| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: It will not happen often.
Mr. Straw: I realise that. As a socialist, my aim in life is to secure a safe, just and tolerant society in which law-abiding people have the maximum liberty to pursue their lives as they wish. If they are not law abiding, different considerations apply. I think that I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his question.
Mr. Roger Casale (Wimbledon): Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the last thing I want to be is a party-pooper, but I share the concerns of many of my constituents, as expressed through the Wimbledon Society, the Wimbledon Union of Residents Associations and Wimbledon Civic Forum, about the severe proliferation of pubs and restaurants in the area. Will he confirm that, as well as giving residents associations and other amenity groups more influence over individual licensing applications, the new legislation will strengthen their hand in shaping the overall balance of shops, recreational and other civic amenities in their areas?
Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and he has told me about the particular problems of Wimbledon on several occasions outside the House. What he says about those problems underlines the fact that the current arrangements are not working properly and need reform. That is why we have presented these proposals. I hope very much that the new system will help to ensure that residents, including those in the Wimbledon Civic Forum, can shape the policy and approach on licensing. I do not see how we could get to a position in which central Government determined the number of outlets available. That must be a matter for the market to determine, and the market is changing all the time. We must ensure that the market is properly regulated, and that the needs of local residents and the police to keep order are properly balanced against the demands of the business concerned.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): Every time I have been on a police patrol late at night, it is clear that problems come from a small number of premises and a hard core of thoroughly tiresome people. They are well known to the police and to magistrates. How will the
wider public be better served if the experience of the magistrates is not taken into account when a license is considered?
Mr. Straw: The experience of magistrates will be available to the local community. We will certainly consider whether there should be a representative of the magistrates on the licensing committee. This is a matter of balance and fine judgment. I have already made it clear that magistrates will be involved whether the appeal is to the Crown court, as we propose, or to a different tribunal.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that trouble typically arises from a small number of premises. Part of the present difficulty is that the only power available to magistrates is to remove the licence altogether, and that can take many months. The White Paper proposes that an officer of the rank of inspector or above should have a power to close premises for 24 hours on his or her own volition when faced with a disorderly situation--just as the fire authority can peremptorily close premises--and for there to be an appeal to magistrates or the local authority as appropriate. This and other changes that we propose should make a big difference in controlling the minority of premises and drinkers who cause almost all the trouble.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley): From my right hon. Friend's statement, I understand that working men's clubs will continue to enjoy their special status. That being so, would he consider requiring a link between their special status and their conversion into either working women's and men's clubs or working people's clubs?
Mrs. Cryer: This is serious. A club at Silsden in my constituency has used every trick in the book to keep women off its committee. That is not only sexist but undemocratic, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would comment on it. Such a measure would certainly have the support of the women in Silsden and many of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Straw: The proposition is for there to be special status for clubs. It would not be a personal licence, because of the club committee. Non-profit making clubs would be licensed--the premises would be licensed. The provisions that I have announced in respect of children would apply to children consuming alcohol whether in clubs or in any other licensed premises.
We will take my hon. Friend's main point into account in the consultation. I do not doubt that there will be some interesting debates when the Bill is before the House.
Madam Speaker: We shall leave it until then. Thank you.
Personal Statement
4.15 pm
Mr. Michael Portillo (Kensington and Chelsea): On Monday 27 March, at the conclusion of the Budget debate, I made some remarks regarding taxation of petrol without reminding the House that I had a registered interest as an adviser to an oil-producing company. It was an oversight, for which I apologise to the House.
Points of Order
4.16 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, the Government published the Competition Commission's report on car pricing. The Secretary of State also announced the Government's response to the report in a 10-page press release, and has tabled statutory instruments to implement that response. All that, and no ministerial statement. Is this not yet another example of the Government's treating the House with contempt, and of the Secretary of State's refusing to answer questions about issues of enormous importance to the car industry and the country as a whole?
Madam Speaker: I understand that this is a complicated issue, and that technology broke down. I ask Dr. Howells to explain to the House the handling of the issue.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Today's release of the Competition Commission's report on the supply of new motor cars was undertaken in line with previous Governments' statements involving market-sensitive material. It was decided to lay the report in Parliament at 11 am today, and simultaneously to inform the stock exchange and release it to the media.
In the event, there was a technical problem at the stock exchange, which meant that publication time had to be delayed. Because the embargo time for the media lapsed, details of the report began to be published before the notice was released on the stock exchange. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry therefore decided to release the report to the media at the same time as it was laid in Parliament, at 12.50 this afternoon. He provided a detailed answer, as the Government's response to the report, at 3.30 pm.
We make no apologies for taking action to ensure that consumers get a better deal when it comes to buying cars in this country. Ordinary families are paying over £1 billion more than they should be paying, and we intend to do something about it.
On behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, I apologise unreservedly for any discourtesy that may have been shown to the House this morning.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a gentle point of order, with, I confess, a whiff of grievance.
During Home Office questions today, it took 21 minutes to deal with one question. Once upon a time, the House got through 30 or 35 questions in a session. Part of the reason was that, if a controversial issue was involved, the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Minister tabled a question by private notice. If there are to be long and important exchanges on fraught issues, should not the Procedure Committee reflect on the possibility of using the private notice question device, rather than making it impossible for us to get beyond Question 12?
As I said, I have a grievance: I tabled Question 15, on the difficult issue of Hilda Murrell. Others, however, were also disappointed.
Madam Speaker: It had not gone unnoticed by me that the hon. Gentleman's question was Question 15. That certainly should have been reached. As for Question 4, the hon. Gentleman is quite right: on finding that a question of that nature has been tabled, the Secretary of State often prefers to answer it at the end of Question Time, thus making the answer into a form of statement.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) decided, rightly in my view, to use her entire allocation of three questions on Question 4. That was quite proper, and quite in order. The issue was the dispersal of asylum seekers, a highly interesting and contentious issue, in the country and in the House. It was quite right that there was a good exchange across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is clear from a report published last week that the Government are cutting aid to the people of Ethiopia and Mozambique while increasing support for the Government of Zimbabwe, who are engaged in ethnic cleansing. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for International Development to come to the House and explain these baffling decisions, which, on the face of it, are extraordinary and unjustifiable? I think that the people of this country need an explanation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |