| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As this is Committee stage, perhaps I may come back on one point that I do not feel has been dealt with adequately. I want to emphasise again that the real difficulty is in the first application for the licence. That is when whoever is granting the licence is not in a position to substantiate residents' objections. The residents have to suffer the nuisance before they can convince anyone that it exists. By that time there has usually been a large expenditure on the premises in order, for instance, to satisfy people that the premises comply with fire and safety regulations. The money that has been put into the building is used as a further argument against the residents as to why the licence should not be taken away; that is, because one is taking away people's livelihoods.
There should be something in the Bill which provides that, if people are going to go ahead and open these night clubs in areas which are not suitable and where residents will eventually succeed in their opposition, there will be no fear of moral blackmail simply because money has been spent in setting up the system.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may respond briefly to my noble friend. I do not see the scenario of a night club buying premises and opening up just to operate on a Sunday. We are talking about night clubs in the industry that wish to extend their business to Sundays. As a result, the licensing authorities and the justices will have a comprehensive knowledge of those night clubs, existing licensing conditions and whether complaints have been made against them. Therefore it is not exactly as my noble friend pointed out; but I take the general thrust of the point she made.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that reply; there is a lot of sense in it. The only point I would make is that it is still a factor if one is setting up a new club to operate seven days a week rather than six.
Viscount Brentford: Perhaps I may briefly emphasise the two points made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. We should examine the possibility of including both those measures in the legislation. I strongly endorse his two points.
Baroness Hamwee: The proposals made by the noble Viscount are extremely welcome. I shall be happy to be a part of any consideration on how to take the matter forward. I share with most, if not all Members of the Committee this evening, a wish to see deregulation as wide as it reasonably can be but in a proper context.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, put his finger on the nub of the issue, which was taken up by other Members of the Committee. The issue is much wider than simply what is right for Sundays. The examples quoted tonight come out of experiences
throughout the week. I was sorry to hear the Minister say that the review is with regard to Friday and Saturdays night only, as I had read the Answer to the Written Question. The Question was about the review of Friday and Saturday nights. The Answer seemed to broaden the matter and accept that there are problems through all seven days. It is the way the procedures work rather than the night of the week that is at issue.What this seems to boil down to is the converse of what we so often say. We normally say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Here we have identified that it is "broke", or at least limping along not very well. A lot needs fixing, and more than what we can address in the context of the Bill.
Finally, before I withdraw my amendment, as I recognise it is less than perfect, I asked a number of detailed questions. I wonder whether the Minister will be good enough to write to me following today's debate. I see that he has agreed to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause--
(". Schedule (Rights of workers as regards Sunday working) to this Act shall have effect").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 4, which is not identified as such on the Marshalled List but is the new schedule proposed after Clause 3.
The issues addressed in the amendment concern the protection of employees in the industry. I too had an extremely helpful meeting with the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association. I told the association that I would not be able to resist quoting from the code of conduct which it has drawn up. In quoting it, and teasing the association a little about it, I accept entirely the good faith with which it has been done. However, the Committee may enjoy, as I did, the notion that compensation to be awarded by an arbitrator under the code in certain circumstances will be such an amount as is "just equitable". The Committee may feel that quite often compensation is awarded which is only just equitable.
The code has been accepted by many in the industry. I understand that the association represents some 69 per cent. of the industry based on employment and turnover. Though there is a code of practice which that 69 per cent. will apply, what about the other 31 per cent.? What about the protection of the minority--those people who will not be entirely happy to be faced with the prospect of working on Sunday? I accept what the association has told me that many of the staff who work in clubs will welcome the flexibility of being able to work on different nights of the week. However, a question has not been answered: why is there not statutory protection for those--it may be a few--who work within the industry? Should existing
I have based the amendments entirely on the Sunday Trading Act, which seemed to be the easiest way of writing a rather long schedule into the Bill. I have shamelessly plagiarised that Act. Although the concerns may in terms of numbers be more limited than when we were discussing the rights of people who work in the retail trade, I am nevertheless concerned that the staff in question should not be ignored or sidelined because they are a smaller group and because there is a code of conduct which, as it is not statutory, cannot have the same effect. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have a later draft of the code of conduct than the noble Baroness. My copy says "just and equitable" in the circumstances, so I think the association has picked up on her teasing. It goes on to say:
- "The award shall be capped at limits set by the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association but presently the maximum shall be £8,000".
Viscount Brentford: I wish to support what has been said and in doing so thank my noble friend Lord Astor for kindly sending me a copy of the code of conduct. I believe that the statutory basis is right and proper. I accept that it is better than nothing, but I do not hold out very much hope for it being thoroughly effective in the light of the Sunday trading examples that have come to my attention.
I accept also that we are in a very different position here as opposed to Sunday trading. While I was almost persuaded that the whole Bill is excellent when my noble friend Lord Astor said in his Second Reading speech that up to 3,000 new jobs would arise from it, I now understand from the association that what that means is that there will be an addition of up to 3,000 in the pool of people for these evening jobs. They are mostly students or people who already have a daytime job. So the Bill does not improve the unemployment scene as much as I had originally anticipated. Therefore, the problems of employment are very much smaller than they were in the Sunday trading situation.
There are many good points in the code of conduct. I hope that many aspects of it will continue to be operative even if we accept the amendments, as I trust we will. Other points not included in the Sunday trading employment clauses would be helpful in this situation. Presumably the code of conduct would not be binding on all those other clubs, as the noble Baroness said. BEDA told me that it has 730 members out of the 1800 clubs. Therefore, it represents a large number of clubs.
I have already made the point to BEDA that I should like to see the arbitration procedure, which it has admirably planned to be informal, permit the employee to bring a friend with him or her. A diffident employee might stand very little chance in negotiations against an experienced club manager. On the whole, I support the amendments.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page