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

I beg to move amendment No. 123, in

clause 18, page 11, line 33, at end insert—

'(gg) whether the licensable activities will involve nudity or activities of a sexual nature,'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 124, in

clause 19, page 12, line 9, after 'the', insert 'licensing statement or the'.

Amendment No. 125, in

clause 19, page 12, line 10, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 126, in

clause 19, page 12, line 12, at end insert

'and

(c) such conditions as may be required for the promotion of the licensing objectives, whether or not consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application.'.

Amendment No. 127, in

clause 19, page 12, line 24, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 128, in

clause 19, page 12, line 26, at end insert

'and

(iii) the conditions mentioned in subsection (2)(c) modified to such extent as the authority considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives;'.

Amendment No. 192, in

clause 22, page 14, line 8, after 'plays', insert 'or adult entertainments'.

Amendment No. 193, in

clause 22, page 14, line 9, after 'plays', insert 'or adult entertainment'.

Amendment No. 194, in

clause 22, page 14, line 10, after 'plays', insert 'or adult entertainment'.

Amendment No. 129, in

schedule 6, page 141, line 27, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert—

'(3) In paragraph 3A (exemption for certain entertainment premises from provisions relating to sex encounter establishments) paragraph (i) is repealed.'.

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

The clause deals with the application for the premises licence. Under subsection (4) there is an obligation to have an operating schedule, which is

''a document in the prescribed form and includes a statement''

about various matters. Without the amendment, which would add the words

''whether the licensable activities will involve nudity or activities of a sexual nature'',

the applicants would not have to inform local authorities on the operating schedule whether their premises would show nudity or entertainment of a sexual nature, such as lap dancing. Most people consider sex licences as being prevalent—dare I say it—in my constituency in the past, but lap dancing has become a more familiar activity during recent years.

To help the Committee understand the amendments, some explanation of the existing legal framework might be useful. In London at present, a public entertainment licence under the London Government Act 1963 is required for premises to be used for the purposes of either public dancing, or music and public entertainment of a like kind. Entertainment such as striptease or lap dancing can be, and generally is, licensed under that provision.

Equally, it follows that premises that are licensed for the provision of public entertainment may provide entertainment such as lap dancing or striptease unless prevented from doing so by a condition attached to the licence. There are two ways forward. In the city of Westminster the rules of management—the standard conditions attached to all entertainment licences—say that entertainment involving nudity or sexual content may not be provided. Accordingly, premises that wish to provide such entertainment must apply for that standard rule to be waived. The council has a policy about how such applications will be considered and when they will be granted. Of course, like all such policies, it is subject to judicial review.

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 introduced the licensing of sex establishments, such as sex shops and sex cinemas. In London, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1986 enabled licensing authorities to decide that as well as sex cinemas and sex shops, sex

encounter establishments should be licensed. A sex encounter establishment is a place where performances involving sexual stimulation or nudity, including peep-shows as well as striptease and lap dancing, are given.

The 1986 Act also provided that any premises that already had a public entertainment licence would not require a sex encounter establishment licence in addition. To avoid dual licensing, the public entertainment licensing regime would continue to apply for premises that already had a licence. I shall set out the proposed position under the Bill. The provision of regulated entertainment is a licensable activity, and a dance performance, as well as the playing of recorded music, will fall within the definition of regulated entertainment. In effect, striptease and lap dancing would be licensable activities under the Bill.

By virtue of the amendment made to the 1982 Act by paragraph 84(3) of schedule 6 to this Bill, premises licensed under what will become the Licensing Act 2003—assuming that the Bill is passed this Session—either for the provision of regulated entertainment or for the purposes of late-night refreshment, will not require a licence as a sex encounter establishment. The Bill will avoid the dual licensing issues to which I referred, by ensuring that striptease and lap dancing establishments are licensed under the Bill, not under other legislation.

It is unclear what the Government regard as the licensing authority's responsibility concerning the licensing of striptease clubs and lap dancing establishments. That is the main reason why we want an operating schedule—to highlight and alert the licensing authority. None of the licensing objectives other than that relating to the protection of children relates to such issues. Paragraph 8.49 of the Government's draft guidance states:

''In general, licensing authorities should not use their powers under the 2003 Act to seek to impose conditions which censor the content of any form of regulated entertainment as defined in the Act.''

We must remember that regulated entertainment would include lap dancing clubs and striptease. The draft guidance continues:

''This is not a proper function of licensing law and . . . cannot be properly related to the licensing objectives. The contents of regulated entertainment is a matter which is addressed by existing laws governing indecency and obscenity. Where the concern is about protecting children, their access should be restricted, but no other limitation should normally be imposed.''

I am talking about what the guidance means for the city of Westminster—specifically, but not exclusively, places such as Soho. Lap dancing clubs now appear in many of our big cities, and in many other boroughs besides the city of Westminster. A local authority would no longer be able to limit the numbers of premises providing entertainment of a sexual nature within certain parts of the city by attaching the type of condition that has already been mentioned to a licence. Except for situations involving access for children, it appears that a licensing authority can draw no distinction between premises that provide lap dancing and those that provide live music. For example, there will be no scope to say that a

residential area, or a location next to a church or a school, would not be suitable for lap dancing activity.

Our amendments would address that problem by requiring an applicant to state, when applying, whether his proposed activities would involve nudity or activity of a sexual nature. They would also enable the licensing authority to attach conditions to the licence, if they were required for the promotion of the licensing objectives, whether or not they were consistent with the activities proposed by the applicant. Amendment No. 123 would have the same equally desirable effect in other cases not necessarily involving a sexual element.

We hope that amending schedule 6 will mean that premises providing lap dancing, topless waitressing or other strip shows will be licensed under future legislation specifically relating to entertainment of a sexual nature. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the vacuum in the current arrangements.

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

This is an important group of amendments, but I know that hon. Members want to get on to a later group, so I shall be brief. With the Committee's leave, I shall address amendments Nos. 123 and 129 first, because they concern nudity and sexual activity in licensed premises. Under the law, in most of the country, including London, public entertainment is simply licensed. If there are lap dancers, strippers or some form of simulated sexual display on a premises, it is the performance of dance that is licensed, not the nudity.

However, in London boroughs—we return to Westminster again—other legislation has been adopted, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster started to explain. There, a sex encounter establishment licence is needed if the services or entertainment on those premises involves people exposing certain parts of their anatomy—I shall leave the details to hon. Members' imagination—or performing in a way that involves sexually stimulating the people admitted to the premises. That allows those boroughs to capture premises that are not putting on performances of music or dancing, but doing nothing more than providing sexual services. A sex encounter establishment licence cannot be required of premises that are licensed for public entertainment, or as a theatre or cinema. Such premises are already controlled, so it means the problems of such unusual premises solely relate to London ''dives'', which otherwise operate outside the law.

The rest of the country does not have that additional law, so, as in London, stripping and lap dancing are controlled by public entertainment licences. All premises in the country rely on the existing laws relating to indecent exposure to deal with performances that go too far.

We are not repealing the law relating to sex encounter establishments in certain London boroughs. Westminster and others will still be able

to require such licences for premises with no premises licence. Amendment No. 123 would go beyond the current arrangements, and require details of any nudity or sexual activity on the premises to be disclosed in the operating schedule. Why? Nudity per se is not a licensable activity. If someone wants to take his or her clothes off in public, the issue is whether they commit a criminal offence by indecently exposing themselves in public; if they do, the police can arrest them. We licence dancing, and through the premises licence it remains the case that lap dancing can be controlled to the extent necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I would not say that this debate is fascinating, because that might be an overstatement. However, it raises a concern in my mind that if a pub in Fareham got a licence for entertainment on the basis of dancing, and then decided to go in for lap dancing, would it have to apply for a variation to its operating schedule? In other words, can we be certain that people will not introduce covert lap dancing—if there is such a concept?

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

People certainly could not put dancing on their operating schedule under the guise of it being some kind of traditional English folk dancing, and then suddenly start operating as a lap dancing establishment. The hon. Gentleman is right: there would have to be that degree of specificity.

Under the Bill, if a club has lap dancing, which it would need to describe in its operating schedule because of the rules governing the performance of dance—as I have tried to explain—the objective of the protection of children from harm would arise. A condition that there should be no lap dancing or stripping during any period when children under the age of 18 are allowed on the premises could be imposed. I hope that that will satisfy hon. Members.

The clause does not address every form of entertainment that we can think of that might be in questionable taste, objectionable in some way to local councillors or residents, or just downright awful. I can see that there might be a concern that a fastidious licensing authority could seek to impose conditions on adult entertainments if it was not explicitly prevented from doing so. That is not a real fear: that could happen now, but I have not read any reports of its taking place.

I hope that we have made it clear that it is not our intention for licensing authorities to be free to use the powers in this Bill to interfere or intervene in all manner of activities that are better left either to other regimes of regulation or unregulated altogether. We do not want licensing authorities to use their powers to censor plays, or to prevent premises from being used to put on plays that the authorities find unacceptable.

I assure the Committee that we will make it clear in the statutory guidance, under the provisions that we have already debated, that extraneous conditions will not be permitted. Conditions may be attached to licences only where they are necessary for the promotion of one or more of the four licensing objectives. The conditions may therefore be appropriate in relation to the exclusion or restricted

access of children where adult entertainments are on offer. That would happen under the fourth licensing objective—that of protecting children from harm—but it would not be appropriate to impose conditions simply to spare the blushes of local residents, because that would not be one of the licensing objectives.

I am sure that if we had not preserved the provisions of the Theatres Act 1968, we would have been accused of bringing censorship into the Bill, and we would have had to debate the Government's decisions on theatres. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to think again about whether it is not sufficient to continue this provision into the new arrangements without pressing to a vote the idea of new and special provisions for the sort of adult entertainments that are put forward here. I hope that after those reassurances, he will withdraw his amendment.

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

I am reassured in part, but there is a concern that we might return to on Report. One of the chief objectives is to protect children from harm, and in our view it is not desirable in any way to allow local licensing authorities to have a regime of censorship. We hoped that the amendment would highlight striptease and other sexual entertainment, and indeed lap dancing bars, which are far more common and have caused great concern to residents groups in London and beyond, and that there would at least be some opportunity for a licensing authority to give serious consideration to the siting of such establishments. I appreciate the fact that, particularly outside London, there is a level of protection under current law. On the basis of our discussions, and as the Minister has satisfied us on at least some of our concerns, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 186, in

clause 18, page 11, line 33, at end insert—

'( ) where the relevant licensable activities include the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, the maximum permitted occupancy of the premises,'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—Maximum permitted occupancy figure—

'(1) Where the relevant licensable activities include the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, a condition shall be attached to a premises licence specifying the maximum permitted occupancy figure, which must be specified on the premises licence and on the summary of the premises licence.

(2) The maximum permitted occupancy figure must be determined by the licensing authority in consultation with the police and the fire authority.'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The amendment and new clause 4 are designed to probe the Government. They deal with maximum occupancy levels for various establishments. I think that we would all agree that that is an important issue, particularly with regard to fire safety. It is important that appropriate measures are put in place, and that establishments have some clear understanding of what the maximum number of people in each establishment should be, whether those people are just drinking, dancing or being entertained.

I understand that existing health and safety legislation obliges operators to calculate, and comply with, a maximum number of people that can be present. However, for licensed premises we understand that the requirement is rarely if ever enforced, whereas the use of capacity condition on the public entertainment licence is regularly checked. There seems to be an imbalance.

The pub that has entertainment—albeit small-scale entertainment—needs a public entertainment licence under existing law, and an entertainment licence under the new law. Its conditions will probably be set in terms of occupancy levels. On the other hand, if the pub does not have entertainment, even if it is incredibly popular it will not have the same restrictions on the number of people that might be present. The Minister referred earlier to what I think he called ''vertical drinking''.

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

Vertical drinking establishments.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I do not think that I have any of those in my constituency; no doubt they will arrive in due course.

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

I bet you do.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I presume that the vertical bit refers to the early part of the evening, and things become more horizontal later in the evening.

It seems that there is a discrepancy in the provisions.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

May I illuminate my hon. Friend about what vertical drinking establishments are, having just been illuminated myself? I assumed—naively, perhaps—that they were multi-storey pubs, but it turns out that they are pubs with very few chairs, so everyone has to stand up—rather like working men's clubs.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

My initial concept was of some vertically integrated facility where one could move from bar to bar on a sort of escalating—

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

Bar stool.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I was talking about establishments that people go to just to drink. Those places are, no doubt, highly popular with young people, and attract huge numbers on Fridays and Saturdays. If there is no capacity limit for the people present, I am puzzled as to why that is deemed less unsafe than if someone were playing a guitar or piano in the corner. This is really a probing amendment to find out what the Government intend to do about the health and safety aspects of such establishments, many of which attract large numbers of people.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

What discussions has the Minister had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the new fire regulations coming from his Department? Does the Minister think that those regulations will require capacities to be established for many premises—not just those that are licensed under the Bill? If fire-related capacity figures will be developed for premises, and premises are to be licensed under the proposed legislation, would it not make sense for such limits to be stated on premises licenses?

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who also mentioned capacity constraints. We referred to that matter earlier when we talked about the need for conditions attaching to entertainment licences. The Minister waxed lyrical about the importance of health and safety—he meant that some conditions relating to the number of people in a venue should be attached to entertainment licences.

I have, in the past, gone unawares to various vertical drinking establishments, some of which are in this area of London. I used to work further up the river, off the Strand, where many of the pubs were multi-storey and vertical in that respect, and were also packed on a Friday night with people standing and drinking. Such places do not exist in the west end. Many new drinking establishments were created as part of regeneration campaigns. In Portsmouth, for example, there are many vertical drinking establishments in Gun Wharf quay, big places with many people that are packed on a Friday or Saturday night.

If we are to express our concern about venues that host entertainment, whether it be karaoke, football matches, music or dance, we must show the same degree of concern about pubs. It is correct that we consider stipulating maximum capacities for pubs. However, if it is not right for maximum capacities to be stipulated in a pub's operating schedule, we should consider why is it necessary to think about that in respect of entertainment licences, when existing health and safety regulations, which would cover such matters, are already in place.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend accept that it might not be necessary to determine in the operating schedule whether an establishment is vertical or otherwise? If that is not done, one cannot know what is the capacity. A pub with lots of seats has a smaller capacity than a pub in which one is expected to remain vertical. Does my hon. Friend accept that that would be a problem with the amendment?

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I think that we are using vertical drinking establishments as an example. A pub with lots of seats may have many people inside and the chairs may pose a greater risk to the drinking population in that pub than if it had none—it is a matter of understanding the various premises.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Without wishing to be pedantic, I remind my hon. Friend that amendment No. 186, which would insert a new paragraph into the subsection dealing with the operating schedule, talks about the relevant licensable activities including

''the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises''.

It does not mention pubs alone; it covers all places with an alcohol licence.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps I was getting too carried away reminiscing about vertical drinking establishments I knew in my youth. Nevertheless, the issue remains the same: should maximum capacity limits be set for drinking

establishments and premises serving drink? It is up to the Minister to rationalise why he opposes this amendment. He seemed reluctant to support our earlier amendments that would have relied on existing legislation to cover the health and safety aspects of such entertainment.

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

I think that I misheard what the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago. Perhaps he thought that I was going to support the amendment.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

No, I know that the Minister would not do that.

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

The knife falls at 5 o'clock and we want to make progress on other matters. However, this issue is important and I want to make one thing clear: we have no objection to the concept of capacity limits. Indeed, the Bill will allow a capacity limit to be imposed if, in the view of the licensing authority after receiving representations from the experts—the police, fire and health and safety authorities—it is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The idea that a capacity limit is useful or necessary in all cases is wrong. I understand that capacity limits can be useful for nightclubs or the large pubs about which the hon. Gentleman has been waxing lyrical. I have no problem with that.

Much has been made of the so-called vertical drinking establishment as the Bill has progressed. Indeed, capacity limits are often imposed through the existing licensing system on premises of that nature, which is only right and proper.

We firmly believe that there is no need for a quiet restaurant, small country pub or countless other premises to have a mandatory capacity limit in all cases. If a mandatory capacity limit is imposed, the inevitable consequence will be increased costs to those running such venues as they would have to employ staff to count people in and out. That would be a big burden to impose on nightclubs. We should be slow to impose additional burdens without justification.

The amendments would strip the new system of much of its in-built flexibility to tailor itself to individual circumstances. When it is necessary to have a capacity limit, the Bill allows that to happen and when it is not necessary—this is for the experts—the Bill does not require one to be imposed.

We are keen on greater flexibility for licensed premises and for capacity limits to be imposed only when necessary. That is why the Bill reflects the current system.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister is coming to an end and I do not want to delay him longer than necessary. He mentioned that existing legislation had provision for capacity limits, but that is not the point. The Committee needs to know where in this Bill it says that the limits can be imposed. That is the important point.

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

As I said, the licensing authority consults its experts—the responsible bodies that we spoke about. If those experts, whether the police, the health and safety people or the fire authority decide that a capacity limit should be imposed, they can set one.

I have been touring the country looking at various types of establishments. For example, in seaside towns at certain times of the year, an upstairs room in a pub might be used for entertainment or as an overflow area. They are often subject to strict limits that are strictly policed because of fire problems and somebody must be employed to click people in and out ensure that the limit is not exceeded. If it is, those responsible can be fined a large sum or even sent to jail for putting customers in danger. We are certainly not trying to exclude the ability to set capacity limits if the licensing authority sees fit.

