter. It is the last issue that he highlighted that concerns me. I recognise that the present law is inadequate and confusing. It is extremely difficult for those at the sharp end to make proper judgments because the law is unclear. It is all right to say that that will be in the guidance, but what weight does the guidance have in law? Should we not look at ways in which we can put those strictures in the Bill, so that it is clear to everyone what the law is saying, rather than—
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I did not intend to intervene in the middle of my hon. Friend's sentence. I understand that such matters are not yet in the guidance. The Minister knew that this matter was coming up, so it is a pity that he was unable to issue a page on what the guidance might state before we reached this point in Committee.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who will enforce such measures are likely to be the police as local authority licensing officials? Licensing officials will issue the licence and they may take account of, and issue conditions according to, the guidance, but the police and for that matter the public will need certainty when they are enforcing it. If the guidance contains four different levels and it is not clear how these relate from one premises to another, there is likely to be great difficulty in enforcing the provisions on the protection of children.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have not read the guidance from cover to cover. I think that I am right in saying that the four points that the Minister alluded to are not in it at this stage. It would have been helpful to the Committee to have had them in good time for this discussion, but we will be returning to the matter later.
The key issue is a clear, unequivocal position in law that everyone involved is confident and clear about. People living in the vicinity of a pub may see children running around and using it as a meeting place for all sorts of activities that are not associated with alcohol consumption, but it could cause nuisance and so forth.
I am sure that local people will use that as a reason for asking the licensing board for a review of those premises. The licensee might say, ''Hold on a minute, the law allows that to happen. I cannot do anything about it and yet you are using it as grounds for a review and some enforcement.'' The police will be involved, as they are at the moment, but the Bill also allows local people of all shapes and sizes to become involved if they feel that they have grounds for asking for a review of the licence. We will return to that later.
There are worries surrounding the removal of clauses Nos. 143 and 151. It is a vexatious area that does not work at the moment. We have to be sure that we are not giving a green light. I am sure that we can all imagine certain activities in pubs to which we would rather not expose children, especially the pre-teens. I am not convinced that we have a comfort zone in the Bill and until we see the written guidance, there will not be one. Guidance is not justifiable in the same way as primary or secondary legislation.
The Minister will have plenty of questions from the Opposition to answer at a later stage. There is disquiet about whether the Government have got the matter right and whether we are sending completely the wrong signal out to the community, especially to those children who will abuse the system one way or another.
Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
In his opening remarks, the Minister was right when he said that we are discussing two ends of a spectrum. There are family-friendly pubs that no one is likely to take exception to children going into and there are nightclubs and various dens of iniquity where we would not want smaller children to go. However, most premises fall into the shades of grey in the middle to which the Minister referred. I doubt whether hon. Members disagree about the objectives and the need to protect children from harm: the debate is entirely over the mechanisms by which we provide that protection.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said today and what he and the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. It is important that we see the guidance before the Committee proceedings finish so that we can see the detail of how the Government will approach the issue. I would not go as far as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and say that all the detail should be included in the primary legislation. Issuing the guidance, which will be statutory, and having individual operating plans for premises working within that guidance, is probably the right way to go. I would be happier if I had seen the detail of what the Government plan to do.
People have tended to react with horror and say, ''No. Children should not be allowed to go into pubs unaccompanied'', but I challenge that view. I represent a rural constituency and live in a rural community and I am very aware that village shops, garages and businesses have all become less viable and are vanishing at an alarming rate. Prince Charles has advocated that village pubs, as the one thing that has kept going, should increasingly provide a community focus. It is not unimaginable for a village shop to be sustained inside the pub, or for post offices to be inside pubs. In my constituency, there are pubs that serve as
polling stations, parish meeting rooms and so forth. We should leave ourselves enough flexibility to think about what pubs will become in years to come.
There are pubs in my constituency with games room in the back that have pool tables, table football, skittles and so forth. If a landlord allows children to use those facilities or outside play areas and is prepared to take responsibility for ensuring that they are consuming only soft drinks and crisps, those kids are probably safer than if they were marauding around the streets. So, we should not get too fundamentalist about it or start saying, ''No kids in pubs on their own.''
Allowing children in will not be right for every pub—it may not be right for most pubs—but if individual landlords are prepared to do that and take on that responsibility, they are providing a service to the community. Think about school holidays and kids' clubs and so on. If we rule pubs out because somewhere on the premises they sell a dreadful substance called alcohol, we will be denying many small communities use of the one viable facility that they have got.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman will have spoken to many of the same agencies concerned with the welfare of children that I have spoken to. Such agencies have often told me that children are in greatest danger in their homes, when alcohol is involved, from drunken parents. They are in second greatest danger out on the street, as the hon. Gentleman has just told us. Very often they cluster around licensed premises, hoping that somebody will go in and buy some alcohol for them. That will be dealt with later in the Bill. There have also been instances of bar staff saying, ''Hey, I know what this Bill is about. It is about making me into a child minder. I am going to be looking after children and I don't want to do that.'' The balance is difficult, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister's last point is interesting and I want to discuss it. Some publicans to whom I have spoken have reacted with horror to the very suggestion that they would want to do any of what has been mentioned. I have stressed that there is no obligation and that it is entirely up to them to devise their own operating plans. They have responded by saying—I am aware that some of the national industry groups have said the same thing—that if they submit operating plans that do not indicate an interest in having children on the premises or a willingness to do so, they might jeopardise their whole licence because it will look as though they are not fulfilling one of the licensing objectives: namely, the protection of children from harm. That argument does not commend itself to me, but I have heard it several times and some words of reassurance from the Minister would be helpful. I am interested to hear what he will say about the matter when he sums up the debate.
I appeal to the Government to keep as flexible a framework as possible, to put the necessary protections in the secondary legislation, but to remember rural communities where pubs are often
the only community facility, and not, as I can imagine the Government inadvertently doing as a result of loud lobbying from people thinking about the whole thing in an urban context, to draw up the regulations so tightly that they prohibit the use of pubs in the way I have described.
Amendments Nos. 143 and 151, as moved in another place, were tabled for the right reasons and with the right objectives in mind, but I am not at all unsympathetic to the Government's idea that there might be another, better approach. However, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, the Committee really needs to see in detail what the Government propose.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)
I shall touch briefly on the entire issue of children as part of the stand part debate. The Government have been driven into introducing the Bill by the understandable and, to an extent, desirable wish for clarity and the modernisation of what have been described as our old-fashioned, or Victorian, licensing laws. Many of the laws date back to a pre-Victorian period, although many of the great concerns arose in that era and during the first world war and its aftermath. It is no coincidence that there was prohibition for 14 years from 1919 in the United States. That was very much the tenor of the time.
It was interesting listening to the hon. Member for North Devon talking about pubs in his constituency, because an old acquaintance of mine, and of his, the late Chris Trethewey, who was the president of the Liberals in Devon, once told me that when he was a candidate for the Liberal party in the 1960s the great traditional Liberal and Methodist link meant that it was not the done thing even to have meetings in rooms above pubs, which shows how attitudes about drinking habits have changed and people have joined the modern world. Habits do change and it is regrettable that there has not been a clearer view in the Bill on children and licensed premises. I accept that many provisions will be in the guidance notes that will be published, but I regret that we have not seen more from the Bill. I am sure that the Minister has more to say on that.
There is no doubt that young children need to be protected. Perhaps I am being wistful, but I should like society's attitude towards the consumption of alcohol fundamentally to change. We must realise that the lure of the forbidden is one of the things that makes alcohol so attractive to many teenagers. I accept that there is a different culture in continental Europe but, contrastingly, children there are introduced to alcohol at a much younger age and within the family. Although there are understandable concerns about the idea of allowing children to run riot in licensed premises, a slightly more sensible approach that enables children to be introduced to alcohol consumption gradually must be the right way forward.
I was in the United States this summer and was impressed by what I saw. There, licensing is state-run, and there is a prohibition in most states on alcohol consumption for those under the age of 21. I spoke with several local Congressmen in various parts of the US and referred to our own drinking culture, which crosses class borders. For all 17, 18 and 19-year-olds
here, whether they are in employment or still students, there is a culture of going out drinking, often to excess. That contrasts greatly with the US. However, I suspect that a prohibition on alcohol for those up to the age of 21 simply delays the problem that we have outlined.
I hope that the guidance notes from the Government will be sensible and that the Minister can give us an indication of what is proposed. Although a modernisation of our licensing laws is important, we need to balance the protection of children against ensuring that they do not see alcohol as forbidden fruit later in life, but as something that should be part and parcel of everyday social life.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I think that clause 151 is unworkable. I am disinclined to vote against clause 143 stand part in the absence of something better. I hope that the Minister will offer something better, which is supported by the draft guidance notes. I am not satisfied that Government amendments Nos. 11 and 15 are that something better.
I am concerned that the situation is clear both to the enforcers and to tourists—it is important to recognise that one of the Bill's purposes is to benefit the tourism industry. The Bill should also take account of the points raised by the hon. Member for North Devon, which are just as true for my constituency as they are for his. We should also know where we are going to end up. Leaving judgments to individual
licensing authorities may be the only possible route, but it will be extremely difficult. That is why clarity is necessary.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I have just been reading the relevant section of the guidance—chapter 4—and it refers to licensing policy, which would be the local authority's licensing policy. That provides a steer. Is it not likely that licensing policy will vary from authority to authority? There may be completely different interpretations.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
That could indeed be the case, which is both a benefit and a disadvantage. I hear someone asking, ''Is that such a bad thing?'' It is not such a bad thing on the Isle of Wight because one knows whether one is on the island—or, at least, most people do. It may be more difficult, when walking through the streets of central London, to know whether one is in the City of London, Westminster or Camden.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I am sure that it is not difficult for my hon. Friend.
It is essential that the different needs of different areas are taken into account. I see no alternative other than having that established in the guidance.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman, adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.