| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that one of the happenings which underpin the establishment of the Church of Scotland is that the Moderator of the Church of Scotland comes every year on, as it were, a state visit to London. He visits Parliament and he preaches in the crypt. He also attends an event at Dover House, the Scotland Office, for Scottish parliamentarians. Will the noble and learned Lord tell the House when that next happens who will receive him and where—above all, where?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in joining in the congratulations to the noble and learned Lord may I express the hope that he will soon visit Wales so that he will understand the more readily what the constitutional desires and aspirations of the people of Wales are? Will he confirm that the person who answered the telephone in the Wales Office on Monday and said that it was business as usual was absolutely right? If so, will the noble and learned Lord also confirm that his department will not take upon itself the power to reduce the number of Members of another place who represent Wales but will leave that firmly as a matter for the Boundary Commission for Wales?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind invitation to Wales. I can confirm that the man in the Wales Office who answered the telephone and said that it was business as usual so far as the Secretary of State was concerned was absolutely correct. As regards the devolution settlement, we have no plans to change it.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I join in congratulating the final Lord Chancellor on his appointment. I remind him of the good times we had together in this House during the passage of the Government of Wales Act. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm without shadow of doubt that the Leader of the House of Commons will be granted leave of absence to attend the National Assembly for Wales in order to carry out his statutory duties under that Act?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I well remember the good times we had together and thank the noble
Lord for reminding the House of them. I also thank him for his congratulations. Of course, the Secretary of State for Wales will attend to all his statutory duties in the National Assembly.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the devolution settlement for Wales has bedded down well and that in the second term it was inevitable that some changes would be made? Does my noble and learned friend further agree that one of the great successes of the Welsh Assembly, following the elections on 2nd May, was the election of 50 per cent women to it? It is the only legislature in the world that has a majority of women in the Cabinet. It is an excellent model which should be copied in Westminster and in all the legislatures of the world.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend as regards how well devolution has worked in Wales. I perhaps would not go quite so far as she did in saying that every single legislature in the world should copy the Welsh Assembly but I entirely agree with her as regards the success of devolution in Wales. One of the consequences of that devolution is that much more is done in Cardiff than was previously done in London. It was necessary to recognise that in the sensible arrangements made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last Thursday.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs take this opportunity to clear up some confusion? Will he confirm whether or not the First Minister in Scotland was consulted about these arrangements, and whether he agreed to them? Will he also confirm that the first proposal that was put to the First Minister was that the Secretary of State for Scotland should reside in him and not in the Secretary of State for Transport?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the proposals were discussed with the First Minister and he is perfectly happy with the arrangements.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor help me in my puzzlement? Are the civil servants that remain in the Scotland Office and the civil servants that remain in the Wales Office directly responsible to the respective Secretaries of State and are they not responsible to the noble and learned Lord? Can he tell me what arrangements the Government have made if the Secretary of State for Transport, for instance, and the First Minister in Scotland have opposing points of view about an important matter of public policy? How will those matters be resolved?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the civil servants in the Wales Office and Scotland Office report directly to their respective Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. Any issue between the First Minister for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport will be dealt with in the ordinary way.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend advise me of the prime purpose and the
major advantages of merging the two offices with his, in view of the fact that he does not have overall responsibility?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the two offices have not been merged with mine. The Secretary of State for Wales continues to exist and the Secretary of State for Scotland continues to exist. All that has happened is that officials have been placed in the Constitutional Affairs Department because that is a sensible administrative arrangement, recognising that the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland will in the future have other departmental responsibilities.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord now kindly answer the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I have already answered that question.
Licensing Bill [HL]
3.31 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now further considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now further considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
63Schedule 1, page 113, line 3, leave out paragraph 14
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63. By this amendment the Commons deleted paragraph 14 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 which had been accepted by this House and which would have exempted,
The Government were not without some sympathy for the noble Lords who originally proposed this exemption. The focus of their argument, expressed in this House, was to ensure that our schools are not burdened with the administrative requirements of the Bill and the associated costs. But I am afraid that the Government foresaw problems with the exemption, both in its scope and in relation to some points of principle.
On the scope of the exemption, paragraph 14 used the expression "educational establishment" without offering any more detailed definition. The term "educational institution" is more commonly found in statute, is used in the current draft of the Bill and is defined in Clause 17(3). "Educational institution" is defined in the Bill as,
That gives us a better understanding of what would have been exempted in Schedule 1 to the Bill had paragraph 14 been retained. The exemption relates not only to school plays and concerts and other similar activities; it would also encompass dances, raves, rock concerts and major festivals held by universities, colleges and places of further education for their students and others. It can also be argued that it may go so far as to include students' unions. Students' unions commonly run and control night-clubs as serious and major businesses. Their premises give rise to as many anxieties about alcohol consumption, disorder, noise, nuisance and drugs as any similar commercial venture in our town and city centres. It would be reckless in the extreme to exempt such premises from the provisions of the Bill. For that reason alone, the House should not allow this exemption to stand in the Bill.
On points of principle, entertainment is regulated under the Bill in order to achieve the licensing objectives, not least that concerning public safety. The establishments that would be at least partially exempted by this amendment host a number of occasions that the public are able to attend. Schools stage commercial concerts and plays. The fact that those events take place at schools does not mean that the public attending them should not be protected or expect to be protected. As many of those attending may be children, it is even more important that they should be properly protected. I should point out that the necessary expertise in safety matters associated with that kind of entertainment may be more limited than in professional venues. Licensing admits professional opinion and advice.
Perhaps I may also remind the House that the reforms contained in the Bill are designed to establish a level playing field for charitable and community bodies with a light-touch, non-bureaucratic system. To exclude some premises entirely from that, while including others, would not achieve that aim.
As I said in opening, the Government were not wholly out of sympathy with those who originally proposed this exemption. At Second Reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State announced the Government's intention to place schools and sixth form colleges on an equal footing with church halls, village halls and community venues by waiving the fees in relation to the provision by them of regulated entertainment. That would protect schools and sixth form colleges from the costs associated with the system while preserving the safety, crime and disorder, protection of children from harm and nuisance controls that would protect the public and local residents.
Let me remind the House of the current regulatory framework and remove some of the myths that were prevalent when the Bill was previously before it. Under the existing legislation, school concerts are licensable activities, although outside London a reduction or waiver of fees can be granted by a local authority if it considers that the entertainment is of educational value. There is therefore no current exemption from the requirement for licensing.
First, the Bill proposes that the teaching of music, including the performance of musical pieces in school by teachers and pupils for other teachers, is not a licensable activity. Those are private activities to which the public are not admitted. They are not undertaken for a charge or with a view to profit, nor on several fronts do they qualify as regulated entertainment.
Secondly, school concerts or plays for teachers, pupils, parents, guests and invited friends are not licensable activities unless a charge is made that is intended to generate profit. If the charge is intended to do no more than cover the school's costs for the provision of the entertainment, no profit would be intended. Again the qualifying conditions would not be met.
Thirdly, if a school concert or play of that kind is staged for those whom I have just mentioned and they are invited to make a donation to the school but are not obliged to do so, the event would not be licensable. If only voluntary donations are sought, no charge is being made.
Therefore, many school activities of the kind that we have been debating already fall outside the scope of regulated entertainment. Under the Bill, the key is that either the entertainment is intended to be provided for the public—in other words, anyone, whether or not connected with the school, can attend—or a charge is made and profit is the aim of the performance.
We license commercial activities because the profit motive may override immediate concerns for public safety and public nuisance, but also those relating to the other licensing objectives, and to ensure a proper, professional approach to those important issues. We license places open to the public because every citizen should know that his or her interests will be safeguarded whether the building is a school, community hall or major commercial concert hall.
If a school wants to go down the route of staging public concerts or activities that generate income, the licensing system is not too burdensome. If other amendments made in another place are accepted by your Lordships, temporary event notices, which have been accepted, would cover events lasting up to four days for fewer than 500 people. Twelve events—not five as originally proposed— could be staged each year on the same premises, provided that the premises were not used for that kind of activity for more than a total of 15 days in any year. If a school is more ambitious than that and plans larger or more regular events, it would need to obtain a premises licence, but central government would absorb the fees and charges.
I can give an undertaking that we shall also consider developing the guidance for licensing authorities to emphasise that over-burdensome and disproportionate conditions should not be imposed on schools beyond those absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of performers and audiences alike and to address the other licensing objectives. We want to ensure that music and other cultural activities thrive in our schools and sixth form colleges, and nothing in the Bill would deny that intention.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is important to move this amendment to set the record straight. The Bill is supposed to be deregulatory and light touch. We believe that our amendment, as originally drafted—it received great cross-party support in your Lordships' House but, sadly, was defeated in another place—presented a great opportunity to show that the Bill would in practice be deregulatory. We believe that schools are already saddled with so much bureaucracy, and this was an opportunity to remove just one small part of it.
A number of arguments, some of them mentioned by the Minister, have been used against the amendment. "Educational establishment" or "educational institution" means a school or institution in the further or higher education sector within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, or a college, school, hall or other institution of a university. Therefore it is not just about school plays but also dances, raves, rock concerts and major festivals that are held by universities, colleges and places of further education for their students.
There has also been anxiety about alcohol consumption, disorder and noise nuisance. We have been assured that,
In the Commons it was also suggested that there was a possibility that the category would fall into the "no fee" category. We appreciate that. However, I want to put the record straight. Public safety is already highly regulated in any educational establishment to protect and provide for the well-being of the students or children themselves. All school buildings or university buildings need to be health and safety checked.
As to public nuisance, legislation already allows for complaints to be made on the grounds of excessive noise.The essence of our argument is that we are not talking about alcohol consumption and it is misleading for anyone to interpret the amendment in that light. Our amendment talks about the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities in the premises of an educational establishment for the purposes directly
Educational establishments are run by responsible authorities: in the case of schools, by school governors and head teachers, and, in the case of universities, by rectors, proctors and governing bodies. They are unlikely to abuse the freedom which exemption from licensing would give them. Would they permit an unregulated "rave" with loud music that was likely to cause a public nuisance and to involve people who were drunk, disorderly, using drugs and potentially a danger to themselves and others? I think that the answer to that is clearly "No". If that is what the Government are afraid of and if this is why they reject our amendment I believe that their fears are unfounded, misguided and unrealistic. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Baroness Buscombe.)
"any entertainment or entertainment facilities in the premises of an educational establishment for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment".
"a school or an institution within the further or higher education sector, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Education Act 1996",
or,
"a college (including any institution in the nature of a college), school, hall or other institution of a university, in circumstances where the university receives financial support under Section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992".
63A Baroness Buscombe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
"school concerts or plays for teachers, pupils, parents, guests and invited friends are not licensable activities unless a charge is made that is intended to generate profit".—[Official Report, 24/2/03; col. 41.]
That may be the case but it creates huge confusion.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page