| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Redesdale: Before I withdraw the amendment, I should like to ask one question, not to delay the Committee, but as a matter of clarification so that we do not have to bring this matter back at a later stage. I am concerned that, at an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that one of the reasons for not having a central register was that there could be an issue of appeals; namely, that a central register could not deal with appeals. They would be dealt with by local licensing authorities. I may have completely misunderstood the situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I made two points regarding a central register. First, yes, we might work towards a central register. It was proposed that there should be one immediately, but that would cause unnecessary delay. Secondly, a central register would not replace local registers because a central registration authority would not be able to hear appeals.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. He said that we regularly deal with organisations that are based all over the country or, in some cases, are not in this country at all. Therefore, the preferred option would be a central register. I thank the noble Lord for his answers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 371:
- After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 371, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 375, 384, 386 and 387, 390, 393, 395, 397 and 398, 400, 406 to 409, 411 and 412 to 414.
Clause 118 makes various provisions regarding an application for a personal licence. A licensing authority must grant the application if,
That cannot be right. If the chief officer of police is satisfied that the granting of a licence would undermine the crime prevention objective, we on these Benches feel that it is essential that the licensing authority should consider the chief officer's views. The licensing authority can always reject his views, but at the very least it should consider them. The chief officer must, therefore, be given notice of any application for a personal licence so that he can then form a view as to whether or not the granting of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective.
We also feel that if an applicant for, or the holder of, a personal licence has been convicted of a serious offence, the application for a personal licence should be dismissed or the personal licence should be forfeited.
The Bill as drafted merely provides that where the applicant or the holder of a personal licence is convicted of a relevant offence—which would include a "serious offence"—the licensing authority must notify the chief officer of police, who then has to form a view as to whether or not the granting of the licence or the continuation of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective. If he forms such a view, he must then give the licensing authority an objection notice, which is then considered by the authority.
We on these Benches feel that as regards serious offences the application for a personal licence should be dismissed, or the personal licence should be forfeited. As to what we mean by a "serious offence", we have had regard to subsections (2) and (3) in Clause 112, which make a distinction as regards certain specific offences; namely,
We find that extraordinary. We feel that if an applicant has been convicted of one of these specific offences, at the very least the chief office of police should be entitled to object. If a sentence of more than 30 months has been imposed, the application should be dismissed. We can see no justification whatever for the view that someone convicted of such a serious offence and sentenced to more than 30 months' imprisonment should be a suitable person to hold a personal licence.
We have also provided for a change in the burden of proof where the applicant or the holder of a personal licence has been found guilty of a relevant offence. We believe that the burden of proof should be on him to satisfy the authority that the crime prevention objective would not be undermined by the application being granted or the licence not being revoked.
I regret to say that in formulating the test that the burden of proof is on the applicant or the holder of the licence it has been necessary to use double and triple negatives—which we feel state the test correctly, but which also mean that the relevant subsections require very careful reading. We should be grateful for any improvements to the drafting which could be considered on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I support these amendments. I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 371, which seeks to insert a new clause—"Meaning of 'serious offence'"—in order to make clear the importance that we place on these offences. They should be included in the Bill. Amendment No. 375 seeks to delete the subsections which refer to the fact that a relevant offence must be disregarded if a custodial sentence of at least 30 months is not imposed, and then go on to list, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, the relevant offences. We seek to insert what constitutes a "serious offence" in the proposed new clause at Amendment No. 371.
As to Amendment No. 384, ACPO has provided me with a briefing. In regard to criminal convictions it states:
In a longer briefing note, ACPO goes on to state:
Those are the substantive parts of many of the amendments so ably referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We support these amendments.
Lord Redesdale: I shall speak to Amendment No. 414A, which is grouped with these amendments. It is a probing amendment which seeks to establish whether the Government agree that once the offences listed on the licence are spent they should be removed from the licence on application by the personal licence holder. It seems unfair that minor offences which would not discount a personal licence holder from holding a personal licence should remain on the licence for a long period of time. If the offences are relevant perhaps they should remain on the licence. But do the Government believe that certain offences should have time limitations and at certain points should be removed from the licence?
"MEANING OF "SERIOUS OFFENCE"
(1) In this Part "serious offence" means a relevant offence to which subsection (2) applies and in respect of which a custodial sentence of at least 30 months was imposed.
(2) The relevant offences to which this subsection applies are—
(a) any sexual offence, within the meaning of section 161(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (interpretation),
(b) any violent offence, within the meaning of section 161(3) of that Act,
(c) any relevant offence under the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) or the Theft Act 1978 (c. 31), and
(d) any relevant offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c. 45).
(3) In subsection (2) "custodial sentence" has the same meaning as in section 76 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (meaning of "custodial sentence")."
"the applicant is aged 18 or over . . . he possesses a licensing qualification . . . no personal licence held by him has been forfeited in [the previous] five years . . . and . . . he has not been convicted of any relevant offence or any foreign offence".
If those conditions are satisfied, the licensing authority must grant the application. There is no discretion in the matter. That is the case, even if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the granting of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective.
"any sexual offence . . . any violent offence . . . any relevant offence under the Theft Act 1968 . . . and . . . any relevant offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981".
The distinction made in the clause is between convictions where an offender is sentenced to either more or less than 30 months' imprisonment. Under the Bill as drafted, if an applicant for a personal licence is convicted of such an offence but is not sentenced to more than 30 months, the conviction is disregarded and, if all the other conditions are satisfied, the licensing authority must grant the application.
"We would like to see a more robust system for ensuring that those individuals with criminal convictions of a type which indicate that they should not be involved in the running of licensed premises, are excluded, There should be a police right to object to the grant of both a personal and a premises licence".
"We have serious concerns over the issue of personal licences to those individuals with certain convictions . . . As a general observation we would contend that there should be certain offences or a category of offence which ought to disqualify a person from obtaining a personal licence for the period that the conviction remains unspent. We do not believe that the Licensing Authority should have the discretion to grant a personal licence in respect of such offences".
"we believe that the Licensing Authority ought to be under an obligation to consult the police in respect of every applicant for a personal licence and that the police should have the right, in exceptional circumstances and based upon the licensing objectives, to object to the grant of a licence to that individual".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page