| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Mar 2003 : Column 85—continued
7.32 pm
Mr. Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness): My interest in this Bill emanates primarily from the job that I do in this House in representing Skegness, the
economy of which is based fundamentally on tourism. Skegness has an accurate reputation as a family resort that caters for all ages. Its reputation is that of a town that provides fun and perpetual sunshine. I will leave hon. Members to make up their own minds as to which part of that statement was wholly and which part partially accurate.I approve of any legislation that attempts to modernise, deregulate and consolidate myriad previous Acts of Parliament. The Liberal Democrat spokesman pointed out that such legislation dates back to the 18th century. There followed 19th century Acts and then one of the last Acts of the last Liberal Government—an Act of 1915 that was for the purpose of creating more efficient munitions construction. Then there was the Licensing Act 1964. I approve of the fact that this Bill facilitates the reduction of six licensing schemes down to one.
However, I am sceptical about whether this is a deregulatory Bill. The Government performed a U-turn in the other place when places of public worship were excluded from the Bill. Such a measure should never have been in the draft Bill in the first place. However, there are still thousands more venues than before that will have to be licensed for live music if this Bill becomes an Act. I am sure that the Minister will understand the scepticism of the public and of hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. Almost everything that the Government do is bureaucratic and increases rather than reduces the regulatory burden on businesses and individuals.
The House should not forget the genesis of this Bill. It was put together more than 30 years ago by Lord Errol of Hale. Much of our discussion today emanates from his far-reaching report and it is a great shame that it has taken 30 years for this Bill to come to the House. I concur with the proposals to allow local residents the power to request that the licensing authority review a licence if problems arise—leading potentially to licence revocation. It is right for licensing authorities to act on behalf of, and in favour of, residents—if those residents exercise that power—in reducing hours and removing music. What about fines? Has the Minister considered fining licensees who fail to comply? Has the Minister considered giving powers to local authorities so that they, if they are to take on this responsibility, can insist on the soundproofing of premises and on certain decibel levels being adhered to? As I understand it, such conditions are in place in some parts of the United States of America. I approve of powers that will protect the young and the vulnerable and that will clamp down on antisocial behaviour; and I completely approve of powers to close licensed premises—or, indeed, whole areas—for 24 hours. Such powers could have been used to great effect in Skegness only a few years ago when travellers descended on the town and caused absolute chaos.
I support the liberalisation of licensing hours and the extension of consumer choice. In Skegness, the experience has been that the extension of licensing hours has allowed people, if they so wished, to remain in licensed premises all afternoon. That has completely removed the loutish and yob culture that used to exist, with people jumping into boating lakes and disturbing innocent families who were enjoying their summer holidays. Such problems have now been pushed into the
evening hours, to closing time. Different, or staggered, closing times will not eradicate the problems of drunkenness or tangential violence, but they will go some way towards mitigating the problem.I do not wish to see one local authority having a more libertarian view than an adjacent one, so that, for example, at 2 am, a caravan of taxis transports revellers from one town to another to carry on their drinking and cause problems in a town with extended hours. I am sure the House will understand the concerns of residents of Skegness and other UK tourism towns and destinations where that problem may be exacerbated. Who would pay for the extra policing costs in those towns? Would it be the licensees or the council tax payers?
The main issue that I have with the Bill as it currently stands amended by the other place is that I remain to be convinced of the necessity of switching the responsibility for licensing premises from magistrates to local authorities—despite the retention of the magistrates in the appeals procedure. The Government have not made the case for the switch. The Secretary of State, in her remarks earlier this afternoon, failed to address the severity of the proposed changes. There is no evidence that the magistrates courts have not worked, and there is no evidence that the local authorities would offer a cheaper, quicker and more efficient system. The advantages of using the magistrates courts is that they are apolitical, do not have an electorate to pander to, and are normally local. In addition—and this very pertinent point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)—94 per cent. of licensees are against the move.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult for local people, when they wish to object to a licence, to make representations to licensing magistrates? There are two reasons for that: they are not informed in the first place, and many are intimidated by licensing magistrates and the applicants' solicitors.
Mr. Simmonds: I accept part of what the hon. Gentleman says. There is a procedure in place whereby residents or other interested parties can object to licences being given. It is not easy for them to do so, but I do not think that the existing process could not be altered to make it easier for objections to be considered. That could be considered.
I am concerned that the local authority could be slower and more costly, and that there would be more appeals. Will the Minister tell us whether the speed of considering applications will be the same—that is, 30 days—as in the Licensing Act 1964? Local authorities will be subject to electoral pressure that cannot be put on the independent judiciary. In a large rural area such that covered by East Lindsey district council, which includes Skegness, the members of the licensing committee could come from miles away from Skegness. They would have no particular expertise or understanding of the particular needs of specific locations, economies or, indeed, residents. That problem would be exacerbated by the limit on the number of councillors that would be allowed to sit on the committee. I have great doubts about the transition period. Is it long enough? There
seems to be a great deal of confusion about who will be responsible for what and about exactly which premises will require licensing.Many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall ask the Minister a few specific questions. How does the Bill fit with the future gaming Bill that will probably be included in the next Queen's Speech? If that Bill includes licensing for casinos and bingo halls, will the measures in this Bill be temporary? If so, why are casinos and bingo halls not exempt from the Bill? Will the premises' licence charge be fixed nationally, or will it vary between local authorities? If so, will there be a national cap? Presumably, local authorities will not be allowed to use the Bill as an opportunity to generate revenue that can be used elsewhere.
Clause 177, which refers to Government guidance to local authorities, very much appears to centralise power rather than devolving responsibility. Surely, the Minister needs to confirm that the local licensing statement must have primacy. It needs to be a light-touch regulation, setting the general framework and architecture to allow local authorities to make the final decisions.
Is it true that new pubs will be allowed to apply for licences only when they have been built? Surely, it would be more sensible to get those licences before construction, by wrapping them up with the planning permission process; otherwise we could end up with the ludicrous situation of a developer building a pub, but not being able to get a licence to enable it to trade.
Are the rumours true that the Government propose to introduce policing levies to make pub, restaurant and club owners pay for the extra policing and additional resources required to resolve some of the problems that may occur throughout the night, rather than at a certain time?
In general, I support the Bill, as I hope I have implied, but much needs to be resolved in the detail. I was slightly dismayed by the Secretary of State, who seemed to imply that seven of the nine amendments that succeeded in the other place would be overturned. I hope that that will not be the case, but we shall see in the Bill's final detail.
7.41 pm
John Cryer (Hornchurch): My concerns about the Bill basically relate to the possibility of 24-hour, seven-day-a-week licensing. The constituency that I represent is in the London borough of Havering, and Romford neighbours my constituency. Romford has a nightclub capacity of about 12,000 to 14,000—the biggest in the south-east outside the west end of London. The idea that we should move from the present licensing system of permitted hours, which has two peaks during the night at about half-past 11 and 2 or 3 in the morning to 24-hour licensing, does not bear thinking about, given the associated law and order implications, especially where the police have to cope with the consequences of such a massive nightclub capacity.
I have been on patrol around Romford with the police crime and disorder unit, and I have seen the way that the police struggle to cope with the two peaks during the night—but there could now be a constant 24-hour peak,
and things would get even worse during the hours of darkness, which will have an obvious impact on the police.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |