Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Mr. Foster: The whole Committee is amazed by the information that has been revealed by the hon. Gentleman about his constituency. One certainly hopes that he was not present in any of those clubs in the hours that he described. Nevertheless, he makes a
I accept that nightclubs, for example, are not the sole cause of the problems that occur outside their premises. Those may well be caused in part by what happened in the pubs before the clients went to the nightclub. I accept that the problems that happen around a takeaway fish and chip van near a nightclub are not entirely the fault of the person operating the van. Those issues are complicated, and I accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. However, that is why I am so deeply concerned that the Government appear to have taken tough measures, which the Minister was delighted to announce last November and for which he had our full support, against the takeaway fish and chip shops, and to have taken action against pubs—but the clubs, in the middle of the equation, are getting away with it. As I have said, sports clubs are an issue. I am equally concerned that the licensing fee structure proposed in this statutory instrument will have a huge impact on live music in this country. We welcome the fact that the Government recently set up a live music forum to consider ways to encourage live music. That was a good move, but the Minister will be aware that members of that forum specifically told Ministers that their research showed that the more people know about the impact of the licensing fees, the less likely they are to put on live music in pubs and other venues. That will have a huge knock-on effect. I have probably gone on long enough, and I am sure that the Committee will say, “Hear, hear!”—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Very good; it is like pantomime season all over again. However, I genuinely believe that, having consulted on the matter, the Government rushed into a new set of proposals, different from the original ones. They did not consult on the new ones because they were desperately short of time, and they have come up with a set of fees that will not serve local government in the early years, and which, in the later years, will not serve important sectors of activity in the community, such as our sports clubs and music. Mr. Moss rose— Mr. Foster: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I wanted to finish. Mr. Moss: I was going to intervene on the hon. Gentleman earlier, but he moved seamlessly on to sports clubs. However, I want to take him back to the LGA briefing. The Minister has given the Committee the impression that all is now well after the consultation process, and that the £41 million that was alluded to in the debate has now mysteriously disappeared. However, the LGA briefing still refers to a deficit of between £20 million and £30 million. Perhaps the Minister will be able to throw some light on that. Column Number: 13 Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman will, if he catches your eye, Mr. O’Brien, have the opportunity to make his own contribution. I hope that he will refer to one or two other aspects of the LGA briefing, which I have not the opportunity to mention because of time. I hope that the Minister will gather from what I am saying—if nothing else—an impression that there is a general mood out there, in local government, in the British Beer and Pub Association, and among sports clubs, live music organisers and many other organisations, of distinct unhappiness with what the Government have done with the fees. That is why I believe that it was so important to have a debate on them, even at this late hour. 3.3 pmMr. Moss: Thank you, Mr. O’Brien, and may I say what a pleasure it is yet again to serve under your chairmanship? With the imminent general election looming, this might be the last time that I shall have the pleasure of serving under you. I wish you luck in retirement. This is an interesting Committee, from all sorts of points of view. In my experience, no Committee has had such changes in personnel over such a short period of time. There were seven Labour Members on the original Committee who were removed, and of course, we have had replacements for them. Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): Better ones! Mr. Moss: Well, that is for people to judge, no doubt. I suspect that some of the heavy brigade have been brought in to give a hard time to the sadly afflicted hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I think I may have struck a chord there. Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman might be accusing me of being part of the heavy brigade, but may I point out to him that I have been down for this statutory instrument since the beginning of time? Mr. Moss: I was not mentioning any particular names, but I have here a list of the hon. Members who have been removed from the Committee, and those that have replaced them. I simply raise the question that some of the heavy brigade—and if the hon. Member for Rhondda does not want to be included in that, that is fine by me— The Chairman: Order. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is about, but we ought to stick to what the statutory instrument says. I also remind the Committee that we have only 90 minutes, but the way we are continuing we will not get through the business. Mr. Moss: Thank you, Mr. O’Brien; I take your stricture on board. I should like to add a codicil, which is that the regulations are highly contentious. It has been 18 months since the Act went on to the statute book. As the hon. Member for Bath said, we were promised regulations, guidance and the fee structure
