Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I did not think that you were going to come to an end as you read out those amendments, Mr. Benton. That is a testament to the importance and significance of the clause—it is also contentious. At the start of our proceedings I said that we wanted to help the Minister to formulate pragmatic, practical and workable legislation, and this is his one big opportunity to do just that. We know that the Minister's fame—perhaps even his notoriety—has gone far and wide because of his criticism of modern English art, but he has other talents, too. I hope that he is listening carefully to the powerful arguments from all the parts of the industry that will be involved in this area.

Clause 16 begins by defining the ''designated premises supervisor'', and it is followed by a host of other clauses, some of which we will debate in their own right, and others under schedule 8. It is a wide-ranging clause, as once the role of the supervisor has been defined, we can move on to all sorts of other areas.

The way in which the Government have drafted the clause is incredibly bureaucratic and over-regulated. We know how the clause began. Presumably the police, having considered the White Paper in negotiations with Government, said, ''If there's a problem on some premises and we send the boys along, they need to be able to ascertain quickly and without too much fuss and bother who's in charge.'' No one would disagree with that. However, then the civil servants got a hold of the idea, and the draftsman got hold of what the civil servants had done. We have ended up with about 10 clauses, two schedules and all the rest of it, just to tie in the simple concept of having a designated premises supervisor.

Let us begin with where the industry stands on the clause. The British Beer and Pub Association, the British Hospitality Association, the Restaurant Association, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, Business in Sport and Leisure and the British Retail Consortium, as well as the various licensed victuallers associations throughout the country, support our amendments to the procedures and obligations surrounding the designated premises supervisor.

Members of the Committee will, I am sure, be aware that the list I read out represents a large and diverse part of the leisure and hospitality market. Those organisations have discussed the issues involved with the Local Government Association—we had a spat in Committee the other day about exactly what the LGA had said, to whom and when. The LGA is saying, however, that it too believes that the procedures outlined in clause 16 and beyond are unnecessary.

As I said, the police have expressed their concern that the personal licence holder should be known to the premises licence holder. That is not a problem, because we believe that we have covered that requirement in new clause 2, which requires the consent of the premises licence holder to be obtained before a notice is served.

We are told that the industry has discussed the salient issues at length with the Government. However, it is disappointed that its arguments have not yet received a sympathetic response from the Government. Letters have been written, and some responses are still outstanding. Only the other day a letter from the Licensed Victuallers Association was suddenly produced out of a hat to the Minister's left, and he did not know anything about it. There may well be other letters that he has not seen. I suggest that he insists on seeing every letter that has been written on the subject to date.

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

I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I never see another letter on this issue, I shall be more than glad.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I do not consider that to be a very sympathetic response.

The industry has long agreed to the split in licensing; if we go back far enough, we shall find that it probably suggested the concept in the first place. It also recognises that the personal licence holder would need to be known to the authorities, and

that the information needs to be registered somewhere. It therefore has no quarrel—nor do we—with the need to identify and register the premises supervisor.

We disagree with the Minister about the support of the linkage to the premises licence through the requirement to regard the change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence, and, following on from that, the requirement to write the name of the designated premises supervisor into that premises licence. That is incredibly bureaucratic. Has the hon. Gentleman had any communication with the Better Regulation Task Force? Has he written to that organisation? Did he ask its views? If it has responded, perhaps he will share its views with the Committee—or if it has used its own initiative and made its views known, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what they are?

What are the views of the Small Business Service, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry, about the regulations that are required? The premises licence should be a stand-alone licence. It is concerned primarily with the suitability of particular premises to provide alcohol and/or public entertainment at the times and under the conditions granted to it. That must stand irrespective of the personal licensee, who we accept has the duty and responsibility to uphold the terms of the licence and the law.

The consequences of the linkages that the Government have set out in the Bill can be seen as a series of obligations. The name of the designated premises supervisor must be given at the time of the application for a new licence. That person will not always be identified at the time of the application. For example, a supermarket chain that wants to obtain a licence may not even appoint the relevant manager until near the opening day. The identity of the person who will be responsible for the licence should make no difference to the application for a premises licence, so long as he or she is qualified professionally under the Bill to undertake such duties. When the new licensee is ready to commence business, it would be a simple matter to notify the police and the licensing authority of the identity of the personal licence holder, who is designated as the premises supervisor. Such matters are set out in new clause 2.

The second problem is that under the Bill, the premises licence must be altered each time there is a change of manager. That can happen frequently in larger businesses where managers move around constantly for career development and other reasons. Currently, about 155,000 premises hold an alcohol licence. In many of those businesses the turnover of staff is high—much higher than in many other businesses. Even if we pluck out of the air a 10 per cent. turnover figure, it means that in 15,500 cases a variation in the premises licence will be triggered by a movement of personnel, which means a rigmarole of applications to the local licensing authority, and the associated costs.

The industry, and most other people, were happy with the White Paper when it was drafted. For the purpose of my argument, I shall read out the relevant

paragraph to the Committee. Paragraph 43, on page 23, states:

''On arrival in a new licensing area a personal licence holder intending to work in new premises would be required to notify the police and the licensing authority of his or her arrival. This would enable the police to check details against the central database''—

as we mentioned in a previous debate, that was dealt with in the same chapter of the White Paper—

''and maintain a closer eye on certain licence holders whose history might demand it. We have considered whether the police or the licensing authority should have a right at this stage to refuse to permit a licence holder from elsewhere to become responsible for premises in their area. On one hand, there is a danger that this could undermine the basic principle of allowing a fully transferable licence and encourage the application of different standards in differed parts of the country. The normal presumption must therefore be''—

this is critical—

''that any personal licence holder will be acceptable.''

A little later, paragraph 44 says:

''In these exceptional cases, problems could sensibly be avoided by personal holders giving the police advance warning of their impending arrival, thereby allowing issues to be resolved prior to the transfer and avoiding the need for premises to be closed for a temporary period.''

Whoever wrote that was offering a practical and sensible way forward. The industry accepts that advice, as do we, so why on earth, in the gestation period between the publishing of the White Paper and the coming to fruition of the Bill, has there been such a huge increase in bureaucracy? [Interruption.] The Minister scoffs, or perhaps laughs—I am not sure which. We are talking about deregulating, yet here is what we will be doing under parts of the Bill—I am sorry, the markings on my Bill look like a St. Andrew's cross; I did not mean any offence to any Scots here.

New clause 2 would take away whole clauses on this subject, to replace them with a couple of subsections that simply say what was intended in the White Paper: that when a change occurs, the new personal licence holder will notify the various authorities. We have set that out in new clause 2, and for the Committee's delectation, I shall read it out:

''A holder of a personal licence seeking to become the designated premises supervisor for premises shall serve a notice in the prescribed form, together with the signed consent of the holder or the premises licence''.

That leaps over the police's objection that they need to know that the premises licence holder knows who the designated premises supervisor is. Such a licence should be served

''upon—

(a) the relevant licensing authority,

(b) the chief officer of police, and

(c) the person previously designated as premises supervisor, at his last known address''.

The new clause then goes on to cover other aspects.

We believe that the requirement to serve notice achieves all the Government's aims in bringing forward the concept of a designated premises supervisor. We accept that that concept was not in the White Paper, and that the police want a named person—but new clause 2 gets round that difficulty. We also suggest in the new clause that the name of the

supervisor should be displayed prominently on the premises, so that if the police turn up they know exactly who that person is, and can take action pretty well immediately.

It is time that the Government took notice of the arguments on the subject. I hope that the Minister will make at least some movement towards our position—although the fact that he would lose some six clauses and two schedules might make him think that doing so would not look too good on his record.

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

That is nothing.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am delighted to hear it.

I am aware that Labour members of the Committee, too, particularly the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), are interested in the clause. Perhaps he has had a session of ringing round this lunchtime, as he did earlier in the week, or perhaps he has had lunch and moved up a rung on the ladder this time? Undoubtedly he will speak on those matters himself.

We understand that representatives of the police, who are in regular contact with the Minister and his team about these matters, are also happy with the proposals. Therefore, all this extra legislation and bureaucracy is unnecessary. The police are now satisfied that a way forward can be found that is sensible, practical and does away with all this bureaucracy, and cost, because it is costly to business and the licensing authorities to have 15,000 or 20,000 variations to deal with in any given year.

We are interested to hear what the Minister has to say and we reserve our right to press this amendment to a Division if that is necessary.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

I endorse the case that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made. He did so in sensible terms. He is right that the formula in the Bill is unnecessarily bureaucratic, that it cannot serve the interests of deregulation or better regulation, and that the original intention as laid out in the White Paper was a better way of handling these issues. There is no point in elaborately rehearsing that case because the hon. Gentleman has done so more than adequately. He is right and I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks.

Mr John Grogan (Selby, Labour)

I wish to make a brief, helpful, post-lunch contribution to the cause of Her Majesty's Government. The case has been put well, but I have a couple of points.

Why does it matter that we get this relatively technical point right and the matters arising from the previous debate on registering interests, by spending time on trying to achieve consensus? It matters because this will be a massive change in our licensing system and if we can get consensus it is worth going that extra mile to do so. Achieving a system where the police, local government, tenants and the industry all agree is a prize worth aiming for. That is why I put some effort into doing that.

We are tantalisingly close to achieving that. There are two main objections to the Opposition's new

clauses. One of them is the attitude of the police. They have now made it clear that they have no objection in principle to a notification or registration system rather than one that requires changing the premises licence or a schedule to that licence every time the designated premises supervisor changes.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is closer to these matters than we are because of his position on the all-party beer group, and perhaps he would share with us the names of the ''police'' to whom he is talking. Are they terribly important and ought we to know about them?

Mr John Grogan (Selby, Labour)

Next Wednesday, the deputy chief constable of the Greater Manchester police, which takes the lead on such licensing matters for the whole country, has agreed to host a meeting at that force's headquarters. It will be attended by senior representatives of the Local Government Association, the police, the industry—not only big business, because the tenants are keen to attend, too—and the all-party beer group. They will discuss this matter and that of the register of interests.

The Minister is not keen to get any more letters on this subject, so I will call what we are hoping will arise from that meeting, if we manage to reach a consensus, a memo. That will be dispatched to the Minister and other Committee members to clarify the attitude of all of those organisations on this matter. The police would like to know as soon as possible of any changes in designated premises supervisors, but the industry is keen to provide that information so it appears that we are close to achieving consensus.

Another issue raised is the difference in attitude between big business and tenants. There is some suggestion that if we went the way of a registration or notification system, as the Opposition suggest, that would take responsibility away from big business and put it on to individual licensees and so forth. We are talking not only about pubs, but about all licences. As for pubs, it is worth considering the position of tenants. They are proud people. They would want to hold premises licences and be responsible for notifying their situation to the relevant authorities.

I stress that our debates in Committee matter. Our debate on Tuesday covered some similar issues and concluded that we would not have a register of interests. As a result, one prominent brewery, Hardy and Hansons, which makes Kimberley ales in Nottingham, has decided that it will have premises licences for all its pubs. The tenants are already up in arms because they want the premises licences to be in their names. Thus, what we do has consequences and I hope that the discussions on those two important matters that will be held just prior to Easter next Wednesday will reach a consensus. There can be no doubt in any part of the House about the attitude of the police, the Local Government Association, tenants and the industry.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Have representatives of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport been invited to the meeting? If not, what is the point of it?

Mr John Grogan (Selby, Labour)

People from the DCMS can join us in Manchester, should they so wish. I did not think that it was my place to invite them.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

They have not said that.

Mr John Grogan (Selby, Labour)

I have not invited them, to be fair. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, I am busy at lunchtimes and I organised the meeting at lunchtime.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Order. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, the dates and times of meetings are not relevant. Will he return to the amendment, please?

Mr John Grogan (Selby, Labour)

Obviously, I take your guidance, Mr. Benton. However, whatever the date and time of the meeting, I hope that the Government will listen to any conclusions that result that from it.

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

I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that I always listen to what he says and I always listen to what the all-party beer group says.

The purpose of the amendment is clear. It is to replace the arrangements for the specification of the designated premises supervisor in the premises licence where alcohol is to be supplied with arrangements that involve a system of registering supervisors. The issues surrounding the designated premises supervisor were debated many times at great length in Committee and on Report in another place. The Government's position was supported in another place and, although the matter was pressed to a Division, all attempts to amend the arrangements were defeated.

Interestingly, Conservative Members said on Second Reading and in Committee that we should be slow to overturn views expressed in another place. Yet now they seem ready, when it suits them, to pursue changes that the other place rejected. They really need to make up their minds. They are inconsistent and they look to me like slaves to unnamed, outside lobbyists. It is probably to do with some big business, but I will not go into that.

On a number of occasions on Second Reading, some hon. Members said that the arrangements for the designated premises supervisor virtually involved a new licence application. That is completely untrue. I must conclude that they have been misled by some over-enthusiastic lobbying, no doubt by the same companies. The current system—not the new one—involves the full transfer of justices licences when a new manager is to be put in place. There is a full hearing at which the police are required to express views. The justices question the manager to decide whether he is a fit and proper person to hold the licence. The system is bureaucratic and costly, not only in fees and expenses, but management time. That, I stress, is the old system.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Does my hon. Friend also agree that much of the transfer will be carried out under office delegation and not involve members of the licensing authority at all?

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

Absolutely. I should have thought that we had debated those issues long enough for Conservative Members to realise that.

The new arrangements under the Bill provide that the new supervisor with his personal licence—we fully

expect him to be in managing control of the premises so I shall call him the manager—can, if needed, take up his post immediately. I repeat, the manager can take up his post immediately. That was a concession that we made to the pub industry before the Bill was published. On taking up his post, the manager's details must be sent with a copy of the schedule to the premises licence—just a page from it—to the licensing authority for amendment. A copy of the details will also go to the police. The police can intervene on crime prevention grounds, but only in exceptional circumstances and only in those rare cases will a hearing be needed.

Those changes represent a huge reduction in the existing bureaucracy as anyone who understands the new and old systems realises. The problem is that I am not sure that people do understand the differences. Despite that, there have been many challenges to the concept of a designated premises supervisor as it appears in the Bill. The different approaches have included the removal of the concept completely, the removal of the requirement to include, and therefore vary, details of the premises licence, or the reduction of police powers to intervene when a new premises supervisor arrives at the premises. Amendments Nos. 147 and 189 would deny the police the right to make representations about the designated premises supervisor, and even the industry no longer supports such a radical and unacceptable position.

The Government have made their position clear: all the approaches are a significant weakening of the Bill's provision to enhance the prevention of crime and disorder. The issue of the designated premises supervisor arises only in the context of the supply of alcohol. It is an important safeguard and will be vital to the police and other enforcement agencies. It is not burdensome for either an applicant, who will be the applicant for or holder of the premises licence, or the licensing authority. I am pleased to see the industry, in pressing for the scheme that most of the amendments tackle, has recognised the need for the police to have a right of intervention when a new designated premises supervisor arrives at a new premises. That is progress.

The industry has recognised that problems can arise upon the marriage of the two licences—personal and premises. It also recognises that the name of the individual must be displayed on the premises so that enforcement officers, or local residents who want to complain, know with whom they should be dealing.

The changes that the Opposition amendments would make generate a scheme that is so like the one in the Bill that the only differences are the terms used and who makes the application. Opposition Members believe that they are moving amendments that will reduce bureaucracy. I am happy to challenge them to demonstrate exactly where bureaucracy will be saved. Under the scheme that they propose, two pieces of paper—a notice and a form of consent—will be sent to the licensing authority, with copies being sent to the police and the person previously designated as premises supervisor, if there was one. The licensing authority then amends the details in the register, and the person may take up his post as soon as the notice

has been received. Unless the police choose to intervene, the person will display his name on the premises and begin supervising.

Let us compare that with our proposed arrangements. Under the Bill, on the arrival of the new manager, two pieces of paper—a page from the licence and a form of consent—will be sent to the licensing authority and copies will go to the police. The licensing authority will make the necessary amendments and the individual is allowed to take up his post immediately the application is received. Unless the police intervene, the individual will display on the premises the summary of the licence bearing his name and begin supervising.

I cannot for the life of me see the difference between those two arrangements in terms of bureaucracy or the numbers of pieces of paper involved. I cannot see anything in practice that is significantly different. The movers of the amendment call the arrangements registration, whereas I call it specification on the licence. Their scheme involves displaying two pieces of paper in the pub and the Government's involves displaying one, so we might be slightly ahead on the paper count. I would be disinclined to make changes that are purely cosmetic. If there are no real changes in practice or to the level of bureaucracy, what are the amendments pursuing? Are they a smokescreen for something else? Although the two rival schemes are remarkably similar, hon. Members may have missed some rather subtle differences that raise important matters for the Committee's consideration.

The first and perhaps most important issue is that of the person on whom the burden of complying with the duties described in the amendments falls. Under the Bill, it is the duty of the premises licence holder to specify a personal licence holder as the designated premises supervisor. Under the registration scheme proposed, it is the duty of the personal licence holder to register with the licensing authority and the premises licence holder has no role. So, we come to the heart of what all the hot air is about.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I do not think that that matters because the personal licence holder has to have a consent form from the premises licence holder before notification is given.

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

No, we are talking about who has the duty to send off the form, and under our scheme the duty lies with the premises licence holder. That is the difference. Under the registration scheme, the burden of carrying out the necessary but bureaucratic tasks that we have discussed falls on the personal licence holder, who will often be an employee or a manager working for the business that operates the pub. Under the Bill, the duty to specify the designated premises supervisor falls on the business itself—the premises licence holder.

The amendments do nothing to reduce bureaucracy; that is nonsense. They shift the burden of compliance from business—sometimes very big business—on to employees. They seem to say that it is okay for workers to take on these burdens but not for

head office. Do Committee members really think that that can be right? The premises licence holder is ultimately responsible for what happens on the premises, and for whom within the company should be appointed, on its behalf, to ensure day-to-day compliance with the premises licence.

Let us be clear: under the Bill, the holder of the premises licence is responsible for ensuring compliance with the licence granted to the premises. It is the premises licence holder who decides who will work on the premises and who ensures for the holder that the licensing laws are observed. So why should the burden of being registered as a designated premises supervisor fall on an employee who does not hold the premises licence? As we heard when we debated registered interests, the bigger businesses want to maintain all the control behind the scenes, but avoid taking responsibility under the law. They cannot accept the benefits of the split licensing regime and then abdicate responsibility when it does not suit them.

We can now understand why trade associations that represent such businesses resent the idea so strongly, but I doubt very much that the National Association of Licensed House Managers and other trade unions would see the matter in quite the same way. Although we can understand why the trade associations want the change, let us not pretend that the proposals have anything to do with reduced bureaucracy—they do not.

There is one other subtle difference between the registration scheme and the scheme in the Bill. The latter is enforceable by law and the registration scheme appears to be unenforceable. Under the Bill, both the premises licence holder and the personal licence holder commit offences if they fail to send timely notices to one person or another in connection with their duties in respect of designated premises supervisors. That reflects the importance of the designated premises supervisor in the prevention of crime and disorder.

The deletion of clause 40 and the truncation of clause 41 would remove those key offence provisions and they are not replaced in the new clauses setting out the registration scheme. The only offence that seems to exist in that scheme is the failure to display the person's name at the pub or supermarket, so if one designated premises supervisor leaves and another takes up the post, what happens if they simply do not bother to amend the register or notify the police? So far as I can see, under the proposals, nothing happens.

I will summarise why I shall resist the amendments, just as they were resisted in another place. They do not represent any gains in reduced red tape and bureaucracy; that argument is a smokescreen. They shift the burden of compliance from the business holding the premises licence to employees in a wholly inappropriate way. They do that solely to serve a vested interest, and I must take a more balanced view than that. The registration scheme as drafted is wholly unenforceable.

My honourable Friend the Member for Selby attempted to broker an agreement between the British Beer and Pub Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government

Association to produce a registration scheme acceptable to all. The police are not on board yet, as they are looking for other changes before agreeing to the ones that those changes represent.

I will repeat what I said earlier. I am not inclined to look favourably on proposals that promote purely cosmetic change and do not really reduce bureaucracy. I cannot agree to a scheme that puts the responsibility on employees in a wholly inappropriate way. Decisions on such matters, and the responsibility for them, are for the premises licence holder. The police have said that they too find it wholly unacceptable that the designated premises supervisor, not the premises licence holder, should be responsible for notification.

Amendments Nos. 199 to 201 would remove from the Bill any requirement to notify the licensing authority of a change in the name or address of the designated premises supervisor. If the designated premises supervisor were a woman who married and changed her name and address, those details would not be notified to the licensing authority. The changes would therefore neither be specified on a schedule to the licence under our scheme, nor registered under the scheme that Opposition Members propose. That would mean that the name displayed at the pub in the summary of the licence could be entirely wrong.

How are local residents supposed to direct any complaint, if following her marriage, Mrs. Jones can deny that she is the person previously known as Miss Evans? How are the police and other enforcement bodies supposed to identify a person in those circumstances? A similar situation could arise if an individual changed his or her name by deed poll.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister is using an extreme example to support his argument. A person cannot be a designated premises supervisor unless he or she is a personal licence holder. Does he agree? Therefore, such people must be on a register somewhere.

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

Of course, such people are on a register, but that is not an extreme example. People do get married—I know that fewer people do so now than did when I got married, but some do, and some of their names change. There could be many personal licence holders working on any premises, and the police and the local authority need to know with whom they should deal to sort out any problems. That means knowing their identities. We do not want everybody to be able to point the finger at everybody else and say, ''I'm not responsible.''

I see no sense in the amendments, whichever scheme—registration or specification in the licence—was adopted.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

We saw the Minister at his robust best there, did we not?

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

Robust, anyway.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Yes, perhaps we should add that qualification.

I am still puzzled by the wording in the White Paper, which I presume was written by the Minister's Department—or perhaps it came from the Home Office. People may be more sensible there. The solution to the Minister's problem is probably to go

back to the Home Office. In the White Paper someone wrote:

''On arrival in a new licensing area a personal licence holder intending to work in new premises would be required to notify the police''.

In the White Paper, it is all right for personal licence holders to take responsibility, but apparently now that they are employees and members of trade unions, they should not do so. I cannot believe that I am hearing about such a socialist measure, along the lines of ''Shoot down big business and support the workers''.

Tenants of pubs will not be pleased to be known as ''employees''. They are not employees; they are self-employed people who run their own businesses. The Minister is nodding his head in approval. Why has there been this change? He seems to be saying that our scheme is based on two pieces of paper, and that his scheme is also based on two pieces of paper. If it is so easy, why do we need something like six clauses to organise it? I do not understand that, nor does the industry. In other words, it is an age-old problem.

Once the draftspeople get hold of something they go mad. They go to town and block off every single avenue that they can think of. The Minister said that the police are still unhappy, but that is not my understanding. In his important contribution, the hon. Member for Selby suggested that the police, in the guise of the assistant chief constable of Manchester who heads up police negotiations on such matters, are not against the measures proposed in our amendments. The Minister has not told us whether he will listen to advice arising from the meeting next week. I thought that he might have given some indication of that.

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

One of the first things that I said was that I always listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Selby says, and will always pay attention to what he tells me.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

With all due respect to the Minister, that is not the same as telling the Committee that he will listen to whatever comes out of the meeting next week.

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

If the hon. Gentleman wants to be pedantic, I will confirm that I will certainly listen to what comes out of the meeting. I may not agree with it, but I will listen.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

That the Minister will listen to the report that comes from the meeting is all that we can expect. All those people cannot be wrong. Whom has the Minister prayed in aid to support his argument? Where are the legions of people who say that the clause must not be amended? Nobody has written to me saying, ''I demand that designated premises licence holders should be as described in the Bill.'' All of the lobbying and representation that my hon. Friends and I have received has come from people saying, ''This is nonsense. We want to go back to what is in the White Paper''.

We will make no further progress today. That is obvious from the Minister's defence of the position that he read out so well from the brief that he was given. He has been told not to give an inch and those

of us experienced in these matters know that that is the case this afternoon. However, we will certainly return to the subject and we wish the hon. Member for Selby and those people meeting in Manchester success in their negotiations.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail in the end because there is a problem. Many people are exercised about it and the Minister and his team should respond positively to it. Our amendments may not sort it out to their satisfaction. That is fine, but that does not mean that they have to defend what everyone else agrees is inadequate. We promise to return to the issue at a later stage, but at this juncture we wish Godspeed to the hon. Member for Selby and his meeting and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.