| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'Data Protection Act, 1998 (c. 29)
( ) In section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.),after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) Where the constitution, rules, standing orders, Memorandum, Articles of Association or other governing instrument of any club, society, company or other legal person (not being an individual) contains a provision (hereinafter called a "rule provision") framed to comply with any enactment repealed by the Licensing Act 2003, the exemption afforded by subsection (1) shall continue to apply to that rule provision and anything done under it, notwithstanding the repeal of such enactments.".'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 169, in page 156, line 35 [Schedule 8], at end insert—
'( ) if the premises currently operate subject to undertakings which have been given to the licensing justices, a copy of those undertakings,'.
No. 4, in page 157, line 24 [Schedule 8], leave out from 'that' to 'converting' in line 25.
No. 138, in page 158, line 8 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
No. 179, in page 159, line 21 [Schedule 8], at end insert—
'( ) the purposes embodied in those undertakings of a permanent nature that relate to the licensing objectives which have been offered by the licensee and which attach to the relevant existing licence,'.
No. 180, in page 159, line 24 [Schedule 8], after 'the', insert 'permanent undertakings and'.
No. 170, in page 159, line 25 [Schedule 8], at end insert
'or
( ) those undertakings which have been given to the licensing justice in respect of the relevant existing licence, or licences, which the licensing authority decides are necessary to promote the licensing objectives.'.
No. 139, in page 160, line 11 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
No. 47, in page 162, line 13 [Schedule 8], leave out from 'must' to end of line 15 and insert
'grant a premises licence and the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect as if the application were for conversion of an existing justices' licence'.
No. 140, in page 164, line 23 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
No. 141, in page 165, line 33 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
10.45 pm
Mr. Moss: The lead amendment, which is to schedule 6, relates to the Data Protection Act 1998. It is our understanding that the data protection commissioner required treasurers or secretaries of clubs, sporting or otherwise, to cease publication of the names and addresses of applicants for membership from computer details. However, we also understand that schedule 7(3) of the Licensing Act 1964 required publication and that section 35(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 therefore protects publication. It states:
- "Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court."
Clubs may decide to simplify their rules when the new law is introduced. If they did that, the exemption would no longer apply because the rule provision would no longer be in force. However, they should not be obliged to make such a change and the amendment would allow choice.
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): I want to speak to amendments Nos. 169 and 170, which are in my name and that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), and are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Our constituencies, like many others, are severely affected, if not afflicted, by noise, loutish behaviour, vandalism and intimidation, often late at night as people enter or leave licensed premises. Although it is rather late for a sitting in the Commons nowadays, it may be an hour or two yet before our constituents have their sleep disturbed by the behaviour that I described.
Both amendments refer to undertakings that were previously given to magistrates by licensees to obtain or continue an existing licence. Provided that the undertakings have been complied with, they have given the protection from nuisance that local residents currently enjoy. We believe that if such undertakings disappear, problems and a great deal of nuisance are likely to arise for residents who have grown accustomed to some sort of control over licensed premises.
The amendments would continue the protection. I am told that some Government officials claim that that cannot be done by retaining conditions in the existing licences because, they assert, the undertakings do not have the force of law. However, I have done some checking and I have the Justices' Clerks Society "Good Practice Guide 2002 Edition", which is the most recent edition. From that, it is as plain as a pikestaff that, under the current position, if licensees refuse to continue an undertaking, the magistrates can refuse to grant the licence. The only recourse for the disappointed licensee is to make a new application to the justices.
That seems to me to be pretty close to having the force of law. Whether that is the case or not, my colleagues and I do not see why the existing undertakings cannot be included as a condition in new licences, and amendment No. 170 seeks to include in a new licence the existing provisions. That would not require the new licensing body to include them as a condition, but it would give it the right to consider the matter and to include them if it saw fit. I really cannot see what is wrong with that proposition.
Amendment No. 169 can only be described as even more reasonable and unassertive than amendment No. 170, and it should cause the Government—and the licensees, for that matter—less of a problem. All that it would do would be to require that an application to renew an existing licence should specify on the face of the application the existing undertakings, so that the new licensing body could consider whether it wished to dispense with them, vary them or include them as a condition. That seems to us to be a very moderate request, but if it is not granted, or if the Government cannot find some other way of bringing about the possible continuation of some of the existing undertakings at the discretion of the new licensing body, hundreds of neighbourhoods and tens of thousands of
people all over the country who enjoy some protection will see that protection withdrawn. I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention.
Nick Harvey: I endorse the points made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and support the amendments to which he spoke, as well as those that stand in my name. The undertakings that have been extracted from licensees by magistrates—particularly in London and other city areas, but in other parts of the country as well—are a vital part of licensing law as it stands. They represent the wisdom and expertise acquired by magistrates in carrying out these tasks over a period of years.
I simply do not believe that those undertakings cannot be continued into the new regime in the manner described by the right hon. Gentleman. They should constitute part of the first application that the licensee makes under the new regime. I know from what Ministers have said previously that they are sympathetic to that objective, but they seem to have convinced themselves that, for some reason, it cannot be done in the simple form that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is vital that it should be done. If it is not, we shall be requiring the local authorities that are going to take over this role to reinvent the wheel. They will have to take a crash course, learning all the experiences of every set of premises that magistrates have gathered over a period of years and wisely written into the agreements that they have made with those premises. It will be difficult enough to handle the transition anyway. The local authorities will be taking on a huge task, cranking themselves up to carry out all these new functions. It would make that task very much easier, and afford far more protection for residents living near licensed premises, if the undertakings that had been built up over time were to transfer to the new regime along with the licence.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has looked into the technical arguments and suggested to the House that he believes that the undertakings could and should be carried forward. He is absolutely right, and, as he says, if they are not, there are going to be disgruntled residents all over the place who will view the new legislation from the outset as being unable to provide them with the protection, peace of mind and peaceful enjoyment of their homes and properties that they have had in the past.
That will leave an even bigger challenge for the local authorities that have to struggle to make sense of complicated new legislation. I appeal to Ministers, if on no other basis, to agree to carry those undertakings forward just to give their new legislation and regime as good a start as possible. Otherwise, they will be mired in localised battles and difficulties from the outset in a way that I am sure they do not want.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |