Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said in his full response. We have argued the case. Both sides have worked hard to try to persuade the other, without success. What the Minister said about the Association of Chief Police Officers supporting the Bill as drafted was interesting. The Association of Chief Police Officers was keen for broadcast entertainment to be regulated, but its views were ignored in that regard.
We feel strongly about the matter. We have not been convinced that the amendment would in any way weaken the provision of the Bill designed to prevent crime and disorder, because Clause 50 is alive and well to allow for a review of the premises licence. I think that it is time to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 101.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.20 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 59:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for tabling this amendment on Report, but I could not attend when it was down for consideration in Committee. There are three main areas of concern in the employment field. The first is requiring anyone to work different hours as a result of the new licensing regime; the second is the need to financially compensate anyone employed in anti-social hours as a result of the new regime implied by the Bill; and the third is the difficulty of getting home in the middle of the night. We can all see the social and safety consequences involved; hence the proposal that there should be transport by taxi home.
This is a probing amendment in the sense that the whole territory is tied up with current employment law. It would be a useful start to have a definitive statement outlining the extant legal provisions covering the sort of questions that concern industry staff as reflected by their trading representatives. Those endeavouring to represent people in the field find it notoriously difficult to ensure that the quality stipulated in contracts of employment is observed. For example, in well-recognised national chains with very high reputations among customers, it can be quite normal to tell staff members at short notice that they must work on a Sunday or throughout Saturday night. Technically, it may be possible to make such demands under a contract of employment. But, even if it is not, only a brave man or woman would say, "I will not do it".
The reason for increasing the amount of legislation in this fieldthe National Minimum Wage Act, the working time regulations, health and safety regulations, and so onis that employers exercising best practice can be, and often are, undercut by those who would otherwise fail to observe best practice. We are all producers and consumers at some time. We all recognise the legitimate requirements and interests of employers as well as employees. But the quality of contracts of employment is important to everybody, whether here in Parliament or in a car factory. Bar work is a notoriously fluid job market. Students can
The hospitality sector is very large. The bar, pub and hotel industry is one of the biggest sectors in the country and employs 1 million people. It is astonishing that changes in the culture and context of the employment structure towards 24-hour openingit is already well over 20 per centhave not been the subject of any discussion in any forum between the industry and the trade unions, or in a tripartite forum. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think that I am.
That leads me to question whether the industry is ready to agree guidelines on these matters. We often hear it argued that employers do not like regulation and would far prefer to act on a voluntary basis through a voluntary arrangement. What voluntary arrangement? There is no voluntary agreement. Where is it? When is it proposed to make one? That is the challenge. There is a coalition of the industry. We have all received correspondence from organisations ranging from the British Beer & Pub Association to the British Hospitality Association. But I do not think that there has been any tripartite meeting. Will my noble friend take on board that, given the situation with the Lords and Commons stages, there is now time to ask for a tripartite meeting to find out the legal position and whether there is a code of best practice? That would enable us to make progress in this field. I beg to move.
"( ) where the relevant licensable activities include the supply of alcohol, a statement that the applicant will
(i) not require anyone employed to work at the premises to work, without their prior consent, different hours as a result of the new licensing regime implemented by this Act;
(ii) financially compensate anyone employed to work at the premises for any increase in antisocial hours worked as a result of the new licensing regime implemented by this Act; and
(iii) if requested to do so by anyone employed to work at the premises who finishes work between 11 p.m. and 6 am, pay the fare of a taxi or minicab to the person's usual home address,"
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page