| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the bingo order, which one would think is one of the more interesting aspects of this ministerial brief. As the Select Committee of this House pointed out, the law on gaming is a mess, with layer upon layer of complexity having been added over the years. The Minister referred to the Budd report. We, too, look forward to the Government's response as soon as possible. We have the opportunity to debate some of those issues in the Chamber next week. I am satisfied that the order contains measures that would not pre-empt any matters that your Lordships might wish to debate when legislation based on the Budd report comes before the House.
The Minister referred to the mixture of amusement with prizes machines and jackpot machines. We are grateful to the Government for carrying out proper further consultation on the issue with those interested in the possible impact on those who are elderly and vulnerable. We agree that that consultation exercise satisfactorily showed that the provisions should remain part of the order.
I also notice that the Select Committee made it clear in paragraph 14 of its report that it doubts whether the risk to children is much increased by the proposed changes. That reassures me and we support the making of the order.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister gave a very full description of the thinking behind the order, which is to be welcomed. Noble Lords on these Benches find nothing objectionable in this order; and, indeed, we agree with most of its content. There was the initial sort of "sniff" of trouble as regards the idea of gaming machines and the issues that arise from and outwith this order. But, having flown that little flag of worry, shall we say, for a future date, I believe that the business in front of the House is certainly satisfactory.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the only member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee who is present in the Chamber this evening, perhaps I may add that the committee is very happy to see this proposal pass through the House.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I greatly appreciate the welcome for this order expressed from both Benches. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Deregulation (Restaurant Licensing Hours) Order 2002
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone rose to move, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 24th January be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order before the House is designed to permit genuine restaurants to serve alcohol with meals for an extra hour after the end of normal licensing hours without the need for what is known as a supper hour certificate. It was approved in another place on 14th February. I am able to assure the House that the order is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The changes introduced by the order will not apply to premises that operate under a full on-licence, such as pubs. The licensees for those premises would still need to apply for a supper hour certificate, as at present. This is so that the justices can be satisfied that the extension of hours relates to the provision of a bona fide restaurant service and is not a way of circumventing normal closing hours.
Restaurant hours are constrained in the same way as other on-licences, like pubs and night-clubs, by the normal permitted opening hours. These are 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Mondays to Saturdays; and noon to 10.30 p.m. on Sundays. However, restaurants that wish to serve alcohol with meals beyond those normal closing times may apply for a supper hour certificate that allows the restaurant to serve drinks until midnight on weekdays and until 11.30 p.m. on Sundays. Like other alcohol licensing approvals, it is granted by local licensing justices.
In the case of a restaurant with what is called a Part IV licence, the process is in practice one of rubber- stamping because the bona fides of the restaurant will already have been established by the same justices in granting a restaurant or residential and restaurant licence in the first place. The certificate must be granted by the justices if the restaurant is bona fide. I am sure that the House will recognise that this as one of the worst examples of red tape operating for the sake of red tape and that it imposes a wholly unreasonable burden on the restaurant trade. The restaurant industry estimates that the order will save the trade a modest £0.2 million per year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 24th January be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for her explanation. I shall be brief in my response. As always, I must declare a non-pecuniary interest as patron of the Restaurant Association of Great Britain. In my guise as spokesperson for culture, media and sport—and never as a spokesman for the association—I can certainly
say that I welcome the proposed removal of unnecessary red tape; it is, indeed, a prime example of red tape.The only blot on the landscape, so to speak, is the fact that when the matter was first considered in another place by the Select Committee it was thought necessary to remove part of the original order; namely, the provision regarding extended hours deregulation. It is disappointing to note that the committee and Members of another place could not come to an agreement on such matters, which remain contentious. As the licensing reform that we all await in this House seems to be ever receding on the horizon, it is even more important that issues such as extended hours deregulation should be quickly settled. However, we welcome the order.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall be even briefer than the noble Baroness, who has paved the way for what I have to say. This seems to me to be about an extra certification requirement for doing something that is fairly normal practice in many areas, so its removal is perfectly sensible. I agree with the noble Baroness as regards the idea of reform of licensing hours. Every time that that ship has appeared on the horizon, it seems that we have had to deal with business in other ports, for it disappears very rapidly from view. However, the order is a small step towards that goal. I urge the Minister to encourage people in her department to consider the example of Scotland, where the reform of licensing hours has actually led to much less, not more, bad behaviour.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support received for the order. I can tell the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the bigger reform of the licensing laws is very much on the Government's agenda. Of course, I cannot anticipate when parliamentary time will be made available for the purpose. It would not be right to say that such reform is receding more and more into the distant future—at least I very hope that that will not be the case. I commend to the House this sensible order designed to reduce red tape.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.56 to 8.36 p.m.]
Police Reform Bill [HL]
Clause 4 [Directions to police authorities]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 23:
- Page 3, line 30, leave out "the whole or any part of"
The noble Lord said: We return to an issue that we have debated for some time: whether this part of the Bill is necessary at all. If Clause 4 does anything, it amends Section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which states:
- "The Secretary of State may at any time require the inspectors of constabulary to carry out, for the purposes of this section, an inspection under section 54 of any police force maintained under section 2".
The distinction between the current situation and that pertaining when the 1996 Act was passed is that we have now established the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Metropolitan Police force as a free-standing enterprise. One might have thought that, as those bodies were established on all fours with other authorities, the need to amend Section 40 has not changed. Section 40 continues:
- "Where a report made to the Secretary of State . . . on an inspection carried out for the purposes of this section states—
- (a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report, the force inspected is not efficient or not effective, or
- (b) that in his opinion, unless remedial measures are taken, the force will cease to be efficient or will cease to be effective,
- the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining the force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction".
We are therefore back in the business of debating an additional power. In this case, however, the proposal is to extend power so that a part of a force, as opposed to a whole force, can be inspected. Amendment No. 24 deals with a similar point. Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26 all propose word deletions. The real purpose of this group of amendments, however, is to explore the possibility that we are legislating simply for the sake of legislating. The more I think about the matter, the more I believe that the Secretary of State is taking powers unto himself simply for the sake of doing so.
Clause 4, under the heading "Power to give directions to a police authority", states:
- "Where a report made to the Secretary of State on an inspection . . . states, in relation to any police force . . . or in relation to the metropolitan police force—
- (a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report, the whole or any part of the force inspected is . . . not efficient or not effective, or
- (b) that, in that person's opinion, the whole or a part of the force will cease to be efficient or effective . . . unless remedial measures are taken
- the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible . . . to take such measures as may be specified in the direction."
I had always understood that the purpose of an inspection was to see whether anything was wrong with the force. I also understood that, if he found fault, the inspector would report the matter not only to the Secretary of State but to the force in question, in the clear expectation that action would be taken to rectify identified faults. The clause says that the Secretary of State "may direct" the police authority, but he does not need to direct the police authority. That is the purpose for which inspections take place.
It seems to me that if this clause has any effect at all it calls into question the efficacy and the purpose of the existing inspectoral system. I do not think that that is
a valid function as no one, so far as I am aware, has produced any evidence to suggest that the existing inspectoral system is not functioning in the way it should. My limited knowledge—I am prepared to admit that it is limited—is that police forces across the country are responsive to inspectors' reports.We have tabled this group of amendments which seek to remove various words of the clause as we have considerable doubts with regard to the need for, and validity of, the clause, just as we had, and still have, doubts with regard to the need for, and validity of, Clause 3. We have tabled the amendments to explore the matter in more detail. I look forward to hearing the Committee's, and still more the Minister's, comments. I am singularly unconvinced by the content of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It is important to get the matter on the record but I do not want to be repetitious as some of the points we shall discuss applied to the previous clause and will apply to the following clause. The noble Lord referred to existing powers in Section 40 of the Police Act 1996. Those powers mean that remedial action to correct under-performance can only be required once the whole force is considered to be failing to provide an efficient and effective service—either that or that the whole force is likely to cease to be efficient or effective.
That is an extremely high threshold. It is rather like the nuclear option which tends not to be used. Parts of a force—the basic command units or even particular neighbourhoods of a force area—can show signs of failing to provide the quality of service which their local communities have a right to expect. It is in the interests of providing consistently efficient and effective police services across England and Wales that we want to be able to identify and address localised under-performance as early as possible before the entire force suffers. That gives a degree of flexibility.
I said earlier that one of the greatest concerns of the Home Secretary—this must apply also to chief officers—is the incredible variation in performance across different forces. I give a couple of examples. I refer to burglaries of dwellings figures for 1990, 2000 and 2000-01. The best detection rate for such burglaries was 27.7 per cent; the worst was 5 per cent. That is a large variation. I refer to changes in the crime rate for burglaries of dwellings. The best figure showed a drop of 35 per cent; the worst showed an increase of almost 6 per cent. As I say, incredible variations exist. I am absolutely certain that one single factor will not account for that situation. The Home Secretary ought to be able to initiate targeted inspections.
As I said earlier, the tripartite system will remain as at present where one-third of the system has the money, one-third has the power and the Home Secretary gets all the blame because he stands at the court of public opinion in the House of Commons and is required to respond to all the minutiae of what might be wrong in the constituencies of various Members of
Parliament. Such matters rarely concern an entire force. I remember just a couple of such cases in the almost three decades I spent in the other place. It is not only disruptive but also expensive for the inspectorate to inspect an entire force where under-performance is clearly confined to a certain geographical area.I return to the rather long letter on Clauses 4 and 5 I sent to Members of the Committee. I refer to paragraphs 12 and 13. Clause 4 simply re-enacts with modifications existing powers. There is nothing new. We are not inventing the wheel here; it is not a case of oppression on the part of the Home Office. We have made the point repeatedly—it is worth putting on the record—that the intervention (if we can call it that) will only ever be carried out at chief officer level. It is absolutely crucial that chief officers are not undermined.
However, effective services may not be delivered and there may be clear variations between forces of which neighbouring forces are aware. Boundaries do not always run across fields. In some force areas they can also run up the middle of main roads. The Home Secretary is held to account in such situations. We seek a mechanism to enable the Home Secretary to be able to require remedial action to be taken—but not necessarily to lay down what it is—that does not comprise the nuclear option.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page