| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: Yes. Current arrangements are obscure and complicated, and residents often do not know about proposals until it is too late. I hope that a simplified but toughened system will ensure that one authority--the local authority--must describe the policies that are to be followed before it makes decisions in respect of individual licences, so that there is proper and effective consultation, not least in the crime and disorder partnerships, for which Camden is a model for much of the rest of the country.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Does the Home Secretary share my fascination with the fact that, owing to the much more liberal and relaxed regime in continental countries--France in particular, but others, too--there is often much less disorder and drunkenness? I therefore warmly welcome the proposals if he has in any way modelled them on the continental experience, and generally welcome his much more liberal and civilised approach to the matter.
I seek a reassurance, however, that sanctions will be tough and effective. Although I strongly support the idea that the licensing regime should be as liberal as possible, it must surely be coupled with strong, reassuring sanctions so that, if disorder arises from the licensing of premises, it will be swiftly and effectively dealt with in the interests of the local community.
Mr. Straw: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am grateful for his support. In the spirit of consensus, I say that it is a refreshing change to hear him speaking up for a policy that is not only liberal but European.
Jane Griffiths (Reading, East): I welcome the long-awaited White Paper, which genuinely reaches the parts that previous White Papers could not reach. My right hon. Friend knows that in an urban constituency such as mine, at least 20,000--mostly young--people, in addition to those who live in the area, come into the town centre on a Friday evening to have a drink. It is becoming difficult for the police to handle the problems of chucking-out time and people drinking to a deadline. We shall all have reason to be grateful for the White Paper if it gets rid of the chucking-out time problem and helps to end the lager lout culture, even if it achieves nothing else.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is chair of the all-party beer group and I am grateful to her and her colleagues for their input. I know about the problems in towns such as Reading; they are not dissimilar from those in my
constituency and many other places. I draw hon. Members' attention to the chart on page 14 of the White Paper. It shows the number of public order incidents that occur not at 10 or 11 pm but at 2 and 3 am as a result of the current inflexible closing times. As I have already said, I hope that the proposals will make a big difference to residents.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): I was the victim of an assault by a drunken gang while waiting to pay for a purchase. The assailants got away with it because the closed circuit television was using dummy cameras. I therefore suggest that the Home Secretary should consider making it a condition of licensing that places that sell intoxicating liquor late at night should be obliged to have functioning CCTV in the vicinity.
Mr. Straw: That seems a good idea; I shall take it forward.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): I very much welcome the White Paper. Much in it will improve our towns in particular. However, does the Home Secretary acknowledge that local authorities are worried about the additional burdens that it will place on them to police the licensing regime, especially through the night? I have recently spoken to my local authority officers, who do a good job in Luton. They are worried that additional responsibilities will need extra resources. Will my right hon. Friend consult them?
Mr. Straw: In an appendix, we set out our best estimate. It can be only an estimate of the costs of the change for different parts of the system: business, local authorities and others. As I said, we estimate that it should produce savings for business of approximately £190 million a year. Of course I accept that local authorities must be given proper resources for any additional function that they take on.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): The Home Secretary said that he will invite responses by the end of July, but how flexible is he about whether licensing magistrates or local authorities make such decisions? Has he considered the possibility that one local authority may decide that it does not want pubs to open after 11 pm, while a neighbouring local authority will decide that it is willing for many pubs to open after 11 pm? Is there not a danger of a drift of people from one authority to another, perhaps by car, thus encouraging drink driving? That might be avoided if the decisions were left to local licensing magistrates rather than a political entity.
Mr. Straw: I have already tried to explain why we believe that, on balance, local authorities are best placed to make such decisions. We are open to argument on our proposals in the White Paper. I accept that some issues are matters of fine judgment, and I have tried to spell out some of the considerations.
There is a balance between what we should set out nationally and local discretion. The hon. Gentleman may find that one resort town has decided to cater for one sort of market and another for a different one. Blackpool and Morecambe offer markedly different attractions. Long may that difference continue.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Does the Home Secretary agree that alcohol is the hardest of all hard drugs?
It kills 45,000 people every year, is involved in half all crimes of violence and abuse and is more toxic and addictive than all illegal drugs. His statement is courageous and rational. When will he apply those qualities to his policies on all other drugs? His statement and his reaction to the Runciman report leave him open to the accusation that he is hard on a soft drug and soft on hard drugs.
Mr. Straw: I did not think that the compliment would continue to the end of my hon. Friend's contribution and I was not disappointed. Alcohol, when abused, can be a very hard drug, but, taken in moderation, people can enjoy it and it is part of society's culture. I do not to believe that there should be a competition for us to determine which drug does the greatest damage. Sadly, for some people in our society, class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine cause as much damage as alcohol abuse--much more, in some cases. We should produce a sensible and proportionate approach to all the drugs that can cause harm in our society.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): Will the Home Secretary say a little more about breaches of the licence conditions? Will those in the first instance, particularly administrative or comparatively trivial failures, be dealt with by local authorities and only serious cases go to the criminal system and the magistrates courts? Is he satisfied that he can form a reasonable distinction between the two?
Mr. Straw: Such breaches would initially go to the local authority, but we have drawn an important distinction between the licensing of premises and personal licences, which will be portable. The proposal is that they should last 10 years and then be renewed. There would be a system of endorsements similar to that which applies to road traffic offences--depending on the severity of the offence committed by a licence holder--including the possibility of either immediate disqualification for some flagrant breach or what amounts to a totting-up procedure.
Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Halesowen and Rowley Regis): As a former licensing magistrate, I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals and anything that will simplify the complex matter of licences. No doubt members of the Magistrates Association will submit their views to him, but can he reassure me on two points? Will licence applications continue to be heard in magistrates courts in public? Most benches, my own included, regularly inspect licensed premises for security of spirits and standards of cleanliness. Will those continue?
Mr. Straw: The answer to the first question is yes. Hearings would have to be public; it would be wrong for them to be private. If the local authorities take over responsibility for issuing licences as we propose, they will also take on responsibility for inspection. We believe that we have been able to reduce the regulatory burden on business by ensuring that if there is a single licensing system, there can be a single inspection system as well.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Is the Home Secretary aware that it veritably warms the cockles of my heart to hear him, as a socialist, elevate for once the cause of personal liberty above that of nanny-state paternalism? Although he is undoubtedly wise and circumspect to say that he will take into account all representations that
he receives, will he nevertheless confirm that in pursuing liberalisation, clarity, consistency and choice will be his watchwords?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the compliment, which I take genuinely in the spirit in which it is intended.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |