Members present:
                    Mr Peter Pike, in the Chair
                    Mr Russell Brown
                    Brian Cotter
                    Mr Paul Goodman
                    Andy King
                    Dr Doug Naysmith
                    Mr Andrew Rosindell
                    Brian White
       DR KIM HOWELLS, a Member of the House, Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting,
     Department of Culture, Media and Sport, MR ANDREW CUNNINGHAM, Alcohol &
     Entertainment Licensing Division, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and
     MR LUCAN HERBERG, Legal Adviser, Department of Culture, Media and Sport,

  1.  Good morning, Minister.  May I welcome you to our Committee.  If, for the sake of the
record, you could introduce your team, and then I know you want to make a few brief opening
comments before we go to questions.
  (Dr Howells) Thank you very much, Chairman.  On my left is Lucan Herberg from DCMS,
and Andrew Cunningham, also from DCMS, formerly a Home Office official until this
responsibility came over to DCMS after the General Election.  I would like to say, first of all, I
am very grateful to the Committee for this opportunity to explore with you ways of ensuring that
the Special Occasions Order can be put in place in time for this New Year's Eve.  As I hope very
much my official's letter to your Clerk explained, I am still very confident we can find a way to
deliver the Order in time.  With your permission, Chairman, I would like to open by making a few
key points of particular importance to me and to our Department.  I very much want the Order to
be made for New Year's Eve, and I believe it can be made lawfully within the time remaining. 
I am confident that most of our constituents (mine and yours) want to be free to choose how and
where they enjoy New Year's Eve.  I believe that the existing law denies them real freedom of
choice on such occasions, as well as stopping an important industry from meeting its customers'
demands.  Relieving a burden on the industry and increasing consumer choice does not have to
be achieved at the expense of local people living near pubs and clubs - far from it.  The draft
Order contains specific safeguards which achieve a very sensible balance.  It offers local residents
and local authorities the possibility of influencing the licensing hours of specific venues in a way
that is not normally available to them on normal New Years' Eves.  In other words, this draft
Order is good for everyone; and that is why well over 80 per cent of those responding to the
consultation are in favour of it.  When reading our explanatory statement I hope very much the
Committee noted the positive support offered for our proposal from the vast majority of police
forces, magistrates, local authorities and industry representatives - including those representing
small businesses - in response to the consultation.  I know there have been difficulties in
interpreting the legal issues with regard to the so-called two-year rule.  I believe that a solution
acceptable to the committees of each House is available.  Following discussions between your and
my legal advisers, we have been to Treasury Counsel and his advice does seem to offer a way
through the legal maze.  We have the advice with us today, and I hope very much we can pass it
on to your legal advisers so you may consider it as a Committee.  In addition (and this is a very
serious addition) recent events, first the blight of foot and mouth and then the terrible events of
11 September, have had a very serious impact (if not the most serious impact ever) on the well
being of the hospitality, leisure and tourism industries.  I am very keen to offer them a boost. 
They are enormously important industries, as the Committee knows. 64 billion a year turnover
in this country, and at least 1.3 million people in employment in those industries.  The Order can
still reduce the legal  costs of the industry of applying for special orders of exemption for New
Year's Eve.  We originally estimated this saving at around 9 million.  We have explained in our
memorandum how we arrived at that.  I certainly do not disagree with the Committee's view that
the timing of the Order is central to realising that tall saving, but large savings could still be made. 
Obviously, if licensees start seeking special orders of exemption anyway, because they are
worried that an Order will not be made in time, then some of those savings will be lost.  I am
confident that an Order can be made in good time, and with the effect we intended.  I should say,
Chairman, that the industry is telling me they have interpreted the Committee's press notice in
