| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does "before too long" mean before the Bill leaves this House?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I shall come later to the point about the circular and the Bill. I am referring to the health and safety factors, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred.
The drug action teams set up under the Government's drugs strategy also have an important role to play in all this. The teams have been developing close working relationships with a range of voluntary agencies, community groups and other interested parties in tackling drug misuse locally. Many of the teams' action plans feature combating the menace of drugs to young people high on their list of priorities. We believe the teams are well placed to encourage partnership and co-ordination between local authorities, the police and the club owners and promoters.
Noble Lords have referred to our attitude towards written cautions. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate for the legislation to require local authorities to issue a written caution before they can take action. Where problems arise with public entertainment licences, there is already a great deal of dialogue between local authorities and licence holders. It is unlikely that, in the case of serious drug misuse, there would not have been prior contact with both local authorities and the police. The Bill is also intended to allow local authorities to take immediate action in extreme circumstances. We do not think that it is sensible to complicate such courtesies by specifically providing for a written caution.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned formal hearings. Although the existing legislation does not require them to do so, most local authorities already hold such hearings before deciding to revoke or to refuse to renew a licence. We expect that in the interests of natural justice local authorities will wish to continue to do that in the majority of cases. This matter will also be dealt with in the proposed Home Office guidance. The Bill already provides for an application to make representations and for them to be considered within 21 days of any decision on revocation or non-renewal. A statutory requirement for a formal hearing is unlikely to add anything in most cases and could delay urgent action in those instances where it was considered essential.
All noble Lords remarked on the guidance circular to local authorities. It is not yet available in draft form. It will be issued following the consultation which I gather is ongoing with the local authority associations, the
police and the trade. I am told that it may not be possible to have the guidance in draft form in the time available to us before the Bill passes through Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is very bad news. A number of noble Lords have said how important it is that we should know the Government's thoughts on this. Perhaps I may make a constructive suggestion. Consultation takes place by a document being sent out to the organisations concerned. They take their time in sending it back. The Government then collate all the responses. Could not the Government urgently now convene a meeting of the local authority associations, trade associations and the police within, say, the next couple of weeks, get their responses to the draft and then come to the House?
Lord Meston: My Lords, I support the noble Lord's last observation. The concerns which have been expressed about the Bill relate to the procedures. Those concerns may well be covered adequately by the guidance, but it is important, particularly for those of us who want to decide how to proceed further with the Bill and whether to table amendments, to have the guidance (at least in draft form) available to us at a very early date, preferably before the next stage. That is absolutely vital.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I realise that the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Meston, are constructive and that they both support the Bill. I shall, of course, take away everything that has been said and consult officials at the Home Office to see how near we are to being able to produce the circular in draft form. The areas that we shall be considering in the draft guidance and circular include liaison between the police and the clubs, security and safety features, particular drugs problems and effective communication between the various bodies. The police must contact the club about any perceived problem before the stage of bringing in the local authority.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater referred to young people. This Bill is not intended to stop young people enjoying themselves by closing down the clubs where so many go to enjoy themselves. The Bill is designed to deal with the worst situations when clubs cannot or will not take effective action.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned Scotland. I understand that the arrangements in Scotland are different from, but complementary to, those in England and Wales.
Other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord McIntosh, asked whether we would be introducing statutory registration schemes for door supervisors. Door supervisors, or "bouncers", in clubs are known to be a greater problem in some areas than in others. There is no evidence of a simple national problem which could justify the introduction of statutory registration. Our policy of encouraging local voluntary registration schemes was endorsed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It recommended the introduction of guidance on best practice for the setting
up of such schemes and that the expansion and effectiveness of such schemes should be monitored before national legislation is considered.The noble Lord, Lord Meston, was concerned about the power to allow the licence to remain in force temporarily. As my noble friend mentioned, that is not possible where the local authority revokes the licence, but if the revocation is ordered by a magistrates' court, the court has a power to order that the licence remains in force while an appeal is brought.
The noble Lord also mentioned a number of technical points which have also been raised by the industry. We are considering them at the moment. I refer particularly to special hours certificates and to the time allowed for appeal.
The Bill and the code should be complementary. We intend to present them as such. The police support and encourage the health and safety messages that are given out in clubs. Although I have answered a number of questions, I have probably left some outstanding and I hope that my noble friend will deal with them. However, if any points remain unanswered, we shall write to noble Lords.
In conclusion, I repeat that the Government's view is that this Bill closes a serious loophole and makes an important contribution towards protecting our young people from the menace of drug misuse. I commend it to your Lordships.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him--because so many noble Lords have mentioned this point--about the definition of "serious". How serious is "serious"?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend will deal with that point.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for answering so many questions and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate with such good will. I take all of their contributions in the spirit in which they were made--to produce the best possible Bill. I hope that their support will continue so that this Bill can pass into law as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to one particular definition. I am not a lawyer but a magistrate, and I tread very warily. One intriguing rule of this House is that I cannot refer to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, as the noble and learned Lord, although I know that he is learned in the law. For that reason I am even more careful about what I say. As to the definition of "serious", whether or not such a problem is serious will be determined in each and every case. Although that sounds very woolly, in a more down to earth and perhaps flippant way what may appear to me to be a serious drug problem may not be a serious problem to someone like Liam Gallagher. It may not appear to the police to be serious. The police deal with clubs day in and day out and they will be aware of what constitutes
a serious problem with drugs in the context of the dance and youth scene. I believe that, as each and every incident arises, what constitutes "serious" must be decided upon. In addition, as in other areas case law will be built up from which one will gain a better idea of what "serious" means in the context of the Bill.Questions were raised in regard to the phrase "at or nearby". I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who referred to the underlying purposive definition. I believe that that sums up the intention very well. I do not believe that a definition based on distance would be helpful. Anyone who was unscrupulous would immediately be able to get round the Bill simply by setting up shop with his drugs just a few centimetres beyond the distance defined in the Bill. There is another important consideration in relation to "nearby". If the police have identified a serious problem in a nightclub or dance club and they know that people are being kept out of the particular establishment by very efficient doorkeepers, and therefore people have set up shop nearby, the Bill will give the police the opportunity to take strong action against the club. But that will occur only if the local authority is satisfied on the evidence it is given that taking action against the club will assist in solving the problem. It cannot simply take action against the club unless it feels that it will stop the drug peddling next door. It must be satisfied that the problem will be eased or solved by closing it down or adding to or changing the conditions of the licence. Although the word "draconian" has rightly been used by my noble friend, this measure will be used only in very narrow circumstances and after a good number of precautions have been taken along the way.
A particular concern voiced by a group of operators was that "pernicious" local authorities and police authorities could act to close down clubs. Under the Bill, to close down a club, first, the police must establish that there is a serious problem and must have evidence to prove that to the local authority. Secondly, the local authority separately must arrive at a proper decision that there are grounds to take action under the Bill. I do not believe that in a democracy it is likely that a police authority and local authority will be engaged in some kind of conspiracy. In this House there are noble Lords with experience of how local authorities work, and they will know that that is not how they proceed.
References were made to one or two other legal definitions. As a layman, I will attempt to deal with them. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, expressed worry about whether people would be presumed to be guilty from the start. He did not want to lose the old presumption that a person was innocent until proved guilty. However, this Bill provides that at the very first instance the police must present their evidence to the local authority. There is no closure, revocation or change of any conditions until the local authority has considered that evidence and made a decision. One knows that that is the situation before other tribunals outwith the magisterial and Crown Court system.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also referred to the worry that unscrupulous traders in drugs could plant drugs in premises. In that way they could get their rivals closed down. That view has been expressed by some operators. However, on the basis of discussions before
coming to this House I believe that the police have such day-to-day knowledge of clubs on their patch that they will have a pretty good idea, if they are carrying out their duties properly--as I believe they are--which clubs have rivals and which clubs already have a problem. Although that practice may exist, I do not believe it is one that will prejudice the intent of this Bill or its practical effect.
Mention was also made of the risk of local authorities having to pay compensation if they revoked a licence and thereby the club owner lost his business, and subsequently the licence was reinstated because the local authority was found to be in error. My understanding of the law is that the local authority would be liable to pay such compensation only if it could be shown that it had acted maliciously and negligently. I believe that if the local authority follows carefully a code of practice as to how to weigh up evidence and carry out the procedures, it should not find itself liable to pay such compensation.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page