| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Licensing Bill [Lords]
Lords amendments and reasons, considered.
8.19 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendment No. 62 to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the amendment No. 62A proposed by the Lords in lieu thereof.
In speaking on this issue, I will also speak on the proposed Government amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the proposed amendment by the Lords.
What many people do not seem to realise is that the Licensing Bill is not an extension of the scope of entertainment licensing. Generally speaking, nothing that does not need a licence or other authorisation now will need one under the Bill. What the Bill does is make it much cheaper and easier to get a licence where one is needed.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caborn: No. I am just laying out the case. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
The Bill is a combination of safety law and licensing that keeps people safe at entertainment venues of any size. Taking away licensing would undermine fundamentally the ability to protect the public. So Parliament traditionally has taken the view that it is necessary for professionals such as health and safety officers and fire officers to advise licensing authorities on the adequacy of the arrangements in place at any venue.
Lords amendment No. 62A would totally undermine the ability of the experts to assess public safety across a huge swathe of entertainment venues. For example, Westminster city council has written to the Department to point out that 62 per cent. of its entertainment venues would escape any kind of scrutiny at all under amendment No. 62A. In our view, that is completely unacceptable. It would take public safety out of the hands of the experts and put it in those of amateurs.
Peter Bottomley: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I think that the House understands that many parts of the Bill are acceptable and worthwhile. The objections—from people outside, from the other place and from some people in this House—have to do with whether the Government are railroading through proposals when an adjustment would be much more acceptable.
For example, at the end of the previous Commons debate the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who was then responsible for the Bill, answered in the affirmative when I asked whether I needed a licence for a church event in my own house, at which there would be music rather than poetry reading. That is the sort of event that has got caught up unnecessarily. I am speaking not so much for myself as for people like me, and that is the problem: many more people will be caught by the Bill than the Minister has acknowledged.
Mr. Caborn: I shall clear up some of those points as I go, and explain why the amendment has been moved.
However, serious matters of public safety are involved, and I should have thought that they were crucial to this House.As a slight aside, amendment No. 62A's sole concession to public nuisance is that any event to which the exemption applies should finish by 11.30 pm. Unfortunately, it does nothing to prevent an event starting at 11.31 pm and continuing for 23 hours and 59 minutes. Therefore, examination of the amendment shows that it does not achieve what it sets out to achieve. I urge this House to throw out Lords amendment No. 62A, which we believe to be dangerous and defective; otherwise, the House will have to be held to account if there is a serious accident at a venue exempted from the proposed regulations, and if a death occurs as a result.
However, I fully recognise that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Even with all the safeguards in the Bill—and with the additional work that we are doing in the statutory guidance, with the help of performers' representatives, to limit the potential for licensing authorities to act disproportionately—many venue operators, particularly pub owners, are fearful that if they tick the box and apply for permission to put on entertainment, the licensing authority will hit them for thousands of pounds worth of unnecessary conditions.
So we have proposed a concessionary amendment, in lieu of Lords amendment No. 62A, which places further restrictions on the ability of licensing authorities to apply conditions on premises licences that authorise the provision of certain forms of regulated entertainment.
I shall now list those premises to which the effect of the new clause is restricted. First, the new clause applies where a premises licence or club premises certificate is in force authorising the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the performance of live music or of dance or the provision of entertainment facilities for making music or dancing or entertainment of a similar description. Secondly, it applies to premises that are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises. It therefore covers mainly pubs and bars. Thirdly, it applies to premises where the regulated entertainment that I mentioned earlier is provided when the premises are open for the supply of alcohol for consumption there. Fourthly, it applies to premises where the premises licence or certificate stipulates a permitted capacity limit for the premises of no more than 200 people.
What that means in practice is that, although conditions may be imposed on a premises licence or certificate in relation to any of the licensing objectives, they will only have effect in two circumstances—where they relate to the prevention of crime and disorder or to public safety, or where they have been stated to apply or have been imposed following a review of a premises licence, and relate to any of the licensing objectives.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I have just been mulling over what the Minister said about the great fire risk incurred when music is being played. Would the risk be any less if the same people were watching a widescreen television, or simply drinking on the premises?
Mr. Caborn: No. We are talking about a licence that covers any equipment that is used. The Musicians
Union has objected to the proposals to some extent, but it advises its members to use greater care than that set out in statute when dealing with electrical goods, and so on. What we are trying to do is ensure that premises are safe, and the Bill will give comfort to the general public on that score. As I said, accepting the Lords amendment would mean that 62 per cent. of premises in the Westminster area would be exempt from the conditions ion the Bill—conditions that we think are basic to public safety.
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caborn: I will in a moment.
In effect, this is a "one strike and you're out" policy. Operators can benefit from the disapplication of conditions—except for reasons of crime and disorder, or public safety—provided that they do not abuse the privilege, and end up being reviewed. So if an operator allows the music and dancing that he or she is putting on to give rise to issues of public nuisance, the licence or certificate can be reviewed and conditions necessary for the promotion of the relevant licensing objectives attached.
Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish): What my hon. Friend the Minister is saying appears to be very helpful to those involved in traditional folk events, which take place in small pubs. However, when he talks about 200 people, does he mean that they are all inside a pub, or must the capacity of beer gardens also be taken into account? That capacity is often quite difficult to estimate.
Mr. Caborn: No. I think that the common-sense approach would be that the proposal applies to the space inside the premises, which is where the people whom we are trying to protect are to be found. My understanding is that the licence applies to the premises, but if a correction is necessary I shall let my hon. Friend know.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): Just before the Minister sat down he used the term "public nuisance", but the only conditions in Government amendment (a) that I can see are the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. It says nothing about public nuisance.
Mr. Caborn: If that is the case, we shall revisit the matter. As far as I am concerned, however, public nuisance is covered by the amendment to which I am speaking at the moment.
I hope that there is a certain amount of support in the House for the four proposals that the Government are making. The Opposition often tell us to get shot of red tape, and with this Bill we are bringing six licensing provisions together in one proposal. The basic principles are set out very clearly in the Bill. They are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. I should have thought that those aims would have gained the Opposition's support, as they consistently ask the Government to get rid of red tape. The amendment that we are discussing, and the Bill as a whole, will do just that.
8.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |