Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 284, in

clause 49, page 29, line 31, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 290, in

clause 56, page 33, line 29, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

These probing amendments deal with the failure to comply with certain sections and subsections and with the appropriate level of fines that could be levied. I want to ascertain why the Government think it is such a serious, heinous offence not to comply with the provision of the interim authority notice. If an individual does not comply, they may under subsection (6) be subject to a penalty fine not exceeding level 3—a sum of £1,000. That is a heavy-

handed, draconian penalty for what may be an error or oversight.

We are dealing with interim authority notices that would be issued when people may be focused on other things. Traumatic times may follow after someone has died or gone into hospital, or if a business has gone into receivership, during which it may be fairly easy to overlook certain matters. Nevertheless, the Government are saying that if someone is a naughty boy and does not comply they could be fined up to £1,000. That is somewhat over the top and rather draconian.

Amendment No. 290 refers to clause 56 and a fine of level 2—some £500—which is also a little too heavy. We wish to ascertain why the Government believe that certain omissions, such as failing to submit notices or provide information, are so terrible that fines of that order must be implemented.

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

Clause 49 makes supplementary provision on interim authority notices; subsection (4) provides that a person becoming a holder of a premises licence by virtue of an interim authority notice

''must (unless he is the designated premises supervisor) forthwith notify the supervisor . . . of the interim authority notice.''

Subsection (5) provides that it is an offence,

''without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (4)''—

I emphasise that for the hon. Gentleman. Subsection (6) provides that

''A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale'',

which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Amendment No. 284 would remove the offence of failing to notify the designated premises supervisor of an interim authority notice. It is anticipated that that person would, in practice, be responsible on a day-to-day basis for what goes on at a premises on behalf of the holder of the premises licence, especially for the sale of alcohol. If the licence in question has lapsed, the authority for carrying on with the sale of alcohol or any other licensable activity on the premises no longer exists. Those licensable activities may not be carried on again until an appropriate authority—in this case, an interim authority notice—is in place. Such a notice will, for want of a better word, revive the licence in the same form that it took immediately before its lapse. It will specify the designated premises supervisor, and will allow the continuation of the licensable activities.

It is vital that the supervisor is made aware of that fact, particularly as he needs to know the identity of the licence holder, just as he does when a licence has been transferred, as well as the fact that he or she is susceptible to committing certain offences on licensed premises. Of course, there is a strong vested interest in the removal of a potential offence, but such a removal would simply undermine the importance that the Bill attaches to the specification of the designated premises supervisor, the need for transparency and the certainty attaching to those involved in the licensing regime.

The amendment would remove a requirement on businesses that has been put in place not only because that requirement is important, as I have said, but out of regard for fairness. The Bill ensures that a designated premises supervisor will know who is responsible for the premises licence, and there can be no good reason why there should not be a similar requirement on the business. The premises supervisor will have certain duties and obligations by virtue of his or her position in an organisation. In order to carry out those responsibilities properly, he or she will need to be familiar with the details of the premises licence, and the name of the person or company holding that licence, or given an interim authority notice, is an important detail. It is therefore only right that he or she be told when the person holding the premises licence—or in this case an interim authority notice—has changed. Because that is important, we need to ensure that the requirement can be enforced with appropriate penalties.

Clause 56 provides that if a licensing authority makes a determination or receives a notice in relation to a premises licence, or if the licence lapses or an appeal against a decision made under part 3 is determined, the authority must make any appropriate amendments to the licence and, if necessary, issue a new summary. Subsection (2) provides that if the authority is not in possession of a licence or the appropriate part of it, it may require the holder of the licence to produce it or the appropriate part of it within 14 days. Subsection (3) provides that a person commits and offence if he fails to comply with such a request, and subsection (4) says that a person guilty of that offence is liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

Amendment No. 290 would remove the offence of failing to produce the licence, or the appropriate part of it, for the authority within 14 days to allow it to be updated. It is important to all of those involved in the licensing system, including the police, the licensee, and the licensing authority, that premises licences be kept up to date, so that any information obtained from them is accurate. It therefore seems entirely reasonable that the licensing authority should be able to request licences, or parts of them, when they need to be updated, and that it should be an offence not to comply with such a request.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister has moved on to clause 56 and amendment No. 290 to it. Subsection (2) of that clause says that

''Where a licensing authority is not in possession of the licence (or the appropriate part of the licence)'',

the person who has taken over the interim authority notice must, under penalty, provide the licence. However, the local authority will not have to pay a penalty for not having a copy of the licence. I can understand that the person taking over might not have the original licence, but surely the local authority will have a copy of the licence in its records. It could therefore see what was written on the licence, and the licence could be amended accordingly.

