| Licensing Bill [Lords]
|
|
The Chairman: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I should have said before I called him that the group of amendments is so wide-ranging that I shall allow this to be treated as a stand part debate. If hon. Members wish to intervene on the group of amendments, they would be wise to do so. Mr. Sanders: Thank you, Mr. Gale. That being the case, one has to look at how the existing licensing system operates, where it is deficient, and perhaps what reforms would be needed. The general feeling among licensees in my constituency is, ''If it ain't bust, don't fix it''. However, there is recognition that the new system could, in time, result in savings, particularly for licensed premises. I cannot predict whether the new system will be better, but the main complaint with the existing system is not so much the conclusions that magistrates come to in the local community; it is that their decisions, which might be favoured by the local community, are sometimes overturned by a higher court with no connection to the local area.
11 amI do not know whether the new system will change that; probably not. Local people, or those who are more accountable to the community, will be taking decisions but they could still be appealed against at a higher level. We will not know the answer to that until the new system is up and running. I cannot speak for other areas of the country, where I know there have been some complaints about local magistrates' decisions. Other hon. Members may be more familiar with such complaints. I can only speak from experience. On the listing of the licensing authorities, why are unitary authorities not listed separately? I am sure that the answer is simple, that they are covered by one of the other categories and that it is not a drafting Column Number: 116 mistake. A possible advantage of the new system is that a clear list will be set out of the functions and objectives that must be considered in licensing—prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, quality of life and the protection of children from harm. However, could not that set of objectives be put before magistrates? Obviously, that would be done not by DCMS, but by the Home Office. Also, do not magistrates at present take into consideration some of those general ideas, if not the specifics as set out in the Bill?I am keeping an open mind. My party favours the change and I am willing to go along with it, but the experience of my constituency—and perhaps that of other hon. Members, too—is that magistrates have done an excellent job in carrying out their licensing functions until now. It remains to be seen whether local councillors can do as good a job, if not better. Mr. Jones: I wish to speak against the amendment. I support the transfer of responsibility for the licensing of premises to local authorities. Local authorities already administer public entertainment licences, and do so well in my experience. They also deal with issues such as taxi licences, door registration schemes—in certain parts of the country—and planning applications. They have a wealth of experience of dealing with that type of enforcement. I mean no disrespect to hard-working magistrates, some of whom do a sterling job. They give up their time unselfishly. However, in my experience, they are not in tune with what is going on locally. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said that they are in touch on issues such as licensing. However, I know that in Newcastle a number of the licensing magistrates did not even live in the city and had no connection with the area. Councillors administering public entertainment licences get to know the type of issues that are faced locally: the type of operators to be dealt with and the public order problems that are faced. The main reason why I support transferring the responsibility is that the new system will be clear and transparent and local people will know who is taking the decisions on licensing. Again, in my experience as a local councillor, when people wanted to object to a public licence at a magistrates court, they found it very difficult to find out how to do it and, when they did, they found a magistrates court very intimidating—not only the legal process, but the fact that applicants' solicitors often threatened local residents with costs and so forth. That deterred local people from expressing their views in front of licensing magistrates. Reference was made earlier to the flexibility of magistrates. I am sorry but that is not my experience. They are very rigid in the way in which they implement the law, and often give undue weight to the views of the local police, for example, as opposed to the concerns of local residents. There is much to be gained from transferring licensing responsibility to local authorities. It will also make applying for a local licence simpler. I disagree with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who said that it would be more Column Number: 117 expensive. It will be cheaper. At the moment a local publican who wants, for example, a liquor licence and a public entertainment licence has two hoops to go through. The publican has to apply, first, to a magistrates court and, secondly, to a local authority for a public entertainment licence. Such licences vary widely throughout the country. I agree that some local authorities are using public entertainment licences as a stealth tax—a way of generating income, which they do not put back into enforcement. The standardisation of fees will make the system transparent and fair for people who apply.There are costs involved for people who apply—the legal cost and the cost of re-applying for a public entertainment licence, which involves going before magistrates every year. They will not have to do that under the proposed system. Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman spoke in favour of a standardised fee. Can he not see that in a place such as Westminster, which has huge numbers of entertainment outlets and a massive policing and regulatory function, the costs would be higher than in my rural constituency of North-East Cambridgeshire, or even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Waveney? Mr. Jones: I appreciate that, and that is why the fees will need to reflect the type of enforcement that there will be. However, at the moment, we have a system whereby a local authority can set a fee for a public entertainment licence which bears no resemblance whatsoever to its enforcement in practice. It is important that, if publicans and other people apply for a public entertainment licence, they are not treated unfairly compared to a neighbouring authority with similar establishments, and that the money is going into enforcement. That is what local people would like to see. Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the opportunity of applying for a premises licence and a public entertainment licence at the same time on one form. We understand that the premises licence will last indefinitely. How can an authority that is undertaking that type of licensing possibly assess what will happen in 30 or 40 years? Forty years ago very few people had motor cars. Now, many people have them. How can one possibly consider the impact of such an application on local people? Mr. Jones: Authorities cannot do that, and I do not believe that that is what the Bill is expecting them to do. At the moment one has to re-apply every year, which is burdensome for the licensees. It serves no useful purpose. If a public house, restaurant or a nightclub is run professionally and is well maintained with no disorder, why do those involved have to pay a fee each year? The provision will allow well-run establishments to carry on their businesses and not become bogged down in unnecessary bureaucracy? The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems that will occur in certain establishments over time. The authorities will be able to step in. At present, a local authority can do that in respect of public Column Number: 118 entertainment licences if there are public order problems. Unfortunately, however, the present law hinders the actions that the police and councils can take to control disorder, which can result, for example, from a change of management in a nightclub, as I know from experience.We need to give local authorities some respect. At present, local councillors make many difficult decisions. They will be able to operate the system in a professionally and fairly. If local authorities are found not to be doing that, there will be recourse to local magistrates, whereby licences will not be granted, for example, although I should have preferred such matters to be left with the High Court. Amendment No. 59 should be rejected. Mr. Field: I endorse the approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). There is a view that, if something is not broken, why fix it? However, as the hon. Gentleman said, there are different regimes throughout the country. I am sure that the Torbay, Torquay and Brixham area is small and defined, as are many local authority areas in London. Under the current system, magistrates and justices work well. They are understanding of the vicinity, often have been on the Bench for some time and deal with a significant number of such cases. They do not come out of the blue. We are worried that the Government take an over-prescriptive approach on several occasions. The real worry is about local decision making, because the licensing authorities will have a minor power compared with the centralised approach that has already been advanced by the Minister. I have not come here to bury or to praise Westminster City council, but the hon. Member for North Durham has tempted me to say a few words on it. The system will not be used along the lines of a stealth tax. It is instructive to compare it with the current planning regime, which is administered by a local authority. The proposal is that licensing authorities will act in parallel with planning authorities. There is an under-resourcing problem in Westminster, and that applies to other London boroughs of all political parties such as Camden and Lambeth, which is on the other side of the river. Fixed fees for planning mean that the market has to decide—
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 3 April 2003 |
