Clause 14 - Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities
Licensing Bill [Lords]

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 15.

Clause 143 stand part.

Clause 151 stand part.

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

I was about to sum up. I shall be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) wants to get to other business on the agenda. I apologise to the Committee for not making available the guidance that several hon. Members have requested. I assure them that it will be issued soon, as the latest meeting of the working group on children's interests took place yesterday afternoon. We are working hard on such matters.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the Bill is silent about the access of children to premises. In the first instance, the applicant for a licence will have to decide whether he wishes to allow children on to the premises. That will be shown in his application. The application will then be notified to the responsible authorities, and the experts—which, if our amendment is accepted, will include child protection agencies and the police—will make representations. The licensing authority has a statutory obligation to have regard to the guidance, and it must provide written reasons for departing from it that can be challenged.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Can the Minister tell us when we will receive the guidance notes, so that we can use them as a basis for drafting amendments for clauses 143 and 151?

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

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date, but I assure him that it will be as early as possible. Yesterday afternoon's meeting with the working group on children's interests was very

productive. I shall try to get him some information shortly.

An hon. Member asked for examples of premises to which it is reasonable to expect children to have access, such as cafes, restaurants, certain pubs and some hotels. A wedding between two 16 or 17-year-olds could pose the problem of newlyweds being barred from their own wedding reception. Cinemas and theatres are also important.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) spoke about children and operating schedules. If a licensee does not wish to admit unsupervised children, he or she will not have to say anything about the steps that they would take to promote the protection of children from harm. All that they will need to say in the operating schedule is that they do not propose to admit children. It is as simple as that. We have had a fair discussion on the matter, so I hope that the Committee will accept the Government amendments.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for that short but helpful contribution. We look forward to receiving the guidance as soon as possible—at the end of the recess would be perfectly acceptable, so that we have time to work on the matter when we return. Some issues need further discussion, but we can approach those from a different angle. This is a vexed subject, but we must attempt to ensure that children are protected at all times. We shall not oppose the Government's amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 122, in

clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) the principal litter authority for the area;'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 182, in

clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) the health authority responsible for ambulance services for the area in which the premises are situated;'.

Amendment No. 183, in

clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) the authorities responsible for safety and rescue at sea (where the premises are a seagoing vessel);'.

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

Amendment No. 122 adds to the list of responsible authorities

''the principal litter authority for the area''.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the city of Westminster won the title of Britain's cleanest city at the annual awards ceremony of the British Cleaning Council, which was held in Birmingham a fortnight ago. That will undoubtedly elicit great congratulations from him. Westminster city council has overall responsibility for cleaning, although it contracts out its refuse collection function.

The Bill as it stands—following consideration in the House of Lords—will allow local authorities to consider the impact of a licence application on matters such as public order, noise, health and pollution, but those are by no means the only

impacts of licensed premises on local quality of life. A street cleansing authority should be able to make a relevant representation on or objection to a licensing matter under clause 14.

I had hoped that the Government amendment allowing the local planning authority to make representations or objections would extend that far, but it encompasses only matters covered by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In other words, a local planning authority would have quite a narrow focus for its objections to a licensing application, and that would not include the full range of activities undertaken by a litter authority. That is the main reason for our amendment.

Let me put the matter in context. The level of night-time activity in the west end of London has increased significantly over the past decade or so. That is clear to anyone who was familiar with London's nightlife in the 1980s. The Minister may slightly predate that period, as I recall his heyday in the Hornsey college of art during the great student unrest of 1968, so he would not recognise the current state of matters in the west end of London.

As recently as 1986—merely 17 years ago—there were only 17 licensed night cafes in the city of Westminster. By 1992—barely a decade ago—that figure had risen to 80, and today there are 158 licensed night cafes. There has also been a significant growth in the number and capacity of premises that are licensed for liquor and entertainment. As I mentioned, centres of night-time entertainment such as Leicester square and parts of Soho are thronged with people well into the early hours of the morning. As a consequence, far more night-time litter and refuse is generated, and at the same time the environment has become one in which it is harder to provide cleansing and refuse collection services.

I spend a lot of my time in my constituency—and I have rather more excuse than the Minister for doing so. At 8.15 last Saturday morning, I decided, partly with duty in mind, to head over to Soho and Covent Garden. The clean state of the streets was very evident. Five or six hours earlier, they would have been full of litter—general refuse such as bottles, cigarette packets and containers from fast food outlets. Westminster city council and, more importantly, the contractor do a terrific job as the local litter authority.

The standards that the city of Westminster aspires to achieve are set out in the leaflets published for every ward. They stipulate the hours during which street cleansing is carried out on a street-by-street basis. During those hours, the contractors are supposed to maintain the streets to what is described as a grade A standard—in other words, to keep them entirely free of litter. If the condition of a street falls below that, the contractor is obliged to attend within an hour and restore it to the full standard. That standard applies in much of the west end 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a level of service that is considerably in excess of what is required under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

That standard is probably replicated in many other large towns and cities that experience stress problems, particularly during the summer time. I accept that there are some practical limitations on the achievement of consistently high street cleansing standards in a busy metropolitan area. It has long been recognised that, in certain parts of Westminster at certain times of day, the sheer density of people is such that it is physically impossible to maintain a thorough cleansing regime. It then becomes especially important that the contractors can return to the scene, once the density of people decreases, to restore an acceptable standard of cleanliness.

Those conditions, long recognised in some of the busier shopping streets, are now also experienced in parts of the west end at night. At certain times of the year, parts of the west end, including Leicester square, and the busier streets of Soho, are so thronged with people that it is difficult or impossible to maintain them to grade A standard. Moreover, given the narrowness of some of the streets and courts in central London, it would be inappropriate to use mechanised equipment there.

Manual sweeping is rendered more difficult by the crowds at late hours of the night or, more accurately, the early hours of the morning. There are difficulties in using brooms on pavements crowded with people, many of whom may be in an inebriated, or perhaps a semi-inebriated, state. At such times, the most that can realistically be expected is that litter is picked up, to maintain the levels of street litter within reasonable bounds. I hope that, from what I have said, I have convinced the Minister that the litter authority has an important role to play as one of the responsible authorities.

We have considered other provisions that cover the chief officer of police and the fire authority. It is clear that cleansing contractors have to deal with large quantities of waste deposited on our streets during the hours of darkness. The operations required to clean London streets at the end of an evening entail sweeping, flushing and pressure-washing, which cannot be carried out when the streets remain busy with people. It would not be reasonable to expect Westminster council or any other authority to complete cleansing arrangements of that nature without a window of opportunity—a few hours—between the end of the night's entertainment and the beginning of the next working day.

That is part of the reason why we want the principal litter authority to become a responsible authority for the purposes of the clause. Obviously, it is authorised to do its day-to-day work, but it should be regarded as an interested and responsible party for the purposes of the planning application. It is sometimes argued—by a number of applicants in the city of Westminster, at least—at licensing hearings that the state of west end streets has less to do with the activities of licensed premises than with the efficiency of the city council's cleansing operation. However, it is clear from what I have said, and anyone who visits those streets in the early hours of the day will confirm, that the city council does a terrific job, albeit by passing on that

authority on a day-to-day basis to contractors under the usual legislation.

The street cleansing and waste collection service, rather than the city council itself, holds a charter mark. For that reason, it is all the more important that it is the principal litter authority, rather than the city council, that should be the responsible authority for the purposes of clause 14. The growth of the night-time economy has added a significant burden to the council's cleansing services over the past decade or so. The present construction of the contract in Westminster, which is replicated in various London boroughs, puts the bulk of the additional financial burden on the contractor. It is therefore in the contractor's interest to ensure that the state of the streets is satisfactory and that there is a sensible regime, given their real concerns and constraints during their day-to-day business.

I hope the Minister will give considerable thought to our amendment, because it reflects the fact that many of the duties are now contracted out. It is not enough simply to say that environmental health officers may object under the current terms to the pollution and harm done to children's health, and that they therefore have some locus standi under clause 14. It is not clear whether local authority street cleansing services would be able to make such strong representations. Representations could be made to the local authority, but surely such services should have the opportunity to object in their own right, so that the streets of our main cities can remain clean.