I fail to understand why there is a penalty if someone who has just taken over in special circumstances does not comply with that provision

of the licence. He may not know where to find it. The local authority should have a copy, yet the Bill does not say that the local authority is responsible.

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

That is a good point, and I assure the Committee that for the vast majority of premises, such requests are not likely to be frequent. As the hon. Gentleman says, in many instances the licensing authority will already have the licence, or the appropriate part of it, when an update needs to be made. For instance, an application for the variation of the designated premises supervisor must be accompanied by the licence or the appropriate part of it, and no additional request will be needed. When those requests are made, the Bill allows 14 days for compliance before any offence is committed. That seems reasonable to me, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Again, having listened to the Minister, I am more puzzled than I was before he started. That might be my fault, rather than his.

I shall illustrate some of the circumstances that may arise on the death of the holder of a premises licence, and I want the Minister to tell me whether he thinks that it is just that the person who serves the notice should be prosecutable under subsection (5). [Interruption.] I did not hear what the Minister said.

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

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by ''the person who serves the notice''.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I mean the holder—the person who is seeking to obtain the interim authority.

Someone who lived in Shanklin might have a distant uncle in North Durham who ran a pub. If that uncle had no closer relatives and he were to die, the person who lived in Shanklin might apply for the interim authority for the pub, as they wished to ensure that the business continued; they might inherit it, so it might be in their interests to ensure that it was maintained in good condition, and they might be concerned about some of the staff of the pub, whom they might have met 15 years before when they last visited North Durham—not a journey that one frequently makes from the Isle of Wight.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

It could be in Fareham.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

It might indeed be in Fareham; that is not a journey that one frequently makes from the Isle of Wight, either.

The person from Shanklin would apply for the interim authority, and would then face the puzzle of finding out who held the personal licence. There might be no documentation; the business might have been conducted in less than perfect civil service style—as many businesses are. Therefore, it might be difficult for them to discover who held the personal licence that authorised the business to continue. If they knew sufficient about the law, they might wish to install a personal licensee of their own, but they would not be the owner of the premises at this stage because the estate had not been sorted out.

That person might not even know whether the holder of the personal licence in respect of those premises had applied for an interim authority, because clause 47(2) merely states that someone who

''has a prescribed interest in the premises''

may serve the interim authority notice. Therefore, it is possible that two people with conflicting interests could serve that notice—except that clause 47(4) states:

''Only one interim authority notice may be given''.

Who or what is to say who should give that notice? Is it regulations, or the law of inheritance, or the Secretary of State, or the person who gets the notice in first? I am becoming increasingly puzzled as to how—in practical rather than theoretical terms—it can be just that the person who has served the interim notice should be liable to prosecution.

I also wish the Minister to address the use of the words ''without reasonable excuse'' because it is my understanding that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it, yet a pub may well be inherited by someone who has no experience of conducting a licensed trade. Can the Minister clarify what would happen if two people attempted to serve the interim notice? Who is going to prescribe the ''prescribed interest''? I see nothing in clauses 54 or 55 that is meant to restrict the power of the Secretary of State—or anyone else—to do the prescribing under clause 47(2).

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

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's scenario, in which the Secretary of State is the person who applies for an interim authority notice for the Dog and Duck. Such situations are flights of fancy. They do not occur. A company running a chain of about 7,000 premises told us that it expected to use interim authority notices about four times a year. The requirements are therefore not likely to be onerous. Notices are not required frequently, but when they are required they can cause difficulties, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire pointed out, especially for small businesses. That is why we are trying to make the requirement clear.

As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight knows, because he has gone through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb, the licence must be kept by the licence holder at the premises for other purposes—for enforcement. Enforcement officers need to know what licensable activities are authorised by the licence, and whether any conditions are attached to them. A copy of the licence must be made available at the licensed premises. This is not rocket science. Level 3, at which the fine is set, means up to £1,000, and on conviction it will be for the courts to decide, on the individual merits of each case, the appropriate level of fine. Clause 190 sets out a definition of ''prescribed''; it means ''prescribed by regulations'', which is clear enough.

As for two people applying for an interim authority notice, only one such notice may be issued, and I hope that it helps the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to learn that it will be issued to the first applicant. On that note, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

The Minister says that the interim authority notice will be issued to the first person who applies for it, but clause 47(4) states:

''Only one interim authority notice may be given'',

and says that notice is given by the person who has the prescribed interest. If there are two people with a prescribed interest, they may both give the notice despite the content of subsection (4)—or am I missing something?

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

Yes; I have tried to make it clear that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The licensing authority will issue only one interim authority notice, which will be issued to the first applicant—if it considers them a proper person to receive it.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say, and he has made a reasonable fist of explaining the words in the Bill. I am still puzzled however, particularly by clause 49, including subsections (5) and (6), to which amendment No. 284 refers. Clause 49(4) states:

''Where a person becomes the holder of a premises licence by virtue of section 47, he must (unless he is the designated premises supervisor under the licence) forthwith notify the supervisor (if any) of the interim authority notice.''

Here we have someone who has applied for the notice and has been successful in obtaining it. Under clause 47(2)(a) or (b) however, that person either

''has a prescribed interest in the premises concerned, or . . . is connected to the person who held the premises licence''.

Here we have a business, and somebody dies. That business would have had a designated premises licence supervisor. That may have been the person who died, but it is more likely to have been someone else. In the case of a business that collapses following the death or whatever of the licence holder, there would be a requirement to apply for an interim notice. A time scale would be given, so the onus would be to move such matters forward quickly. At that stage, the successful applicant for the interim notice would be known by the designated premises supervisor. After all, that person was in the business and had been running it alongside the premises licence holder for some time. Why does the Bill propose that the person who takes over the interim notice should be fined £1,000 for not telling the DPS? I should have thought that they would be known to each other.

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

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have just quoted an example of a pub chain with 7,000 premises, which would use interim authority notices only about four times a year. I know that we live in a democracy—indeed, a meritocracy in some cases—but someone working in a pub would not necessarily know someone as famous as Mr. Ted Tuppen. Such a person may not even know the board of directors that would be applying for the interim notice, so it is important that he be kept in the picture about what is happening with the premises. Otherwise, that person could be found guilty of selling alcohol when he has no right to do so. Surely that is an important way of preventing people from committing crimes.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but surely the designated premises supervisor falls when the premises licence changes. If the premises licence holder has died—a situation that is covered by clause 47—and someone else applies for the interim notice, a designated premises supervisor has to be reappointed.

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

No.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

A designated premises supervisor will have to be reappointed. Earlier we covered the fact that there must be a DPS, and the Bill proposes a heavy fine in that respect. It is self-evident that people will be known to each other. If a big chain is involved, it is obvious that the chain itself will apply for a notice and the transition will be almost seamless. I fail to see why a heavy fine is proposed.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's argument. I am not clear whether a premises licence has to be held by an individual or a body corporate. If it were held by a body corporate, although such a body could die through insolvency, it is not likely to die by any other means, so it is unlikely that the body corporate would need to serve an interim authority notice—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should say to ''give'' an interim authority notice; I should use the same term as is used in clause 47. When does the example of a body corporate fit in? Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

It is feasible that the body corporate that owns the business and premises will ensure that the premises licence is held by the individual who runs the business. That is not a problem. When discussing clause 47, we debated what happens when a person who holds such a licence dies, enters a mental institution or becomes insolvent. That triggers off the requirement that either the interim notice be applied for, or the business must collapse, and at some stage in the future someone will reapply for the licence and start afresh. Given such circumstances, it is almost impossible that a person working in the pub would not know who had taken over under an interim notice. If the designated premises supervisor fell, in legal terms, when the licence holder died, a new supervisor would have to be reappointed by the new holder of the licence under the interim authority. It seems unreasonable to charge someone £1,000 for failure to tell the person what has happened. However, we have had a long debate on the matter now. I may return to it on Report, but for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.