Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 342, in

clause 99, page 56, line 32, leave out 'the whole or'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 419, in

clause 99, page 56, line 33, leave out 'any part' and insert

'the majority, as measured by area,'.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I want to probe the nature of the 24-hour gap between temporary event notices, and to

highlight, through the amendment, my concern about what may happen when there are two temporary event notices for the same premises. I can understand that in very small premises, such as one-room community halls, one would not want back-to-back temporary event notices; however, I am mindful of locations such as secondary schools that have large grounds and may have buildings dotted across them. An example that springs to mind is Brookfield community school in my constituency. It has a sports hall at one end of the grounds and a music performance facility at the other, and both could be used for temporary events.

This morning we touched briefly on the nature of premises, and how premises could be defined. We were talking about the location of marquees, and were determining what and where premises could be. Will we ensure that sensible guidance is given to local authorities so that schools, or other places where the premises used are sufficiently far apart, do not fall within the provisions? Also, can we make sure that different parts of premises can be covered by different temporary events notices, and that those notices will not cancel each other out because they are less than 24 hours apart?

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

May I ask the Minister for guidance on the meaning of subsection (1)(b)? I presume that the objective of clause 99 is to prevent organisers of an event from doing what the hon. Member for Selby described this morning, and putting back-to-back applications together to get it to run for longer. However, if I understand the subsection correctly, it would prevent two different events held by different organisations from going back-to-back. To come back to the village hall that we have been discussing all day, it seems that if someone were having a 21st birthday party on a Saturday night, it would be impossible for someone else in the village to celebrate their 90th birthday at lunchtime on the Sunday. It would be regrettable to take such a large club to such a small issue; the Government may be using disproportionate control.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised might more properly be discussed in a clause stand part debate, but although I wanted to avoid that, I am prepared to allow the Minister to respond to that point in due course.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I do not think that my amendment needs further explanation.

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

I can certainly give the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) an assurance that we will issue clear and sensible guidance to licensing authorities. Amendment No. 342 would delete the words ''the whole or'', but I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman intends that, when a temporary event notice is given in respect of premises the whole of which form part of premises for which another temporary event notice has been given, the two notices should not be considered to apply to the same premises. That would be contrary to common sense.

If the words ''the whole or'' are deleted, it will not be clear that in those circumstances the two notices will be in respect of the same premises for the purposes of the requirement for a minimum period under clause 99. It is not the case that ''any part of'' will necessarily include ''the whole''. I know that the details are difficult; I found them difficult when I considered the amendment and tried to understand it.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I sympathise with the Minister's plight. I tabled the amendment last week, but having looked at it this afternoon, I am not entirely sure that it would achieve what I was trying to achieve.

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

Perhaps I should go on to amendment No. 419, which would replace ''any part'' with

''the majority, as measured by area''.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight would take my point that in many cases, that would impose the most unenviable of burdens on the person giving the temporary event notice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not envisage the person who is giving the notice going down on his hands and knees with a tape measure trying to figure out the exact proportions of the area to which the temporary event notice relates. Even if that were his intention, the criteria under clause 99 are designed, notwithstanding the technical terms in which they are framed, to offer a simple test and, more importantly, a simple safeguard against people taking unfair advantage of the very light touch system that the Bill introduces.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I did not intend people to crawl around and measure the area—after all, I accept that during Cowes week the area in question may change its shape, depending on the state of the tide. However, I am concerned about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, and about the definition of ''premises''. The Minister said that that was up to the local authority, but the definition for the purpose of giving a notice should be clearer. Is a ''place'' something about which either the applicant or the local authority can be clear? For example, is the university of Oxford a ''place''? It is an institution; it covers an area. Indeed, it covers many areas, some of which contiguous and some non-contiguous, but is it a place?

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

It certainly is not. I want to make the position clear, so let us suppose that the august university of Warwick, with its clearly defined campus, wanted to put on a great festival. Presumably the university would put in its application for that entire area to have a premises licence. In my experience, Warwick has several premises licences, but they are for specific bars in different buildings on the campus.

In the case of Oxford university, I imagine that such matters would be even more complicated. I do not know the specific details about Oxford, but I assume that the premises licences there relate to the bars and buildings throughout the city that form part of the university. Each licence would have to be applied for separately. That is proper, because although a single bar application might look like a nice non-bureaucratic approach, for the people who happen to live close to bars in different parts of the city, it could

have different consequences. That is why we have to be specific.

I think that we have had enough of tides. For the record, we have discovered via our august Chairman that there is a Goodwin Sands cricket club, but if I go into that I will be straying off the subject.

What the hon. Member for North Devon said flummoxed me for a moment. He referred to clause 99(1) and asked what it meant for village halls. Subsection (1) is intended to prevent temporary event notices operating back-to-back on the same premises when given by the same premises user. In other words, I assume that the 18-year-old, or the family of the 18-year-old who give the temporary event notice, would be different from the 90-year-old in the hon. Gentleman's example. As they are not the same individuals or agents or families, they would not be counted as back-to-back events. They would be classed as two separate events.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome what the Minister has said, which is what I hoped that he would say, but clause 99(1) states:

''A temporary event notice . . . given by an individual . . . is void if the event period specified in it does not . . . begin at least 24 hours after the event period specified in any other such notice.''

