| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Meston: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having brought forward this amendment. It introduces a measure of clarity into the Bill that was lacking in the original draft.
The Earl of Courtown: As my noble friend said, these amendments respond to the suggestion that the licence holder could be disadvantaged by dating the appeal period from when representations are considered. This amendment would change that, to start the appeal period running from when the licence holder is notified of the decision taken by the local authority. The Government support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 26:
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 39.
It was brought to my attention that there was a difficulty with the Bill as it stands if, when a magistrates' court decided to revoke a licence after a conviction for breach of a licence condition, the person who lost his licence was not also the offender. An offender can already appeal against a sentence under Section 108 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980; but a licence holder who is not the offender would have to rely on the case stated procedure. This amendment establishes clearly the right of appeal of the licence holder in such circumstances from the decision by a magistrates' court to revoke a licence. I beg to move.
The Earl of Courtown: The Government support this amendment. It establishes the right of appeal to the Crown Court against the decision to revoke a licence by a magistrates' court after a conviction for breach of a licence condition in circumstances where the licence holder is not also the offender.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 27:
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 29. These amendments concern the impact of the Bill as presently drafted upon the special hours certificate.
The position, as explained at Second Reading, appears to be that, even if a licence under the provisions of the Bill is reinstated either pending appeal or as a result of appeal, it does not automatically revive the special hours certificate, for which there are separate procedures. I believe that was an oversight in the drafting of the Bill. It is for that reason that these amendments were tabled. I notice that they are grouped with Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which leads me to suspect that her amendments are probably better drafted than mine. Nevertheless, if we are all rowing in the same direction, I should be grateful to hear it. For the purposes of introducing the debate, I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: In responding to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in relation to his Amendments Nos. 27 and 29, I should also like to speak to my Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 to which he referred.
The difficulty with the Bill as it stands and as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was raised by the club trade. The difficulty was also brought to my attention by the justices' clerk to my own Bench in Woking. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, will know, when he tells me something I believe him--more or less, and certainly on this occasion. I recognise that in the event of a successful appeal, a club ought not to be penalised by a delay in re-obtaining its special hours certificate, which would have lapsed automatically with revocation or non-renewal of a public entertainments licence.
The amendments in my name rectify the position by enabling any special hours certificate to be reinstated in the instance where a licence is reinstated by a local authority following representations by the licence holder, and also in the event of a successful appeal against revocation in the courts. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will accept that my amendments deal adequately with the issue and will agree to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: Perhaps I may join the noble Baroness in deferring to the learned clerk of the North West Surrey Bench. I, too, therefore prefer the wording of Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 to that of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
The Earl of Courtown: My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have recognised that club owners whose appeals are successful will be disadvantaged if they then have to wait while their application for a special hours certificate is processed. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 rectify the position. They are supported by the Government.
Lord Meston: Sometimes it is very irritating that magistrates are so supine that they always do what their clerks tell them. However, on this occasion I am more than happy that at least two of the magistrates present
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 28:
The noble Lord said: This amendment takes up a point raised at Second Reading and draws attention to an apparent anomaly in the Bill. At Second Reading, the noble Earl confirmed that it was not possible that, where the local authority revokes a licence, the licence can be kept in being pending an appeal, albeit temporarily, but if the revocation is ordered by the magistrates' court, the court has power to order the licence to remain in force pending appeal. That does appear to be an anomaly. If the court may do it, why cannot a local authority do it, exercising a similar power with a similar right of appeal? It is common for there to be a provision for a stay pending appeal. That provision is discretionary; the stay is unlikely to be granted if the appeal appears to the authority or the court concerned to be absolutely hopeless. However, it deprives the licence holder of the opportunity to persuade the authority to keep the licence in being pending an appeal if the licence holder can give reassurances that he or she will do whatever is required of him or her to keep the business on the straight and narrow pending an appeal. The alternative may be that the fruits of his appeal are lost to him because, although he may win on his appeal, his business is gone. That must be a matter for discretion. I do not suggest that the discretion need be exercised generously, but it is an anomaly on the face of the Bill which I question seriously. For that reason, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: The thinking behind the amendment appears to be that there will be cases, perhaps on the margin, where, despite a local authority accepting that there is a serious problem relating to the supply and use of drugs at or near the premises and that the licence should be revoked, there may still be circumstances which would lead a local authority to let the club stay open pending the outcome of any appeal.
I cannot see why such a power could be useful or relevant in those circumstances. The Bill provides that if the authority decides to take action, it can either revoke the licence or impose terms, conditions or restrictions after satisfying itself that to do so will significantly assist in dealing with the problem. A local authority is convinced either that varying the terms and conditions and allowing the club to stay open is justified, or that the problem is so serious that the club should close forthwith.
The Earl of Courtown: The provisions of the Bill give the authority clear options, as stated by my noble friend. After hearing all the evidence, it may decide to take no action and impose terms and conditions or revoke the licence after satisfying itself that to do so will assist in dealing with the problem. If the step to revoke the licence is taken, that should be the end of the matter. We should avoid introducing further complications by allowing the option of letting a club stay open while it goes through the appeals process. I join my noble friend in asking the Committee to reject the amendment.
Page 2, line 46, at end insert--
("( ) in sub-paragraph (3) (appeals against decision of magistrates' court), after "under this paragraph" insert "or under paragraph 12(5) above";").
7.45 p.m.
Page 3, line 8, after ("licence") insert ("and any special hours certificate granted under section 77 of the Licensing Act 1964").
Page 3, line 12, at end insert--
("(7B) An authority which refuses to renew or revokes a licence under paragraph 6A or 11A above may order that the licence shall remain in force (subject to such terms, conditions and restrictions as may be imposed)--
(a) until the time for bringing an appeal against the refusal to renew or revocation has expired; and
(b) if such an appeal is duly brought, until the determination or abandonment of the appeal,
and if such an order is made any special hours certificate granted under section 77 of the Licensing Act 1964 shall also remain in force for the same period.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page