FIFTH REPORT
The Deregulation and Regulatory Reform
Committee has agreed to the following Report:
I
THE DRAFT DEREGULATION
(RESTAURANT LICENSING HOURS) ORDER 2002
1. On 24th January 2002 the Government laid before
Parliament the draft Deregulation (Restaurant Licensing Hours)
Order 2002, together with a statement by the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport.[1] Our
predecessor Deregulation Committee has reported on the Government's
proposal for this draft Order, which would amend the Licensing
Act 1964 (the 1964 Act) so as to enable restaurants with a Part
IV licence[2] and premises
with a residential and restaurant licence to serve alcohol with
meals for one hour beyond the end of normal licensing hours without
the need for a supper hour certificate.[3][4]
2. The Government's original proposal would also
have removed the requirement that live entertainment needs to
be provided as a prerequisite of obtaining an extended hours order
(which authorises the sale of alcohol during a further hour beyond
the 'supper hour' referred to above). Our predecessors argued
that they "[had] not been presented with sufficiently convincing
evidence that necessary protection will be maintained if this
[aspect of the] proposal is allowed to proceed," continuing:
Although largely unintended, there are strong arguments
to support the view that the current regime has indirect protective
effects: the requirement for live entertainment dissuades certain
restaurants from seeking extended hours orders, such restaurants
are accordingly likely to close earlier than they otherwise might,
and nuisance from noise and disturbance in the vicinity of such
restaurants is therefore likely come to an end at an earlier time...
Similarly it is clear that particular London boroughs face an
unusual situation of a high density of restaurants, clubs and
pubs. We are not convinced that the special problems which they
face have been adequately recognised or addressed during the consultation
on the extended hours proposal.[5]
3. The Committee therefore concluded "that if
a draft Order is to be laid at all it should relate only to the
supper hours certificate, unless the Home Office can subsequently
persuade us that (a) no necessary protection would be erased by
the removal of the requirement for live entertainment; and (b)
the views of particular London areas have been adequately addressed".[6]
4. The House of Lords Committee, in view of its,
similar, concerns about the maintenance of necessary protection,
suggested that the proposal be amended to increase the influence
of local councils, envisaging a system similar to that now in
place under the Sunday Licensing Deregulation Order.[7]
It was, however, content with the aspect of the proposal relating
to supper hours certificates.
5. The Department reports that the Minister responsible
for the proposal held a meeting with the Restaurant Association
on 1 November last year, during which representatives of the Association
made strong representations to the effect that the Order should
proceed as originally proposed. No other representations were
received.[8]
6. Whilst the Government has restated its original
arguments in favour of the introduction of the Order as originally
proposed,[9] it has not
made any further attempt to persuade us that no necessary protection
would be erased by the removal of the requirement for live entertainment,
nor has it gone any further in addressing the views of particular
London areas. The Government has rejected the House of Lords Committee's
suggestion, arguing that, "adding these additional provisions
to the proposals would actually make it potentially more difficult
for restaurants to qualify for extended hours orders on normal
weekdays than now, and would possibly result in fewer restaurants
opening later".[10]
Instead, it has decided to proceed with an Order relating only
to the removal of the requirement for a "supper hours certificate".
7. As our predecessors concluded in their Report
on the original proposal, we are satisfied that the part of that
proposal which is included in this draft Order meets the criteria
against which we are required to judge it. We therefore recommend
unanimously that it be approved.
8. As far as the remaining aspect of the original
proposal is concerned, we reiterate, in view of the failure of
the Department to persuade us otherwise, our conclusion that this
proposed change will be more appropriately dealt with in the context
of a general licensing review.[11]
We therefore look forward to the promised Licensing Bill, and
to the subsequent introduction of a licensing regime which will
not require repeated piecemeal amendment.
1 Copies are available to Members from the Vote Office
and to members of the public from the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport. It is also available on the Cabinet Office website
www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation /act/proposals.htm Back
2
A Part IV licence must be obtained by a restaurant wishing to
serve alcohol only with meals. Back
3
Fourth Report of the Deregulation Committee, Session 2000-01,
The Final Deregulation Proposals, HC 450, paras 68-111. Back
4
The draft Order would not apply to premises which operate under
a full justices' on-licence, such as pubs: the licensees for such
premises would still need to apply for a supper hour certificate,
as at present, so that the justices can be satisfied that the
extension of hours relates to the provision of a bona fide restaurant
service and is not a way of circumventing normal closing hours. Back
5
Fourth Report, op cit, paras 108-109. Back
6
ibid, para 110. Back
7
See Twenty-Third Report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation
Committee, Session 2000-01, HL 80. Back
8
Explanatory statement, para 13. Back
9
Explanatory statement, para 14. Back
10
Explanatory statement, para 15. Back
11
op cit, para 109. See also para 111. Back
| 
