| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nick Harvey: The Minister says that the undertakings could not be used in prosecuting a licensee, but where such undertakings have been extracted and given, could not the magistrates nevertheless revoke the licence if the undertakings were not adhered to? Although the undertakings cannot be used in criminal prosecutions, they have some bite, as they can be used to take away the licence.
Dr. Howells: As I explained, undertakings are a very useful tool, as things stand—but I shall say why the regime that we propose will be much more useful. However, I take the point of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
I have one key reason, however, for believing that the House should not agree to the proposal. Under the Bill, interested parties in responsible authorities can request the review of any premises licence on a ground relating to the licensing objectives. That provides ample opportunity for residents and others to seek a remedy if a licensee does something, or fails to do something, that was previously the subject of an undertaking that they consider should or should not be happening—provided, of course, that the act or omission is relevant to the licensing objectives. I remind the House that those include the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. I therefore assure the House that the Bill provides ample protections.
11.30 pm
The Bill also provides more opportunities than there are at present for residents and others to seek a remedy if premises cause a particular problem. There is nothing to be gained in transferring undertakings to premises licences.
Mr. Gummer: Surely the point made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was correct: if the condition that has been there is passed on, all the wisdom that led to that condition can be passed on automatically. There seems no reason why that should not be the case. The difficulty for the House in following the Minister is that we can see that to have both provisions would be sensible, but to leave one out would seem to lose a deal of experience.
Dr. Howells: I am concerned about losing that experience, which we debated a great deal in Committee. I shall try to explain why safeguards exist to ensure that that experience is not lost, and why undertakings—which reflect some of the worries given as illustrations by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—were agreed, as they cannot be imposed, in the first place.
I missed out a question asked by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). A licence cannot be revoked for a breach of undertakings, which exist as agreements. There may be other reasons why a licensee's behaviour, under the present regime, should mean that he loses his licence, but an undertaking cannot be used as a legal means of revoking a licence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that hundreds of neighbourhoods would be affected. He implied that undertakings in respect of pubs, nightclubs and so on are common, but they are not. They are more common in London. He should note that in the good practice guide from which he quoted—to which I shall refer in more detail in a moment—they are associated mostly not with pubs or nightclubs but with supermarkets and off-licences. They are used much more rarely in connection with pubs, and some misinformation may have been disseminated about how widespread the practice is. We do not think that it is that widespread.
Mr. Dobson: The only thing that I know that casts doubt on what I am sure that my hon. Friend says in good faith is that not only does our proposal have the full support of the Metropolitan police but of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which represents police forces in neighbourhoods all over the country. If the practice is not widespread, I cannot see why they supplied the wording, which was duly turned by the Clerks into something more orderly and tabled as the amendment.
Dr. Howells: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend was told that by the police. We had many discussions about the selective lobbying that we received on the Bill and we frequently found in Committee that lobbying groups had told the Opposition one thing and told us another. I have no doubt that the police and ACPO are getting their retaliation in first. They will press for the hardest possible measures to make their jobs easier.
Mr. Mark Field: It is curious that the Minister draws a distinction between London and other places. Surely the issue is whether undertakings will be relevant, not whether the issue relates to the capital city or throughout the country. The concern is about undertakings, not regionalisation.
Dr. Howells: I made it clear that I was referring specifically to the claim made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that hundreds and thousands of communities would suffer if undertakings were not incorporated in the Bill in the manner proposed by amendment No. 170.
As the guide published by the Justices' Clerks Society states, undertakings are based on custom and not in any way on the written law, which we are debating today. They are not enforceable in law and rely entirely on the co-operation of the licence holder. That is interesting because if an undertaking is broken under the existing regime—the wonderful system of undertakings—a person might have to wait three years before anything could be done about it. We have addressed that major weakness in the Bill. Under the existing system, action could occur only when renewal proceedings took place. In the meantime, the undertaking would be simply a promise that had been broken. That is why the review arrangements in the Bill are infinitely better and more dependable than the existing system. If a licence holder
caused a nuisance or problems of disorder, the matter could be considered at the review of the licence, irrespective of whether it was the subject of an earlier undertaking.
Mr. Dobson: If the advice that my hon. Friend has received is correct, why does the licensing justices' manual say that if a licensee has obtained a licence subject to an undertaking, the licensee may make application at any sessions to be released from the undertaking? If an undertaking has no force, there is no need for a licensee to bother to apply to be relieved of it. The manual also says that if a request is refused, the applicant's only remedy is to make application for a new justices' licence. Clearly those responsible for advising magistrates throughout the country believe that an undertaking does have force.
Dr. Howells: An undertaking clearly does not have legal force. My right hon. Friend asked why anyone would bother to apply to be relieved of an undertaking but I can think of many reasons why a licensed premises or a licence holder might apply for an undertaking to be revoked or modified. For example, a different business might open next door or there might be a proliferation of vertical drinking establishments, which could alter the need for an undertaking. However, an undertaking does not have the force of law.
Mr. Dobson: I understand my hon. Friend's point that circumstances might change to lead the licensee to want to unload an undertaking, but why would anyone bother if an undertaking cannot be enforced? Why would a person go to the bother of returning to a magistrate and risk being turned down?
Dr. Howells: I would like to hear of a case of a licensee going voluntarily to a magistrate and risking being turned down and losing their licence. I bet that such a person is a pretty rare creature. However, I can imagine many situations in which licensees would want to keep sweet with licensing justices and be prepared to play footsie with them if they thought that it would help their next licence application. However, there will not be licensing justices.
There will be a licensing authority instead. For the first time, those hard-pressed residents whom my right hon. Friend mentioned will have the opportunity to ask for a licence to be reviewed. They cannot do that now. The ability to do that is infinitely preferable to some kind of old boys' agreement between a licensee and licensing justices that might sometimes benefit local residents, but is designed for completely different purposes.
Mr. Kevan Jones: There is not only the review but the additional powers in clause 158 that allow senior police officers to close down premises for up to 24 hours on the grounds of public nuisance owing to noise emanating from premises or actual or likely disorder from a licensed premise. The police do not have those powers now and they will help residents.
Dr. Howells: Yes, and if right hon. and hon. Members read the Bill they will see that it greatly strengthens the hand of the police, responsible authorities and local
residents when they encounter difficulties not just in London, but all over the country. That is infinitely preferable to the existing situation.
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend knows full well that I welcome the bulk of the Bill and the strengthening of the feeble arrangements for protecting the interests of residents and neighbouring businesses. However, I cannot understand the Government's rooted objection to our requirement—the very least that we propose—that when people apply to the new licensing body, they should include in their application a list of the undertakings that apply. I cannot understand why that is unacceptable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |