Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has given a clear exposition of these two important sets of regulations. I was pleased to hear the news about the major insurance policy and the compensation fund. One can only hope that neither of those will be called upon too often once the practitioners begin their work.

Both sets of regulations are welcomed by this side of your Lordships' House. After consultation and adjustment they were given a fair wind in another place. The detail and comprehensive composition of the regulations is such as to allay reservations about the operation of these two bodies in relation to conveyancing and executry practice. It goes without saying, once one reads the detail of these two sets of regulations, that a great deal of hard work and thought has gone into their preparation. I am sure your Lordships' House would wish to put on record our thanks to all those involved in producing the final regulations which are now before us.

Only time will tell how efficient and effective these regulations will be in regulating the operations of these two bodies in serving the public and individual interest. The regulations are clear and easily understood. None of the practitioners who contravene the regulations will have much of an excuse if he says he could not understand the terminology of the regulations. We hope that they will be a valuable addition as regards the protection of the public and the individual. As I said earlier, this side of the House welcomes both sets of regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Executry Practitioners (Scotland) Regulations 1997

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have already spoken to these regulations. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dignity at Work Bill [H.L.]

6.22 p.m.

Report received.

3 Feb 1997 : Column 1488

Sundays (Dancing and Licensing) Bill [H.L.]

6.23 p.m.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Music and dancing on Sundays]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:


Page 1, leave out lines 9 and 10.

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 3 and to the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and I are attempting in our different ways to skin the same cat. That "cat" is the protection of residents' interests who may be affected by the operation of the establishments which are to be deregulated by this Bill.

The context of these amendments is a little different to that at Second Reading. Since then there has been an announcement by the Government, by way of a Written Answer, that there is to be a review of licensing hours, and in particular licensing procedures. As one who has made a rather inadequate attempt to grapple with licensing provisions in the current legislation, I shall certainly welcome some clarification of the complex provisions which we have to tackle. That review having been announced--prompted, according to the Government, by a substantial response to consultation on the extension of normal licensing hours from 11 p.m. to midnight--I am prompted to ask the Government whether they have considered postponing this deregulation in order to consider it in the context of that review? I am sure the Government have considered that, and I look forward to the Minister's comments on it. The licences are not identical but music and dancing licences are probably not a great deal of use in a commercial sense without a drinking licence.

As I have said, these amendments seek to protect residents who may suffer disturbance. I raised this point at Second Reading when I mentioned Kensington and Chelsea. The noble Viscount Lord Astor said:


    "That was an issue when this matter came up in relation to deregulation. The debate has moved on since then".--[Official Report, 15/1/97; col. 269.]
I accept the debate has moved on with regard to the consultation of those who may be affected by deregulation but not as regards the substantive issue. A number of Members of the Committee will have received the letter that I received from residents of one block in that borough. I believe their words would strike a chord with people who live near to clubs, discotheques and other such places in other parts of the country, particularly in city centres and no doubt most of all in London, although not exclusively so. The description in

3 Feb 1997 : Column 1489

the letter is vivid and it is worth repeating. I shall read a short extract to the Committee. The letter states that when premises are:


    "open for dancing and drinking until the early hours local residents who live nearby are disturbed by noise from patrons arriving and departing (especially the latter) due to shouting, car doors banging, car radios playing, squealing of taxi brakes etc. ... In addition the patrons of such establishments, who often do not have the well being of residents at heart"--
one can imagine that is not their first priority--


    "park in residents' parking bays, on zig-zag white lines, on double yellow lines, in residents' driveways, on pavements etc. Obstruction to passing traffic also occurs. This is not fanciful exaggeration--it actually does happen as surveys we have made show. Why do we as residents carry out such surveys?".
This is the thrust of my amendment. The letter continues:


    "We do so because the Council's Licensing Sub-Committee and the Magistrate's Liquor Licensing Courts are naturally cautious of accepting uncorroborated information. So we know what we are talking about".
What is difficult is to control the operation of these establishments, or perhaps more accurately the behaviour of the people who attend them. The establishments themselves cannot be held directly responsible for people behaving in an unneighbourly fashion when leaving the premises. It is the difficulty of enforcement that has led me to raise this matter again at Committee stage.

I would be the first to accept that the wording of my proposed amendments, which deal with special hours certificates, is quite possibly technically deficient and certainly may not go as far as I would like in terms of covering the issue. However, I think they at least provide a vehicle for raising a number of questions. I hope that either the noble Viscount or the Minister can respond to those questions.

Who is to take the lead in preparing licensing applications for the justices to consider? Who is expected to carry the principal responsibility for monitoring the introduction of the new Sunday licensing arrangements? What monitoring arrangements do the Government expect to be in place? What monitoring do the Government expect of the relationship between the liquor licence and the entertainments licence? The music and dancing licence is of no great commercial value without the liquor licence. What arrangements will there be for applicants to appeal against conditions placed on them, or against the refusal of a licence? Finally, do the Government intend to produce any form of guidance to local authorities and the police on these issues? At present the police are in the stronger position as regards the revocation of licences.

My amendments enable local authorities to have a role in the granting of licences and conditions surrounding licences in order to protect residents either before applications are granted or as a result of experience. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am happy that the debate on the Question that Clause 2 stand part is grouped with the amendment which the noble Baroness moved. I shall

3 Feb 1997 : Column 1490

not repeat the points she made. She put forward a strong case expressing the grave reservations of residents not only of Kensington and Chelsea but of a number of other areas about what will happen to their Sunday nights and early into Monday mornings if the provisions of the Bill go forward without amendment.

Members of the Committee will remember that the matter was exhaustively discussed when an attempt was made to introduce the provision under the delegated legislation powers. The measure was the subject of much evidence and comment by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. I do not believe that the concerns then expressed have been properly addressed.

In 1995 the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee considered the proposal was designed to have the same effect as this Bill. The committee received much evidence, including some from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. But it was not confined to London; the committee quoted evidence from Bolsover. It is a national and not just a London problem.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea vigorously opposed any extension of licensing for restaurants and night clubs on Sunday nights in order to protect its residents from late night disturbance. The promoters, those who support the Bill, thought that perhaps the council was making an unnecessary fuss. They expressed astonishment when told that within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea no less than 96 such establishments are currently licensed, most of which can be expected to apply for the licences for Sunday dancing and drinking. Many of these establishments are in the heart of quiet residential areas. In quoting from the letter she received, the noble Baroness vividly described the effect of the situation on residents.

The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee considered whether any protection for residents would be removed. The committee concluded that there should be explicit reference to the licensing justices' discretion to make special provisions for Sundays. It found the proposal unsatisfactory because it removed necessary protection for residents who at present are free from disturbance on Sunday nights.

Paragraph 54 of the fifteenth report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee states:


    "There can be no doubt that an extension of the permitted hours for public dancing and drinking on Sundays will have an adverse effect on residents. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea told us 'it will be the last straw for residents, particularly residents living very close to commercial premises. It is different if you are in Scarborough and all the premises are on the front. When residential accommodation is intermixed with commercial, then there is going to be a conflict'."
The position could not be spelt out more clearly. The report continues that,


    "the odds are stacked heavily against residents",
when dealing with nuisance arising from such establishments.

3 Feb 1997 : Column 1491

At paragraph 57 the report states:


    "The Committee considers that, while the issues of dancing and late night drinking have to be considered separately"--
I shall come to that issue in a moment--


    "there is a cumulative effect on local residents which cannot be overlooked. This will be particularly true in those areas where residential accommodation is mixed in with licensed premises".
I do not believe that those who seek this measure of deregulation have yet taken on board the serious situation as regards dance halls and clubs which are close to residential establishments.

The noble Baroness may be right in saying that a permit for dancing is not of much use without a licence for the consumption of alcohol. The notice to strike out Clause 2 applies only to the alcohol licensing provisions. I am indebted to the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association Limited for a letter which points out, as perhaps one should have known, that a public entertainment licence granted by a local authority is renewable annually. Therefore there is an opportunity every year for residents to make their views known forcefully to the local authority in the hope that a licence will not be renewed. The letter states, I think a little inaccurately, that,


    "Similar considerations apply to liquor licences: licensing justices have very wide discretion on granting, renewing or revoking these licences, and may attach whatever conditions they see fit. These licences must be renewed every three years".
Therefore the opportunity for residents to make a fuss arises only every three years.

When these points were raised at Second Reading, my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated that it is open to residents to raise their anxieties at any time. But they should not have to do so. It takes a great deal of organisation, pressure, and repeated representations to the police, local authorities, licensing magistrates and anyone who may have an influence, before licensing justices will be persuaded to revoke or modify a licence they have given. I do not believe that Parliament should impose that obligation on local residents. Parliament may well have the power to insert conditions which will bring those issues to the attention of the licensing magistrates at the time when they award the licence.

I have studied carefully the noble Baroness's amendment; she has not claimed too much for it. I am not sure that her provision is the right answer. I am not clear what the right answer is. That is why I have given notice to oppose Clause 2 rather than putting down an amendment. We have a few days before Report stage of the Bill. I have indicated to my noble friend Lord Astor and my noble friend on the Front Bench that I do not propose to divide the Committee today on Clause 2. However, I shall require to be satisfied at Report stage that proper provision has been made to protect residents in the circumstances which the Bill sets out.

I am a strong supporter of deregulation for Sundays. I do not quarrel with dancing; perhaps dancing without drinking would not get far. But a combination of dancing and drinking on the one quiet night of the week, going on after midnight and perhaps up until 2 a.m., is intolerable. Under the Bill, that will be permitted and

3 Feb 1997 : Column 1492

the licensing justices are given no indication that it should be strictly controlled. I have every sympathy with those who feel that this should not be allowed.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page