Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 188, in

clause 19, page 12, line 6, at end insert—

'( ) Where an application for a premises licence is received by a licensing authority but—

(a) it is not made in accordance with section 18, or

(b) the authority is not satisfied under subsection (1)(b),

the authority shall return the application to the applicant indicating its reasons for doing so.'.

Clause 18 deals with what a council must do if an application is made that complies with all the rules and regulations regarding the form of application but does not provide for what actions the council must take when the applicant fails to comply. The amendment would ensure that in such cases the authority returns the application to the applicant with some reasons as to why it has not found favour.

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

I was a little confused. I thought that the hon. Gentleman mentioned clause 18, but we are debating clause 19.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Clause 19, I am sorry.

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

Clause 118—

Mr Martin Linton (Battersea, Labour)

Amendment No. 188.

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

I am getting confused, too. It is getting late in the day, though. Amendment No. 188 is unnecessary. It would insert a requirement in clause 19 that any applications received by the licensing authority that were either not amended in accordance with clause 18 or had not met the requirement under clause 18 to advertise an application and give notice of it to responsible authorities, would be returned by the authority to the applicant, setting out the reasons for the rejection of the application.

The provisions already contained in the Bill achieve that result. Clause 19(1) already has the effect that if an application does not meet the specified requirements, no further elaboration is needed. As a public authority, the licensing authority must advise the applicant that the application is not compliant and identify why it has formed that view. There is no reason to state that on the face of the Bill, and I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to a Division.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

On the basis of that reassurance, 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. 185, in

clause 19, page 12, line 29, at end insert—

'( ) to state that (in its opinion) any of the activities to which the application refers is not licensable;'.

Again, the amendment is simple and, I hope, self-explanatory. It would give a fifth option to the local authority in how to deal with an application. To avoid falling foul of the law, some applicants may make applications for activities for which it is unnecessary to make an application.

Given the breadth and comprehensiveness of the Bill, it is hard to think of examples of such activities. However, I am sure that sooner or later, someone will come up with one. It may be a question of whether a church is a church or a church hall, for example, because some churches are used as church halls as well as churches. That may be something that an applicant, being an honest sort of chap, would want to draw to the attention of the licensing authority. The authority would be prepared to say that in this case it recognised that the space that was being used was the church part

of the space, rather than the church hall part, so it was unnecessary to make such an application.

The local authority should have the option to state that any of the activities to which the application refers is not licensable. I put that option in where one might otherwise think that it exists because subsection (3) states that the authority ''must'' take one of the steps mentioned in subsection (4). In other words, it cannot say that the activity is not licensable when it has received an application, unless we give it the power so to do.

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

Whether an activity is licensable or not is a matter not of opinion but of fact. If an application were made for a premises licence to cover an activity not set out in clause 1, it would be null and void. The licensing authority has no power in law to license an activity that is not licensable. Making a statement about those activities cannot alter that fact in any way whatsoever.

It follows that the amendment serves no purpose other than to create confusion, which we can do without at this time of day. It will be important that operating schedules include general information about activities that are not licensable because it will inform decisions about the steps that need to be taken on those premises to promote a licensing objective. For example, general information about the service of table meals, which is not licensable, or the fact that gambling takes place, which is licensable under relevant legislation, will be important to decisions taken about the protection of children from harm. However, the provision of that information would not make those activities licensable in the Bill.

In light of those comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment to a Division.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

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. 190, in

clause 19, page 13, leave out line 17.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 191, in

clause 36, page 21, leave out line 35.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I shall be quick. Clause 19(10) states that

''In discharging its duty under subsection (2) or (3)(b), a licensing authority may grant a licence under this section subject to different conditions in respect of—

different parts of the premises concerned''.

Amendment No. 190 would delete the last line. It is a probing amendment. If licences are issued for different parts and different activities, how are people to know what is allowed in which part? It will be confusing.

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

When there have been relevant representations leading to a hearing, one of the courses open to the licensing authority in determining an application is to attach conditions to the premises licence. Those conditions, however, must be necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. There will not be any scope for the

imposition of blanket aspirational conditions, which is what the hon. Gentleman was hinting at, that are not appropriate to individual premises, or which cannot be given practical effect.

A crucial element in the system, allowing licensing authorities properly to target particular concerns and to attach appropriate controls, is the ability to impose different conditions to different parts of licensed premises. Far from leading to complication, that will ensure that the industry is not burdened with unnecessary conditions. I will give an example of how that would work in practice.

Let us suppose that, under the new regime, a typical pub in a residential area, which has a beer garden that is popular on summer evenings, applies to open until 1 am at weekends. Following a representation by a local resident on the grounds of public nuisance, saying that the sound of conversation, laughter and occasional raised voices would not be acceptable in the early hours, the licensing authority convenes a hearing. Following the hearing, it decides to impose conditions on the licence, restricting the hours of opening. Under the Bill, it is open to the licensing authority to agree to the opening times sought in the main building of the pub, possibly subject to conditions to minimise noise nuisance such as keeping the windows shut late at night, while at the same time imposing a condition restricting the opening times for the beer garden to, say, 11 pm. Applying that flexible approach satisfies the concerns of the local resident and would be an acceptable compromise for the premises licence holder.

Without that flexibility, the options open to the licensing authority in balancing the competing concerns would have been limited to rejecting the whole or part of the application, either granting a licence that provided for the longer hours both inside and out, to the potential detriment of the local resident, or imposing shorter hours across the whole premises. I am sure that hon. Members can think of examples where similar circumstances would exist.

The ability to impose different conditions to different parts of licensed premises provides a degree of flexibility that will prove valuable both to the authority itself and to the industry, enabling the appropriate conditions to be attached as circumstances require. I therefore hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.