July as saying that an Order cannot be made in time.  As a result, they may apply for individual
special orders of exemption anyway.  I think that is probably a misunderstanding.  My own
reading of the press notice is not like that, and I think there is still plenty of time for us, together,
to reassure the industry that an Order can be made and, I would like to say, that it is very likely
to be made.  I would be very interested to hear the Committee's views on this.  I think the sooner
we can give that reassurance, Chairman, the bigger the savings of wasted fees would be for the
industry.  If we do not make the Order nobody wins.  The usual exaggerated differences between
licensing hours in adjoining licensing districts will arise.  This causes real problems, where people
start moving significant distances to seek out licensing districts with more generous hours.  There
will be more late night drinking out on the streets as pubs close as a result.  It is also vital that we
conduct the trial of extended licensing hours, which is wanted by the police and magistrates.  If
the outcome of our review is positive, we can press on with permanent change for each subsequent
New Year's Eve.  Permanent change could be a very long way off if we cannot find a way forward
with you today.  Finally, I am sorry if the Department in the past has got off on the wrong foot
with a new Committee.  You yourselves have commented on the timing of this Order.  Licensing
Orders geared to special one-off events inevitably bring with them tight deadlines.  The Special
Occasions Order had to be laid before the Committee, before you were ready, because of those
time constraints.  Our colleagues in the Cabinet Office attempted to smooth the way in the special
circumstances, but clearly you were not terribly impressed by that.  I hope we can put that behind
us and try and work together, in the interests of the general public to make this Order in time, and
give everyone a chance to experience a thoroughly good New Year's Eve.  Thank you very much,
  2.  Thank you.  Can I just make it absolutely clear, as far as the press notices are concerned,
it was quite deliberately worded that the Government had to persuade us that the necessary
protection can be maintained.  You will recognise that one of the duties of this Committee, as
when we judge any Order, is the question of necessary protection.  Later on in this morning's
session there will be a number of questions on the issue of necessary protection.  To start with,
I want to tie together the three important items of timing before my other colleagues on the
Committee come in.  Why was the proposal brought forward so late?  Could it not have been
brought forward before?  Does your Department fully understand the timetable we have to work
to, as laid down by the Act?  Even if we took a decision right at the start, the timetable still has
to go forward; we cannot accelerate it or cut out procedures.  Indeed, as you will appreciate,
recognising your wish, we have called this evidence session effectively on the second day back -
the first full working day of the parliamentary session after the Summer Recess - and our
timetable is a problem to us.  Recognising that there were difficulties last year and that this
Committee (and I personally as Chair of the Committee) did point out to the Home Office and did
ask one or two questions over a year ago, because I did indicate there were problems on timing.,
we did try to give warnings.  It is not a question of this Committee being difficult, but we can only
work within the procedures and the timetables laid down by the Act and the amended Act we are
now working under.
  (Dr Howells) Chairman, we appreciate very much the early Committee session.  The DCMS
understands very well the constraints and the difficulties you face as result of that very tight
timetable.  If I can offer some sort of explanation of the lateness or the delay in the whole
business.  I think we have to go back to, I guess, 26 October 2000, when it was then an issue for
the Home Office - when any possibility of relaxing hours for New Year 2000 ended and there was
a necessity to consult with other Departments regarding the year 2001, and the Golden Jubilee of
course.  The timing of the General Election was also particularly crucial, as was the decision to
have a longer Summer Recess this year than last.  As most of the timing factors arose while we
were not responsible for the draft Order, clearly some of the questions you have just asked me can
only be answered by Home Office officials and former Home Office ministers; but I will try to
answer some of the ones you have put forward.

