| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Licensing Laws
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Madam Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement about licensing reform. I am today laying before the House a White Paper setting out proposals for the comprehensive modernisation of the alcohol, public entertainment and night refreshment licensing laws in England and Wales.
The present laws are complex and no longer match the expectations of the public and the industries concerned or the needs of community safety. For example, the Licensing Act 1964 provides for more than 40 different kinds of licence or permission.
The present system hinders business development and investment. Anyone wanting to change a licence in any way has to follow bureaucratic procedures that generate unnecessary costs and court hearings. There is often considerable duplication with planning controls and health and safety procedures. Many premises serving alcohol also require public entertainment licences, and so their operations have to satisfy an entirely separate and parallel licensing procedure run by the local authorities.
There have been no substantive changes to these laws for almost 40 years, while some aspects of the law have changed little in more than a century. In many ways, the law as it stands makes more difficult the problems of policing and public order. Fixed closing times may encourage binge drinking around last orders, with people hitting the streets--and sometimes each other--at the same time.
The law concerning the sale and consumption of alcohol by children and young people is profoundly confusing. Few people know exactly what the law requires, and those who do see little sense in it. A person aged 17 may enter a bar, but may not purchase an alcoholic drink. A person aged 18 standing next to him may purchase a drink, take it into a pub garden and lawfully give it to a five-year-old.
Venues providing hospitality and leisure are changing a great deal. It is now much more difficult to differentiate between a pub, a cafe, a wine bar or a restaurant. The old licensing categories can no longer keep up with these changes. The effect is to force businesses to obtain multiple permissions at significant additional cost without delivering sufficient benefits or protections to the public.
To modernise the system, the White Paper proposes a single new licensing system which will give people more choice about where and when they eat, drink and enjoy themselves, while providing much better protection against the misuse of alcohol, especially in relation to sales to children. The White Paper proposes stronger powers where licensed premises cause crime and disorder, place the safety of the public at risk or lead to unreasonable nuisance for local residents.
The White Paper therefore envisages that more flexible opening hours should be balanced by clearer licensing criteria and more effective remedies against businesses that fall down on their social responsibilities. The proposals should significantly reduce the regulatory burden on business. In an appendix to the White Paper, we estimate that they should help to cut the costs of business by around £190 million a year.
Responsibility for the licensing system is split between local authorities and magistrates. Magistrates deal with alcohol licensing, while local authorities deal with the licensing of public entertainment, theatres, cinemas, late-night refreshment and planning and development control. We have carefully considered who should have responsibility for running the new streamlined and integrated arrangements, and have concluded that it should be local authorities.
Following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local authorities have important duties to tackle crime and disorder in their areas and are best placed to make judgments about local impact. They are also properly accountable to the people affected by their decisions. We therefore believe that they should decide which premises should be licensed and what operating conditions should apply, albeit within a national framework of clear criteria and under fair and consistent local procedures defined in statutory rules and guidance.
The criminal courts will continue to deal with offences against licensing laws. Local magistrates will therefore continue to have an important part to play in ensuring that licensing laws work properly for the benefit of free and safe communities. Local authorities' licensing decisions will be subject to review by the courts on appeal. We propose that that should take place in the Crown court, but we recognise that there are other options--magistrates or special tribunals, for example--and we are ready to consider representations on that, as on any other issue.
The White Paper proposals can be summarised as follows. There will be a single integrated scheme for licensing premises that sell alcohol, provide public entertainment or provide late-night refreshment. It will set out operating conditions, which will relate to the impact on crime and disorder, public safety and public disturbance. Licence conditions should protect against those threats, but not interfere in other ways with how premises are run. The conditions attached to such licences will be set locally according to the balance of the operator's requirements, the views of residents and assessments by police and fire authorities.
A new system of personal licences will allow holders to sell or serve alcohol for consumption on or off any premises. There will be new measures to back up restrictions on under-age drinking. To counter and minimise public disorder resulting from fixed closing times, flexible opening hours may be introduced as a condition of the premises licence, with the possibility that some venues--I emphasise that that means only some venues--may operate up to 24-hour opening, seven days a week, subject to consideration of the impact on local residents.
We propose tough and uncompromising new powers for the police to deal quickly with violence and disorderly behaviour by closing premises that licence holders have allowed to become the focus of such misbehaviour. We propose that the age for the consumption of alcohol in licensed premises, and for its purchase, should remain 18, with better provision for the enforcement of those powers. However, 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to consume beer or wine served with a meal.
