Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: In that case, I humbly apologise to the Committee. I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 304 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 305 not moved.]

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71 [Determination of application for club premises certificate]:

[Amendments Nos. 306 to 309 not moved.]

Clause 71 agreed to.

Clause 72 [Mandatory conditions: door supervision]:

[Amendment No. 309A not moved.]

Clause 72 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 310 not moved.]

Clauses 73 and 74 agreed to.

Clause 75 [Grant or rejection of application for club premises certificate]:

[Amendments Nos. 311 to 313 not moved.]

Clause 75 agreed to.

Clauses 76 to 81 agreed to.

Clause 82 [Application to vary club premises certificate]:

[Amendment No. 314 not moved.]

Clause 82 agreed to.

Clause 83 [Determination of application under section 82]:

[Amendments Nos. 315 to 317 not moved.]

Clause 83 agreed to.

Clause 84 [Supplementary provision about applications under section 82]:

[Amendment No. 318 not moved.]

Clause 84 agreed to.

Clause 85 [Application for review of club premises certificate]:

[Amendments Nos. 319 and 320 not moved.]

Clause 85 agreed to.

Clause 86 [Determination of application for review]:

[Amendments Nos. 321 to 326 not moved.]

Clause 86 agreed to.

5 p.m.

Clause 87 [Supplementary provision about review]:

Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 327:

16 Jan 2003 : Column 380

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. It is a minor amendment seeking to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. It will amend Clause 87 so that it applies, as it should, to a "club premises certificate" and not to a "premises licence". I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.

Clause 90 [Fees]:

[Amendments Nos. 328 to 334 not moved.]

Clause 90 agreed to.

Clauses 91 to 96 agreed to.

Clause 97 [The relevant licensing authority]:

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 335:

    Page 55, line 6, leave out "each of those authorities" and insert "whichever of the authorities is agreed by those authorities unanimously to be the relevant authority, or if no such agreement is reached—

(i) the licensing authority in whose area the greater or greatest part of the premises is situated, or
(ii) if there is no authority to which paragraph (a) applies, such one of those authorities as is nominated in accordance with subsection (2)"

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 336.

Clause 97 makes provision in regard to the terms under which licensing authorities would be responsible for the granting of a licence if premises straddle the border of two or more licensing authorities.

As it stands, the Bill provides that the licensing authority in which the greater part of the premises are situated would be the "relevant licensing authority". If it is impossible to establish which of the licensing authorities is the relevant one under that criterion, the applicant would be able to choose which authority he preferred.

This provision does not reflect current arrangements in respect of public entertainment licensing. There is a shining example in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in respect of Earls Court, which straddles the boundary with Hammersmith and Fulham. At present, there is an agreement between the two boroughs that Kensington and Chelsea should deal with public entertainment licensing in Earls Court. The amendment would enable similar arrangements between councils to continue. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is true that there is a change here between what we are proposing and what happens now. The reason for that is that the existing requirements for having a licence are fairly onerous; therefore, it would be onerous for the applicant to have to go to more than one local authority. In the Bill we reduce the temporary notice to an absolute minimum. It is merely a notification. Under those circumstances it seems to be virtually no burden for it to go to more

16 Jan 2003 : Column 381

than one authority at the same time. In that way there is the minimum level of protection which is required for local people and yet no significant burden on the applicant. I hope that under those circumstances the amendment will not be pressed.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I hear what he says. His response seems adequate in relation to the proposal in the amendment. However, I should like to take the opportunity to ensure that local authorities are content with his response. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 336 not moved.]

Clause 97 agreed to.

Clause 98 [Temporary event notice]:

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 337:

    Page 55, line 10, leave out "72" and insert "168"

The noble Baroness said: We now come to an important subject; namely, temporary event notices.

The Bill currently limits the period of any licensable temporary event to 72 hours. By this rationale, if an event—for example, a music festival—lasting longer than the envisaged three days were to be organised, a full premises licence would be required.

My objection is that there are many such music festivals, most of which happen only once a year. One thinks of the Glastonbury festival, or the perhaps more savoury music and jazz festivals in many towns throughout Britain. Examples would be the Ludlow festival in Shropshire, or the Aldeburgh festival in Suffolk. It seems perverse to state that these temporary events do not fall into the "temporary event" category because they last longer than the requisite 72 hours. Surely this is hardly proof of the flexibility of the Bill or of the concern that the Government vow they have for the fostering of cultural and musical entertainment.

The Committee will note that Amendment No. 338 stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who unfortunately is unable to be in his place today. I agreed to add my name to the amendment. In referring to the amendment, I should state the noble Lord's interest—as I should probably have done in relation to previous amendments standing in his name. I believe that he is an organiser of large events at Knebworth House. I beg to move.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: In the spirit of trying to finish this long Committee stage as quickly as possible, I shall be brief. Amendment No. 339 is straightforward and seeks to extend the number of working days required for a temporary event notice to be considered from 10 to 28.

Anyone who has had any dealings with local authorities will know the pressure they are under when people go on leave or are sick. Ten days is unreasonable. There are 30 separate requirements under the clause and it is totally unreasonable to require a local authority officer or his department to

16 Jan 2003 : Column 382

deal with temporary event notices within 10 working days. I commend Amendment No. 339 to the Committee.

Lord Crickhowell: I should not be here at all. The consultant who was looking after me in the London Clinic earlier today told me that I was to go straight home because I have been anaesthetised for some investigatory processes. But I wanted to come to the House and speak to this matter and I hope that I am not so incoherent that I cannot make my points.

The only previous occasion on which I have taken part in debates on the Bill was when we discussed the issue of events taking place in churches and schools. That seems quite a long time ago. I know that the Government are reconsidering their position on churches. I spoke then, as I speak today, because of my interest in musical and charitable events.

After the debate on churches, I received a letter from Lady Digby, who, for something like 30 years, has organised the Dorset Music Festival—an event of enormous importance and of the very highest standard—which takes place largely, although not entirely, in country houses. She expressed her great concern about the legislation with which we are confronted because she feels that it will make it extremely difficult in future to hold such an event.

Many of the concerts are held at Mintern, the home of Lord and Lady Digby, but also at other country houses in Dorset. The whole business of having to go to people and say, "We want you to hold a music event in your house but, by the way, you will have to go through a licensing procedure and perhaps have people looking at the premises and deciding that this and that is not suitable", will not make the holding of such events easier.

When I drew this aspect of the matter—which we did not debate on the previous occasion—to the attention of my noble friend who is moving the amendment, she pointed out that this particular clause in the Bill is highly relevant because, in many cases, such events would be subject to a temporary events licence. On looking at the clause, however, some of my concerns still exist for the reasons my noble friend has outlined.

It is true in the case of the Dorset Music Festival that, as it is spread over the summer, 72 hours may be enough to cover a couple of concerts held at a weekend. But I can think of music festivals, charitable events and other events arranged by a number of organisations in country houses and places of that kind which may last a week. The main locations at the Aldeburgh Festival, which has been referred to by my noble friend, will no doubt be licensed anyway, but many of its performances are held in churches and some in private premises.

I know of one individual in the West Country who is most generous in making his house available for charity events, but I am not sure what will happen to events of this kind when the Bill comes back at Report stage. I am unlikely to be in the country at that time to deal with the amendments in regard to the churches

16 Jan 2003 : Column 383

and any thoughts which come forward on that issue, but I strongly support the amendment which seeks to extend the duration from 72 hours.

We should be encouraging events of this kind; certainly we should not be discouraging them. At a time when the Government have expressed an interest in supporting the upkeep of country houses—huge burdens of expense are incurred in keeping them open—they may well be holding events themselves which are entirely appropriate in order to strengthen the financial position of such houses.

We should not support legislation which makes the holding of such highly desirable events much more difficult or even impossible. I have only recently turned my attention to these amendments—indeed, I have spoken to my noble friend about them only within the past 48 hours—and it may be that, on their own, they are not quite enough and that we will need to come back and look again at the issue. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say. I am sure that they do not want to obstruct the holding of important musical and charitable events of this kind and will want to give them the maximum flexibility. I warmly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page