| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Kevan Jones: My experience is that once a licensee or developer has been granted a provisional licence, the time that elapses between then and the development taking place and the premises opening is quite short. Obviously, the people who have made the investment want to get the place open as soon as possible. If there were great changes in circumstances or in the way in which an establishment was operated, surely it would be right that local people should have a say in the matter. Even if the decision were overturned at a subsequent hearing, those involved would still have the right to appeal to a magistrate, to argue the case that the decision was unfair.
Mr. Moss: I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has not been anywhere near business, because what he has just said is nonsense. Nobody invests millions of pounds without certainty. The hon. Gentleman has just confirmed that there would be no certainty. He may well say that such premises go up quite quickly. I hope that they do, as that would negate some of the problems that
the Bill, as it is currently written, seems likely to bring about. If, however, the construction period lasted for 18 months—a big project could take that long—there could well be changes in the environment in the vicinity during that time. According to the Bill, people moving into the area who had not objected initially—because they were not there and did not know about the project—will still have the right to raise objections under clause 31.We are not just talking about cash here, or about companies with resources from their profits to reinvest. We are also talking about banks being involved in substantial lending. I would submit that no bank is going to take on a project without the certainty of knowing that once the application for a provisional licence has gone through the normal procedures and been granted, it is inviolate, as it is at the moment.
The industry is saying that it wants not only assurances from the Government that it will be all right on the night, but that it needs words in the Bill that make it absolutely clear cut and certain that what it is doing will come right in the end. The last thing a business wants is to incur extremely expensive legal bills in fighting its way through the courts because some local authority has given it a hard time over clause 31. The way in which the clause is written would probably deliver such a problem in some circumstances.
9.30 pm
Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend has raised the point about the period over which those provisional licences can be in place. The shopping centre that is being built in my constituency has retail and leisure facilities, and one of the anchor tenants of that mixed-use development is a pub. It has taken two or three years to get to this stage, when the first sod is being cut. Clearly, that anchor tenant would want much more certainty than the Bill appears to give. Would my hon. Friend's amendment tackle that issue?
Mr. Moss: Yes it would. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us that example, because that exactly illustrates what will happen if we do not amend the Bill.
Things are even worse than I have said, as it is not only changing circumstances that can give rise to a late objection. According to the explanatory notes, somebody who happens to live in the area, but who was in hospital at the time of the application, would have "reasonable excuse" under clause 31(3)(a). Obviously being in hospital would be a reasonable excuse, as the person could not be there at the time to make the objection. That opens a Pandora's box whereby people can leap up at one remove or at the last minute to object to such developments.
The words "reasonable excuse" are still in the Bill, despite our attempts to get them removed and despite the attempts of the other place, although the relevant amendments were not pushed to a vote. The definition of "reasonable excuse" leaves a lot to be desired and, of course, it is an entirely new concept. There is nothing akin to it in the licensing laws.
Mr. Moss: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman refers to planning. I do not want to go into
planning in particular, but he is right. The two applications—one for the provisional statement or licence and one to the planners for the building itself—would go hand in hand.
Mr. Sanders: There is an interesting confusion here, as the hon. Gentleman says. Two applications would go through to different parts of the council, but residents would have more rights in one area than in another.
Mr. Moss: I am not sure that that is strictly true.
Mr. Sanders: Not if they were in hospital.
Mr. Moss: I am sorry but I did not quite catch the drift of the hon. Gentleman's thinking. Yes, if people were in hospital they could not object to either, but of course they would have no reasonable excuse for opposing a planning application. I am with him, and I beg his pardon for going off on slightly the wrong tack.
In addition, there does not appear to be a procedure that would allow any existing provisional licences obtained, say, during a transitional period, to be automatically converted to provisional statements. The proposals provide that the new licensing authority can have regard to an existing provisional licence, but it will not be automatically obliged to convert such a licence. That, too, will create significant risk and uncertainty for all those companies, as a development may be completed with the risk of losing the benefit of that original licence.
Amendment No. 38 proposes a simple change in the wording of clause 17, which would probably sort out all the problems. Failing that, there are amendments Nos. 42 to 45 and 164. Under amendment No. 164, if the application for a provisional statement was accompanied by an operating schedule and the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application has been satisfactorily completed,
- "representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purposes of section 18 (6)(d)".
If there is no operating schedule—if a company has not gone into enough detail to convince the licensing authority that it has a clear idea of how it will operate once the building is up and running—
- "representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purpose of section 18 (6)(d) if "
- "subsection (4) applies."
- "provisional statement issued under this section shall have effect for three years from the date of issue."
In fact, I do not think that the Minister will give us anything tonight, for the simple reason that someone else will have to pick up the file later. No doubt he is under strict instructions to yield nothing.
This issue is going to bounce back and forth. It is a key issue, and it is a tragedy that we did not have time to debate it in Committee. Assurances were given in the other place, by which the industry set great store. It is up to the Minister to answer my questions tonight, and to justify his case. The clauses relating to provisional statements will cause havoc—and I mean havoc—in the trade, according to those involved.
If, as his officials are saying, clause 17 allows applications for proposed developments and there is no problem, why is there any need for clause 31(3), which allows latecomers the opportunity to object and could jeopardise extremely important investments? I leave the Minister with the thought that much money and many jobs are involved, and that the potential impact on tourism in many parts of the country is great. It would be tragic beyond words if, for the sake of a few words in the Bill, the industry were decimated.
Mr. Sanders : I shall be brief. The group of amendments includes one or two that add rather than reduce bureaucracy—I support only those that attempt to reduce it. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) was right to talk about the provisions adding to the uncertainty for business, but that does not apply only to business: many public sector projects could be held up or prevented because of the uncertainty and additional risk that may be incurred. Public sector projects tied into external grant funding, either from central Government or Europe, could be at particular risk if protests were made about specific proposals. As a consequence of being turned down, the Government money could not be used in another way and the opportunity for public sector investment could be lost. It is not an issue for private sector business alone.
I hope that the Government will consider the matter again. I am all in favour of the public having as much say as possible in respect of planning as well as in the provisions before us, but there is a danger of creating a position in which no one will take the risk to do anything for fear of being turned down. The balance is skewed
against the development of public or private sector facilities. It is possible to have public input without adding additional risk.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |