Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
JAMES PURNELL,
MR STUART
ROBERTS AND
MR PHIL
WOOLAS
31 OCTOBER 2005
Q100 Sir Paul Beresford: It is very
helpful for a minister to sit on the other side of the fence and
see it from the point of view of the village hall licensee and
so and so forth, which I hope you are doing now.
James Purnell: We liaise, as I
have explained in detail, with all of those bodies, with ACRE
with the sports clubs, with the Federation of Small Businesses,
to make sure that their concerns are taken into consideration.
Q101 Dr Pugh: May I go back to flexibility?
You were asked specifically about the period between the application
going in and the application being heard, a longer period of mediation.
If that is in the guidance, I should have thought that was not
something any local authority would consider they had any flexibility
to vary at all. Are you saying now that if they alter the dates,
they extend the timescales to allow for mediation, that is permissible
in your understanding of the law?
James Purnell: No, they cannot
alter the timescales unilaterally. What I am saying is that we
are happy to look at the timescales.
Q102 Dr Pugh: So there is no flexibility
on timescales.
James Purnell: No, not on the
timescales.
Q103 Dr Pugh: Can you explain why
you are not flexible about acrobats, but you are quite flexible
about clowns?
James Purnell: Who said that?
Q104 Dr Pugh: The rules on circuses.
I do not want to set you off on circuses but you did explain that
one of the anomalies in the rules for circuses is that definite
regulations are laid down which require that if you have an acrobat
you require some sort of licence; it is not apparent if you just
have clowns that you do.
Mr Roberts: The Act does not define
clowns or acrobats or circuses for that matter, it defines activity.
Again it is for interpretation. I understand some authorities
interpret things differently, but an acrobat is a display of physical
skill so therefore counts as an indoor sport and that is entertainment.
A clown could be defined as playing a role, in which case it might
be licensable, it might not be. There is nothing in the Act which
talks about clowns.
Q105 Dr Pugh: It is only inflexible
on clowns really, but quite flexible on acrobats.
Mr Roberts: It is not for us.
James Purnell: Nothing changed
there. It is worth clarifying that that was carrying over the
rules from the previous licensing regime into the current one;
there is nothing new there.
Q106 Chair: So there was already
a disparity between acrobats and clowns.
James Purnell: There was.
Q107 Chair: Which you did not rectify.
James Purnell: There were different
regimes for different types of activity which, when the Act went
through Parliament, it was not thought needed rectifying.
Q108 Martin Horwood: I just want
to come back to the answer you gave me earlier about applications
which were out of time being deemed to be approved. In their memorandum
to us Westminster City Council said, and I think they are talking
about exactly the same thing though I am not certain "Westminster
was not able to determine all the applications for variation it
received. Approximately 140 could not be determined within the
period of two months allowed by the Act and accordingly were deemed
to be refused. The volume of applications was such that it was
necessary to devise a system of prioritising applications to be
dealt with". Were they wrong?
James Purnell: My point was about
conversions. As you know, there are two different things one can
apply for under the Act: one can apply for conversion of the existing
rights or one can apply for a variation. Typically, what people
who applied for a variation would have done was to apply for both.
If I apply for a conversion and that is not granted within two
months—the point I was making earlier—that is deemed
to have been automatically granted and that premise will be able
to continue functioning. If they have also applied for a variation,
as would be the case in your example, and that is not processed
within two months, the Act then deems that has not been granted
and they can then appeal to magistrates. We did work with the
Magistrates' Association and with the Justices' Clerks Society
to put in place arrangements for that to be done as quickly as
possible where the application to vary had not attracted any objections.
Where it had attracted objections, it would be dealt with through
the magistrates. What it is worth noting about that is that the
Act put in place contingency mechanisms both for conversions and
for variations but decided that conversions, because they were
already permitted under the old Act, should be deemed to have
been granted, whereas for the variation, because that might be
more controversial, there should be a contingency plan whereby
it went to the magistrates.
Q109 Anne Main: You did mention flexibility.
Would you be prepared to be flexible over zones? The Government
have put emphasis on communities and lively town centres and there
has been a lot of concern about the fact that it seems to be the
larger premises, to which you referred, the great big vertical
drinking culture, which are starting to take over the town centres.
Town centres still have a lot of people living in them who are
very, very concerned that the effect of this Act will be to close
down the small businesses selling alcohol, the smaller pubs which
do not go to the longer hours and leave us with the big vertical
drinking place to which you have just referred going until two
or three in the morning.
James Purnell: I think the opposite
is the case. The current law effectively has a loophole which
allows vertical drinking establishments to keep on trading after
11 o'clock because they uniquely are the places which can do so
because they put on dancing and music as well. If I wanted to
open the kind of smaller establishment which you are concerned
about, I cannot open after 11 o'clock unless I am a members' club.
This actually levels up the playing field and allows those decisions
to be made locally by local councils based on this strategy that
they have for developing the town centre.
Q110 Anne Main: But you would not
allow, for example, looking at cumulative impact or zones? Some
town centres are very, very lively and this is what is worrying
communities. How do we make sure that we have a town centre which
not only encourages drinking but encourages tourism and a holistic
approach to people living there? They fear that under the Act
as it stands, unless you have a degree more flexibility about
cumulative impact especially and zones and so on, you will get
the reverse of what you want, which is a sustainable community
within a town centre.
James Purnell: That is exactly
what the Act does. Previously councils had very little ability
to refuse a licence, they were unable to say the area was already
saturated and they wanted to have the ability to have a presumption
that they will refuse licences. The Act, for the first time, allows
people to do that. I was in South Hams recently, for example,
and in Torquay they had brought in exactly that kind of cumulative
impact zone which allows them to limit the number of premises
which open and they have conditions which they are applying.
Q111 Anne Main: How does that work?
You are talking about flexibility but the guidance which has come
out is quite confusing. How can that work when the presumption
is in favour of granting licences? How can it work then that you
can start saying you will not grant any more because of the cumulative
impact? I am confused and a lot of local councils to which I have
spoken, my own included, are very confused about the guidance.
They believe they have to push ahead with granting licences because
that is the presumption of the government, yet they are very worried
about the city centres being taken over by so many licensed premises.
James Purnell: That is why the
Act creates this cumulative impact power where people believe
they already have saturation to be able to have a presumption
that they will not grant extra licences. That is exactly what
Torquay have done and before this Act they could not do that.
Secondly, the Act allows people to target the hours of premises
on an individual basis. If they are worried about the behaviour
of a particular pub, they can ask for a review of it any time
they want to. Residents can ask for a review at any time they
want to and those powers will be exercised by local councillors
who are the people accountable to their electorate for the health
of their town centres. Overall it is a much more effective system
than the one which existed before.
Q112 Anne Main: Are you content that
people can prove which particular pub is causing a problem? A
lot of people are saying that it is very, very difficult, the
onus being on the residents, to try to prove where the harm is
coming from. When people are in a city centre at night you never
quite know where they have come from. The guidance is to local
authorities and they are very concerned about how they may put
in what you obviously see would be positive effects and they want
those positive effects but do not see how to deliver them.
James Purnell: The problem of
proof occurred under the previous regime where people had to go
to a magistrates' court and fulfil the standard of proof required
by a magistrates' court. Under the new Act they will be going
to the licensing committee and it will be for the licensing committee
to take a view. They do not have to decide it on that basis of
legal proof, they will be able to do so on what is effectively
a lower burden.
Q113 Chair: Which of your two departments
is going to take the responsibility of making sure that local
government understands what its powers are under the Act to achieve
all the things we have just been talking about?
James Purnell: We are doing that
together.
Q114 Chair: Which of you would take
the lead? Which one can be blamed if it does not work or be given
the credit if it goes well?
Mr Woolas: We will take the credit.
The answer to that question should be seen in the context of the
Act. This is a devolutionary Act as part of a wider policy to
give local authorities and local community representatives more
powers to intervene, particularly in town centres but also in
rural centres. It is inevitable that if you have a devolutionary
policy, you will have different reactions. Obviously Westminster,
from whom you have heard, is going to be different from a rural
area in some of the counties. I believe, and the evidence we have
rather backs this up, that because greater powers are going to
local authorities and community representatives within local authorities
the situation will improve significantly and that it is the status
quo which is the problem and not the new Act.
Q115 Anne Main: What evidence was
that? I have read a significant tome, the International Journal
of Drug Policy and that looks at quite a few places where
they have deregulated in the way you are describing and they did
not see the delivery of the good things you hope to happen. I
am hoping that we have learned from looking at that and you feel
you have the measures put in place to make sure we do not have
the same problems which they experienced such as nightlife stretching
into the morning and causing problems with street cleaning, increased
drug use and so on and not a decrease in drinking which is what
you hope to happen.
Mr Woolas: The intention of the
Licensing Act was not just to address the issue of licensing and
alcohol: it is one measure to allow particularly towns and cities
in this regard to have policies and strategies which can be shared,
sometimes with town centre partnerships, sometimes with local
authority partnerships, to address a number of issues, the creation
of leisure and family economies, the creation of a wider range
of leisure activities, the ability to clamp down on social disorder,
the ability, for example, to mix and match with taxi and hackney
carriage regimes. What we are trying to do as a government is
to give powers to local areas through local authorities so that
they can address problems, particularly in town and city centres,
in more of a joined-up way. From the ODPM perspective and from
the local government perspective that is the right way to go and
we should never forget the fact that both the LGA and the police
representatives supported this Act and support its implementation.
