Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-29)
TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER 2001
DR KIM
HOWELLS, MR
ANDREW CUNNINGHAM
AND MR
LUCAN HERBERG
20. My concern, Chairman, is that it would be
the exception which is going to blow this thing out of the water,
because people will not have had the chance to have tested it
out properly, in terms of challenging it, being consulted at this
given time. We may well have been having this dialogue within
the industry and on this Committee for the last two or three years,
but the people who live next door to some establishment do not
know all this is going on, they do not know—as far as I
am aware—that something is going to happen a few weeks before
Christmas that may well have an impact on this given year. That
is the point.
(Dr Howells) I can understand that, Mr King, and I
hope very much that the publicity which might come out of this
Committee's deliberations and any press releases we put out about
it will be designed to educate people about what is going to happen.
Can I say, also, that in terms of the Criminal Justice and Police
Act of this year, if we look at the alcohol licensing provisions
which will be brought into force, remember, on 1 December 2001,
there is now a police power under Sections 17 to 18 to order the
closure of on-licensed premises instantly for up to 24 hours due
to disorder or excessive noise. They have not been able to do
that up till now, and that is a big step forward, it seems to
me. By the way, we have made sure that licensees understand the
seriousness of that very punitive measure that the police can
take against their premises if they do not conduct an orderly
house. We know that there is a follow-up procedure which allows
the alcohol licence for the premises to be reviewed by the licensing
justice, even if that licence has already been awarded. Again,
a very, very serious action that can be taken. There is guidance
to the police which has been issued, which has been drawn up in
consultation with the industry and with other interested groups,
and we are going to circulate it to all licensees in October so
that they are very much aware of it and we will try and make sure
that the public is aware of it so that people are not coming to
this, in the last few days of the year, blind, so to speak. So
I take your point very much, but we will certainly try to ensure
that people are aware that the powers are there now to ensure
that houses are run in an orderly fashion.
Chairman: I would say that the Police Federation
view on the practicalities relating to Section 17 of the Act is
less enthusiastic and they expressed that view at the time of
consultation. We will look at that point a little bit further
because we know what you have said. We also have your opening
comments on the two-year rule, so we look forward to seeing what
you are going to submit on that, but we will not pursue questions
on that today because I think we are much nearer agreement on
that, but we will look at what you are going to send us rather
than ask questions. We move on to one thing we have known was
going to occur from the day the King died on 6 February 1952.
Assuming that the Queen lived, the Jubilee was going to be in
2002 and we celebrate it at the time of the Coronation. So we
have a few questions on the Jubilee.
Mr Rosindell
21. Could you, perhaps, give us some details
about how you are progressing with this situation in respect of
the Golden Jubilee next year? Could you also tell us what time
you expect licensees to have to prepare for this?
(Mr Cunningham) With regard to the Golden Jubilee,
the current situation is that we are ready to lay a Draft Order
before this Committee and, of course, the House of Lords. The
actual consultation has shown that something like (I cannot remember
the figures exactly) 94 per cent support the proposal. We would,
therefore, hope that an Order could be made by Spring of next
year. The proposal, as you will recall, is for a two-hour extension
on normal permitted hours, so we would assume there would be quite
substantially less restriction order issues arising then because
that is not going to be a great deal more than is normally permitted
through some of the other extension systems that are available
to licensed premises—special hours certificates and that
kind of thing, which normally operate. We originally considered
laying the two orders together. We decided not to do that, principally,
because we firstly took the view that we were asking the Committee
to consider matters before this Committee was selected and elected
and we thought you would only do that with one thing, because
we could avoid it with the Golden Jubilee, so we laid only the
New Year Order. Since then, the two-year rule issue has arisen
and become a focus of discussion between the legal advisers of
both Committees and the Department. Obviously, what becomes crucial
with the Golden Jubilee Order is the resolution of the two-year
rule, but our intention to lay the Draft Order is very much dependent
on what occurs as a result of the findings of this Committee and
the House of Lords on the two-year rule. I think the Department's
view, and the Minister will confirm, is that if we had to choose,
the priority would be for the Golden Jubilee. So we would probably
feel it appropriate to drop the 2001 if the position that the
Committees took was that only one Order was permitted within two
years.
(Dr Howells) Which we hope it will not.
Chairman
22. On the question of reform, there is obviously
a fundamental review taking place at the present time, and as
a devil's advocate perhaps I will ask you how you feel it is appropriate
to proceed with these individual pieces of reform when there is
such a review taking place?
(Dr Howells) If I may, Mr Chairman, I certainly do
not accept that the very minor changes that we are proposing—and
very temporary changes—constitute Government trying to change
policy by stealth. I do not think that is true at all. We have
been very specific about the Orders that we have laid and about
their limited nature. I cannot answer for other departments, clearly,
but for my own department there are some interesting possibilities,
of course, as far as the new system is concerned, since we can
start to deregulate in this way. We are looking, as you know,
at restaurant hours, we are looking at the possibilities of some
changes to some facets of gambling and I certainly would not want
to give this Committee any impression that we are not looking
at those things. Of course we are. Any minister faced with not
being able to get an important piece of potential legislation
on to the Queen's Speech looks at any possible way of getting
the legislation that they believe in on to the books, and this
is certainly the case as far as DCMS is concerned.
23. Does your Department recognise that in principle
a number of Regulatory Reform Orders in licensing or gambling
could amount to a significant policy change in the area?
(Dr Howells) No, I do not. In terms of the way I see
deregulation, Mr Chairman, these are very modest, from my perspective.
Others may disagree with me.
Chairman: This Committee may. A final few questions
from Mr Cotter.
Mr Cotter
24. Albeit a bit late, can I welcome the Minister
to his post because he has made it clear today—setting aside
this particular decision—he is going to be a strong advocate
of the tourism and hospitality industry, coming from a premier
resort of the country, Weston-super-Mare—if not the premier
resort. Setting that aside, can I ask the Minister: in an area
so politically contentious as licensing and gambling, how far
do you expect it to be possible to detach elements of reform which
might be delivered by regulatory reform rather than by primary
legislation? Bearing in mind it is a contentious area.
(Dr Howells) Mr Chairman, I guess this question can
be answered at two levels, first of all the official level, which
is the Department's and Government's attitude, and I will try
and answer, if I can, as somebody who has been immersed in this
since June, because of the seriousness of the blight that has
been put on much of the tourism industry especially in areas like
Mr Cotter's since the onset of the foot-and-mouth disease. I think
we can go a very long way in terms of relaxing some of the regulation
which currently I think is burdensome to parts of the industry,
but that if we succeed in doing that (which I think we must try
to do in order to alleviate the burden on the industry) then we
have to make sure that we take the public with us. I went into
some detail about the new criminal and civil sanctions that are
available against those who do not behave themselves in terms
of the way in which they run licensed premises and allow things
to happen because I think we have got to convince the public that
those powers are there at the same time as we say "But wait
a minute, we have got some very peculiar and very restrictive
laws in this country when it comes to this sector", which
is a burgeoning sector, remember. Parliament hardly ever debates
successful industries; Parliament only ever debates failing industries,
and the fact is that until this year—apart from a kind of
blip during the Gulf War—the tourism and hospitality industry
has been growing at a tremendous rate. It has become increasingly
important to all parts of our economy but especially so to areas
such as rural areas where because of the way in which technology
and patterns of farming have moved, employment in farming has
declined dramatically. Somebody told me the other day that they
had calculated that even in remote areas the hospitality industry
and the tourism industry between them is worth four times that
of farming, and many times that in terms of employment. So it
is absolutely essential, I think, that we do not sit back, we
do not delay too far on this but we say "Let us see how we
can help the industry by deregulation". I would much rather
do it through primary legislation, through a proper licensing
bill, but if in a congested Parliamentary timetable we cannot
get that, then we have to look at the opportunities offered us
by various deregulatory routes.
Mr Cotter: Thank you, Minister, for some interesting
comments.
Chairman
25. Has any other Member any other point? Is
there anything, Minister, that you or your colleagues would like
to add before we finish?
(Mr Cunningham) I have one point I would like to make.
If it would be helpful to the Committee to see the draft of the
guidance that will go out to the police and be available to licensees
about Section 17 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act, which
gives a fairly full indication of how powers should be used, we
would be happy to provide that to the Clerk, if it would inform
the Committee.
26. That would, indeed, be useful, yes.
Dr Naysmith
27. What sort of guidance do you anticipate
would go out to residents who might want to make an application
for a Restriction Order? Could that be done through just press
publicity?
(Mr Cunningham) Press would be the logical thing,
and through our websites. We would certainly explain how an application
should be made and what the possible effect of that application
might be. That could be done, as I say, if both Committees reported
or gave favourable indications at the end of this stage, in mid-November.
We could actually put something to that effect which would obviously
say "If an application is made, you would have the opportunity
to do X, Y and Z." That is, basically, I would think, the
best means that we can use. We can use the press to direct people
to where they can get that information.
Mr White
28. When you talk about the press, most people
get their information about this from their local press rather
than the national press. It would be in the local press you would
look for that?
(Mr Cunningham) Yes. We could also help local authorities
to have that kind of information. We could encourage them through
the LGA to put that information out through their publicity sources.
Chairman
29. Can I thank the Minister and his team for
coming along? We have found that useful. If Members of the Committee
will stay for a few minutes to discuss further business. Thank
you very much.
(Dr Howells) Thank you very much.
|
