| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. The serious problem that drug misuse poses to young people is there for all to see. The Government want to see this Bill make progress and hope that these amendments will be accepted by the House.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I understand the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, and the point that such clubs are magnetic to drug pushers. The fact is that clubs are responsible for what goes on there and what goes into them through the front door. It is the responsibility of clubs to protect their customers from drug dealers at those points. However, they cannot be responsible for what goes on in areas outside the clubs over which they have no control. That is the responsibility of the police. It is not an answer simply to move the problem elsewhere by closing the club. I am grateful for the support and I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 2:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 11. We have discussed the status and content of the circular that is to be issued before these new powers come into effect. We have seen an early draft of the guidance and we have been given assurances that the key players involved--namely, the local authorities, the police and the club trade--will be consulted on the contents of the final version to be published before the new powers come into effect.
I hold firmly to the view that the circular should not be prescriptive. It should not be binding on local authorities because that would merely stifle the co-operation and development of local solutions to local problems, which must be the best way forward. However, I see merit in providing a marker in the Bill of advice that is available, particularly for those local authorities which have infrequent dealing with the club scene and in requiring the local authorities to have regard to it. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the amendment. In Committee, a great deal of attention was paid to the draft circular of guidance notes. Since then, matters have changed and they are already out of date. Of course, they will be further out of date after the passing of amendments here tonight.
However, I believe that without the amendment the guidance notes would have no status. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said in Committee, they do not even have the statutory status of the Highway Code. They should be given greater status on the face of the Bill.
The amendment recognises the fears expressed by many noble Lords and I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing it tonight. In Committee, I spent some time indicating how the guidance notes deal with the police report and the hearings, and how that will improve the consistent way in which local authorities should apply this legislation. I do not intend to repeat what I said at this late hour, but I would make one point. Perhaps the most important step is that the Home Office should undertake a further consultation process with the local authority associations, the Association of Chief Police Officers and representatives of the club trade so that the guidance note can be tightened up. That was recognised all around the Committee. Whether they should become more prescriptive can be dealt with in those consultations and I do not seek to comment on that now.
The British Entertainment and Discotheque Association, BEDA, has communicated its continued worries to me about the draft circular. Now is the time to address those worries and perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Courtown to assure the House that
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I echo what was said by the noble Viscount. I agree with him entirely. The measure is appropriate and I hope that the Minister will agree that the trade and all the other interests concerned should be consulted before the circular is issued, particularly in the light of the amendments that have been agreed.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the amendment. Guidance is genuinely needed. I wish to say more on the extent to which it is to be prescriptive in relation to Amendment No. 16.
I wish to emphasise the point that consultation is important. If I have learnt nothing else about the club trade as a result of this Bill, I have learnt that there is an extraordinarily large number of different trade organisations and associations, all with bewildering acronyms. I have no doubt that they would all wish to be consulted and quite properly they ought to be.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I assure all noble Lords who have raised the matter that the Government have given an undertaking to consult interested parties such as BEDA, the local authorities and other trade associations on the terms of the guidance to be issued in connection with those new powers. The final version of the circular will be issued before the new powers come into effect. Therefore, consultation will take place on the Bill as amended.
The Government fully support the noble Baroness's amendment and hope that it will be accepted by the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 3:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 4:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 5:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 6:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment replicates an amendment which I moved in Committee to draw attention to what appeared to be an anomaly on the face of the Bill which was explained by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, on Second Reading; namely, if the court revokes a licence, it has power to direct that a licence may remain in force pending appeal but a local authority, licensing authority or council does not have that same power. For that reason, I return to the matter now.
It is an anomaly. The noble Earl was kind enough to write to me on the subject and explain that the difference is that the courts are not empowered to impose or vary conditions of the licence in the same way as a licensing authority is empowered to do under the provisions of the Bill.
I understand that that difference exists, but I wonder whether it is a difference sufficient to justify that anomaly. For that reason, I bring the matter back and I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, finds it anomalous that the courts have the power to order that a club can stay open pending an appeal while local authorities are not similarly empowered. In fact, that power has been given to the courts to give them a degree of compatibility with the options already available to local authorities.
By now noble Lords will be familiar with the courses of action open to local authorities proposed in this Bill. First, the local authority has to apply the two-stage test of establishing that there is a serious drugs problem; and then, whether action by the authority will assist significantly in dealing with the problem.
After due consideration, a local authority may then decide that neither of the tests is satisfied and so take no further action. But at the other end of the scale, the local authority may decide that the nature and seriousness of the problem is such that the licence should be revoked. The licence holder then has established avenues of appeal to the courts which this Bill does not disturb in any way.
However, a local authority can opt to take a middle course. It might decide, perhaps on the basis of the representations made by the licence holder, that the drug problem can be addressed properly by, for example, changes in the management of the door staff or by the adoption of other security measures. In such cases, it may be sufficient simply to impose new terms or to vary existing conditions of the licence in order to assist significantly in dealing with the problem.
The courts are not empowered to impose or vary licence conditions in that way. Therefore, bearing in mind the sort of circumstances to which I referred earlier where a local authority might impose or vary conditions, I believe that it is right that the courts should be able to order that a licence should remain in force pending appeal.
Tacking on a further stage in a local authority's consideration of a case is unnecessary. I remain convinced that local authorities are more than capable of reaching a decision in the light of all the evidence and/or the options open to them at that stage. I hope that in the circumstances, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Page 2, line 8, at end insert--
("(6) The authority shall have regard in exercising their functions under this paragraph to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State."").
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("or near the place") and insert ("the place or at any place nearby which is controlled by the holder of the licence").
Page 2, line 33, at end insert--
("(5) The authority shall have regard in exercising their functions under this paragraph to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State."").
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("or near the place") and insert ("the place or at any place nearby which is controlled by the holder of the licence").
Page 3, line 19, 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