I am not denying of course that there are differences in different
parts of the country, but that is inevitable if you have a devolutionary
policy. The alternative is to have a heavily centralised policy.
Q116 Dr Pugh: How would you respond
then to comments made before this Committee a few minutes ago
by the Institute of Licensing who said that under the Act as it
stands there are not enough strategic powers for the local authority
to engage in a mediated discussion with licensees and so on?
Mr Woolas: Enough strategic powers
for the local authority?
Q117 Dr Pugh: Yes.
Mr Woolas: I would react to that
by saying that if local authorities and the Local Government Association
want to bring those requests to the table, we shall be more than
happy to look at them. It is very important that the local town
centre partnerships and local authority partnerships work. It
is in that way that we will be able, I believe, to see the significant
cost savings to local authorities and others as a result of this
regime as crime is tackled and town centres are handled in a more
effective manner.
Q118 Mr Betts: May I pursue some
points about local authorities? Clearly you are going to have
a review of the fee structure. Will that also include the extent
to which the costs incurred by local authorities really are being
covered by the fees in totality? We are being told that there
are lots of indirect as well as direct costs, costs of enforcement
as well as simply processing the applications. The LJS certainly
believe that in total local government is out of pocket by about
£30 million. Are you prepared to look at that totality as
well as the individual fee structure problems?
James Purnell: Absolutely and
that is indeed the core reason why we set up the review by Sir
Les Elton, that is why we changed the fees originally to address
the concerns of local government and we made a very clear commitment
that the regime would be self-financing so the fees would be set
at a level which would cover the cost of administering and enforcing
the system. We look forward to Sir Les Elton's recommendations
on that and we would encourage the LGA to put forward as much
evidence as possible of the costs of the requirements which the
Act is putting on them.
Mr Woolas: As you know, we operate
the new burdens policy across government policy to endeavour to
ensure that new regimes do not have an extra burden on local government
which is unfunded. The policy in regard to this, as you know and
I state it for the record, is that the scheme should be self-funding.
An important point is that the evidence from the Local Government
Association is looking at the start-up costs as well as the ongoing
regime. It is also fair to say that in that examination ODPM would
want to look at the potential savings as a result of the scheme,
given the extra levers which local authorities have to influence
town centre behaviour and town centre economies. You might call
it an old burdens rule, but it is an entirely fair point.
Mr Betts: In my experience of talking
to local councillors two issues have come up in terms of the practicalities
of operating. I have one local councillor who is a member of the
licensing committee in Sheffield and just relating the workload
they have had to the very limited number of people on the committee.
Why do we need to restrict the numbers? I know we need to have
people properly trained and have an expertise when they come to
determine licence applications, but there are lots of other committees
such as planning committees which we do not restrict in that way.
Secondly, another local councillor turned up to make representations
on behalf of his ward electors but could not speak because he
was the local councillor and therefore was not allowed to make
representations. Why are we so restrictive on that?
Chair: Can we just tack on two questions
so you can answer them all at once?
Alison Seabeck: We heard evidence on
that very issue about whether or not there should be continuity
for councillors in terms of their representation on quasi-judicial
bodies. Can you respond to that in the light of the fact that
neither councillors nor MPs can make representations?
Q119 Chair: I think that is a question
for Mr Woolas, which is about the various different quasi-judicial
panels which local authorities run: planning, hackney carriage
licensing and this. Given that they are all three quasi judicial,
it would be helpful if what was expected of councillors in the
way they behave was the same on all three.
James Purnell: In terms of limits,
the reason for originally having a limit was that previously public
entertainment licensing was done by very large committees and
that had caused practical problems of getting people together
and the level of training that people had had. It was therefore
thought better to have a limit of 10 to 15, which would mean they
would all be properly trained and it would be easy to get committees
from that. In retrospect it may be that limit was unnecessary.
What some local authorities, though not all, have done is to train
up a wider pool and then substitute licensing committee members
in when people are not available, when they go on holiday. As
Audrey Lewis was saying to you earlier, that is now less of an
issue going forward because that limit was only really a very
practical issue during this high peak of work over the summer.
I should just like to reiterate that we completely recognise that
it has been a significant amount of work and we are very, very
grateful to the officers and the councillors who have undertaken
it. In terms of right to speak, councillors do have a right to
speak as long as they are making representations on behalf of
their constituents. We are happy to look at the issue of whether
councillors and MPs should have a right to make representations
on their own behalf without having representations from constituents.
| 