The Bill is intended to be flexible—licensing authorities will be able to attach capacity limits as conditions to licences when expert opinion believes that is necessary. Given that other controls are also in place, we certainly do not want to place undue burdens on the industry. The Bill contains appropriate safeguards to ensure public safety, prevent crime, disorder and nuisance, and protect children from harm. The hon. Member for North Devon asked about the examination of fire regulations being undertaken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I can reassure him that we are in full discussion with the ODPM, because these are important matters for protecting the public. That has got to be the primary concern, but, as I said in earlier debates, we must ensure that there is no abuse of powers that might arise as a consequence of new fire regulations, which might give the opportunity for stamping out or dissuading the holder of licences from putting on live entertainment. We must get the balance right.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I refer to the previous example that the Minister gave, which was that of a pub in a seaside resort opening a room upstairs and of what then takes place. That is an example of what happens under existing legislation, not what will happen when the Bill reaches the statute book. The Minister has made the case that there is provision, particularly when the police and the fire authority get involved, for them to impose conditions. On the basis of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 184, in

clause 18, page 11, line 36, leave out

'an applicant to advertise his application'

and insert

'a licensing authority to advertise each application it receives'.

The amendment is simple. It would remove the requirement that the applicant advertises his application and replaces it with a requirement that the licensing authority advertise the application. There is a good reason for that. I shall illustrate it by reference to planning applications and applications for the storage of lorries on premises. The current position with planning applications is that most local authorities voluntarily advertise them together in the public notices pages of local newspapers. Certainly my own does and I know of many others that do. I am not sure whether that is voluntary or whether it is a requirement.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

It is statutory.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Therefore there is a precedent for what I am proposing. The situation with applications for the storage of lorries is that the applicant must place the advertisement in a newspaper that circulates within the area.

In one case in my constituency, the advertisement was placed by the applicant in The News (Portsmouth), which circulates on the island, albeit not widely. All planning applications are advertised by the Isle of Wight county council in the pages of the Isle of Wight County Press. That is where people tend to look for such applications. Of course, licensing applications may be advertised in both organs, but certainly in the Isle of Wight County Press.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

I am trying to help move things on. Will the hon. Gentleman explain his amendment in the context of subsection (5)(a), which states:

''in a manner which is prescribed and is likely to bring the application to the attention of the interested parties likely to be affected by it'',

because it would seem possible to prescribe that that should be advertised in the Isle of Wight County Press, not the other newspaper that we talked about.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

It would indeed, if the Minister could go into such detail, but it would be difficult for him to find a form of words that specifies such matters. Indeed, in the case of the application for the storage of lorries, the courts found that it was hard to find a form of words that would specify which newspaper would be appropriate. Moreover, it seemed to be sensible that the advertisements should be consolidated by the licensing authority, so that it would not only be less expensive in the long run, but make it easier for members of the public to find them, rather than have them separated and spread out in bits and pieces over the public notices pages, which sometimes happens in local newspapers. It is a simple proposal and I hope that the Minister agrees with it.

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

As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment may have been tabled with the intention of reducing the financial burden on applicants and letting more people know that the application has been made. However, I fear that it would not achieve that. Licensing authorities would need to recover costs incurred through advertising those applications and, given the Government's intention of setting fees at a level that would allow full recovery of costs for licensing authorities, additional burdens on the licensing authority would result in a general increase in the licensing fees, which would end up being shouldered by the consumer, although the initial outlay will be for the industry.

The draft guidance states that a short summary of the application, setting out the location of the premises, the proposed licensable activities, the proposed access for children and the proposed hours of opening should be published in two local newspapers. However—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with this—the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government have advised us, via the advisory group that has been assisting the

Department for Culture, Media and Sport with the Bill, that their surveys show that adverts in local papers are not always an effective way of advertising licensing applications. People often dispose of such papers, especially free ones, having glanced at a few of the articles, rather than reading them thoroughly and taking note of the advertisements and announcements.

The LGA and ALG studies show that the best way to advertise licensing applications and the method most likely to prompt interest and comment is to advertise using signs, prominently displayed immediately outside the premises in question. The Government are happy to accept the advice of the LGA and the ALG and as such, we are content to reflect that in the guidance and are minded to do so in secondary legislation.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I am concerned about signs being placed outside premises affected. That works for planning applications to an extent, but given the impact that a new pub could have on the wider community, simply posting a sign outside the site of the new pub would not be sufficient to bring it to the attention of the wider community. Given that one only has a hearing by the licensing committee if one receives representations from local people objecting to an application, it would seem that the widest circulation possible is more likely to generate a genuine reaction from the community to a licensing application.

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

Absolutely. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded us of that. There would be no compulsion on applicants only to advertise in that way. They can do it in newspapers and they may be required to do so. The hon. Gentleman is right: in certain circumstances there must be the maximum possible advertising. We think that the provisions should significantly reduce the cost to applicants and ensure that local residents are better informed. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I welcome the proposal for notices, which I take from the Minister's words to be additional to the advertisements in local newspapers.

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

Yes.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I do not think that he has dealt with whether the advertisements should be consolidated or otherwise, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.