| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wallace: I share the sentiments and good intentions behind the amendments, but I am afraid that I cannot support them, because I do not honestly think that they are capable of being translated into action by licensing boards. Although matters such as health and safety may be susceptible of an objective approach when a licensing board attaches conditions, to impose responsibility regarding welfare is to impose a duty that is so wide that I am not sure how the board could, in all conscience, discharge it. Welfare may differ considerably from one person to another, and, given such large crowds, it would be very difficult to discharge such a responsibility.
Amendment No.19 speaks of
Again, we do not object to that idea--much more should be done generally to promote knowledge of those effect--but how is a licensing board to discharge that responsibility? What will be required? Must adverts be placed or must there be a period during the evening when a lecture is given or do leaflets have to be distributed? If leaflets have to be distributed, I think that all hon. Members would agree that how one promotes information and explains the effects of such actions can often be a matter of debate and dispute.
During our debate on an earlier group of amendments,the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden(Mr. Galbraith) mentioned the furore sparked off by the remarks of the director of social work in Glasgow. I shall not go into the merits of what was said, but the incident
illustrated the number of differing views that can be held on the subject. A person who is granted a licence may distribute leaflets seeking to promote knowledge, but others might say that the leaflets do nothing of the sort and, indeed, encourage such actions. When criminal sanctions are attached to a breach of the licensing conditions, it is incumbent on the board to be precise so that the person who has to comply with the conditions knows exactly what he is required to do. I do not think that that is possible.
There is an important task to be done in promoting knowledge. The Liberal Democrats have supported the all-party initiative, Scotland against Drugs, and we shall be taking to the buses on Tuesday to take the message around Scotland. We must not stop there; we must promote information through our schools and through health education. As the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden rightly said, the message must also include alcohol as well as drugs and nicotine. I do not believe that the responsibility can adequately be discharged by he licensing boards when dealing with such applications.
Mrs. Adams:
I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). While I recognise that it would be difficult to put the provision into practice, it would be remiss of us to miss the opportunity at least to try to promote some of the health messages that we have heard from the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith).
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
New section 18A spells out the purpose for which boards, having concluded that an event is a relevant one, attach conditions to the liquor licence. Following debates in Committee, that purpose was extended to safeguarding the health and safety of people attending relevant events. The change was warmly accepted by hon. Members.
As the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, amendment No. 18 would extend that purpose still further. That would be a praiseworthy aim if it achieved any further benefit. However, like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I do not believe that it does. Protecting the health and safety of young people is an all-embracing objective that must reasonably imply the inclusion of welfare, so a specific reference is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 19 would introduce a second purpose for attracting conditions to licences. While I agree with the essence of the point, the change is unnecessary.
Of course alcohol and drug misuse is detrimental to health and safety. Under new section 18A, a board is empowered to attach appropriate conditions to a licence to achieve the objective. A board is surely best placed to gauge how to achieve that aim in any particular circumstances, which is why it should be provided for as a condition.
The terms and conditions that boards should attach to licences will be fully covered in the guidance to be issued by the Scottish Office following consultation. Boards will be fully aware that informing people about the dangers of drug misuse is part of the Bill's purpose. As we have already debated and confirmed, if boards do not attach appropriate conditions to licences, the Secretary of State will have the power to prescribe the conditions that boards will have to attach.
Amendment No. 17 is simply consequential on the other two amendments. I trust that I have explained why the amendments are unnecessary, although their purpose is praiseworthy. The terms of the Bill cover the points raised.
Mr. McFall:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. McFall:
I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 2, line 1, leave out
Under the Bill, the so-called information could be a rumour--one member of the board could hear it and decide to act. That member may have listened to a chief constable or another person's competitor. The wording is too vague, and it would be better if it were stated in the Bill that the board had received specific information.
I am aware that, if a chief constable gives information, it could be confidential. The amendment allows for that information to remain confidential, but it must be specific. The amendment is aimed at tying down the information to being specific rather than vague. The Minister is aware of our concerns.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth and Kinross):
I support the amendment. I am uncertain about its precise wording, but the tenor is right. I have been concerned that this part of the Bill has insufficient legal clarity and that licensing boards will be laid open to challenges if they take decisions on the basis of how matters appear to them, without having anything much to back up their decisions.
I understand the Government's position--they do not want to narrow the board's flexibility too much and introduce a standard with which, until now, they have not
had to deal. If the Bill is to proceed, it would be useful if the Government could take on board our concerns, which are partly echoed by the police.
I have contacted my local police force on the subject and they expressed a little concern about the wide way in which the provision is drawn. It was said that, if the police were asked to advise, it would be difficult for them to envisage an event about which they could say that it fell outside the criteria, but they could think of many events at which it would be unlikely that offences would take place. Including a tighter definition of what should appear before the board when it makes its decision would be helpful in the longer term.
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has done us a service by introducing the amendment, as it allows the opportunity for some consideration of the language to which the amendment is directed. The Bill says that the new section applies to any event
that offences may be committed.
The difficulty is that the scope of those words is extremely wide. As the Minister will be well aware, licensing boards are not bound by the strict rules of evidence. They are entitled to have regard to hearsay evidence, and they often proceed on the basis not of formal, evidence but of ex parte statements. That has been the custom of the licensing board in Glasgow from time immemorial.
As that is the standard of evidence that licensing boards are entitled to adopt, when one produces a statutory provision that is drawn in such wide terms as the present provision, one allows for the possibility of vague rumour or an unsubstantiated attempt by a competitor to do down the business of someone who is a commercial success and is causing envy or detracting from other commercial opportunities. Although the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which refers to specific information, may not be correct in its precise phrasing, he is right to argue for greater precision as to what a board is entitled to rely on.
As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, it occurred to me that it might be possible to insert some reference to those who are entitled to object to the awarding of a licence--for example, a chief constable, a community council or a person owning an adjacent or neighbouring property. Such people are provided with a statutory right of objection when any application is made for what might be called in this context a full licence. I think that that would be more specific than what presently appears to be an opportunity for the board to hoover up scraps of information from anywhere in order to justify a decision.
The difficulty is that the words
"promoting knowledge among such persons about the effects of the misuse of alcohol and drugs."
'at which it appears to the board'
and insert
'in respect of which the board has received specific information'.
The amendment is concerned with specificity rather than vagueness. The Bill states that the appearance of the possibility of the misuse of drugs at events is a sufficient basis for a licensing board to act. The amendment requires the board to have specific intelligence that offences may be committed. The Minister knows that we have raised the issue with him before. I believe that he has said that the Government consulted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and it was content with the provision, but it is important to specify what the licensing board has to know.
"at which it appears to the board"
"at which it appears to the board"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |