Motion made and Question put,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Licensing Bill Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 24th March 2003 and 16th June 2003.

Consideration of Lords Message

1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, the Lords Amendment in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 62, the Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16, 20 and 21 and the Lords Amendment in lieu of words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 50.

subsequent stages

3. Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.

4. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.-[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 158.

Those voting No rejected the words of the motion for debate, which read:

"That this House calls for a delay in the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 in the light of concerns expressed by doctors, senior police officers and members of the judiciary that the Act will lead to increased health and policing problems; is concerned about the increase in violent crimes since 1998, half of which are attributed to alcohol misuse; recognises that drunken revellers are turning town and city centres into no-go areas, thus putting an increasing burden on health and police resources, and predicts that the implementation of the Act will exacerbate these problems; is further concerned about increased alcohol consumption and believes that extended opening hours will have an adverse serious effect on health of the nation; and regrets that the Government has fundamentally failed to deal with the problem of binge drinking before proceeding with the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003."

A new motion was then put in place, which read:

"This House considers that failure to implement the Licensing Act 2003 without delay would deny the local community increased powers of intervention and improved democratic accountability with regard to licensing, deny the police the expanded powers that are vital to their efforts to tackle alcohol-related crime and would prevent licensing authorities from receiving income from licensing fees needed to recover on-going expenditure in preparing for the new regime; believes that any delay in the implementation of the Act would undermine the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance, damage public safety and hinder the protection of children from harm; further believes that the Act will complement the delivery of the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England which aims to reduce excessive drinking and the harms that causes; and, furthermore, commends the proposals for Alcohol Disorder Zones and the extension of fixed penalty notices and other measures set out in 'Drinking Responsibly', the consultation paper published jointly by the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 21st January 2005."

This was an "opposition day" debate, where the opposition party proposes a motion, and the government, which holds the majority, always votes it down and replaces it with its own motion.

Those voting no rejected the motion that was being debated, which read:

This House notes with concern that with only 25 days to go before the 6th August deadline set in the Licensing Act 2003, only 20 per cent. of licence applications have been received; further notes the chaos that this is creating both for the licensing trade and for local authorities; is concerned by the problems of extra cost that the legislation is creating for village halls, sports clubs and community centres; regrets the effect that this will have upon local communities; condemns the Government for its lack of action in dealing with the problem; and calls upon the Government to extend the deadlines for the receipt of applications and re-examine the impact upon village halls and sports clubs.

A new motion was then put in place, which read:

This House commends the Government on its effective publicity campaign that has significantly increased the rate of applications to convert existing licences under the Licensing Act 2003 before 6th August; encourages remaining licensees to fulfil their responsibilities and get their applications in before that date; considers that failure to implement the Act without delay would deny local communities increased powers of intervention and improved democratic accountability with regard to licensing and deny the police the expanded powers that are vital to their efforts to tackle alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour; welcomes the powers in the Act to prevent crime and disorder and public nuisance, and protect children from harm; believes that the Act will benefit local communities, local economies and tourism and generate savings for business of almost £2 billion over 10 years; and furthermore, believes that the Act will be successfully implemented by 24th November 2005 and will be welcomed by industry and non-commercial organisations, including village halls and sports clubs, alike.

This then passed without a further vote.

Those voting No rejected the words of the motion for debate, which read:

This House notes the growing public concern that the Licensing Act 2003 will increase levels of violent crime and anti-social behaviour; observes that the cost to the taxpayer of rising alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder is already £12 billion a year; objects to the presumption in favour of late-night drinking irrespective of the views of local residents and local representatives; disapproves of the disproportionate burden of administration and increased costs for village halls, sports clubs and community centres; calls for local councils to have greater discretion to take into account the interests of their local community; and calls on the Government to cancel the full commencement of the Act and overhaul the primary legislation.

An alternative motion, which was then passed, was voted on in the next division.

Those voting Aye applied a new motion, replacing the one that was rejected in the previous division, which read:

This House commends the Government on its effective publicity campaign that, together with the excellent work of licensing authorities, has resulted in 97 per cent. of those needing to make applications having done so, with the expectation that virtually all those who want a licence will have the necessary licence by 24th November; welcomes the involvement of more local residents than ever before in the licensing processes and their ability to influence the hours that premises open near their homes; notes that there is no presumption in favour of late night drinking in the Act and that it is for licensing authorities to decide appropriate hours of trading where any dispute arises; considers that the implementation of the powers to review premises licences after 24th November are a vital step in fighting anti-social behaviour; and believes that delaying the implementation of the Act would be contrary to the wishes of the police, licensing authorities, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Action with Communities in Rural England and industry and would be an unacceptable waste of the resources and effort put in by those who have been preparing for full implementation since 7th February 2005."

This then passed automatically.

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.