I consider that to be in the interests of residents, but also in the interests of any commercial quarter. Without a regime that allows for the proper cleansing of our streets in central London and if the state of those streets becomes increasingly bad, we shall soon find that much of the income from tourism, which goes into so many parts of our economy, will be diminished. If that happens, the hotel businesses, and much of the other business in the west end, would quickly think about moving away.

I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to ensuring that among the responsible authorities there could be a principal litter authority. I do not expect that that would be a grave concern, or that it would add more bureaucracy to the Bill, and I suspect that only in a relatively small number of cases would a litter authority want to have the locus standi.

The situation in the streets of central London may not be unique, but it is fairly unusual. We are now ensuring that there is compulsory competitive tendering and such facilities are contracted out, away from the local authorities' environmental health departments. Thus it makes sense that environmental health departments should be extended to become litter authorities. That would make sure that they had their say in protecting the general quality of life, and ensuring that commercial facilities were maintained.

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. Is he aware that clause 117, or thereabouts, of the Local Government Bill, which is currently in the other place,

will do what I suggest in my private Member's Bill? It will allow local authorities to keep the revenue from fixed penalty fines to use in the enforcement of the litter laws. If authorities concentrate on enforcement, the burden of clearing up litter that is currently placed on them might be lessened. The hon. Gentleman ought to take that into account when making his case.

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

I accept that, and I wish the hon. Gentleman all the best with his private Member's Bill. However, we are thinking about this Bill, and considering who should have some standing as the responsible authority. That is why I have put forward the case for ensuring that a principal litter authority should have some standing in relation to licensing applications.

As I have already said, there must be a properly timed window of opportunity to ensure that the streets are cleaned. It is always amazing to see how quickly streets can be cleaned, considering how many people are around until the early hours of the morning. However, there should be some gap. With the London Underground, it is recognised that a certain number of hours should be set aside every day for maintenance. We may talk about the desirability of having 24-hour train services, at least for some of the week, but that is a debate for another time. It is recognised that some gap is required, and I worry that a regime with concentrated saturation 24-hour licensing would have no gap. It would be in the hands of the local litter authority to make representations about that.

The practical consequences are that unless the Bill is amended, we fear that the local street cleaning authorities will be unable to clean up to an acceptable standard before the beginning of the next working day. At the very least, street cleansing and flushing operations would have to take place later, to the great disturbance of local residents and significant numbers of ratepayers and businesses in the area. The measure may result in a general worsening of standards. I hope that the Minister will consider those comments, and that even if he cannot fully accept our amendment, he will suggest how we might improve matters.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I welcome you back to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. Benton.

I tabled two amendments, Nos. 182 and 183. The first requires that

''the health authority responsible for ambulance services''

be included as a responsible authority. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), I will illustrate the reasons for that by referring to my constituency.

As some hon. Members will have gathered, the Isle of Wight is detached from the mainland by a stretch of water.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Separated is a better word.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I think that detached is a far better word.

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

Might I suggest that my hon. Friend is an appropriate Member of Parliament for his constituency?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that.

If a major event such as a pop festival were to be organised in my constituency, or in some of the more distant parts of the constituencies of other Committee members, it would be essential for the safety of local people to know that adequate facilities were available for transferring cases to accident and emergency units or the appropriate hospitals.

We have a limited fixed number of ambulances on the island, because it is difficult for my health authority to obtain assistance from adjoining ambulance authorities. Indeed, there are none. When a major cardiac arrest happens, it is sometimes necessary to use a helicopter to transfer the patient to the mainland. If the population of the island doubles, as happened in the 1970s at the time of the pop festival, the limited number of ambulances available—[Interruption.]

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Order. The noise levels are too high.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Forgive me, Mr. Benton, if I encouraged that by introducing an air of levity. The matter that we are discussing is tremendously serious, as I am sure the Minister recognises. If the population of an area doubles, it is at least likely that the number of ambulances needed in that area will increase. In the case of a detached constituency such as mine, or a distant part of the mainland, it is difficult to bring those ambulances in on demand—arrangements have to be made in advance. I contend that the health authority responsible for the ambulance service should be included as a consultee.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but does he not accept that it would be the responsibility of the applicant for a licence to demonstrate that he or she had taken adequate steps to protect public safety? The Glastonbury festival organiser always has to ensure that the health authority has adequate controls. If one were to hold a pop festival on the Isle of Wight, the licensing authority would make a judgment as to whether there had been proper consultation and provision to satisfy concerns about public safety. Does that not answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman is—rightly—asking under his amendment?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am not sure. I remain to be convinced by the Minister. I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I think Portland is the relevant example in this case.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

That is also an island, but is attached by a causeway.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I appreciate that.

We should examine whether it is necessary for the ambulance authority to be a ''responsible authority'' that is entitled to be consulted, or whether to leave it to the promoter of the entertainment to put that forward. We could then rely on the licensing authority to check that sufficient arrangements for public safety have been made. Of course, not all aspects of public safety are within the control of the promoter. If someone has a heart attack for a reason not associated with the entertainment, that would not necessarily be within the control of the promoter.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

I have no wish to extend the

argument—we have important matters to discuss, and we all agree that we need to move as quickly as possible. However, there have been deaths at the Glastonbury festival. A large city is temporarily created during that event. It is the responsibility of the promoter to ensure that adequate measures are taken to guard against such deaths and to make sure that proper provision is made for transporting people to Frenchay hospital and the other key acute hospitals in the area. The Bill offers the solution that the hon. Gentleman is rightly looking for.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am pleased to hear that. If the Minister can confirm that, I may ask leave to withdraw the amendment in due course.

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

I can confirm that.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

That deals with amendment No. 182.

Amendment No. 183 is slightly more interesting. The involvement of sea-going vessels has not been widely considered, either in the Bill or in the White Paper. I am interested in subsection (4)(g)(i), which mentions ''a navigation authority''. Does that authority include a harbour authority? There are four harbour authorities that affect my constituency—Southampton, Cowes, Yarmouth and the Queen's harbour master. The latter voluntarily accepts requirements made of other authorities by legislation, but in fact its primary responsibility is for the security of the Queen's port of Portsmouth.

My amendment considers problems arising on or off a sea-going vessel. According to Lord Justice Clarke's report on the Marchioness disaster,

''An additional power would provide for a police officer . . . to be able to order any boat . . . on grounds of disorder . . . and public safety to return to its home berth and the disembarkation of all passengers.''

I wonder whether a police officer has responsibility outside his police area, and I would be interested to know when a police officer's responsibility relates to the high seas. A vessel might clearly be navigating within a police authority's area. For example, if a vessel were navigated from Portsmouth to Gosport, nobody would question whether the chief constable of Hampshire had responsibility in that area. If a vessel were navigated from Portsmouth to the Isle of Wight, the chief constable might have authority within that area. But what if the vessel were navigated from Ryde to Bognor Regis? One end of the journey is in one police authority, one end is in another, and part of it may be outwith both police authorities.

I propose that we make that the responsibility of the authority that is responsible for safety and rescue at sea and give it the status of a responsible authority within the meaning of the Bill. Safety issues remain primarily the responsibility of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In effect, it is the Health and Safety Executive of the sea. It is responsible for enforcing legislation on the safety of ships, including hovercraft, their crew and work equipment supplied by ships, and the safety of passengers on board. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency should be included

in the Bill and defined in more general terms by the inclusion of amendment No. 183.

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

First, I congratulate Westminster council on winning the award. It is an important one and the matter is something about which I feel strongly. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will be interested to know that litter is a problem that does not only affect inner cities. It affects everywhere. I went out on my pushbike on Saturday, and even up in the mountains in a very remote part of my constituency there was litter along both sides of the road for the whole length of my ride. The filthy individuals who throw stuff out of their cars as they pass ought to think more often about their actions.

The Government cannot accept amendment No. 122. The Bill cannot deal with the behaviour of customers after they have left the vicinity of the premises. It would be neither practical nor reasonable to expect it to do so. Under the Bill, licensing objectives must be capable of translation into conditions that can reasonably be imposed on any premises licence holder. Those must be within his or her control, so that failure to comply can properly result in prosecution. It must be clear to the licence holder and to enforcement officers when the holder has transgressed the law.

It is easy to see how a licensee might encourage responsible behaviour as individuals are leaving premises, even when they are getting into their nearby cars and driving away. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave us examples of neighbourhoods that suffer a good deal of noise pollution, especially in the early hours of the morning.

A condition attached to the licence could reasonably require the licensee to do that, by placing litter bins and signs at exits, for example. However, that influence quickly becomes attenuated. Once customers are beyond the licence holder's control, the onus for good conduct should fall squarely on the individual, and it is on the individual that enforcement efforts should be focused.

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

I fully appreciate the worries that licensees will have. They will say that they cannot and should not be made responsible for individuals who have left their premises. In the case of narrow streets that cannot otherwise be cleaned, there should be a principal litter authority that can argue for a curfew time, even if only for two or three hours during the night. It would have the standing to argue a forceful case—at least, its side of the case—that a 24-hour licence should not be granted because it would otherwise be impossible properly to cleanse the streets. We are not talking about placing any further burdens on the licensee.

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

I can imagine a situation in which a licensing authority would see it fit and proper to discuss matters with whichever department arranges and controls street cleaning. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of trying to clean using brooms when streets are crowded. I am sure that he will recall that one of the things that the Government are aiming for in the Bill is to prevent those spikes

when people are thrown out of pubs at a certain time. If that is successful, there should be more space on the pavements.

To add the principal litter authority for the area to the list of responsible authorities and to make it a body that must be consulted on every application will add to the bureaucracy. Litter is generated by thoughtless and inconsiderate individuals; not by licensed premises per se. It seems rather unfair to single out licensed premises, as the amendment does. Litter may derive from a variety of sources, such as fast food outlets, schools—all sorts of places. Where education and persuasion are insufficient to tackle the problem, statutory powers are available to local authorities. Section 93 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that councils may issue to the occupiers of certain types of commercial or retail premises a street litter control notice, with a view to preventing the accumulation of litter or refuse around streets or open land adjacent to any street in the vicinity of those premises.

The types of premises that are specified in the Street Litter Control Notices Order 1991, as amended, include those used for the sale of food, drink and lottery tickets, petrol stations, betting shops, places of entertainment and premises with automatic telling machine—ATMs—on outside walls. For example, an authority can specify reasonable requirements in relation to a maximum length of 100 m along a street in either direction—I understand that it is 10 m for ATMs. Furthermore, local authorities may issue persons with fixed penalty notices for leaving litter in breach of the 1990 Act.

A few months ago, Cardiff city council—it is nice to be able to mention a council other than Westminster during the debate—issued fixed penalty notices for those breaking environmental laws under the council's tough policy on litter. Here is what Westminster Conservatives had to say on their website on the subject of litter: ''Adequate enforcement''—they may not have said it in this accent—

''is another aspect of clean streets. Last year, Westminster issued over 7,300 litter fines—more than every other council in the country combined.''

I am not sure whether that is good or bad. I suspect that it is good, and it is a remarkable fact. That council has gone a long way in trying to tackle the problem of litter.

Powers clearly exist and they are being used. The 1990 Act includes the general offence of leaving litter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made clear, many such issues are being dealt with in the Local Government Bill. His own Bill—I had the pleasure of listening to him introducing it in the House last Friday—paid specific attention to these issues. That was a good initiative.

It is unfair to single out licensed premises as the main culprits. Local authorities have wide powers to take action where it is merited and where voluntary engagement by individual businesses does not achieve results. Amendment No. 122 adds nothing to the Bill and I hope that it will not be pressed.

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

Can the Minister confirm whether under the Bill the environmental enforcement notices to which he refers, which already provide powers for local authorities such as Westminster, will ensure that authority is given to local licensing authorities to utilise orders that go back over a decade? I hope that the Minister understands that there is no question of trying to single out licensed premises, and he is right to point out the concerns about fast food outlets that are open 24 hours a day. Can he confirm that the orders to which he referred will be able to cover the concerns that I have articulated?

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

I cannot speak for any other Government Department or Minister but I would have thought that, given the length of time that this legislation has been in place and the example set by authorities such as the city of Westminster, local authorities would know that they have the right to do these things. Whether they have the political will to do them is another matter.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Does my hon. Friend agree that under the new local government legislation local authorities will be able to keep the fines rather than return them to the Exchequer, which was the case under the previous Conservative Government, which introduced legislation?

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

That is true.

Amendment No. 182 would add

''the health authority responsible for ambulance services for the area''.

I am unsure whether the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) moved that amendment, or if he wants me to say something about it.

Mr. Turner indicated assent.

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

Although I should check with my Whip about what I should do in these circumstances, I will keep going.

I do not accept that this amendment would achieve anything except an increase in bureaucracy and red tape. Ambulance call-outs to licensed premises arise almost exclusively from incidents of disorder. As a result of our antiquated system of permitted hours, thousands of people are turfed out on to the streets at the same time, having left licensed premises and frequently having consumed large quantities of alcohol in a very short period. Some of them—mostly young men—enter into a debate that is considerably less gentlemanly than the way in which you, Mr. Benton, allow us to debate matters in this Committee, sometimes with disastrous results.

We are tackling that problem at source. The Bill gives the police considerable powers to control disorder, which supplement their existing powers: they will be notified of all licensing applications; they will be able to make representations; they will be able to call for a review of existing premises licences on the grounds of crime and disorder; they will have powers to close any licensed premises on the spot for 24 hours where they are giving rise to issues of disorder; and, of course, the abolition of fixed and artificially early closing times will reduce the lager guzzling that so often leads to violence on the streets at closing time.

Adding the ambulance service to the list of responsible authorities does nothing to deal with disorder and everything to increase bureaucracy. I hope that the amendment will not be agreed.

Amendment No. 183 adds

''the authorities responsible for safety and rescue at sea (where the premises are a sea-going vessel)''

to the list of responsible authorities, which is also unnecessary. First, the Bill exempts all vessels engaged on an international journey—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight told us that—which immediately places the vast majority of sea-going vessels outside the licensing regime altogether. Secondly, those sea-going vessels engaged in journeys in coastal waters will come under the jurisdiction of the relevant navigation authority, which is already specified in the Bill. I hope that that amendment will also be withdrawn.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked about hovercraft. We have Sir Christopher Cockerell to thank for their ingenious propulsion method.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Off Cowes.

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

I do not think that cows have much to do with this, but they have given us a lot of milk.

Hovercraft occupy their own particular position in legislation because of that ingenious method: they are neither boats nor aircraft, but something in between. Regulations regarding the operation of hovercraft are made through Orders in Council. They are detailed and include strict safety requirements and responsibilities on owners and captains. That is why the Bill's provisions do not apply to such craft. Other legislation may be applied to hovercraft through Orders in Council, but for the purposes of the Bill it is considered to be correct to treat hovercraft in the same way as we deal with other aircraft that are covered by the relevant requirements. If the hon. Gentleman needs further information, I would be happy to write to him.

Mr. Turner rose—

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

I will not give way for a moment, because the hon. Gentleman asked many questions and I will try to answer them.

Under clause 172, a vessel that is engaged on an international journey is exempt from the provisions of the Bill—such a journey is defined in 172(6)—and vessels that are not engaged in an international journey are covered by the Bill. That meets the undertaking that the Government gave to Lord Justice Clark after the Thames safety inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. Pleasure trips and so forth on inshore coastal waters would be in the UK, so they are in the scope of the Bill. Certain merchant supply legislation or local authority byelaws would apply, depending on the kind of vessel. However, Lord Clark was led to make his recommendation because vessels to which the Bill shall apply were not regulated in relation to the sale of alcohol.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is given the status of an authorised person in clause 14(2)(e). However, with regard to the ability to make

representations, although not inspections relevant to the enforcement role, the Secretary of State is included as the appropriate authority for MCA officers. The hon. Gentleman also asked about harbour masters. The reference in 14(4)(g)(i) on navigation authorities includes harbour authorities.

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

I am not entirely convinced by what the Minister has said, but that does not mean that I am not convincible. I hope that serious consideration will be given on Report to whether the list of responsible authorities under clause 14(4) is broad enough and whether it would be prudent to increase that to include litter and ambulance authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight suggested. However, on the basis of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 121, in

clause 14, page 9, line 15, leave out

', including the relevant licensing authority,'

and insert

'(other than the relevant licensing authority)'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.