| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Mar 2003 : Column 94—continued
8.3 pm
Mr. David Crausby (Bolton, North-East): I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in general support of the Bill—a measure that, in my view, is long overdue.
I should begin by registering my interest, as I am the unpaid political secretary of the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs, an organisation that represents members' clubs across the country. I represent that body on CORCA—the committee of registered clubs associations. I can tell the House that there is a general welcome for this liberalising Bill from people who run and manage clubs. They welcome the reduction in unnecessary administration for club committee members who are almost all poorly paid volunteers. They will be relieved at the removal of so much red tape, but they are still extremely concerned about the increase in violent crime in recent times and look forward to legislation that will protect their employees against violence in their clubs.
Times are hard in the licensing trade these days, with so much competition elsewhere. The public can, and do, drink in their own homes much more, and there are countless outlets where they can buy drink, socialise and be entertained. Anything that simplifies the archaic labyrinth of the law will inevitably be supported, and can only be in the public interest. We must, however, ensure that the Bill provides an opportunity to free up the law—it should not complicate it in the hands of local government, especially when it comes to fees.
I have heard worries about the eventual cost of the issuing of licences by local authorities. CORCA, for example, tells me that estimates of fees from the regulatory impact assessment are as follows: an application for a club premises certificate will cost between £100 and £500, and annual fees for such a certificate will cost from £50 to £150. Current fees under the Licensing Act 1964 amount to £16 for initial registration and £16 for renewal. CORCA's other major concern is about temporary events attended by non-members, such as weddings, anniversary parties, birthdays and so on. The five events per year rule will leave many clubs worse off. Members' clubs are often the centre of the community, and may well be the only place to accommodate such events. They would therefore like to continue to enjoy at least the current normal limitation of 12 events a year.
I am convinced that a single integrated scheme for licensing premises that sell alcohol and provide public entertainment is the way to go.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that many working men's clubs are concerned that, as it is
phrased, the Bill will restrict their off-licence sales, from which they have benefited for the past 60 years? Does he agree that the Government need to look at that?
Mr. Crausby: I understand that an assurance was given in another place that that would be looked at seriously. I think that members' clubs very much appreciate the fact that the Government are giving serious consideration to continuing the right to take a bottle of Guinness home for the partner, as one might say.
Bringing together six existing licensing regimes and sweeping away red tape can only be good, and make the system more efficient for everyone concerned. We must ensure, however, that costs are kept to a minimum and insist that local authorities do not over-formalise the process. I am sure that we all very much welcome the exemptions that have been built into the Bill for charitable fundraising events, for example, but I still have concerns about the question of a small events exemption, as proposed in another place. It is vital that the Government find a way to ensure that the Bill will be a means of encouraging live entertainment. Small, one-off folk and jazz performances, for example, must be encouraged, as they are often the first step on the live music ladder for young performers. Such performers are often virtually unpaid, and we should seek ways in which to support them.
I am enthusiastic about making pubs family friendly places. The members-only social clubs, which I support, often fulfil that role superbly. I must confess, however, that I have doubts about unaccompanied children being allowed into licensed premises. I accept that children over 14 can already enter the bar area of public houses, but that does not make it okay. I do not want to ban children from certain places, but we must make sure that we protect young people from the temptations that alcohol and public houses present. Quite honestly, I do not believe that it is in the interest of unsupervised children to be in the company of intoxicated drinkers.
No doubt I have those reservations because I was brought up, as we all were, in a British culture that, as a result of the traditional licensing process, has made many of our pubs unsuitable for children. Of course, much of the rest of the world is different. There is more integration of food, snacks and soft drinks in the typical continental bar than in the typical English pub, but it will take time for things to change and our children must be protected in the meantime.
I note that one of the stated objectives of the Bill is the protection of children from harm. I very much welcome the provisions that strengthen the law on the consumption of alcohol by children on licensed premises, but the Minister can be assured that many of us will closely scrutinise the Bill's effects on children, as I am sure he will.
Flexible opening hours and the potential for 24-hour drinking are long overdue. The end of the madhouse that surrounds closing time will generally be welcomed by the police and the law-abiding public alike. It is about time that we treated the adult population of this country with some respect and allowed them to make up their own minds about when they should drink alcohol. We simply do not live in a 9 to 5, six-days-a-week society any more.
I accept that the problems created by alcohol in our country are serious, but I do not believe that flexible hours will make alcoholics drink more. Heavy and compulsive drinkers who want a drink can already find one 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if they need it. Our present laws do nothing to prevent the abuse of alcohol. It is only social, moderate drinkers who are inconvenienced by the current law, and we should legislate in the interests of the reasonable majority. We expect services to be on tap 24 hours a day, so we should allow those who have to work unsociable hours the right to enjoy their leisure at different times of day.
The Bill is a sensible measure overall that proposes radical change. I welcome it with enthusiasm.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that a considerable number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and that unless they take considerably less than their allotted 12 minutes a number of them will be disappointed.
8.12 pm
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): May I draw to the attention of the House my entry in the Register of Members' Interests and, in particular, the fact that I am a former president of the Society of Licensed Victuallers and have been involved with a number of the organisations that have been briefing on the Bill? I have also taken a considerable interest for many years in various debates in another place on licensing law of one kind or another. May I say how delighted I am that we finally have such a Bill before us?
I should like to give the Bill a broad welcome. I believe that it is a very timely measure, but I want to speak about two specific concerns. As I know from having held a licence in two counties in England, the current legislation is confusing and has built up over many years. It is also complex and is certainly not administered equally throughout the country. I therefore welcome the Bill's general objectives, although, as always, the road from the White Paper to the Bill seems to have added to its complexity. Notwithstanding those issues, after so many years, the Bill is welcome.
I particularly welcome the central thrust of the Bill—separation of the licensing of premises from that of people. That is a fundamental part of the Bill's purpose. Indeed, I was a part of the industry consultation that took place some three or four years ago, and that issue was the critical point that the industry took on board. I have heard hon. Members say that 94 per cent. of publicans—they have also referred to various other figures—disagree with the concept of moving responsibility for licensing from magistrates to local authorities. The five organisations that were involved in getting together a uniform voice from the industry in making representations to the Government—they included the British Institute of Innkeeping, the British Hospitality Association and the British Institute of Sport and Leisure, but I cannot remember the other two—clearly understood from the outset that that was
part of the deal and supported it, so I believe that there is a considerable welcome for the measure in other parts of the industry.One of the critical aspects of divorcing licensing of premises from that of people is the fact that a quality and qualification-based system is needed for people. I very much welcome such an arrangement, which reflects what we are seeking to do in the tourism industry in employing people with better qualifications who can not only better deliver for their customers, but better attend to health and safety and all the other things that we want them to do. Obviously, for a qualification to work, it must be uniform and accepted throughout the country, so it is critical that the person-based licence is uniform in that way.
By contrast, the point of such a divorce in terms of the licensing of premises is to enable local concerns to be taken into account in each area, according to the desires of the local people and authorities. It is therefore wholly appropriate for responsibility for the licensing of premises to be moved from magistrates to local authorities, where the democratic process involved in that aspect of licensing can now be dealt with. I remind hon. Members who have expressed concern about that matter that local authorities in Scotland have looked after licensing for many years and that that arrangement has worked perfectly happily. I see no reason in principle why local authorities cannot perfectly happily undertake that task and I think that a principle of democratic accountability is well served in that regard.
Having given the Bill a strong welcome, I should like now to come to my two points of concern. The first is the question of who may hold a premises licence, which is slightly unclear, so perhaps the Minister can provide some clarification. Clause 17(1) sets out the person or persons undertaking the trade who can apply for a premises licence, but nowhere does it say that a company can apply for and have such a licence. I may have got that wrong and I would be delighted to know if that is the case. Having divorced the accountability of the people involved from the premises in which they will operate, it seems wholly appropriate to allow a company to hold a licence for premises. In particular, it seems wholly reasonable that large companies running hotels or restaurants that own a considerable number of premises should be allowed to own a licence, one of whose conditions will be that a properly registered person must operate it. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that point.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |