| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Mar 2003 : Column 63—continued
Mr. Whittingdale: I can see that there may be a case that more flexible opening hours will make it easier to preserve order on the streets in that that may remove the "bulge" caused by every drinking establishment having to close at the same time, but a number of local authorities and police officers have expressed a contrary view. The Government have not yet provided robust evidence to support their claims, and they have a job to do to persuade many residents and local communities that that will indeed be the effect.
In particular, there is great concern in areas where a number of late-night drinking establishments already exist. Recently, I spent a Friday night out in the west end with Westminster city council licensing officers and councillors. We visited several large clubs, each of which was packed with upwards of 1,000 people, all of whom appeared to be there with the sole purpose of drinking as much as possible in the time available.
Such a huge concentration obviously has a damaging effect on the quality of life of local residents. Indeed, I witnessed an example of that when I emerged from visiting one Soho resident to find that somebody had vomited on his doorstep. I was told by that resident that that is a pretty regular occurrence on Saturday nights. So, it is important that proper account is taken of the interests and concerns of local residents.
In areas such as Westminster and other inner-city areas, account also needs to be taken of the cumulative impact of a large number of licensed establishments in terms of noise, nuisance and disturbance, not just in the area of the specific premises, but in the area as a whole. That was flagged up only last week by the Select Committee that scrutinises the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We welcome the limited recognition in the guidance being issued to local authorities of the fact that saturation is an issue, but we may wish to examine it further in Committee to see whether stronger safeguards are required.
Another major plank of the Bill, which is generating considerable opposition, as the Secretary of State knows, is the proposed transfer of responsibility for alcohol licensing from magistrates to local authorities. The existing system of licensing magistrates has worked reasonably well, with magistrates providing a good balance between, on the one hand, knowledge of and involvement with their local communities and, on the other, being seen as impartial and free from political interests. Given that, many see no case for change and have considerable anxieties about what may result.
The Secretary of State may be aware of a poll showing that 94 per cent. of licensees oppose giving local authorities responsibility for licensing. That is borne out by my experience and conversations with local licensees through the Maldon licensed victuallers.
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central): The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with the Bill on cumulative impact and trying to prevent saturation, but he is talking about leaving the licensing authority with the magistrates. Will he address the situation in my constituency? The magistrates have not refused a licence on the question of need. In fact, they will not entertain objections on the basis that my area has too many licensed outlets of a particular type. That, in turn, has led to a proliferation of those establishments. For them to tap into a limited market—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he has gone on a little too long in that intervention.
Mr. Whittingdale: There are separate matters here: the general issue of the various factors that are examined during consideration of a licence application and the question of who should be responsible for taking that decision. I am not saying that we believe that the Government are absolutely wrong to make that transfer, but we are saying that we have not properly seen evidence to support the transfer being made or to meet the concerns, which are widely felt among licensees, that the transfer of responsibility from magistrates to local authorities will lead to increased costs, greater delay, more bureaucracy and less objectivity.
A variety of claims are being made about the cost of one system against the other. The Government have said that there is likely to be a saving of nearly £2 billion over 10 years, but major operators such as JD Wetherspoon and Shepherd Neame estimate that costs will increase by more than £1 billion over 10 years. There is a genuine argument about the existing and future costs, yet the Minister has refused to address the industry's representations and says that he sees little point in arguing about them. The Government have a great deal more to do to make the case for the transfer and to justify the figures that they are quoting.
The new system whereby the premises licence is separated from the personal licence has much to recommend it, but it is in large part undermined by the requirement to name a designated premises supervisor on the licence. That was not specified in the original White Paper and it is causing considerable concern throughout the industry. The effect is that a new licence application will have to be made each time a manager changes, which, one would have thought, rather destroys the point of separating the person from the premises in the first place.
The personal licence holder may change frequently, resulting in all the additional cost and bureaucracy involved in issuing a new licence. If the Government are serious about reducing red tape, it would be far simpler to require notification of the relevant authority when a change is made.
I hope that the Government also accept the amendment passed in the House of Lords to establish a central licensing register for the administration of personal licences. I hear what the Secretary of State said to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and we will want to look closely to see precisely how the Government intend to meet the force of the argument made in the House of Lords. It seems absurd that they propose that responsibility for issuing a personal licence to an individual should stay with the local authority to which he first applied, no matter where that individual may have since moved.
If the Government want the personal licence system to have any meaning, it cannot be left to 400 different local authorities to carry out checks on applicants who might have moved to the other end of the country decades ago. I welcome the fact that there appears to be some Government movement in that area, but we shall want to look closely to see precisely what they now propose.
Whether or not responsibility for administering personal licences rests with local authorities, the proposals will place a considerable extra burden on them and it is essential that they be properly resourced to deal with it. As well as the cost of administration, there may be knock-on effects as a result of the development of a late-night economy, which could vary considerably between areas, yet the Bill takes no account of that. Many also regard the proposed 12-month transition period as wholly unrealistic, and the limiting of the number of councillors on a licensing authority to 15 could prove grossly inadequate in some cases.
The changes to the system of licensing arrangements for the sale of alcohol give rise to many concerns, which we shall want to mention in Committee; but it is in the
area of entertainments licensing that the Government's original proposals have caused the most anxiety. In many instances, it appears that the Government have almost been taken unawares by the deep unpopularity of their proposals. We are glad that sense has now prevailed in some cases. I am thinking particularly of their belated acceptance that requiring churches outside London, for the first time, to have licences for secular entertainment would be hugely damaging, hitting events from festivals in our cathedrals to performances in parish churches. That recognition constitutes a dramatic step, as does the Government's acceptance of the argument that garden fetes and private charity fundraising events should be exempted and that there should be no fee for applications from village halls and schools.We hope that the Minister will also accept the force of such arguments in relation to small premises in general, as suggested by the House of Lords—although I understand from the Secretary of State's remarks that the Government currently seek to overturn the Lords amendment. I also hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will recognise that, despite assurances to the contrary, fears remain that the Bill may well cover many events such as wedding receptions, private parties, the demonstration of musical instruments, the provision of rehearsal rooms, even carol singing—and, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), wassailing.
The Minister has sought to dismiss such claims as scaremongering and a "pernicious lying campaign" by the Musicians Union. I am glad to note that he recognises his own words. But while he may give assurances that the Bill does not cover such events, a large body of legal opinion has advised the Musicians Union and others that it will have exactly those effects. We are pleased that the Government have now said that they are prepared to sit down with the Musicians Union and others whom the Bill will affect and look at it again. I hope that that will lead to further Government amendments to prevent any possible doubt that the Minister's assurances are supported by the Bill, but if they are not forthcoming, we will not hesitate to table our own amendments.
Our main point of disagreement with the Government, however, remains the abolition of the so-called two-in-a-bar rule. It has long been an objective of musicians and performers to get rid of the law that allows one or two performers to perform without a licence, but insists that three or more obtain one. I seem to recall Members from all parts of the House supporting that campaign by wearing gags to illustrate the absurdity of the present law. No one, I suspect, imagined that the Government's response would be to deal with the existing anomaly by extending the licensing requirement to cover every live performance, however many performers were involved. The result is an extension of the requirement for a licence to thousands of pubs and other venues that currently host performances without one. It is hardly surprising that musicians throughout the land fear that many venues for live performances will consequently be lost.
The Minister has claimed that music in pubs will not be harmed by the Bill, but under the Government's proposals more than 100,000 licensed premises that do not currently have public entertainment licences and
regularly offer music performed by one or two people will lose that right, and will have to obtain licences from their local authorities to permit even one unamplified musician to perform.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |