Clause 190 - Other definitions
Licensing Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 429, in
clause 190, page 104, line 30, after 'effect', insert
', and includes the area within the curtilage of those premises'.
This is a probing amendment. We have had lengthy discussions in earlier debates about the definition of a licensed premises. The amendment seeks to define clearly what we mean by licensed premises, including their various parts. For a pub, for example, that might relate to its garden and car park areas. We want to ascertain whether, with the wording of the Bill as it stands, the Government are content that areas contiguous to what we consider to be the premises in the ownership or curtilage of the club or pub will be included in a full definition of the premises in a licence.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I would like to add some further questions to those asked by my hon. Friend. Mr. Chris Troup has raised another issue. He provides a marquee at Bembridge airport, which is the subject of occasional licenses.
The Isle of Wight is an extremely entrepreneurial place. The only deficiency in the entrepreneurial activities of my constituents became apparent over the weekend, when I undertook a short stretch of ''Walk the Wight''—a charity fundraising walk from Bembridge to the Needles. I was surprised that nobody had applied for an occasional licence for some of the spots along the route, where we were refreshed with Lucozade and water but not, alas, with alcohol. Even my constituents can improve their entrepreneurial skills.
Mr. Chris Troup, however, is a master of entrepreneurship. Like my hon. Friend, he asks what the licensable area is. If someone provides a marquee at an airport, or an aerodrome being used for microlight flying or a fly-in day, for example, over what area is the licensee expected to exert control?
My interpretation of the legislation is that what matters is the point at which the licensee sells the drinks for consumption on or off the premises. If the drink is consumed on the premises in a glass—or, as is unfortunately more frequent these days, a plastic beaker—the licensee is responsible. He is responsible within the marquee, but how far does the purchaser of the drink have to venture along, say, the grass adjacent to the runway, before he ceases to be the responsibility of the licensee? Does the licence apply merely to the area within or just outside the marquee, or does it go further afield, perhaps for the mile or mile and a half of the length of the runway?
In case there should be any mistake about it, I must emphasise that am not advocating that people should purchase alcohol and then pilot aeroplanes; however, like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, I would like to know what the extent of the curtilage is in such circumstances.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
As the hon. Member for North-East
Cambridgeshire told us, this is only a probing amendment; however, it is interesting, and I have learned a great deal about this subject since considering it. I see that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is interested in it, too.
Clause 190 provides definitions for a number of terms used in the Bill. It states:
'''licensed premises' means premises in respect of which a premises licence has effect''.{**w34**}
The amendment would add to that definition the words:
''and includes the area within the curtilage of those premises''.
That is fascinating.
Clause 18(3)(b) requires an application for a premises licence to be accompanied
''by a plan of the premises to which the application relates''.
The Secretary of State will prescribe the exact form of the plan. It will have to show clearly the extent of the premises, and which parts will be used for which licensable activities. Anything that is not on the plan, and is not described as the premises in respect of the application, will not be part of the licensed premises, and licensable activities could not be carried on there.
Under the Bill, ''premises'' can of course mean any place. The word is not limited to a building or any land that attaches to it. It can include a beer garden, a car park or a pavement, even where the pavement does not belong to the premises owner. The use of the term ''curtilage'' in the amendment is therefore a red herring. The term is defined in the ''Shorter Oxford English Dictionary'' as
''A small court, yard or piece of ground attached to a house and forming one enclosure with it''.
It is most commonly used in conveyancing, and is taken to mean the space immediately around a building.
Under the current licensing regime, a court might consider the curtilage of a building in reaching its decisions, but as ''premises'' is given its widest possible meaning under the Bill, we fully expect that there will no longer be any reason for the court to do so. A piece of land will either be part of the premises, as described in the application and shown on the plan submitted with it, or it will not.
Hon. Members might be trying to ensure that problems that take place a short distance from the premises, rather than on them, can be addressed. I assure them that that can be done without the amendment. If people standing in the street outside the premises cause a noise nuisance, for example, that could be grounds for local residents to ask for a licence to be reviewed. Similarly, the police might request a review if fights took place just outside the premises between customers leaving to go home. In addition, the interpretation would distort the ordinary meaning of the word ''curtilage.''
We do not intend to change the meaning of the word ''premises'' to include anything other than the place where licensable activities are conducted, and, under the system that the Bill will introduce, there is
no need to do so. If activities are to be carried on within the curtilage of the building, that extent will be the premises for which the application for a premises license is made. It would not therefore include the mile and half of runway at the aerodrome to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred, but it would include the area within the marquee and, if the effects of drinking in the marquee became an obvious nuisance, the immediate area outside. The amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that in light of my explanations the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
As the Minister said, this is a probing amendment. He has given an assurance that the guidance and regulations relating to the application for a premises licence, which have yet to be set down by the Secretary of State, will cover all angles. There might be grey areas in respect of some activities: for example, people might buy beer in a pub and stray into the car park to drink it, which is when problems arise. If the regulations and guidance made it clear to the applicants that they must include every possible area in their plans, that would address what we were attempting to achieve through the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 491, in
clause 190, page 104, line 36, at end insert—
'''protection of children from harm'' includes protection from harm to the aural system caused by excessive noise;'.
My amendment is designed to establish whether the licensing authority has, in protecting children from harm, responsibility for protecting them from the harm caused by exposure to excessive noise such as the sound of particularly noisy band recordings on licensed premises.
The organisation Hearing Concern tells me that the statistics for noise-induced hearing loss are getting worse because of a variety of environmental, occupational and leisure-related factors. Today's 18 to 25-year-olds are putting themselves at three times the risk of hearing loss experienced by those in the same age group just 10 years ago. My amendment does not cover 18 to 25-year-olds, but children—I assume that those over 18 are capable of making decisions for themselves. Hearing Concern says that with the increasing exposure to noise throughout people's lives come acceleration of hearing loss and a population that is increasingly hard of hearing.
Employers are required to take action to assess the level of noise exposure where it is likely to exceed 85 dB, and to review that in the light of circumstances that might alter the noise level. They have a duty to minimise noise exposure where it exceeds the first action level so that it reduces the risk of hearing loss to their employees. It is my contention that children should be at least as well protected from excessive noise as employees.
I can give some indication of what 85 dB means: it is somewhere between a shout, a doorbell or a vacuum cleaner and the point at which a road drill reaches the
level of discomfort. That seems to be a broad range. A shout, a doorbell and a vacuum cleaner can reach 80 dB; a road drill reaches 90 dB. A football crowd or a concert reaches 110 dB—I do not know whether we are talking about the Allegri string quartet or Steeleye Span—[Interruption.] Steeleye Span was just an example; I cannot help it that is the only noisy group whose name I can remember. The hon. Member for South Dorset is in mocking mood, but I am sure that that example is good enough for most members of the Committee.
My question is simple; will the clause enable licensing authorities, which have a responsibility to protect children, to take account of the damage caused by excessive noise?
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
This is another interesting amendment. I am convinced that in years to come, the generation now aged between 18 and 30 will be seeking the services of expensive lawyers to chase compensation for leisure deafness caused by the technology that allows such massive amplification inside cars and other enclosed spaces. The volume in some cars is extraordinary, and would put Steeleye Span all into their hat.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Yes, ''All around my hat''. Was that their only hit? I cannot remember.
People who were aware of the risks but for whom the lure was too great are now chasing cigarette manufactures and tobacco companies for compensation; it will be interesting to see whether the same happens with noise. I recognise that the amendment is probing, and I shall try to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.
The amendment would make protecting children from harm include
''protection from harm to the aural system caused by excessive noise''.
That is an important issue, and not only for children, although I accept that the risk might be higher for young people. I confirm that the licensing objectives of public safety and the protection of children from harm would provide an opportunity for this issue to be raised. However, we need to keep the risks in proportion, and we should not deny children access to particular forms of cultural entertainment. At previous sittings we discussed the fact that children under the ages of 18, or 14, attend discos that would drive me insane were I to say there too long; but the kids appear to love them.
Research makes it clear that the risk of harm to the aural system depends on the level of noise and the length of exposure. Indeed, the Musicians Union publishes a helpful information sheet, albeit directed at the protection of performers rather than audiences, which makes that very point. Exposure to a symphony orchestra, at about 94 dB, or a rock band at 125 dB, should not necessarily raise a great deal of concern if it is of limited extent and frequency. I hope the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will agree that we need to be sensible about the issue, and not venture too far
towards the nanny state; I am sure that he is no more fond of that than I am.
We should also bear in mind that every application for a premises licence, club premises certificate, variations and so on, will need to be copied to the responsible authorities, including the Health and Safety Executive and the environmental health authority. If an application raised genuine issues of public safety or the protection of children from excessive noise, we would expect those authorities to make representations to the licensing authority to that effect. The licensing authority would be required to hold a hearing to consider those representations, and it could impose such conditions as were necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
I hope that those reassurances will be sufficient to answer that viable probing amendment, and that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw it.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I thank the Minister for his answer, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 190 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 191 to 197 ordered to stand part of the Bill.