Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 287, in

clause 52, page 31, leave out line 39.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 288, in

clause 52, page 31, line 40, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The amendment would remove subsection (4)(c).

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. I have just been told that we have a problem with the sound system, which means that Hansard is unable to take a correct record. I shall have to suspend the sitting briefly while the sound is sorted out.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I apologise for the delay. I believe that the sound is back on and that we will not have to suspend again. For the benefit of all concerned, we should go back to the start of clause 52, if you do not mind, Mr. Moss. I am not sure how many of your pearls of wisdom made the record.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I do not think that I had said anything. I had just got to my feet when you called time on events, Mr. Gale.

Amendment No. 287 would remove subsection (4)(c). Subsection (4) lists the steps that the authority may take at the time of determining an application for review. We could not understand why the authority should be responsible for removing the designated premises supervisor. After all, it can take various measures under subsections (4)(a), (b), (d) and (e). It can modify the conditions of the licence, exclude a licensable activity, suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months or revoke it. Such onerous steps would have a significant impact on the business concerned.

It would seem logical in such circumstances for the premises licence holder to do something about the designated premises supervisor if activities were occurring under his or her supervision that led to problems and reviews. Therefore, it is logical that the owner of the business—the premises licence holder, in

particular—would do something about the designated premises supervisor who was in charge of the premises when the nefarious activities that led to the review occurred. The Bill should not include a power for the licensing authority to sack a designated premises supervisor, which is how we interpret the words in subsection (4)(c).

Amendment No. 288 would change the period in subsection (4)(d) from three to two months. Again, it is a probing amendment to get the Government's thinking on the matter. Why three months? It is an arbitrary period that may not strike the right balance. If a licence is to be suspended, the onus should be on the proprietor or the licence holder to get their act in order and continue trading at the earliest opportunity by facing up to the reasons for the review and accepting the strictures from the licensing authority or the police, as the case may be. They must ensure that changes are made so that the licence can continue.

In that context, we would have thought that two months would be more appropriate than three, so the suspension would be on a shorter time scale in order for the business to put right what it needs to and get up and running again. A suspension of three months or more would jeopardise a business in such a way that it could not continue at a later date.

I return to amendment No. 287, which is designed to question why the Government think it appropriate that a licensing authority at the end of a review—if it feels that certain actions need to be taken—can move in and sack a designated premises supervisor. After all, that person is appointed by the premises licence holder and not the authority in the first instance.

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

This group of amendments concerns the steps that are available to the licensing authority after it has heard representations in a review hearing. Those steps may be taken if the authority considers them necessary for the promotion of licensing objectives. Their importance lies not only in the flexibility that they give to the licensing authority in dealing with a range of potential problems, but in their creation of a deterrent to those who operate problem premises, and especially those who fall just short of breaching conditions of their licences but fail to take remedial action to prevent emerging problems.

Although the powers will be essential for bringing premises generating problems in the community back into line, they will also give the owners and operators of the business pause for thought. With changes in trading hours, suspension and revocation of the licence all in the frame, business operators will need to think carefully about a number of matters, including—dare I say—the training of the staff working at those premises.

Under the existing system, where a manager often held the justices' licence, it was often a question of the manager's licence being revoked, and a new manager being brought in to obtain a new licence. The business was rarely threatened by such decisions, and as a result, problems could and did fester. The new system offers real flexibility in how individual problems are handled, and it provides the ability for the outcome of the review to impact directly on the business. For example, a reduction in trading hours will hit its profits, and cannot be ignored lightly.

Most of the businesses in the scope of the Bill are excellent, are run professionally and enhance our constituents' leisure time and our national life. There are some premises that cause problems, and we have to provide a suitable means of putting pressure on them and allowing problems to be remedied.

Amendment No. 287 would remove from the licensing authority's arsenal the power to require the removal of the designated premises supervisor. The Committee has already enjoyed a lengthy, detailed debate about designated premises supervisors. We have made our position clear, and I do not intend to repeat it this morning. The amendment does not serve the interests of the licensing authority, the industry or the community. It reduces the licensing authority's flexibility where the problems emerging at review clearly focus on the actions of a particular manager rather than the business itself. If a change in the designated premises supervisor would solve the problems, why go further than that? From the industry's perspective, would it really want the licensing authority to consider suspension or revocation of the premises licence because the facility of requiring a change in the supervisor is not available? I cannot believe that the industry would be well served by such a measure.

Similarly, in the community, premises such as a local pub may be a much prized local facility that has begun to cause problems following the arrival of a new supervisor. People would not necessarily want the pub closed, even temporarily, but they may well want a new supervisor who will set the right standards. It should therefore be possible for the licensing authority to consider those matters.

Amendment No. 288 would reduce the period of potential suspension of a premises licence from three months to two months. We set the level of three months because we considered that any matter justifying the closure of a business for more than three months would probably justify revocation in any case. We recognise that closure for three months could come close to killing many businesses. There is no question about that. Businesses will be able to plead that point before the licensing authority. Suspension can be from one day to three months, and that provides the flexibility to deal with a great range of problems.

What does reducing the level from three months to two achieve? It certainly reduces the flexibility available to the licensing authority. There is, of course, nothing magical about the period of three months—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was quite right in that respect—but equally, there is nothing magical about two months.

Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister clarify that the suspension could last between one day and a maximum of three months and is not set at three months?

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

Yes, I am absolutely clear on that point. The decision made by the licensing authority would be proportionate to what it considered to be the offences. Of course, many decisions are made in that way now, in many spheres of life. Such flexibility is very important.

The key point is that suspension must act as a real deterrent to those who allow their businesses to drift into lower and lower professional standards that begin to impact on the community and the promotion of the licensing objectives. That is why I favour the higher and tougher level. I sincerely hope that it will have to be imposed rarely, if ever, but what matters is that it could be imposed and operators will know that.

Against that background, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not insist on the amendments.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am unconvinced by part of the Minister's explanation. I prefaced my remarks by saying that it was important that the licensing authority had powers to take action in instances in which reviews were upheld and there were real problems associated with particular premises. We have no problem with much of his argument that there should be recourse through the law for the licensing authority to take action against problem pubs and premises. However, I am still puzzled as to how a licensing authority will

''remove the designated premises supervisor''.

Subsection (3) states:

''The authority must, having regard to the application and any relevant representations, take such of the steps mentioned in subsection (4)''.

Subsection (4)(b) mentions ''to exclude''. The licensing authority must take steps

''to remove the designated premises supervisor''.

I do not see how it can. It is not employing the designated premises supervisor. Does that person not have any rights? What could happen, and seems more sensible in my estimation, is that the licensing authority will say, ''There is a problem with these premises. We believe that the problem stems from poor management and supervision. That is where the problems lies—there is no dispute about that.'' The authority would surely say, ''Unless you take steps to change the supervision and the management of the premises, there will be a suspension or a revocation.'' That is the sensible way to go about it, rather than giving a local authority the power to walk into a pub and say to a person, ''On your bike. Out you go,'' which does not make any sense to me. What about the human rights of the individual concerned? Certainly make the case that it is supervision and management that is the problem, but to include in the Bill powers for a local authority to go in and sack someone seems to me quite inappropriate. The Minister did not really address that issue.

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

The designated premises supervisor is not sacked by the action. He would not lose his personal licence and he could work elsewhere. I will come on to the hon. Gentleman's specific point. If a supervisor were convicted of offences by a court, he might well lose his licence, but the licensing authority could not take his personal licence away in those

circumstances. Removal relates to the specification in the licence, not to that person's employment relationship. The hon. Gentleman will recall—I know that it seems like aeons ago now—that we had a long debate on that and on the specified name of the premises supervisor.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Although I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which makes a little more sense, the words in the Bill do not say that. It would be helpful if the Government could table their own amendment on Report to make it quite clear that it is the removal of the name of the designated premises supervisor from the licence that is meant. That is what he has just said, and that makes some sense. The licensing authority cannot remove the person in situ. The idea that the chap who was the cause of the review of the premises licence in the first instance still has employment rights and could be employed somewhere else does not fill me with great confidence.

Given the explanation that the Minister has given, I shall not press the amendments to a vote. Perhaps he will give some thought to making it quite clear what is meant by removal. It is removal only from the licensing certificate, not the effective removal of the person from the premises. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 53 and 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.