                           Brian White
  3.  It is the same civil servants.
  (Dr Howells) We will come to that.  You can talk with them in a moment!  I want to say this:
we think, however, that if the Order is made by 11 December - which I think the Committee
agrees is feasible, or if the Committee agrees is feasible - we consider that applicants will then
have sufficient time to make applications, and the courts will have more than enough time to
consider the small number of applications involved.  We estimate an absolute maximum (a worst
case scenario) of 700 Orders nationally, which is less than two per court area.  Between
17 - 28 December there are nearly 3,000 court days (that is 370 x 8) on which 700 applications
could be considered.  We certainly think there is time to do it.  The stage one scrutiny by
committee ends on 14 November, and we can lay the stage two Order on 15 November.  Stage 2
scrutiny of 15 sitting days ends on 5 December, and we could save time if it happens more quickly
than that.  We can arrange votes in the Lords and Commons to approve the Order on 6 December,
and the Order comes into force the day after its approval in both Houses, which is 7 December. 
This will allow the courts 11 sitting dates between 12 - 28 December to consider restriction order
applications.  It is possible but, I absolutely agree with you, it is very, very tight.
  Chairman: We basically understand the timetable.

                           Brian Cotter
  4.  I am very glad to hear the Minister say how important this is, considering the many
problems the industry has had with regard to foot and mouth.  I do not know to whom I should
direct this comment but, in view of the importance for the hospitality industry, one wonders if we,
as a Committee, could not perhaps have sat during this very long recess, which we all have
enjoyed.  It is a very important matter as far as the hospitality industry is concerned, so it is
welcome that there is great concern about this.  I am sure as a Committee we would like to see this
go forward, but there is also concern that this trial does go through satisfactorily.  The very tight
timetable that is left there could leave it open to be suggested that the trial was not very
satisfactory and, therefore, not very helpful for future occasions.
  (Dr Howells) We have certainly not received any indication from ACPO or any of the police
representatives, nor indeed from most of the local authorities, that they are particularly concerned
about that.  They think if the Order does come through there is time to monitor it properly and we
certainly want to do that.  We want to accommodate ACPO and others in the way in which we
monitor the events of New Year's Eve properly and throughly, so we can then go forward to
making this a permanent arrangement.
  Chairman: If I could say on the question of timing - even if we had met during the Recess of
course the timetable on the sitting days would not have been affected, other than the three special
days when Parliament was called.  Our timetable would not materially have been affected.  I know
that Mr Cunningham's reply to the enquiries is dated 27 September and is a very detailed
response, and I know we did raise a number of detailed points.  I think, Minister, you and I, and
indeed the Committee, want to go forward in a positive way.  Regarding the main point I am
making on the timetable, I am sure your Department will be coming back to us with other issues. 
All I want to be absolutely certain of is that you do understand the timetable and what it means
to the way we work.  I do not want to waste any more time because we are tied down to an hour.

                             Mr Brown
  5.  To what extent do you believe that going ahead with the proposal would provide an
adequate test of the arrangements, given the lateness at which this Order would come into force? 
In particular, with regard to the figures  you will draw from the number of restriction orders that
will be applied for (which you believe to be essential information) do you believe that those
figures will be useful in drawing up future proposals?  Do you see that as being an honest and
reflective perception of what is really required out there?
  (Dr Howells) I think it is a very important question because last time this was attempted was
for the Millennium New Year.  I know the police were looking very carefully at trying to learn
lessons from the Millennium experience.  The Home Office, which then had responsibility for
this, assumed that there would be very large numbers of applications to restrict extensions; in fact
there were very few applications - very few when one thinks of the potential numbers that could
have come forward.  We have made an assumption that there will be many, many applications for
restriction orders.  However, instinct tells me that there are probably going to be no more than
there were for the Millennium Eve.  Maybe there will be some more - it is very difficult to say. 
I guess that as MPs we are as sharp as anybody else in trying to detect what our constituents and
other people think about the possibility of extensions being granted for New Year's Eve; because,
of course, we are the first people to get the complaints when they happen.  I can think in my own
constituency of probably two cases where there are sensitive areas which contain licensed
premises; but I have certainly not heard of anybody coming back to me since my appointment,
for example, (and this has had a good deal of publicity), to say, "Now you make sure there are no
extensions on New Year's Eve for such and such premises".  As to the way in which the
authorities will monitor it, we have been working very closely with them to make sure we have
good data on all of this and that it is properly monitored.  I think the Home Office in the past have
laid down pretty good and pretty useful guidelines for monitoring this kind of activity, and I have
every confidence that the information which will come out will be of great use to them.  I quite
agree with you that it is very, very close in terms of the timetable.  We are confident there is time
to arrange these things, and apparently the authorities are too.

                           Dr Naysmith
  6.  One of the things that is rather puzzling about this application is that the proposal contains
provision to make an appeal against the restriction by the magistrates to the Crown Court.  The
timescale is so compressed that that is really just an impossible hope.  In the letter that went back
and forth between our Clerk and your Department, your Department admits that the timescale is
so short it is unrealistic.  It raises the question: why are you including this proposal in what we
are considering today?  I know you have said you will withdraw it, but it suggests that the
timescale was not properly thought through to start with.
  (Dr Howells) It certainly was a very tight timescale and I am not going to pretend it was not. 
I would like to ask Andrew Cunningham to deal with the technical side of that question.
  (Mr Cunningham) Essentially we initially thought that there was value in an appeal, even if
it could not affect whether a set of premises opened on New Year's Eve, because issues do arise -
restriction orders do exist other than for New Years' Eves; they exist as part of the Act generally
and, therefore, issues of principle could come up that people might want to take to the courts to
appeal and deal with because it has a wider effect than just New Year's Eve and the position taken
by magistrates on a particular issue.  There have been cases in the past where issues about policies
on dealing with bulk applications have actually had to be resolved in the higher courts.  On
looking at points raised by the Committee, what we agreed was we accepted the argument that
was put to us: that there was not sufficient value in the appeal to include it as part of the package
and, therefore, we came to the conclusion we should withdraw it.  We always knew that the appeal
was going to be of very little value to individual licensees, for example - or, indeed, anybody else
we might have offered that appeal to if we had broadened it out.  It originally was only for
licensees.  The timescale generally was always going to be extremely difficult.
  7.  Are you suggesting this is only for this coming New Year's Eve?  It might have been
broadened out but it is not going to be?
  (Mr Cunningham) Yes.
  8.  Are you suggesting there might still be value in having it in to decide matters of principle? 
Is that why it is in there?
  (Mr Cunningham) We have discussed this again with our legal advisers; we looked at points
made by your Clerk backed by your legal advisers; and we have come to the conclusion there is
not sufficient value in it to be worth including.
  (Dr Howells) To reassure the Committee - when we have talked to industry about this they
have basically said, "Give us this relaxation.  We can live with the fact we don't have an appeals
procedure".  Effectively, the magistrates' ruling is final at the moment.
  9.  Going back to one of the earlier questions, this is obviously going to be of importance if
it is going to be a test case for further changes.  A sufficiently robust appeal procedure would be
necessary to test the whole procedure, would it not?
  (Mr Cunningham) Certainly in terms of the way we planned to look at the impact of the Order,
the key areas we considered would be the position taken by the three groups (the local authorities,
the police and the magistrates); the key issue for us in reflecting on the impact of the Order during
a New Year's Eve would be what actually happened in licensed premises, on the streets, in and
around the general event and, therefore, the impact on the community.  I do not think our review
would turn precisely on issues of law as to the precise nature of the decisions taken.  In reflecting
on whether restriction orders have worked as an effective measure, we will be looking at the view
taken by the people who apply, who are either going to be successful or not in applying for
restrictions, and whether they feel they got a reasonable hearing and they got a reasonable chance
to influence what actually happened.  A key part, finally, would be a subsequent consultation.  We
will do a review with the main organisations and the main groups, but when we do a further
consultation on a permanent change on future New Years' Eves, we would then be getting views
back from the public and a lot more local residents' organisations saying how they feel it worked. 
We would then reflect on that before presenting draft Orders.

                           Paul Goodman
  10.  In the letter of 27 September in paragraph 20 there appears the following sentence:
"Although it may not have been the Committee's intention [Minister, you referred to this earlier],
we understand that many in the trade and the trade press took the letter to be a clear indication that
a regulatory reform order could not be made in time for New Year's Eve 2001".  We were just
wondering whether the Government was attempting in any way to blame the Committee for the
loss of the 9 million saving, which you estimated would accrue from the introduction of the
Order?  I ask this particularly in light of the further point in paragraph 20: "It appears likely that
a high percentage of premises will apply for special orders of exemption as soon as possible as
a precautionary measure", a point that the Committee took note of in July.
  (Dr Howells) God forbid that we would ever blame this Committee for anything!  I think I
tried to explain in my opening statement that there was some ambiguity there which was seized
upon  (and I do not want to refer to them) by some of the people in this room today, not
necessarily members of the Committee, who watch this stuff very, very carefully.  I think they
were very worried about it; there is no question about that.  An extension of hours, such as we are
proposing, means a good deal of investment, for example, in making sure that the staff are in place
for a New Year's Eve.  As I have indicated, it is a very big employer as an industry and so on. 
When it seemed as if we were going to have difficulties with this for whatever reason - whether
it was late timing, the way they had been handled previously or the attitude of the Committee -
whatever the reasons were, were judged to be the most important ones and most significant ones. 
I assume that a lot of licensees would have said, "Look, let's not take any risks.  Let's go for those
extensions now", and the applications went in.  In a sense, what that does for us is, it reduces that
9 million savings total that we wanted the industry to have.  That is a shame, but I suspect it has
probably already happened.  It is very difficult to say how many of them have done it.  We are
certainly trying to find out.  I think Mr Goodman is right - it will be a significant number and the
savings will not be as high as they were when we initially assessed them.
  11.  You do not want to make any estimate of what that number might be?
  (Dr Howells) No, I do not know.  I have no idea.  I have tried to do a straw poll in my own
constituency - some applications have been made and others have not.
  12.  Is it right in principle for the Government to rely on assumptions about decisions which
Parliament has yet to make when advising the trade on arrangements for opening hours?
  (Dr Howells) No, it is not right.  That has been the weakness of this decision, as the Chairman
explained to us in his introduction - there is no question about it.  We would like regulation to be
much easier to understand and much more predictable.  It has been one of the problems; and, of
course, was one of the reasons this Committee was set up in the first place, to try to cut through
that ambiguity and uncertainly and give industry a much better idea of what Government requires
of it.  That is why I am very much in favour of deregulation and better regulation.