People out there with an interest in the legislation—licensing authorities, and pubs and clubs, including sports clubs—are saying that the consultation process was neither adequate nor fair, and that things have been introduced subsequently, literally in the past few weeks, before we have had a chance to debate the regulations. I am simply reflecting the fact that the regulations are contentious. There is no doubt that the Government have been trawling around for trusty men and women and true to put their hands up in the right place at the right time, to ensure that the regulations go through, in case a vote is called at the end of our proceedings, to which we will certainly contribute. Mr. Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab): Withdraw. Mr. Moss: I think that if people read Hansard, they will see a certain logic to my argument, given the change in personnel in recent weeks. I have talked about the delay, which is again an indication of indecision in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on matters relating not only to the 2003 Act, but to other legislation that has been alluded to. There are claims of substantial savings as a result of the new regime, but I have spoken to nobody, either when the legislation was going through Committee or subsequently, who truly believes that there will be savings in the industry as a result of the changes. Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. He will be aware—perhaps the hon. Member for Rhondda would like to take note of this—that under the current regime, whereby the magistrates court does some of the licensing, there is a subsidy of £25 million per annum, which goes to magistrates courts. Perhaps the Minister could say what is happening to that £25 million. If, as has been said, local authorities are short by £22 million in the first year, I think that we have just found the relevant sum. Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I was going to come to it later, and no doubt he will intervene on me to ensure that he mentions anything that he did not cover. His point is valid. There is a subsidy of about £25 million under the current regime, whereby the licence is obtained through the magistracy, and everyone recognises that. Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Moss: If I may continue for a moment. That subsidy is in the system, but we are moving away from that, particularly with regard to licensing fees for the smaller pubs in rural areas and, as the hon. Member for Bath mentioned, sports clubs, which will both experience a substantial hike in the fee structure. They may eventually agree that that is fair and reasonable
Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Bath said that he would take the £25 million out of the magistrates courts and give it to local government, presumably through the local government settlement. Does he accept that many magistrates are finding that the extra capacity that they now have is giving them an opportunity to spend money on better witness support units and the like? That means that there is a double gain: improving the process of licensing and improving the service provided by local magistrates courts on other crime issues. Mr. Moss: I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman’s latter point is valid. We are freeing up the magistrates courts to do other things and no doubt that will expand the space available. I do not for a moment disagree that that is a valid point. My point is that the licence fees for small pubs and clubs going from A to X in one huge leap will be a burden on those pubs and clubs in that initial period. There is no transition period on the fees paid—they are increasing in one leap. That may cause difficulties in many situations. It has been extremely difficult for the Government to come to a view on the level of fees. We had a long debate about that in Committee. Local authorities wanted a flexible regime that enabled those with a heavy burden such as Westminster and Camden to charge fees appropriate to the policing and licensing regime that they will have to consider. Westminster polices hundreds if not thousands of outlets. It is saying that the Government’s catch-all national fee structure will not be flexible enough for it to cover anything like its true costs. My main argument is that the Government have pleased no one. They have arrived at a fee structure that will be a quantum leap for the small people—small pubs, particularly in rural areas, and small sports clubs. At the other end of the continuum, clubs in places such as Westminster and Camden will have a reduction in their fee structure, which the hon. Member for Bath alluded to. At the moment, they are gloating considerably that they have saved a lot of money. However, Westminster and Camden councils must still make sure that health and safety regulations and licensing regulations are adhered to and that the policing of inner city areas is appropriate. Mr. Clifton-Brown: What my hon. Friend is saying has begun to alarm me. In the Cotswolds, a number of publicans are seeking planning permission to change the use of their pub into a private residence that they can sell for more money. If licensing fees will be as difficult for small village pubs as he said, that process
Mr. Moss: That is a logical conclusion to reach. In some cases, where the local village pub is under pressure and is looking to change its use, any extra burden of cost, such as licence fee increases, may tip that balance more quickly. So, my hon. Friend has a valid point that needs to be taken on board, at least in rural areas. I mentioned the problems that the fee structure will have at the lower end of the scale. I also alluded to the fact that the Westminsters of this world will find it impossible to deliver the service that they are expected to deliver under the fee structure. The Minister promised a review in the near future. It is important that he clarifies today when and how he will do that, because the licensing authorities are keen on it. They would like it to be within a year and they would also like to see the areas that the Minister will address in that review on paper as quickly as possible. They also want to know whether he will move away from the national scale of fees that is at the heart of the problem to a more flexible system—which we had historically, and which, at least on the entertainment side, worked extremely well—and whether that key principle can be addressed if it is seen not to be working as it should after a year or so. The hon. Member for Bath referred to the outcry from the sports clubs about the increase in licence fees. I want to remind the Committee of something that was said in our Standing Committee on the Bill. I moved an amendment that stated:
That amendment was taken with two others. We were about to reach a guillotine. Before the guillotine fell, the Minister, now the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), said:
Given that the guillotine was about to fall, the Minister did not have to intervene to make that offer. Mr. Caborn: He did. Mr. Moss: He could have let the time elapse, and the thing would have died. He made a point of rising to say that he was agreeable to considering the amendments in more detail. We all went away from that Committee thinking that that Minister had given a commitment.
Mr. Simon: In all fairness, having just heard what the hon. Gentleman so kindly and lucidly read out, it seems that the Minister gave an undertaking to go away and reflect upon the issues. That is not the same as saying that he gave an undertaking to do exactly what Conservative Members wanted him to do. He gave an undertaking to reflect on the matter. He did so. He came back with his decision. That surely is the nature of Government. Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on two counts. It was not the same Minister who apparently reflected on the matter. Mr. Simon: I never said it was the same Minister. Mr. Moss: No, but the hon. Gentleman said that the Minister reflected on the matter. The same Minister did not reflect. The Minister at the time gave a strong assurance in Committee, also through his body language and the way he intervened—[Interruption.] These things matter. Chris Bryant: I represent the neighbouring constituency to the then Minister, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he should not read too much into the body language of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I return to the important point. I remember the amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled. I remember thinking what a foolish amendment it was, not because many of us would want to support the many sports clubs in the land that have pubs and bars attached to them, but because it is phenomenally difficult to establish in each case whether the primary purpose of the club is its sporting facilities or its drinking facilities. Mr. Moss: I have never heard anything so—I nearly said it, Mr. O’Brien, but that was rubbish. Most of the sports clubs that I know of exist primarily for their sporting activities; the bar is ancillary. Chris Bryant rose— Mr. Moss: I am not giving way. I shall continue my discourse. I refer the Minister to a letter, again on a sports theme, written in December by the British Equestrian Federation. It raised an important point on the fee levels, as it had interpreted them from what was then a consultation document. I suspect that the fees have not altered dramatically since then. It says that, for the flagship events of Badminton and Burleigh—and let us reflect on the Minister’s responsibility for sport, the importance of the Olympics, and the fact that we gained so many medals at the last Olympics in such sporting events—there could be some £50,000 of fees, as it interprets the fee structure. That is on the basis of the number of people attending those events over the
We raised the issue of sports clubs during questions last Monday. The Minister made what I thought at the time was a flippant remark, but now that I have read it in the papers that his Department has issued on sports clubs— Mr. Caborn: I do not make flippant remarks. Mr. Moss: Well, it seemed flippant at the time, and on reflection the Minister might well agree that it was. He said that sports clubs could cover the costs of the fees by putting up their prices. Apparently, he is advising them to put up their beer and drinks prices simply to cover the extra costs that they will have to find for their licensing fees. For many small clubs, that is not an option, so many of them may have to close their bars, and an important extension of the social activity— Mr. Caborn: Oh, come on, Malcolm! Mr. Moss: Well, the Minister has presumably had representations from the Central Council of Physical Recreation, as have we, and it is still of the mind that the considerable hike in costs places the future of some small clubs in jeopardy. Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): I am not sure how many small sports clubs the hon. Gentleman visited, but in the one in my constituency that I visit regularly, the bar prices are very competitive, and are actually an attraction; people do not just come to watch the sport but, unfortunately, to drink alcohol. Mr. Moss: I welcome another heavyweight to the proceedings. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been told to stay away, judging from his wonderful contribution from the Government Benches to the Licensing Bill. It is good to see him here. On the hon. Gentleman’s question, my experience is that drinking and bars in many sports clubs—including the rugby clubs of which I have been a member in the past—are ancillary to the sport activity. If the clubs put the prices behind the bar up to a level that people think is unreasonable, they will not drink in that club after the game; they will go down the road to the pub, where it is cheaper. That has to be taken on board. Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman provokes me. He said that he would try to cover many of the points that I have not had the opportunity to raise. He forbade me to pre-empt some of his remarks. However, I am sure that, just before he ended, he was going to touch on the crucial issue of the annual fee for those paying small