Children should be allowed access to any part of suitable licensed premises at the personal licence holder's discretion, but licensing authorities would have powers to restrict or deny access by children to unsuitable licensed
venues. The new personal and premises licences would be issued by local authorities. An avenue of appeal for parties, including the police and local residents, would be available through the courts.Licences would be supported by a flexible range of sanctions--including temporary closure and temporary reduction in opening hours--instead of the present all-or-nothing sanction of loss of licence. In the wake of the Marchioness Thames safety inquiry, there would be new requirements for licensing the sale of alcohol on boats travelling within England and Wales. New arrangements will be made for non-profit-making clubs--working men's, political, ex-services, sports and social clubs--that supply alcohol to their members to preserve their special status.
This is a radical package of measures; I am convinced that it strikes an important and necessary balance between the needs of business and the concerns of local residents. The new measures will be good for the police, because they should help them to cope with late-night disorder and reduce crime. The measures should be good for business, because they will sweep away red tape and offer business real flexibility. They will be good for consumers--citizens and visitors to this country alike--by creating a safer environment in which consumers can have greater choice. They will be good for families, by creating more opportunities for them to spend leisure time together without fear of intimidation or disorder, and by providing better protection against under-age drinking. The measures will be good for local residents, who will acquire a bigger say in a licensing process that will be properly accountable to them.
In preparing legislation to bring proposals before Parliament, we shall welcome and take account of any suggestions for improving the way in which licensing decisions are dealt with, or on any other aspect of the proposals. We ask for responses to be received by the Home Office by the end of July. We shall, of course, consult the Welsh Assembly on the proposals as they may apply to Wales, including on whether there remains a demand for Sunday opening polls.
I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): I thank the Home Secretary for his customary courtesy in allowing us to have an early sight of the White Paper. We are not entirely sure about the new format of the document, with all its exciting pictures and photographs, but we are sure that Labour Members will greatly enjoy them.
Angela Smith (Basildon): The hon. Gentleman is a sharp wit.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to be called that.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): My hon. Friend said "twit".
Mr. Heald: No, she did not. I am not getting into that sort of argy-bargy.
I welcome much of the Home Secretary's statement. We believe that it should be possible to move forward constructively in a spirit of consensus. There was
widespread agreement that the licensing laws needed modernising. We agree that the ending of the terminal hour and its replacement with flexible hours should end the practice of drinking to a deadline. The Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales commented:
- this will contribute to the policing of public disorder associated with drink . . . we would expect a staggering of closing times--
A simpler system of penalties with a graduated scale is also useful and should enable the licensing authority better to target penalties. We welcome the tougher powers on under-age drinking and the fact that the police will be able to close rowdy houses. The new split system of licensing premises separately from individuals was strongly supported by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association. We believe that it could have benefits. We shall study the White Paper carefully and formulate a detailed and constructive response after careful consultations.
Although there are some points in the White Paper on which we agree, there are--as ever--issues that cause us concern. From a brief reading of the document, three matters are of particular concern.
First, we should resist the attempt to remove all powers from licensing justices, especially when it comes to licensing individuals. I was surprised to read, on page 22 of the White Paper, that it is seriously suggested that individuals should be licensed simply on the basis that they have an accredited qualification, without even being interviewed by a local authority. One would not employ people merely because they had a degree; one would want to see them to find out what sort of people they are.
That point highlights a mistake in the White Paper. Magistrates are used to forming views on the merits of the individuals who appear before them. They know the local area and the problems that the licensee will face. Furthermore, they are aware of the problems that have come up in criminal cases that they have heard. They do not represent any political interests in making decisions on licensing.
The Police Federation today said:
- we are totally opposed to powers to grant licences being transferred to local authorities. We believe that these matters should remain a judicial responsibility and not be a political judgment of the local authority.
Secondly, we are concerned about late-night disorder. Will the Home Secretary guarantee that there is a firm regime to ensure that the changes do not lead to unsupervised late-night disorder making residents' life a misery? In his White Paper, he says that consideration will be given to the views of local residents, but we would like to know how that will be done and whether the presumption will be against residents so that they will have to prove their objections against a presumption in favour of a licence. What estimate has he made of the overall effects of the proposals on alcohol consumption and illness? Can he assure local residents that the measures will improve the situation for them?
Thirdly, we have had representations about Sunday being a special day. Will the Home Secretary explain in more detail the reasons behind his decision not to make any recognition of the special nature of Sunday in these changes? Will he confirm that he has no proposals to treat Sunday differently from any other day? When the proposals are brought to the House in legislation, the Opposition will have a free vote on the question of Sundays; will the Government have a free vote?
Finally, what is the timetable for legislation? We see that there is a timetable for responses, but do the Government aim to introduce these proposals in the Queen's Speech in 2000 or at another time?
There is much to be welcomed in the White Paper, but we should like reassurance on those three crucial points. We are prepared to be constructive and to try to reach consensus, but it is important that the Government are prepared to listen.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |