James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 46, in clause 18, page 15, line 27, leave out ‘serious’.

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 48, in clause 18, page 15, line 27, leave out

‘or serious disorder, or both’.

No. 47, in clause 18, page 15, line 28, leave out ‘serious’.

No. 177, in clause 18, page 15, line 28, leave out ‘serious disorder’.

James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative)

We come to a different subject—licence reviews. In amendment No. 46, we ask what will happen if there is a summary review on the application of a police officer. As the Committee will know, the Bill introduces a new procedure, under which the police can apply for a summary review if they are not satisfied with the way in which premises are being run. To make such an application, a senior police officer must give

“a certificate that it is his opinion that the premises are associated with serious crime or serious disorder”.

The amendments are intended to probe the meanings of serious crime and serious disorder in this context.

Serious crime is defined in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but the expression “serious disorder” appears nowhere in statute, although it has been used in three judgments involving a finding of serious disorder. However, none of those is entirely helpful in the context of alcohol disorder. For the assistance of the Committee, I can say that one of those occasions was during the miners’ strike. Another was during an episode involving the WOMBLES—the White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles. The last was during a Labour party meeting in Wales, although the Minister will be relieved to know that it was in the 1960s, in Pembrokeshire. Indeed, despite using a definition of serious disorder, the judge found that there had not, in fact, been serious disorder on that occasion, although there had been disorder. We could not imagine that happening today, could we, Mr. Forth? None the less, we need a little detail from the Minister about what the word “serious” means in this context.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

Presumably, the hon. Gentleman’s reference to WOMBLES was not to the warm and cuddly type that we used to see, but to something entirely different.

Clause 18 inserts two new sections in the Licensing Act 2003 so that there can be an expedited review in specified circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman said, the review will come about where there is serious crime and/or serious disorder. New section 53A(4) provides that the definition of serious crime is that used in section 81 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. That definition has two limbs. First, serious crime is an offence for which a person over 21, with no previous convictions, could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to prison for three or more years. That is a pretty clear definition of serious crime. The second limb, which is probably more relevant in the context of the Bill, provides that serious crime includes

“the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.”

It therefore covers any crime involving violence, and that is exactly what the Bill is aimed at—incidents involving violence and serious crime, such as the use of guns, or the significant presence of drugs on premises. That is why we have an expedited review.

The definition is therefore quite wide ranging. It has the advantage that the police are used to using it and quite comfortable with it. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would, however, loosen the criteria by enabling an   expedited review to be sought where any crime or disorder, rather than serious crime or serious disorder, was involved. Amendments Nos. 48 and 177 would tighten the criteria by removing the words “serious disorder”, so that we would be left with just serious crime. None of those changes is appropriate. Amendments Nos. 46 and 48 would take out the term “serious” so that we were left with just crime and disorder. We are considering an expedited review in which a local authority has to decide within 48 hours whether it is appropriate to introduce interim steps, such as having extra doormen or searching for drugs or weapons. Serious circumstances are envisaged, such as those inside a nightclub where guns are being used and urgent action needs to be taken. We have set the criteria at a fair level of serious crime or disorder.

There is already a mechanism in the Licensing Act 2003 for the police to instigate an ordinary review of a premises licence using the ordinary procedure. Here, we are talking about a situation of a different order: an expedited review in which interim steps have to be considered. I am a bit puzzled by the removal of “serious disorder”. That would make the power less flexible, because we would be left simply with serious crime. It takes us back to the point that we have discussed several times, about whether the powers should cover both crime and disorder.

The hon. Member for Hertsmere has provided some interesting examples of how the courts have previously considered issues relating to disorder and serious disorder. This is not a new and strange concept, as some have sought to say earlier in the debate. The courts, the police and the local authorities are pretty familiar with issues that fall within the definitions of disorder and serious disorder. Therefore, we have tried to pitch the powers at the right level—where there is a serious problem, an expedited review is a fairly tough power enabling immediate action to be taken. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative)

This has been a useful debate. The purpose of the amendments was to explore the Government’s thinking, and we have done that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.