I welcome the interpretation of the clause that the Minister has given, but if he is confident and right in that meaning, what does ''any other such notice'' comprise?

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

That is a good point and I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that I will look at the wording.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I am conscious of your stricture about using debate on the amendment as a stand part debate, Mr. Gale, but the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned something about which I was equally concerned and tried to table an amendment. That is, what happens if a person has a licensable activity under clause 98(5)(c) that could last an hour but for some reason he decides to put in a temporary event notice for 72 hours? The 24-hour gap is from the end of one temporary event notice to another and not between the times during which that licensable activity will take place, so there could be a long void period because someone has been greedy in the time that they put down for the event period. I would like clarification that the guidance that will be issued will say that the temporary event notice should only be for the duration of the licensable activity itself, not necessarily for 72 hours for the sake of it.

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

Yes, the notice would have to be very specific about why 72 hours are required. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there would have to be careful management to ensure that people are not greedily gobbling up the time that could be used by someone else, especially at popular times of the year—in the case of weddings, for example.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if different temporary event notices for five hours and 72 hours are applied for by different people, the 24-hour gap, as I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for North

Devon, is not the gap we are talking about in terms of the same person, or the agents of the same person, or whatever, applying for two temporary event notices back to back.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

The Minister has just referred again to the agents, but on this occasion he referred to the agents of the same person, whereas previously he referred to the premises users, the agents or the families.

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

There is a specific definition of who those people are. I use the term ''agent'' because I have been reliably informed by no lesser people than lawyers that ''agent'' can refer to a huge range of individuals associated with a particular individual. I use it as shorthand. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for that.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Indeed I do. I merely wanted to ascertain that an agent can act on behalf of a number of different premises users without more rapidly using up his chances—the number of notices he can serve.

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

I am certainly not saying that. I do not want to generate a new industry in agents for booking temporary event notices. On the contrary, temporary event notices are designed specifically to help those organisations that need them. In general, their concerns are handled not by agents but by the organisations themselves.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I think that we are still on amendment No. 342.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Yes.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I understand the Minister's point about premises: just because one has a set of grounds it does not mean that everything within those grounds constitutes one premises and the regulations that the Department will issue will cover that. I now understand that when we are talking about the 24-hour period between temporary event notices it applies only if the same person has applied for both notices. That answers the question of the hon. Member for North Devon, whose point was related to mine. I am grateful for the Minister's clarification on both issues. I am afraid that a non-controversial amendment has taken longer to discuss than we thought, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 384, in

clause 99, page 56, line 41, after 'person', insert—

'( ) an acquaintance, colleague or friend of that person'.

Subsection (3) deals with the definition of an associate of the individual who has applied for the temporary event notice. It is pretty much Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all if they are related in any way to that individual. I presume that the provision is included to prevent anyone who could be influenced by that individual sticking in additional temporary event notices to pad the thing out over a period of time.

I accept that in some circumstances members of a family can influence each other, but it is just as easy for someone to influence a friend or colleague. I have

tabled the amendment to ask why the provision is limited to family members rather than extended beyond that. I recognise the difficulties in extending it, but I am puzzled as to why the list, although fairly definitive, is confined to family relationships. It is a probing amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I support the amendment and ask the Minister whether there might have been a better way of putting the subsection. This issue arises in a number of areas, such as planning law where friends sit on planning committees. There may be no financial interest or reward, but there is a relationship, although not one as close as that specified in the clause. It might have been better for the clause simply to require a statement that the application was not made under the influence of the other applicant. Without such a clause, I support the amendment.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful suggestion. He will not be offended if I say that I shall not take it up.

Clause 99(2)(b) states that

''a temporary event notice given by an individual who is an associate of the relevant premises user is to be treated as a notice given by the relevant premises user''.

Subsection (3) defines an associate as

''the spouse of that person . . . a child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother or sister of that person . . . an agent or employee of that person, or . . . the spouse of a person within paragraph (b) or (c).''

Amendment No. 384 would add to the list of associated persons

''an acquaintance, colleague or friend''

of the person who gives the notice. I hope that I can avoid detaining the Committee too long. Perhaps it will be helpful if I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the use of the word ''agent'' in clause 99(3)(c) signifies anyone acting on behalf of the premises user. That could cover an acquaintance, colleague or friend if they were acting in that capacity. The mere fact that someone is an acquaintance of a premises user, but does not otherwise act on behalf of that individual, should not make the person an associate of the individual. We should not prevent an acquaintance from acting independently. In certain villages and towns and in the whole of Wales, everyone seems to know everyone. If we were not specific on that point, the number of people who could apply for temporary event notices would be restricted.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am more than satisfied with that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.