Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Mr. Hall: The hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat. What is liberal about reducing licensing hours? Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He will accept that a crucial issue for a Liberal is rights. I believe fundamentally that a responsible drinker should have the opportunity and the right to drink when they choose to, but unfortunately that right must be set against another right—the right of people to be able to walk through the streets without the fear of being molested by irresponsible drinkers. We must get that balance right. There are opportunities for responsible drinkers to drink when they want to under existing legislation. If we go further with licensing hours, as is proposed, we shall further restrict the right of people to be able to walk in safety on the streets. Mr. Hall: I go part of the way with the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but my question was whether he wanted to reduce licensing hours further or to keep them as they are? Mr. Foster: The prayer that we support suggests that we should not implement the current Government proposals to extend licensing hours and to increase the availability of alcohol. We have not signed and do not support a proposal to reduce the availability of alcohol. In other words, we agree with the hon. Gentleman on that matter. There is international evidence against what the Government are doing, but there are also many people in this country who know about these matters and who oppose the Government proposals. We heard the debate on Monday. I shall not repeat all the quotes from it. We know that judges and health experts are unhappy. We know that local authorities are unhappy, despite the fact that they are prayed in aid by the Minister and the Secretary of State. The LGA has referred to flaws inherent in the system and pointed out, rightly, that the one piece of armour that the Minister claims that the licensing legislation has to help with binge drinking—the creation of staggered closing times—is not and cannot be delivered by the Act. Many members of the police service are deeply concerned about the proposals. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, many people in the licensing industry itself are concerned about them. Opinion polls show that the public oppose them. I am not surprised that the police are concerned. My constituency of Bath has two universities. People can imagine what things are like
Labour Back Benchers are concerned. On Monday, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) had the courage to point out his deep reservations about longer licensing hours. On another occasion, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made it clear that he thought that the proposals were a leap in the dark. Today’s debate is to decide whether we should implement this deeply damaging legislation. In response, the Government have argued that, if we did not do so, we would create chaos in respect of licensing and enormous problems for the police because we would prevent them from going ahead with the wonderful new police powers in the legislation. Those arguments are total paper tigers. There will be no chaos if the Opposition parties succeed in preventing the implementation of the Licensing Act. Let us consider who is to blame for the current chaos. The Government are to blame because of their handling of the licensing legislation in the first place. The Act was passed in 2003. Then there was an 18-month silence while the Government did nothing. Then we had a welter of regulation, guidance and statutory instruments, many of which were introduced without the necessary full-length consultation period. Interestingly, even this order was laid while Parliament was in recess over the summer. We have only just finished the consultation on temporary event notices. We do not even know the details of the Government’s thinking on that, and the measure is due to come into force on 24 November. The Government are even responsible for the chaos that has occurred when people apply for licences. Who in their right mind would come up with a licence fee regime under which pubs can apply in February, but if they apply in August it works out cheaper because they do not have to renew their licence until the following August? Of course, anyone who runs a pub will apply in August. No wonder there was a deluge at the last minute, but it is of the Government’s own making. I hope the Minister will not accuse Opposition Members of being likely to create chaos, because the Government have already done so. The Minister will still say that there will be all sorts of problems with pubs, clubs and nightclubs not being able to open, but that is not true. All the existing licences will continue. As a result of decisions that were made in February 2004, the licences will continue until February 2007, so there will not be a problem with existing licences in the short term at least. The Minister will tell us that the magistrates will be in huge difficulty if they have to go back to dealing with the issue. I give credit to the Minister. He sent me a letter the other day, for which I was extremely grateful,
However, the Minister’s letter said that there will be a problem at Christmas because the magistrates will have to consider thousands of applications—I think the figure is 400,000; I have it in my notes but I do not want to read from them. Has the Minister checked that? Has he done the research that I have done and found out what pubs and clubs have been doing in the past 18 months in relation to applications for extensions over periods such as St. Patrick’s day and Easter? The reality is that a very large number have already applied for their Christmas extensions, because they could do so in a block, as they were advised to do by the magistrates, who said, “We don’t know when the second named day will be, so we recommend that you apply now for your Christmas extensions.” The Minister will find that the problem he described, which he said is not insurmountable even with the figures he was quoting, is definitely surmountable in the view of the magistrates whom we talked to. However, I accept that it is possible that the Minister could still find a little area where he will say that there will be a bit of a problem. It is perfectly possible to solve it. A short clause Bill could deal with everything very simply. With good will on both sides, it could get through both Houses in 24 hours, as has been done in the past. Even if there is a problem, and I do not think that there is, there is a clear solution to it. There will not be administrative chaos. People can cope. The Minister said that there will be problems in relation to the police, who are desperately keen to have these new and wonderful powers, and if the proposal does not go ahead, they will not be able to have them. The truth is rather different. Some of the increased police powers, which the Minister will be aware of because they were passed in a statutory instrument, have already been introduced. We did not have to wait for the second named day. I refer him to sections 155 and 199 of the Licensing Act, which introduced greater powers for the confiscation of alcohol from young people two years ago. There are other powers in relation to the immediate closure of establishments for 24 hours if there is violence, or if it is perceived that there is a potential for violence. As the Minister knows, that power exists already under the Licensing Act 1964 and it was amended and extended in the 2003 Act. I grant the Minister that there is a modest extension of that proposal, especially in relation to private clubs. Private clubs are interesting. The Labour party seems desperately keen not to apply the smoking ban to them because they are mainly Labour clubs in various parts of the country. Perhaps we should say about the order, “Let’s let the private clubs off the hook. It doesn’t matter about them.” But there is no evidence that they are the ones that cause problems and which are likely to need these powers. However, even if they do, a short
There is a more fundamental point. There is little point in adding new powers to the arsenal of the police if they are not even using their existing powers. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire referred to a power that exists to prosecute landlords who sell alcohol to people who are already drunk. Under that power, there have been an average of 11 prosecutions a year throughout the entire UK. The power was extended in 2001 to allow anyone—not just landlords—who sells alcohol to someone who is drunk to be prosecuted. There has been only one attempted prosecution under that extended power since it was introduced, and it failed. We should be using existing police powers more. I accept that the ability to review licences more quickly is a valuable power, and a short clause Bill would enable us to do that. I will not comment on the situation in Scotland, but I hope that if the Minister mentions that he will give me a right to reply. The Secretary of State alleged that Opposition parties had not offered a single constructive alternative on how to tackle binge drinking. That is an unfair accusation, and I want to put it firmly on the record that I have a 10-point plan for the Minister. I will only mention its headlines. There should be greater local decision-making powers so that local people can get truly involved in decision making. There should be proper saturation policies, so that we do not have this legal quagmire, as the current arrangements are described. The problem of the polluter pays should be sorted out, so that nightclubs as well as large pubs have to pay the extra. Also, give us some benchmark statistics, so that we can compare like with like in respect of whether new legislation works. The Government should do something in respect of their commitment in the White Paper and in legislation to establish a national register of personal licence holders—they promised to do that, but have done nothing about it. They should also spend more money on alcohol education and alcohol treatment services. It is worth reflecting on the fact that twice as many people are affected by alcohol problems as by drug and prescribed drug problems, yet the alcohol education treatment support budget is 10 times less than that for drugs. More should be done to promote responsible drinking. I welcome what the British Beer and Pub Association has done in getting its members to agree to end happy hours and so forth. Ms Smith: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about alcohol-related problems, particularly in respect of young people. However, does he not agree that his party’s policy of reducing the age of sale of alcohol to 16 is contrary to the views he has just expressed? Mr. Foster: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave on Monday. I hope that she will check the record. I have made it clear what the Liberal Democrat policy is. She will not find anything like what she has said in our manifesto, but I issued a press statement well
I want to finish. Responsible drinks promotion is important. We also ought to look at soft drinks pricing. It is ludicrous that in some of our pubs it is more expensive to buy a soft drink than it is to buy an alcoholic drink. We need to get some clearer advice. I hope that the Minister will agree to talk to the Office of Fair Trading about its guidance on whether local authorities can set a minimum drinks pricing policy for their area. The OFT advice on that is confused. Councils do not know where they stand, but some want to take that step and it may be part of their armoury. I advise the Minister to look at that. Let us also have mandatory unit labelling on alcoholic drinks. That is my 10-point plan. Of course, there are additional police powers in the legislation and I have suggested how they can be brought forward. Were we to go ahead today with the licensing legislation, I believe that it would make the problems of binge drinking worse, not better. There is no evidence that if we were to stop the process now it would cause chaos for the administration of existing licences or a problem for the police. The Government’s argument simply does not stack up. I desperately hope that in this place they will agree. If not, I hope that they will at least have the courage to allow debate to take place in another place, where I am confident they will be defeated, and rightly so. 3.21 pmAndrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): I shall be brief, because many hon. Members from all parties wish to speak. I will quote from a near neighbour to a pub in Leighton Buzzard in my constituency, which is about to get an extension to 1.30 am from Monday to Thursday and to 2 am on Friday and Saturday. The resident said:
I could give the Minister similar quotes about a number of other pubs from my constituents who are genuinely concerned about applications to extend
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman noted the comments of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in a piece about the Licensing Bill in the Oxford Journal on 18 February 2003. He said:
Has the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) examined, together with his local authority, what the new powers involve in terms of stamping down on that public nuisance? If not, will he perhaps do so, in the interests of his constituents, so that he can work with them, as I will work with mine, to ensure that the new powers can be used? Andrew Selous: I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney. In the last part of that quote he said,
That is precisely the issue and things are not working under the current system. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that to close a pub using the powers in the Licensing Act 2003 it is necessary to provide evidence that the disruption was caused either within the pub or a short distance from it by someone who got drunk in it? How can the police conceivably do that when they have a lack of resources—the hon. Member for Bath (Don Foster) referred to that—and where there is a mass of people who may have been to any one of 10 or 15 pubs or clubs? Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Two ladies came to see me in my surgery just two weeks ago. They were concerned about a pub in Dunstable, which is to get an extension to 1.30 am from Monday to Thursday and to 3.30 am on Saturday and Sunday. They said to me that the landlord
Often, when they ring the environmental health officer, he or she must travel from Bedford to Dunstable and does not get there in time. Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Andrew Selous: I have given way once to the hon. Lady. I want to finish making this point. The current laws and the enforcement system are not working properly. On the one hand, people complain about the behaviour of publicans and people who frequent pubs for which extensions are being granted. On the other hand, many other people do not complain about the noise. Column Number: 17 Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Member give way? Andrew Selous: In a moment. Other people do not complain about noise at 11 o’clock because they have learnt to live with it. They may not like it; if there is disorder, they think that not much can be done. Local authorities should not be able to say, “We have had no complaints, so we will grant these extensions late into the night, which is tough for working people who have to get up early the next morning.” Linda Gilroy: Has the hon. Gentleman discussed with his local environmental services department how the new arrangements can be used more effectively than the existing ones? That is precisely why my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues are introducing those measures. Andrew Selous: Not half an hour ago I was on the telephone to the officers responsible at South Bedfordshire district council. They share my concern. They told me that the guidance is very prescribed and in many cases ties the hands of the councillors concerned; they feel duty-bound not to object to the applications that have been submitted. Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con): On the powers that do or do not exist under the 2003 Act, several residents in my local authority have complained about the potential for a pub beside them to be open until 2 am, only to be told that, under the Act, their complaints that they will hear car doors closing, as they do already, that there will be huge disruption, that they work early and so on, cannot be taken into account. The reason given seems to be that their concerns are based on speculation. I ask you, Mr. Cummings— The Chairman: Order. Do not ask me. Keep your comments brief, please. Grant Shapps: I apologise, Mr Cummings. Through you, to the Minister— The Chairman: Order. Address your remarks to your hon. Friend. Grant Shapps: Yes. I am sure that he will address them. If these complaints cannot be taken into account, how are we supposed to stop disruption? The Act does not have the teeth, does it? Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely articulately, and I agree with what he says. What evidence does the Minister have that the police will have sufficient manpower to deal with problems between 2 am and 3.30 or 4 am in all affected areas? I have grave reservations. What discussions has he had with accident and emergency departments up and down the country? To a man and a woman, they would tell the Minister that they are most pressed late at night, when people come out of pubs and clubs. That is often a period of peak capacity for them, and I have serious concerns that they will have great difficulties coping with their shift rosters. Column Number: 18 The general principle is that we should not allow people to take their pleasure at the expense and distress of people who live close to the pubs and clubs concerned. I say to Labour Members that this should not be a party political issue. They should think hard about how they will vote in the Division that we will have. I ask them to think about some of their hon. Friends, who, having looked at the evidence in their constituencies and having listened to what people who live close to pubs and clubs tell them, have decided to vote against the order. The issue is not one of party politics, and I hope that Labour Members will consider the facts when they vote. Several hon. Members rose— The Chairman: Order. We have 30 minutes. I shall call the Minister to wind up at a quarter to four. 3.30 pmLinda Gilroy: To be fair, I think that all hon. Members share concern about binge drinking and antisocial behaviour and their effect on physical and mental health. That is not at issue, and I agree that it should not be a party political matter. Both on Monday in the Chamber and here this afternoon, references to the incidents taking place in our constituencies have been legion. We want to put those incidents back in the box and deal with them effectively. I understand Opposition Members’ concerns, but they are misplaced. I represent a Plymouth constituency with some of the most severe problems that there are; the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) knows that, as he shares those problems, to some extent. Indeed, my neighbours and I share them, too, and are seeking to address them. I have a pub at the back of my home. It is a plague to my neighbours and annoys me on some weekends, even through triple glazing. Things are already beginning to get better because of the new licensing arrangements. I asked the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) whether he had been in touch with his local environmental health department, and he clearly has, which is good. I have been following the legislation with close interest, as the Minister knows, and one of my main concerns is whether we will have the capacity to enforce some of the new provisions. Currently, noise nuisance is exceptionally difficult to deal with in legal terms. I did not understand how the legislation affects the environmental health people until I had a conversation with them. Justine Greening (Putney) (Con): Does the hon. Lady agree that a pub that used to shut at 11 or 11.20 at night, but now closes at 1.30 or even 2 o’clock in the morning—as happens on Putney high street—cannot possibly be less noisy than before? How can it be right that residents are left with the remedy of using noise nuisance techniques through the council environmental services office, when the noise was not there originally? How can it possibly be right that residents are on the back foot at licensing application meetings? They have to prove that the extension will be
Linda Gilroy: Obviously, I have been looking with intense interest at how we can use the new powers from a personal point of view, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of neighbours. Under the old legislation, in order to prove that there was a problem, it was necessary for noise measurement to take place in the flats affected. My understanding is that that will not be necessary under the new Act. All that will be required—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—is for complaints about noise nuisance associated with entertainment or a pub to be referred back to the council. If there is evidence from the police and other people, noise measurement will not be necessary. Proving noise nuisance will be much easier than it was, as the local authority now has the power to review the licence much more expeditiously. That is why I tell Opposition Members to look at what the Act can do, rather than at what it cannot do. Hon. Members should work with constituents over the next few months to do precisely that. I do believe that hon. Members have genuine concerns about the issue, but I hope that the Minister will confirm some of what I say. Those concerns are misplaced. In a sense, the Opposition are doing what they are there to do: they are looking for what is wrong, and to some extent that is blinding them to what is right in the legislation. The Licensing Act is part of a whole range of measures that the Government are bringing on-stream; that is a point that the hon. Member for Bath referred to, although he disagreed that they were sufficient. In Plymouth, the police have had experience of using their controls to shut down disorderly houses and use on-the-spot fines, and last year there were summer and Christmas campaigns. The new powers work if they are used constructively. Justine Greening: I thank the hon. Lady for her indulgence in allowing me to intervene again. Does she not agree that, given the limited resources of the police—in my own London borough of Wandsworth, there are fewer trained officers than there were in 1997—we should not put more burdens on them? Linda Gilroy: I take the point, which brings me to the two further points that I want to make before giving other Committee members an opportunity to speak. Certainly, the police and all of us as a community have to work together to address these issues, and that can happen in two ways under the new provisions. No doubt Opposition Members involved in the Bill will have taken a keen interest in the alcohol disorder zones. My understanding is that such zones will enable the police to say to licence holders in a street, community or area that they have eight weeks to put their house in order, and that if they do not, there will be a levy to pay for precisely the sort of help that the hon. Lady seeks. Column Number: 20 I conclude by saying that beyond that, we need to use the new arrangements to retrieve in cities such as mine the space hijacked by groups of people who come to binge drink in the evenings. To reclaim that space, there must be management of the evening and night-time economy. Last week in Plymouth, we set out to do that with a successful visioning event on how we could use the new powers, along with the plethora of other measures that the Government have put in place. This issue is just one piece, or a few pieces, of the jigsaw. We need to consider putting a range of other things into place, some of which hon. Members have referred to. I urge the Minister to adhere to the course on which he is set and I congratulate him on his willingness to review the issue in three months’ time. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested that that expressed a lack of confidence in the new arrangements. Far from it—I think that it expresses every confidence in them. 3.38 pm |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 28 October 2005 |