Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 336, in

clause 88, page 51, line 22, leave out 'month' and insert 'week'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 337, in

clause 94, page 54, line 4, leave out '14' and insert '21'.

Amendment No. 338, in

clause 94, page 54, line 13, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

Amendment No. 270, in

clause 176, page 97, line 39, after 'be,', insert 'unlawfully'.

Amendment No. 271, in

clause 176, page 97, line 43, after 'requested', insert

'and so often as reasonably required'.

Amendment No. 272, in

clause 176, page 98, line 1, after 'person', insert

'who, whether so requested or not, has produced such evidence as is referred to in subsection (2) and is'.

Amendment No. 273, in

clause 176, page 98, line 3, after 'if', insert

'he knows that a person is an authorised person, and that authorised person has produced to him such evidence as is referred to in subsection (2), and'.

Amendment No. 274, in

clause 176, page 98, line 3, leave out second 'an' and insert 'that'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The amendments deal in the main with police investigations and entry into premises. Amendment No. 336 to clause 88 would leave out ''month'' and insert ''week.'' That is where a justice of the peace is satisfied that there is a problem and has issued a warrant authorising a constable to enter premises. In such a situation, having given a warrant, why allow the constable a month to do the search? A week seems to be much more sensible, bearing in mind that word would get out and all the evidence might have disappeared by the end of the month. The amendment would ensure that the police do the searching that the warrant justifies.

Amendments Nos. 337 and 338 deal with clause 94, under which entry and inspection must take place at a reasonable time of day not more than 14 days after the making of an application. We would change that to 21 days. Subsections (7) and (8) allow a seven-day extension, so one can go from 14 to 21 days in certain circumstances. It therefore seems simpler to allow up to 21 days anyway and remove subsections (7) and (8).

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is pushed for time. He knows that there is a terrible law that says that if we have two weeks for something, we will do it in two weeks but if we know that we have three weeks, we will take three weeks. That seems to apply no matter what part of life we look at.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

That does not mean that we have to write that into legislation to accommodate it, does it?

If we are giving people 21 days anyway, we should say 21 days and make that the limit.

Amendments Nos. 270 to 274 deal with clause 176 and are, if not consequential amendments, related to those to which I have been speaking. Their thrust is to ensure that when a constable or an authorised person from the licensing authority turns up at a premises as part of an investigation they do so properly and reasonably. Clause 176 (1) seems to give them drop-in rights—if I may call them that—by which they can literally drop in at any time to check on things. If that is the case, they should, as stated in amendment No. 271, produce evidence of their authority as often as is reasonably required. Amendments Nos. 272 and 273 would then make it an offence for any person in a club not to accept the bona fide evidence of those people and to obstruct their work.

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

Let us remember what clause 176 does. It sets out the right of entry for a constable or authorised person into licensed premises to ensure that any licensable activities at that premises are carried on under suitable authorisation. That is one of the Bill's key enforcement measures. The amendments would weaken or undermine those important provisions.

Amendment No. 270 would prevent a constable or authorised person from exercising his or her right of entry into licensed premises under clause 176 except if he or she had reason to believe that licensable activities were being carried on unlawfully at the licensed premises. Although that might, at first sight, seem sensible, it makes the whole system nonsensical. The rights of entry provided under clause 176 are designed specifically to ensure that licensable activities are not being carried on unlawfully. That is both sensible and reasonable.

Amendment No. 270 would hamstring completely the enforcement authorities. The normal, fair process of routine inspection, under which compliance with the conditions of a licence is checked, would go out of the window. It is not hard to envisage unscrupulous individuals hiding themselves and their activities underground. By concealing themselves in that way they may be unlikely to give grounds for a constable or a responsible authority to have reason to believe that licensable activities were being carried on unlawfully. That may create a new generation of speakeasies. Some people might find that desirable. In fact, one hon. Member said, ''Hear, hear.'' However, the effect on licensing objectives would be disastrous. For that reason I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment No. 271 refers to clause 176(2), which says:

''An authorised person exercising the power conferred''

under the clause

''must, if so requested, produce evidence of his authority to exercise the power.''

The amendment would require the authorised person to produce evidence

''so often as reasonably required.''

The amendment is unnecessary because the production of evidence of identification on request by local authority and other officers has a long history and

works well. The provision in the Bill is in similar terms to that which applies elsewhere and there is no need to depart from the standard framework for licensing. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment No. 272 would require an authorised person to produce evidence of authority before reasonable force was used in the exercise of the rights of entry under clause 176. That is unnecessary. The requirement under subsection (2) is simple; the authorised person must provide evidence of identification if asked to do so. I hope that that reassurance is sufficient for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Under amendments Nos. 273 and 274, a person would commit the offence of intentionally obstructing an authorised person in the exercise of his or her powers under clause 176 only if they knew that he or she was an authorised person and that person had produced evidence of his or her authority to exercise the powers. The amendments are unnecessary for reasons similar to those I gave on amendment No. 272: the authorised person must produce such evidence if asked to do so. We believe that that is sufficient.

Amendments Nos. 336, 337 and 338 deal with club premises. The rights of entry to and the inspection of clubs differ from those for licensed premises because of the special role of the club movement and the different considerations that arise where public access is controlled and alcohol is supplied other than for profit. Qualifying clubs will benefit from a lighter touch under the Bill. Amendment No. 336 would reduce from one month to one week the length of time in which a constable may enter and inspect a club premises after the issue of a warrant authorising them to do so. The warrant would be issued by a justice of the peace who should be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that a club had ceased to meet the qualifying conditions. I cannot accept the amendment because it would unacceptably restrict authorities in the exercise of their duties. Furthermore, as with clause 88, constables are permitted to enter a club premises only after a JP issues a warrant authorising them to do so. The Bill by no means offers unlimited rights of entry.

Amendment No. 337 would increase from 14 to 21 days of the application being made the period of time in which an authorised person or constable may enter and inspect a club premises following an application for a club premises certificate, or an application for the variation, or review, of a certificate. Amendment No. 338 would remove the provisions for extending the time available for inspection following such an application for up to seven days, were that to be requested by a responsible authority.

I appreciate that the amendments might appear sensible if taken together. However, the potential effect would be to lengthen and slow down the process of dealing with applications. As drafted, the Bill gives a period of up to 14 days from an application for the inspection of premises. It also provides that where reasonable steps have been taken to inspect premises within that 14-day period but it has not proved possible for the inspection to take place, an extension

of up to seven days may be granted by the licensing authority, on the application of a responsible authority. As I have said, we want to set time scales that are reasonable for the administrative and enforcement bodies and the applicants, to ensure that applications are processed efficiently and in a timely manner. I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees fit to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.