                           Brian White
  13.  Most of the discussions about this have not been about the principle, which most people
would accept, but about the practicalities, and the Minister has already talked about some.  Given
it is about the practicalities on the ground, how many of the people actually putting this policy
together in your office have had practical experience in a local authority actually on the ground
in dealing with this, or in a magistrates' court or police force?
  (Mr Cunningham) None.  We work with the police; we take advice from ACPO; I take advice
from the Magistrates' Association Licensing Committee.  I work with the LGA on a very regular
basis, because we are working with them continually on licensing.  I take their advice and then
that is included in the advice I provide to the Minister.
  14.  The Minister said earlier on you were expecting about 700 restriction orders as a
maximum, of that sort of order?
  (Mr Cunningham) Yes.
  15.  The assumption is that that will be spread evenly throughout the country.  God forbid that
I should be a defender of Kensington and Chelsea, but if you look at the Millennium year there
was actually a skewing to some authorities.  Have you done any analysis of that?
  (Mr Cunningham) There is no question that there will be larger numbers in city areas. 
London, in particular, will be highly congested.  There are licensing statistics available at the
Home Office which show the density of licensed premises across the country.  The highest density
is actually in Wales, Cornwall, the South-West, then followed by London.  Obviously cities take
the greatest burden, but I would also say the licensing committees and benches in cities are
substantially larger.  When we said it would be about 4,000 sitting days for 700 applications, that
is not taking account of individual courts.  I have no reason to suppose, in talking to the
Magistrates' Committee, that they did not feel they could cope with what we are talking about
now - dealing with applications within the period concerned.  I think, if anything, the issue is more
a question of preparation of the case, rather than whether the courts could deal with it.  In that
respect, I think the reports produced in November by the two committees become particularly
crucial; because if it looks more possible that an Order will be made and approved by Parliament,
then we could certainly give greater publicity to the need for people to start thinking about
whether they want restriction orders so they would be ready to make their applications.  The
police would do that anyway because they go through a natural process in preparing for New
Year's Eve, but not necessarily authorities.
  16.  If this Order goes through on 4 December and you have got less than three weeks until
Christmas until 20th to actually put these restriction orders in, in a number of courts and in some
places much more than others, is it not the situation that you will be putting a lot of burden on
people who are already busy doing other things so, as the Justices' Clerk said, it would be better
to delay this legislation than include a power of restriction which would in effect be meaningless? 
  (Mr Cunningham) I am sorry, I want to make sure I understand that?
  17.  There have been suggestions that this should be delayed by the Justices' Clerks' Society. 
My question to you is: given the practicalities, you are talking effectively of three weeks; have
you considered that delaying it would actually allow you to resolve some of the problems?  As
some are already going through existing procedures for this year, we could get this right for
subsequent years.
  (Mr Cunningham) We have considered whether we should delay and whether we should not
have any relaxation during New Year 2001.  I hope that the memorandum we have produced and
points the Minister made today explained why we wish to continue, despite recognising some of
the difficulties involved.  We consider that it is important we attempt to put this Order in place
because of the benefits not only to industry but actually to ordinary people who want to take
advantage of the environment which will be created by putting that Order in place.  There is no
doubt that if delayed and we went to next year then we would have our trial next year, that we
could attempt to time it so that we could allow a much longer intro so that people could apply for
restriction orders at a more leisurely pace.  We think the benefits of doing it this year outweigh
the gains we would make in doing it.
  18.  You are saying this is much better than what we have got?
  (Mr Cunningham) Yes.

                            Andy King
  19.  Minister, I am very concerned that we seemed to be concentrating on just a small aspect
of the relevant sectors.  We have talked a lot about the industry, we have talked about the
magistrates' court almost like, "Yes, this is a process.  We can do the bureaucratic bit on time". 
It does not sound to me as if any real consideration has been given to the many communities up
and down the country who are going to be affected by this.  I think this Committee has got it right
by saying that people want some certainty; they do not want botched, rushed jobs; they want to
have confidence that what is being done is being done absolutely properly, and that the protection
will be there for all parties - the publican and the staff.  The staff are not going to be happy if they
have already made arrangements to be away and then the next thing is they are being told by their
boss is, "By the way, we've decided we're going to take advantage of this opportunity which is
coming up in a couple of weeks' time".  I think there are a lot of different individuals and groups
who are going to be concerned about this.  We want to see it done absolutely right and want to
give some certainty to the communities affected, employees affected and landlords affected.  We
think it is good that we actually get it right long-term, not piecemeal and not a rushed job.
  (Dr Howells) Mr King, if I may, I do not think this is a rushed job.  I think the timetable is
tight but we have thought long and hard about this, as the entire industry has and as all of those
involved in the consultation have for very many years.  This is not something which suddenly
appeared with a new government in June 2001, this is something on which we have consulted a
great deal and that certainly the industry has aspired to for a very long time, and it does not stand
alone.  Remember, we have got the Criminal Justice and Police Act which this Government has
also brought in in 2001 which gives the police very, very tough powers to close down rowdy pubs,
for example, in a way which they were not able to do previously.  I think the safeguards, as far
as public order is concerned, are much stronger now than they have ever been and that they will
be applied on New Year's Eve 2001 in the same way as they would be applied at any time of the
year.  Secondly, I am very sensitive to the needs of the employees in this industry.  The best
establishments treat their employees very, very well, and there are good career structures for them. 
This is an industry which has suffered in the past from a bad image as far as employment is
concerned, and one of the things we have got to do, it seems to me, as a country is wake up to the
fact that being a member of bar staff is a very honourable profession.  This is the only country,
really, in Europe which does not regard serving behind a bar or being a waiter or the manager of
a restaurant as being a very honourable job; it is some quirk in our culture.  I am very sensitive
to the fact that people should not be treated in an off-hand way in terms of their employment.  I
think that we have to take the example of the best in this country and say "This is what we aspire
to".  I know this is what all responsible representatives of the industry itself and the trade want
and this is what we have to work towards.  Of course, if I may say, we have to come back to an
earlier statement I made, which is that due to the catastrophic effects of foot-and-mouth disease
and, especially in Central London, the events of 11 September we owe it to the industry, to all
those employed in it and all of the workers and businesses that contribute to that industry, the
breweries, those that supply food and services to these establishments, to ensure that they are not
bound by what  I see, anyway, as needless restrictions on opening hours for a very temporary
moment - after all, for twelve hours during one period of New Year's Eve - in order that they
might make the most of that period for their business.  I have not come across any employees who
have complained to us or anybody else (perhaps they would not) about the fact that they had
already arranged a holiday and this is a terrible noose hanging over that holiday's head, but I have
certainly been approached by many people who say "Listen, our jobs are in danger if we do not
have a good New Year's Eve".  This is always a balancing act, and I am weighing up in favour
of that very large majority rather than a very small minority that it might be I have not detected
  20.  My concern, Chairman, is that it would be the exception which is going to blow this thing
out of the water, because people will not have had the chance to have tested it out properly, in
terms of challenging it, being consulted at this given time.  We may well have been having this
dialogue within the industry and on this Committee for the last two or three years, but the people
who live next door to some establishment do not know all this is going on, they do not know - as
far as I am aware - that something is going to happen a few weeks before Christmas that may well
have an impact on this given year.  That is the point.
  (Dr Howells) I can understand that, Mr King, and I hope very much that the publicity which
might come out of this Committee's deliberations and any press releases we put out about it will
be designed to educate people about what is going to happen.  Can I say, also, that in terms of the
Criminal Justice and Police Act of this year, if we look at the alcohol licensing provisions which
will be brought into force, remember, on 1 December 2001, there is now a police power under
Sections 17 to 18 to order the closure of on-licensed premises instantly for up to 24 hours due to
disorder or excessive noise.  They have not been able to do that up till now, and that is a big step
forward, it seems to me.  By the way, we have made sure that licensees understand the seriousness
of that very punitive measure that the police can take against their premises if they do not conduct 
an orderly house.  We know that there is a follow-up procedure which allows the alcohol licence
for the premises to be reviewed by the licensing justice, even if that licence has already been
awarded.  Again, a very, very serious action that can be taken.  There is guidance to the police
which has been issued, which has been drawn up in consultation with the industry and with other
interested groups, and we are going to circulate it to all licensees in October so that they are very
much aware of it and we will try and make sure that the public is aware of it so that people are not
coming to this, in the last few days of the year, blind, so to speak.  So I take your point very much,
but we will certainly try to ensure that people are aware that the powers are there now to ensure
that houses are run in an orderly fashion.
  Chairman: I would say that the Police Federation view on the practicalities relating to Section
17 of the Act is less enthusiastic and they expressed that view at the time of consultation.  We will
look at that point a little bit further because we know what you have said.  We also have your
opening comments on the two-year rule, so we look forward to seeing what you are going to
submit on that, but we will not pursue questions on that today because I think we are much nearer
agreement on that, but we will look at what you are going to send us rather than ask questions. 
We move on to one thing we have known was going to occur from the day the King died on 6
February 1952.  Assuming that the Queen lived, the Jubilee was going to be in 2002 and we
celebrate it at the time of the Coronation.  So we have a few questions on the Jubilee.

                           Mr Rosindell
  21.  Could you, perhaps, give us some details about how you are progressing with this
situation in respect of the Golden Jubilee next year?  Could you also tell us what time you expect
licensees to have to prepare for this?
  (Mr Cunningham) With regard to the Golden Jubilee, the current situation is that we are ready
to lay a Draft Order before this Committee and, of course, the House of Lords.  The actual
consultation has shown that something like (I cannot remember the figures exactly) 94 per cent
support the proposal.  We would, therefore, hope that an Order could be made by Spring of next
year.  The proposal, as you will recall, is for a two-hour extension on normal permitted hours, so
we would assume there would be quite substantially less restriction order issues arising then
because that is not going to be a great deal more than is normally permitted through some of the
other extension systems that are available to licensed premises - special hours certificates and that
kind of thing, which normally operate.  We originally considered laying the two orders together. 
We decided not to do that, principally, because we firstly took the view that we were asking the
Committee to consider matters before this Committee was selected and elected and we thought
you would only do that with one thing, because we could avoid it with the Golden Jubilee, so we
laid only the New Year Order.  Since then, the two-year rule issue has arisen and become a focus
of discussion between the legal advisers of both Committees and the Department.  Obviously,
what becomes crucial with the Golden Jubilee Order is the resolution of the two-year rule, but our
intention to lay the Draft Order is very much dependent on what occurs as a result of the findings
of this Committee and the House of Lords on the two-year rule.  I think the Department's view,
and the Minister will confirm, is that if we had to choose, the priority would be for the Golden
Jubilee.  So we would probably feel it appropriate to drop the 2001 if the position that the
Committees took was that only one Order was permitted within two years.
  (Dr Howells) Which we hope it will not.

  22.  On the question of reform, there is obviously a fundamental review taking place at the
present time, and as a devil's advocate perhaps I will ask you how you feel it is appropriate to
proceed with these individual pieces of reform when there is such a review taking place?
  (Dr Howells) If I may, Mr Chairman, I certainly do not accept that the very minor changes that
we are proposing - and very temporary changes - constitute Government trying to change policy
stealth.  I do not think that is true at all.  We have been very specific about the Orders that we have
laid and about their limited nature.  I cannot answer for other departments, clearly, but for my own
department there are some interesting possibilities, of course, as far as the new system is
concerned, since we can start to deregulate in this way.  We are looking, as you know, at
restaurant hours, we are looking at the possibilities of some changes to some facets of gambling
and I certainly would not want to give this Committee any impression that we are not looking at
those things.  Of course we are.  Any minister faced with not being able to get an important piece
of potential legislation on to the Queen's Speech looks at any possible way of getting the
legislation that they believe in on to the books, and this is certainly the case as far as DCMS is
  23.  Does your Department recognise that in principle a number of Regulatory Reform Orders
in licensing or gambling could amount to a significant policy change in the area?
  (Dr Howells) No, I do not.  In terms of the way I see deregulation, Mr Chairman, these are
very modest, from my perspective.  Others may disagree with me.
  Chairman: This Committee may.  A final few questions from Mr Cotter.