Mr. Moss: Possibly, if I can find the relevant paper. [Interruption.] That is most kind. The local authorities have expressed concern that there is no sanction against a licence holder if they do not pay their annual premises licence fee. The Government’s intention is that that could be taken to civil court. The amount involved here is £100; most local authorities will not bother to collect the smaller fees, so a large number of smaller pubs and clubs may well not pay up, and local authorities may well have an incredibly difficult brief. Despite the 18 months that the Government have had to sort this out, I do not think that they have solved the difficulty. We will have to return to the matter sooner rather than later. As with another DCMS Bill recently, the Licensing Bill seems in the end to have pleased absolutely nobody. 3.25 pmMr. Caborn: Mr. O’Brien, I join with others in wishing you well if this does happen to be your last Committee. I hope that it is not, because you are an incredibly fair man, coming from that great region of Yorkshire and having done it proud for many years. I can sincerely say, both as a personal friend and as a Member of this House, that it is always desirable and welcome to serve under your chairmanship. Let me come back to the real world, rather than the one that has been painted by Opposition Members. I thank them for their contributions, which have been interesting and illuminating, if slightly off the mark. Of course, the debate should also have concerned the Licensing Act 2003 (Transitional Conversions Fees) Order 2005. The fees set by that order have been the subject of much that has been said so far. I should make it clear that we have amended the regulations that we are debating in order to correct aspects of them that failed to deliver the policy intentions expressed by the House. I shall do my best to answer specific points that have raised, but first I must make some fundamental points. The transitional period required to implement the Licensing Act 2003 began on 7 February. Fees are already being paid, and the flow will increase steadily. Licensing authorities and the industry have already invested a great deal of effort and resources in preparing for transition, and licensing authorities cannot begin to recover their expenditure until fees are paid. It would therefore be extremely disruptive if the Committee were to deny local authorities the ability to finance the new regime for which they are now responsible. I am sure that hon. Members will reflect on that. The second point that I must emphasise is that fees are not an alternative form of revenue; they cannot function as taxation. Fees may only be used to recover the costs of services provided in carrying out legislative functions approved by Parliament. That has been the
Fees, therefore, have nothing to do with what any individual, business or club can afford to pay. Similarly, they have nothing whatever to do with what anyone ought to pay on principle or on moral grounds. Fees are not a substitute for the taxation needed to pay for policing the streets and controlling the behaviour of individuals once they are beyond the control of licensed premises and licensees. The policing of criminal and antisocial behaviour on our streets late at night must be properly funded. We are not ignoring the issue; it is subject to ongoing discussions, but it does not affect these fees. Members of the Committee will have noted the contents of our consultation document, “Drinking Responsibly”, published on 21 January, which includes proposals on alcohol disorder zones and charges that might be imposed on businesses in such areas. Alongside that, the alcohol harm reduction strategy, published last year, included proposals to the effect that the alcohol industry might make voluntary contributions to the costs of policing alcohol-related problems in our communities. That, too, is subject to ongoing discussion. The new legislation is entirely about the control of premises where licensable activities take place, to ensure the promotion of the four licensing objectives that were laid down in the Act. They are: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. Therefore, the focus of this debate about fees must be on the recovery of all the administrative costs associated with that. Indeed, we have given a commitment to local authorities that any new burdens that we put on them—such as the enforcement activities and inspection of premises required by the new legislation—will have full cost recovery attached. Mr. Foster: The Minister has come to an important issue. He will be aware that the final regulatory impact assessment on page 5 of what is now the legislation makes it very clear, in respect of fees, that
We should bear in mind that and what the Minister has rightly said: the Government should fully fund local authorities for any additional burdens placed on them. I made that point to the hon. Member for Rhondda. However, if the Local Government Association says that authorities are £22 million adrift in the transitional period and £22 million adrift in the first year of operation, who are we to believe—the Government, who say that they are fully funding those areas, or the LGA, which says that they are not? What are we meant to do in those circumstances? |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 25 February 2005 |