---

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 14, after ("police") insert ("stating").

The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 13, 14, 30, 31, 33 and 34. These amendments are designed to address the concern of club owners about the nature and weight of the evidence that the police have in proceeding to report a serious problem of drug misuse at or near a club.

We know that the club trade is seeking protection from the possibility that the police will go to the local authority with flimsy evidence. I believe that that is unlikely and that it is just as unlikely that a local

4 Mar 1997 : Column 1784

authority would then accept either inadequate evidence or mere assurances that the police have evidence. However, some additional provision can be made in this Bill. By providing through this amendment that a chief police officer must give his reasons for saying that there is a serious problem, we are requiring in effect that the police have evidence to support their case and supply a summary of that evidence to the local authority. In doing so, the strength of the police evidence can be clearly established at the outset. I beg to move.

Viscount Ullswater: I welcome this group of amendments which I believe assist with the task. I congratulate my noble friend on persuading the Home Office, following the very useful meeting which we had, and on coming forward with this amendment. I think it was with regard to our concerns that it has been moved and I believe that the amendment, as it stands, helps to identify why the police consider that the problem is serious because they have to give their reasons for it.

However, I cannot give it 10 out of 10 because it only does half the job. I should like it to go on and do the other half of the job and say why, for instance, the refusal of the transfer of the licence or revocation of the licence, depending on which section it goes into, will significantly assist in dealing with the problem. That seems to me to be the other half: we have the first part stating the reasons. That indicates the seriousness of the problem and I believe that it should go on and say why the action to be taken, the revocation of the licence, will significantly--which is another amendment coming up later--assist in dealing with the problem. I believe that it is an operational matter for the police and it is the judgment of the police that the local authority must be aware of before they try to make up their mind about whether the licence should be revoked or there is a refusal of transfer. So, whereas I cannot give my noble friend 10 out of 10, I thank her for this amendment; but I should like her to take matters a little further and I hope she may give some thought to that.

Lord Monson: I too welcome this amendment so far as it goes. But at the risk of sounding as if I am being carping, I have to point out to the noble Baroness that giving reasons is not the same as giving evidence--hard, solid evidence.

The Earl of Courtown: The Government's view is that these amendments deal with the club trade's concerns about what evidence the police would supply to the local authority to substantiate that there is a serious problem of drug supply or misuse. As regards the basis of the police evidence, I suggest that it is very unlikely that a Chief Officer of Police will make a report to the local authority on the basis of unsupported allegations by his officers. No doubt he will look to provide, and the local authority will expect, facts and figures about arrests, incidents of disorder or casualties from drug misuse, therefore requiring the chief officer to give his reasons for saying that there is a serious problem should clarify the issues for all concerned.

4 Mar 1997 : Column 1785

The Government fully support my noble friend's amendments. They are the first of several that address concerns expressed on behalf of the club trade and I hope they will be accepted by the Committee.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I note what has been said. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("and giving reasons for his view that there is such a problem.").

The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 3 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 16, at end insert--
("( ) A copy of any report from the chief officer of police received in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above shall be sent by the licensing authority to--
(a) the holder of the licence;
(b) in the case of an application for the transfer of the licence, the person to whom the licence would be transferred if the application has been granted; and
(c) the last known owner of the place.").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 4, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 15 and 18. These amendments are self-explanatory. I suggest they provide elementary fairness and commonsense in proposing that a copy of a police report should go to those most affected by it and it should go to them before the licensing authority considers its decision. Surely the licence holder is entitled to know what is said about and against him and what is said about the alleged problem. Surely also the authority should not consider the drastic action of revocation until after the licence holder has received a copy of the police report which is to be the basis of the decision which may be made about the licensed premises.

I also suggest that the last known owner of the premises is entitled to know what is said to be going on. He, the landlord, may have his own rights and remedies as well as his own legitimate interests to protect. It may be, following through the thinking behind the Bill, that a stick waved by the landlord may be just as effective as a stick threatened or waved by the police and the licensing authority.

It has already been suggested that my earlier amendments were seeking to water down the Bill. I deny that suggestion and indeed I have not sought, as certain outside bodies were seeking to persuade me to do, to introduce complex procedures as a preliminary to the exercise by the licensing authority of its powers under this Bill. The time limits provided for are not intended to be generous. It should enable swift action to be taken, but at least to be taken fairly. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: This group of amendments is very much less far reaching than our first group of amendments, as I am sure everybody will agree, and

4 Mar 1997 : Column 1786

I do not think anybody could seriously accuse them of being wrecking amendments. For that reason, I hope they can be accepted by the noble Baroness.

Viscount Ullswater: I only rise to support the concept that the owner should be included on the provision of any report. The guidance notes state that good practice should include this close liaison between the police and club owners and managers on the handling of drug related incidents. Also, the local authorities should inquire into the extent to which the owners have been made aware of the drug problem. I believe that this amendment, with the inclusion of the last known owner, makes certain that the owner, rather than necessarily the licence holder, is included in that notification. It is a very minor amendment and I hope that my noble friend may consider that the Government's objective of tackling drugs together could be well served by this.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: Some consideration has already been given to the content of the police report in such cases. The Home Office draft circular contains some guidance on the content and processing of the police report. It is not possible to anticipate in advance the range of circumstances that might amount to a serious problem and should be reported to the local authority. However, it is possible to conceive that the police might need to report to the local authority while an investigation is on-going and where suspects still have to be charged with offences. In these circumstances, the publication of sensitive information might well have operational implications for the police or indeed be prejudicial to the individuals involved.

With this in mind, I am opposed to any requirement for a detailed police report to be served on a licence holder. I suggest, however, that this issue could be examined in the course of consultations with the local authority associations, the police and the club trade on the draft circular as a whole to see what further guidance might be offered.

In addition, there is the question of delay which would be built in if the police report had to be served on a licence holder and the last known owner. This again would delay emergency action from being taken in the worst cases. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will agree not to press these amendments.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Baroness says every time that she hopes the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will not press his amendment; but it requires a more adequate explanation than the noble Baroness has just given. I can understand the point, but the first argument she deploys is: what happens if there is an on-going investigation? That is a problem. I assume it is not a problem raised by the police. The letter of the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, makes it quite clear that the Association of Chief Police Officers has not yet been asked to express their views on this matter. Therefore, this is not a police concern given the fact that the police have not yet been consulted according to the noble Earl.

Then the noble Baroness uses this argument which freezes the blood in my veins: the danger of delay. There can be certain circumstances when one is

4 Mar 1997 : Column 1787

investigating possible criminal offences when there are problems associated with delay. But we are talking here about the potential destruction of someone's business. Are they not entitled to some element of delay which enables them to understand why, in fact, it is being suggested that their business should be destroyed? I find it astonishing that while noble Lords opposite talk with great regularity about small businesses--and I agree with their views entirely--when it comes to a small businessman in this area, their interests are swept aside as being a matter of no account whatever.

I have already said once--I shall not boringly repeat it--that I very much hope that we shall address these issues in some form of informal discussions between this Committee stage and Report stage. Frankly, unless we try to reach some form of agreement on this matter, I fear that this measure, which in my view is potentially of quite considerable value, will perish and that would be a pity.

8.30 p.m.

The Earl of Courtown: I am sorry to have tried to interrupt the noble Lord earlier. I should like to make just one point, and my noble friend may have already mentioned it--I think I have in one of my speaking notes. The fact is that these measures will be used in exceptional circumstances. There will be a proved background of drug abuse--and more than drug abuse, drug peddling. We have to take that into account.

---