                            Mr Cotter
  24.  Albeit a bit late, can I welcome the Minister to his post because he has made it clear
today- setting aside this particular decision - he is going to be a strong advocate of the tourism and
hospitality industry, coming from a premier resort of the country, Weston-super-Mare - if not the
premier resort.  Setting that aside, can I ask the Minister: in an area so politically contentious as
licensing and gambling, how far do you expect it to be possible to detach elements of reform
which might be delivered by regulatory reform rather than by primary legislation?  Bearing in
mind it is a contentious area.
  (Dr Howells) Mr Chairman, I guess this question can be answered at two levels, first of all the
official level, which is the Department's and Government's attitude, and I will try and answer, if
I can, as somebody who has been immersed in this since June, because of the seriousness of the
blight that has been put on much of the tourism industry especially in areas like Mr Cotter's since
the onset of the foot-and-mouth disease.  I think we can go a very long way in terms of relaxing
some of the regulation which currently I think is burdensome to parts of the industry, but that if
we succeed in doing that (which I think we must try to do in order to alleviate the burden on the
industry) then we have to make sure that we take the public with us.  I went into some detail about
the new criminal and civil sanctions that are available against those who do not behave themselves
in terms of the way in which they run licensed premises and allow things to happen because I
think we have got to convince the public that those powers are there at the same time as we say
"But wait a minute, we have got some very peculiar and very restrictive laws in this country when
it comes to this sector", which is a burgeoning sector, remember.  Parliament hardly ever debates
successful industries; Parliament only ever debates failing industries, and the fact is that until this
year - apart from a kind of blip during the Gulf War - the tourism and hospitality industry has
been growing at a tremendous rate.  It has become increasingly important to all parts of our
economy but especially so to areas such as rural areas where because of the way in which
technology and patterns of farming have moved, employment in farming has declined
dramatically.  Somebody told me the other day that they had calculated that even in remote areas
the hospitality industry and the tourism industry between them is worth four times that of farming,
and many times that in terms of employment.  So it is absolutely essential, I think, that we do not
sit back, we do not delay too far on this but we say "Let us see how we can help the industry by
deregulation".  I would much rather do it through primary legislation, through a proper licensing
bill, but if in a congested Parliamentary timetable we cannot get that, then we have to look at the
opportunities offered us by various deregulatory routes.
  Mr Cotter: Thank you, Minister, for some interesting comments.

  25.  Has any other Member any other point?  Is there anything, Minister, that you or your
colleagues would like to add before we finish?
  (Mr Cunningham) I have one point I would like to make.  If it would be helpful to the
Committee to see the draft of the guidance that will go out to the police and be available to
licensees about Section 17 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act, which gives a fairly full
indication of how powers should be used, we would be happy to provide that to the Clerk, if it
would inform the Committee.
  26.  That would, indeed, be useful, yes.

                           Dr Naysmith
  27.  What sort of guidance do you anticipate would go out to residents who might want to
make an application for a Restriction Order?  Could that be done through just press publicity?
  (Mr Cunningham) Press would be the logical thing, and through our websites.  We would
certainly explain how an application should be made and what the possible effect of that
application might be.  That could be done, as I say, if both Committees reported or gave
favourable indications at the end of this stage, in mid-November.  We could actually put
something to that effect which would obviously say "If an application is made, you would have
the opportunity to do X, Y and Z."  That is, basically, I would think, the best means that we can
use.  We can use the press to direct people to where they can get that information.

                             Mr White
  28.  When you talk about the press, most people get their information about this from their
local press rather than the national press.  It would be in the local press you would look for that?
  (Mr Cunningham) Yes.  We could also help local authorities to have that kind of information. 
We could encourage them through the LGA to put that information out through their publicity

  29.  Can I thank the Minister and his team for coming along?  We have found that useful.  If
Members of the Committee will stay for a few minutes to discuss further business.  Thank you
very much.
  (Dr Howells) Thank you very much.