| Licensing Bill [Lords]
|
|
Jim Knight (South Dorset): There are circumstances in which the precedent of regular use over the previous five years does not necessarily mean that it is not important to have a valid fire certificate. I promoted an event at the Edinburgh fringe using a room that was converted into a venue every year. I had to put in a scaffolding auditorium and a lighting rig and it was very important that fire safety officers checked what I had done. Mr. Turner: Yes, I concede that point. I am sure that the new schedule could be improved on. I am trying to establish the principle that it is more important to regulate the gathering and the noise that it generates, than to regulate the entertainment and, therefore, have to define what is and is not an entertainment. Most activities of this type do not require the elaborate work that is required to establish a lighting rig. For example, if a pop concert is held on a field provided by an agricultural society for the county show, it is covered by the schedule, but if a religious meeting is held in exactly the same place, using exactly the same equipment and involving exactly the same number of people, that is not covered. There is an inconsistency in the Bill—one that in my view is better covered by public nuisance legislation, rather than by regulation of the type of entertainment proposed. Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster): When reference was made earlier to ''Bangor'' racing, I was wondering whether the Minister—albeit he has a south Wales background—might be able to tell us what was going on in north Wales, until I realised that it was the pronunciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that had made a difference. My hon. Friend has introduced the proposed amendments skilfully. I appreciate that only regulated entertainment will, by its nature, be regulated under the Bill. Can the Minister tell us if aspects and areas of unregulated entertainment have emerged in the past five to 10 years? Is it his intention to keep an eye on which areas of unregulated entertainment need to come within the confines of schedule 1? Will there be regular updates to ensure that residents will not be upset by groups who try to Column Number: 008 bypass the provisions of the Bill because their entertainment activity does not fall within the confines of either clause 1 or schedule 1?Dr. Howells: The amendments would remove the provision of regulated entertainment as a licensable activity as well as schedule 1, which defines the provision of such entertainment and sets out various exemptions and interpretations. Before I continue I shall point out what the amendments do not do, as that is important. They would leave the provision of regulated entertainment as a club qualifying activity—for which authorisation of a club premises certificate may be applied—unsupported by any definition. It would be left to the licensing authorities and the courts to decide what, if anything, the provision of regulated entertainment includes. I do not want to introduce an element of self-interest into the debate—not this early anyway—but every Labour, Conservative and Liberal club in the country would be mightily concerned about that omission. Leaving that confusion aside for a moment, the amendments would replace the provision of ''regulated entertainment'' with the provision of ''premises for public gatherings'', which would become a licensable activity. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight explained, the phrase ''premises for public gatherings'' is to be defined in a new schedule, which would give the Secretary of State an enabling power to make regulations relating to that. The regulations would prescribe that the expression should have its normal meaning, except in certain cases. The exceptions are when premises have planning permission for use as a place of public gathering and a valid fire certificate and when premises have been regularly used for the past five years for gatherings of the size contemplated.
9.15 amThe changes would mean that the Bill licensed not just the entertainment activities listed in paragraphs 2(1) and 3(2) of schedule 1, but any premises where public gatherings of any kind were held. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, that could include religious or political meetings. We should ask seriously what the amendments would cover. The potential breadth of meaning of ''public gatherings'' suggests that the changes could be far-reaching. I know that the hon. Gentleman is testing us. He said that he is quite willing for his new schedule to be considered and modified. However, the potential breadth of meaning is an important consideration. In addition, one can expect any court seeking to give ''premises'' its normal meaning to turn swiftly to the Bill for help. The Bill defines ''premises'' as ''any place''. The same definition has applied in licensing law in London for 40 years—London is different. The hon. Gentleman is contemplating licensing public demonstrations, which are one of the great and fundamental rights in this country. I am sure that he recognises and supports that right, but his amendments put it in jeopardy. Things would have come to a pretty pass if nobody in this country could demonstrate unless they had a licence. I am sure that Column Number: 009 countryside and peace campaigners on the Isle of Wight, which is a wonderful part of Britain, would have something to say about that.Mr. Turner: I attended a demonstration by peace campaigners from the Isle on Wight in St. James's square, where demonstrations of that kind have been held regularly over the past five years. Similarly, I attended the countryside march in London. It took place over a route that has been used regularly over the past five years for such demonstrations. They would not be covered by my amendments. Dr. Howells: I think that they would, but we can debate that. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) raised another point. He did not mention motocross, but the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did. I was confused about ''Bangor'' racing as well. They do some pretty strange things in north Wales—never mind the south. The matter is outside the scope of the Bill, but the antisocial behaviour White Paper expresses the intention to regulate off-road biking and a number of other things. If the hon. Gentleman specifies what kinds of activities may or may not be covered by this Bill, I will find out whether they are covered in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, so that the matter can be considered further. Under the proposal, a valid fire certificate would become a sort of carte blanche. If a building were given a fire certificate as a meeting hall and people decided to put on a play, which would give rise to all sorts of additional fire risks, licensing law would have no say in the matter. A nightclub with planning permission as a place of public gathering would almost certainly have a valid fire certificate, but the safety and noise issues that arise from the entertainment that takes place there will often go far beyond what can be controlled by planning law or even fire safety law. The Committee must remember that young people at such premises will often be in a vulnerable state either because of alcohol or drug use. We may not like that, but it is a fact. Normal fire and safety precautions associated with discotheques will not necessarily be adequate. Even the Bar, Entertainment and Dance Association—the trade association representing the nightclub industry—agrees with that view. The amendments are interesting because the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is coming at the matter from a very different angle. However, they are flawed and, worse than that, in some instances they could be positively dangerous. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps acknowledge that some parts of them have not been entirely thought through. Perhaps I am wrong, but no doubt he wants to regulate Conservative clubs more than commercial premises. I am sure that he does not want to regulate political or religious meetings, public demonstrations or to put the young and vulnerable at risk, so I ask him to withdraw his amendment. Mr. Turner: I am happy to go a little way towards the Minister's position, although I find it hard to understand why he feels that clubs would be regulated even were the amendments carried. I understand why he says that clubs would be covered by simple Column Number: 010 omission from the amendments, but the principle of whether we should be regulating individual activities or the noise and nuisance caused by assemblies is, as the Minister acknowledges, an interesting one that does not appear to have been covered previously in discussion on the Bill.I have absolutely no intention of regulating Conservative, Labour or even Liberal clubs, where they exist, more than they are regulated at the moment. I do not believe that the amendments would do that. I am happy that the Minister has given some thought to the matter, and if we have a future opportunity to consider the legislation, we may look at whether we need the detailed regulation of individual types of entertainment and definitions contained in the schedule. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Dr. Howells: I beg to move amendment No.1, in
'for consumption on the premises where the supply takes place'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 16 to 24. Government amendment No. 33. Government amendment No. 34. Government new clause 1—Club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises. Dr. Howells: The amendments will remove the Bill's existing prohibition on the supply of alcohol by, or on behalf of, a club to a member of the club for consumption off the premises. Clubs will be allowed to make off-sales to their members but not their members' guests. An amendment was tabled in another place to provide for qualifying clubs—now known as registered members clubs—under current legislation to conduct off-supplies of alcohol to their members. The Government undertook to consider the issue further and amend the Bill if necessary. That is precisely what I am going to do today. Under existing law, registered members clubs, which will become qualifying clubs under the Bill, include political clubs—Labour, Liberal and Conservative clubs—working men's clubs, ex-services clubs and Royal British Legion clubs, as well as clubs for serving professions and activities, miners' institutes and many sports clubs. Such clubs enjoy a different status to premises that operate under justices' licences. They operate under premises licences because they have a particular role to play as meeting places in the community. They are, however, limited in their activities—for example, alcohol can only be supplied to members and guests and not to the general public. Registered clubs are permitted by current law to supply alcohol to their members for consumption off the premises. It is likely that that was included for clarification purposes as the provision by a club of its own alcohol to members for their personal purposes outside the club would not be a licensable activity. The Bill as originally drafted made no provision for the Column Number: 011 supply of alcohol to members for consumption off the premises because it was decided that such supplies had little to do with the club's traditional role as a meeting place in the community. However, following further consultation with the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations, we have taken the view that as members of clubs already own the alcohol stock it would be churlish to deny them the right to take home beer—or any other tasty drink. We also believe that allowing them to do so does not pose any significant risk to the achievement of the licensing objectives.However, new clause 1 sets certain conditions relating to club premises certificates authorising off-sales from qualifying clubs. A club premises certificate may not authorise the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises unless it also authorises supply to members for consumption on the premises. Also, a club premises certificate authorising the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must include three conditions. First,
Secondly,
Thirdly,
I hope that the Committee will agree that with these conditions in place there is no good reason to prevent qualifying clubs from supplying alcohol to their members for consumption off the premises.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 1 April 2003 |
