Paul
Holmes: Amendment 245 would tackle the same issue to which
the hon. Member for Hornchurch just referred: permitted conditions and
the restrictions that they impose on the flexibility—the
democratic, local accountability—of a local authority. Why
should the Bill state that the only conditions applicable are those
permitted by the Government in London, rather than those that the local
authority believes to be appropriate? In the vast majority of cases,
local licensing authorities will work from the same hymn sheet, from
good practice nationally and from guidelines produced by the
Government; but local circumstances and views could well differ. By
removing “permitted,” the amendment would give local
authorities the flexibility to represent their communities and to do
what they think is best for their local
areas.
Mr.
Campbell: The hon. Member for Hornchurch asked how the
proposals would fit with alcohol disorder zones, and, as I tried to
point out earlier, they are significantly different from those zones.
We do not rule out the possibility of an authority considering both
measures, but I cannot understand why they would want to do so. They
will want to choose one or the other or, indeed, one of the other
powers that are available to target the problem. Alcohol disorder zones
apply to a whole area, but that goes against the principle that we set
out in the Government amendments that would target particular premises
in a particular area by redefining locality. One of the main reasons to
set up alcohol disorder zones is to raise money for enforcement in that
area, and the Government do not believe that general licensing
conditions should be a way of raising money
in an area, so we are talking about two different situations. I should
be surprised if anyone found a way or, indeed, a reason for introducing
alcohol disorder zones along with the measures under
discussion.
The hon.
Gentleman also raised the question of evidence of nuisance. Let me be
honest with him: we will introduce in secondary legislation proposals
setting out the process to which he referred, and we will consult on
it. But, in any regard, a licensing authority would have to be
convinced of the evidence that was put before it—whether it
would allow the legislation to be enacted in that way; and we have
already said that there will be an appeals procedure, so if the
evidence does not exist it will become abundantly clear. Again, the
procedure will be set out in legislation, and we are working on
it.
James
Brokenshire: I accept what the Minister is saying about
working through the detail, and I appreciate that his views may not be
finalised, but would he envisage that in circumstances in which certain
conditions would be imposed through this route, the matter would be
referred to, for example, the licensing panel of the local authority?
It would normally decide on licences, reviews and conditions, and it
would be for it to judge, on the basis of evidence provided and any
other representations, whether the imposition of such conditions would
be
appropriate.
Mr.
Campbell: Those are precisely the issues that we will be
considering, because we want the legislation to be used properly and
effectively. I do not have answers to those questions for the hon.
Gentleman today, but I assure him that we are looking at them and want
to bring forward measures as soon as
possible. I
hope that I have dealt with amendment 44, which concerns financial
payments, by saying that this is not a revenue-generating measure. The
hon. Member for Chesterfield spoke about the balance between the local
and what looks like imposition from the centre. Yes, individual town
centres may have particular premises that are causing problems, but we
believe that there can be a cumulative effect in an area, and there is
also concern across the whole country about such premises and town
centres. It
is not unusual for particular towns to have these problems, so it is
important that we allow premises and groups of premises to be targeted,
but it is also important that we do not get variation across the
country. That would be the danger if we left this purely to
localities. There
are 377 licensing authorities. They operate significantly differently
and allow local application, but that can be a weakness when tackling
the issue across the country as a whole. There is a trade-off between
the locality and what we want to achieve across the country, which is
at the heart of the
argument. We
are not allowing licensing authorities to have an entirely free hand in
deciding which conditions they may impose on a group of premises.
Instead, they should choose from a nationally set list which will focus
on certain activities and help licensing authorities deal in a more
consistent way than at present with the cumulative effect of a number
of premises contributing to
harm. If
there is a particular problem in an area that would benefit from a
licensing condition that is not on the list that the Secretary of State
prescribes, the licensing
authority can impose a condition on an individual premises under
existing powers in the Licensing Act
2003. To
ensure that the licensing conditions that we allow licensing
authorities to use will be effective in dealing with groups of
premises, we are currently consulting with a wide range of stakeholders
and will conduct a wider consultation later this year. I hope that in
those brief and rushed remarks I have addressed the key parts of the
amendments.
Ms
Keeble: I assumed that it would be possible for a
condition to be imposed on either a shop or a shopping centre, for
example, bearing in mind that alcohol-related disorders do not have to
occur in a big area. There can be a big nuisance in a small area, even
a little shopping centre on an estate that has only a betting shop, an
off-licence, a post office—well, no longer—and a
newsagent. Would
a local authority be able to use the kind of powers that are set out
here to impose conditions on that type of off-licence or on-licence to
deal with alcohol-related
disorders?
Mr.
Campbell: My understanding is that they can already use
the 2003 Act to deal with one premises. We need to introduce these
measures to deal with groups of premises. Local authorities will be
able to identify a group of premises—they might not be next to
each other but in different parts of a locality, and contributing to a
perceived problem in the area—and impose a condition on them.
Currently, they are unable to impose a condition on a group basis under
the
Act. Amendment
130 agreed
to. Amendments
made: 131, in schedule 4, page 124,
line 17, leave out from ‘on’ to ‘or
disorder’ in line 29 and insert
‘two or more existing relevant premises
licences in its area if, in the case of each of the premises concerned,
it considers that— (a)
there has been nuisance to members of the public, or a section of the
public, or disorder, on or near the
premises, (b) the nuisance or
disorder is associated with the consumption of alcohol on the premises
or with the consumption of alcohol supplied on the
premises, (c) there is likely
to be a repetition of nuisance or disorder that is so associated,
and (d) it is appropriate to
impose the conditions for the purposes of mitigating or preventing the
nuisance’. 132,
in
schedule 4, page 124, line 33, leave
out ‘in the locality concerned’ and insert
‘to which the
resolution
applies’. 133,
in
schedule 4, page 124, line 40, leave
out ‘in a
locality’. 134,
in schedule 4, page 124, leave out lines 43
to
45. 135,
in
schedule 4, page 125, line 9, leave
out the words from first ‘the’ to
‘resolution’ in line 11 and insert
‘holders of the relevant premises licences
to which the resolution is to apply and the responsible authorities for
the premises concerned are consulted before
the’. 136,
in
schedule 4, page 126, line 31, leave
out ‘in particular localities’ and insert ‘for
existing certificates’.
137, in
schedule 4, page 126, line 33, leave
out from ‘on’ to ‘or disorder’ in line 45
and insert ‘two or more existing
relevant club premises certificates in its area if, in the case of each
of the premises concerned, it considers
that— (a) there has been
nuisance to members of the public, or a section of the public, or
disorder, on or near the
premises, (b) the nuisance or
disorder is associated with the consumption of alcohol on the premises
or with the consumption of alcohol supplied on the
premises, (c) there is likely
to be a repetition of nuisance or disorder that is so associated,
and (d) it is appropriate to
impose the conditions for the purposes of mitigating or preventing the
nuisance’. 138,
in
schedule 4, page 127, line 3, leave
out ‘in the locality concerned’ and insert
‘to which the
resolution
applies’. 139,
in
schedule 4, page 127, line 10, leave
out ‘in a
locality’. 140,
in schedule 4, page 127, leave out lines 13
to
15. 141,
in
schedule 4, page 127, line 25, leave
out the words from first ‘the’ to
‘resolution’ in line 27 and insert
‘holders of the relevant club premises
certificates to which the resolution is to apply and the responsible
authorities for the premises concerned are consulted before
the’.—(Mr. Alan
Campbell.) Question
proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to
the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider new
clause 6— Premises licences: authorised persons, interested
parties and responsible
authorities— ‘(1) The
Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17) is amended as
follows. (2) After section
13(3)(d),
insert— “(e) a
member of— (i) the
licensing authority in whose area the premises are situated,
or (ii) any other licensing
authority if there are persons living in the area of that authority or
bodies in the area of that authority who fall within subsection
(3).’.
James
Brokenshire: Looking at the schedule in the
round—the desire to move to a mandatory condition requirement,
and the more localised conditions—the main issue that it seeks
to address is irresponsible drinking linked to irresponsible promotions
and certain other activities. I sympathise with the Government on the
need to address that issue, but the question is whether these
provisions are the most appropriate way to do that, and what
alternatives the Government explored before deciding on this route.
Before I get into that, I am interested to know how the proposals will
interlink and interrelate with the interesting partnership-based
approaches taking place around the
country. 2.30
pm I
will draw on two models that are being developed, which seem to be
making some ground and are being effective in the communities where
they are operating. They are dealing with irresponsible drinking and
cutting sales to those under age, and certainly one of them is
addressing the longer-term social and educational issues. The first is
the community alcohol project, which I am
sure the Minister knows. It was first piloted in St. Neots and is now
being piloted in other parts of the country, around Cambridgeshire and
elsewhere. It draws together trading standards, the police, the
education sector, and the on and off-trade to ensure consistent
messages for young people, and consistent enforcement and a greater
understanding of how the law should
operate. The
second model being put forward on a partnership or voluntary basis is
the use of business improvement districts in areas with many pubs,
clubs and off-licences—night-time economy—Broad street in
Birmingham, for example. I went to Kingston the other day to see the
BID in operation there. That model is very much part of trying to draw
together the responsible retailers—if I can put it like
that—and using them to put greater pressure on those that do not
act responsibly. It is not being developed in a rigid, regulatory
framework, but it is being used constructively. Some of the funding
that is being raised through the BID structure is being invested in
safety and the night-time economy—wardens, for
example. I
am interested to hear what the Minister thinks about his proposed
provisions, in the context of that very good work and those very good
ideas that are being developed around the country. I am concerned that
a rigid approach to licensing conditions could upset or undo some of
the good practice in certain parts of the country—I accept that
some of my examples are localised. I am concerned that such an approach
could undermine some of the good partnership working that has been
established and which certainly appears from initial evidence to be
making a difference by making some of those communities safer. It is
also addressing responsibility among retailers and getting to young
people and making them appreciate the volume of alcohol that they are
consuming and starting to deal with some of the other issues that we
touched on in previous debates. It would certainly be a retrograde step
if those initiatives and approaches were dissipated as a result of the
proposed change.
But why have
a mandatory code? The Minister will be aware that an alternative
proposal was set out which was the concept of co-regulation. In other
words, there would be a code of practice which off-licences and
on-licence holders would abide by and which would effectively become
part of the licence conditions. The licence conditions would state that
a licensee would undertake to abide by the terms of that code drawn up
between the industry and Government. It is a variant of what is
proposed here, but it certainly appears to give greater flexibility and
that stronger partnership working between business, Government and
local authorities by an alternative means.
Because it is
not statutory, such a code has certain flexibilities of modification
and involvement. Once we have certain statutory requirements in place
they are set in stone: we have to come back with statutory instruments
and changing it becomes quite formalistic. There are arguments about
whether that is appropriate, but it is an alternative model that has
been suggested as a means of setting the bar and the standards. Equally
it would ensure that compliance is operated and maintained by local
authorities, for example by way of licence review if the conditions or
the relevant code of practice or code of conduct are not complied
with.
That sense of
flexibility is what one gets as a driving force behind the proposals
before us today. The regulatory impact assessment states on page
10: “The
advantage of introducing a code of practice through this mechanism
rather than as a standalone Act of Parliament is
flexibility.” Well,
if flexibility is one of the driving forces behind one of the proposals
in the schedule, it would be interesting to hear why the Government
decided to reject the concept of co-regulation. It could be structured
in a way to provide flexibility, while setting appropriate standards
for the way that alcohol is marketed and promoted and the approach
taken by
licensees. The
other issue that I am still not certain about is why the conditions the
Government are suggesting, and the conditions that the regulatory
impact assessment seems to suggest may be introduced, are so focused on
the on-trade. It is all about the size of glasses that may be used in a
pub or a club. The provisions seem to be about the control of an
on-licence, but as we recognised, many of the problems also come from
the off-trade and the volume of alcohol that may be sold at one
particular time or how it is marketed. When we say that licensees will
comply with the terms of these conditions, is a balance being thought
through about the conditions that should apply to off-licences as well
as to on-licences?
We need to
recognise that the problems of alcohol-related disorder and alcohol
consumption are part of a more complex picture. We have this increasing
mix of alcohol consumed at home and alcohol consumed on licensed
premises such as a pub or a club. A lot of alcohol may be consumed even
before people reach the pub—the concept of pre-loading, and
increasingly post-loading when they get home. The Minister needs to be
cognisant of the fact that this is not simply about licensed premises
such as pubs and clubs. That may be where some of the problems exhibit
themselves, but the problems may be a consequence of indirect
activities linked to the off-trade rather than specifically the
on-trade. How does he envisage that this code of practice will operate
to ensure that an appropriate balance is
struck?
2.45
pm Similarly,
there has been some suggestion—I hinted at this during the
evidence session when I put a question to the Minister—regarding
what I think are good schemes: the Think 21 and, increasingly, the
Think 25 that the industry are now adopting. To ensure compliance on
under-age sales, businesses are saying that if someone looked younger
than a certain age, that person would need to provide some sort of
identification to assure that he or she was indeed over 18. That has
been developed by the industry, and is being rolled out more widely. I
support its adoption because it provides certain means, a safety net,
of ensuring that the 18 age requirement is met.
If the
Minister was tempted to mandate a condition on the industry to adopt a
Think 25 or Think 21 strategy, it would probably be incumbent on
trading standards departments to send people around who are 21 or
20—or look 20—to test that that approach is being taken.
If he did that, he would almost be indirectly setting a further age
verification requirement by the back door, so that if a business sold
alcohol to somebody who was over the statutory age of 18, but looked
under 21 or 25, it would be effectively breaking the law, the licensing
conditions and everything that go with it.
That approach
had been developed as a way of ensuring compliance with the 18 age
requirement. By seeking to set the approach as a condition, there is
more to it than appears at face value: whether mandating that age is
setting a further regulatory hurdle that will have to be tested and
complied with, and whether that is intended by virtue of putting good
practice as best practice. Mandating the approach as a condition would
bring some potential issues and
problems. Are
we thinking of just micro-managing the size of glasses? Is that what it
is all about? One gets a sense that that is the case when looking at
the regulatory impact assessment. I am not sure about the extent to
which a mandatory code would represent an intention to try to
micro-manage operations in that way, and I am interested to hear the
Minister’s view on that
issue. Equally,
there is the issue of the application to licensees more generally. One
concern that the Mayor of London has put forward in his briefing note
for the clause is that
“the mandatory
conditions will impose blanket regulations across the board, which will
not take account of local conditions. Mandatory conditions (without
exemption) that apply to village halls, or sports and members clubs
could impose a significant burden on
them.” The
Minister has introduced certain changes in other parts of the Bill to
deal with private premises, as they may be described, but the possible
unintended consequence of that is that he might set additional high
hurdles or restrictions on those sorts of outlets that may not be
appropriate. While I note that he is trying to reserve the approach of
saying that the conditions may apply to a specific class of licensees,
is that what he intends by that language, that certain places, such as
community halls, might fall outside the mandatory conditions in certain
circumstances? I do not know, and it will be interesting to hear from
him whether the language that has been adopted addresses
that. Clearly,
we have the potential regulatory burden, and one issue that was clearly
highlighted in the regulatory impact assessment is the potential costs
on businesses. I return to the statement in paragraph 19 of the
assessment:
“However,
we recognise that in the short run, there is the potential for
significant transitional costs including job losses and the closure of
small
businesses.” The
Minister is absolutely right that the statement that we had from the
British Beer and Pub Association during our evidence session was that
they could not say that the regulatory impact would close down all the
pubs, and that it was a more complex situation, but it is relevant that
even the regulatory impact assessment contemplates that businesses will
shut as a consequence of the legislation. That may not be about driving
out bad businesses, but about the regulatory position that has been put
in there. Good businesses that are complying with the law, being
responsible, and trying to adhere to what might be regarded as good
social responsibility practice, may be forced out because of the costs
and burdens being applied.
What
discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on the proposals? Has it expressed any
concerns about the application of the provisions? Equally, what
discussions has he had on licensing more generally with the Department
for—what is it called?—Communities
and—[ Hon. Members: “DCLG.”]
Yes, DCLG—but in fact the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport is
the Department I was looking for; there are so many different acronyms
for Departments now. DCMS’s review of the Licensing Act noted
concerns about the regulatory burdens and the flexibility within the
licensing arrangements, and said that more flexibility within the
existing licensing regime may be more appropriate. How is this
consistent with that and how does it fit
in? We have
touched in detail on the fettered discretion of local authorities
regarding the nature of the conditions and how the licensing review
fits into that. It is difficult to understand properly how it fits
together until the code is published, so our comments have to be
reserved until the final code is revealed and the consultation has been
completed. I still feel that we are debating in a vacuum,
notwithstanding the Minister’s assurance on the consultation,
because we do not know the end result—so we can debate some of
the principles, but as always the devil is in the detail.
I am
genuinely sorry that the hon. Member for Stourbridge cannot be here
this afternoon, and I understand why. Her proposal, new clause 6, has
merit and I am happy to speak in support of it. My understanding of the
new clause is that it would add councillors in local authorities to the
list of interested parties pursuant to the licensing regime. One real
frustration over the Licensing Act has been that local councillors have
not been able to object or make representations directly, because they
lived more than 100 m away from the relevant premises. The approach to
who can make representations in relation to a licence is restrictive,
which has been a problem.
| 
