|
Clause 3
Licensing Authorities
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 60, in
clause 3, page 2, leave out line 40.
Amendment No. 61, in
clause 3, page 2, leave out line 41.
Amendment No. 64, in
Amendment No. 62, in
clause 7, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 63, in
clause 8, page 5, line 33, leave out subsection (10).
Mr. Moss: I will start with amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 and come to amendment No. 59 afterwards.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are consequential on Amendments Nos. 60 and 61. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 delete subsections (f) and (g), which refer to
''the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple''
and
''the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple''.
Those subsections contravene the main purpose and thrust of the Bill, which is to transfer power from licensing justices to democratically accountable and elected local authorities. Due to their nature, the Middle and Inner Temples are not democratically accountable institutions. It is our understanding that benchers govern both the Middle and Inner Temples having been elected by their fellow benchers, rather than by members of the Inn or those who live and work there. Not much democracy is involved in that. Due to their self-perpetuating nature, those bodies are not accountable to an electorate and are only answerable themselves.
In addition, the question arises as to whether the Inner and Middle Temples have taken steps to prepare themselves for carrying out the functions of the Bill. For example, do they have the necessary expertise to prepare a statement of licensing policy? Will they establish procedures for granting licences to premises? I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about those questions.
10.30 am
On amendment No. 64, those of us who happened to be blessed with three or four years at that wonderful institution the university of Cambridge, as I was, were completely unaware that the university was responsible for its own licensing and policy on drinking. I feel that that responsibility should be recognised and respected in the Bill. There is no known reason to revoke the tradition. It is hardly a major
Column Number: 109
issue, but by including the provision, the Government would allow the tradition to be maintained.
Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he wants to respect tradition in relation to the university of Cambridge, but not in relation to the Temples?
Mr. Moss: I have knowledge of the workings of the university of Cambridge—albeit that it was 30 or 40 years ago—and there have been no complaints about the judicious and efficient way in which the university has administered its drinking policy.
Jim Knight: I have to confess that I, too, was privileged to attend the university of Cambridge. However, I recall plenty of circumstances in which disorder resulted from the drinking activities of students and members of the university. It seems logical to put such matters under the jurisdiction of the licensing authority, which is democratically accountable.
Mr. Moss: I am not in favour of making legislation on the basis of the experience of one Member—[Interruption.] I thoroughly researched the matter and in my day, there were certainly no problems. The hon. Gentleman is much younger than I am. I shall move on.
Amendment No. 59 will doubtless be described as a wrecking amendment, in so far as it drives a sword to the heart of the Bill. The Minister has already mentioned some of the reasons behind the Government's decision to move the responsibility for licensing policy and the issuing of licences from magistrates to local authorities. We tabled the amendment because we have had strong representations from those who are directly involved, who say that they are less than happy about the prospect of the change.
We have also had representations, albeit not necessarily in a direct sense, from some local authorities. They are faced with setting up a whole new edifice to cope with the requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said this morning that he has had conversations with the chief executive of his local authority. Local authorities are expressing some concerns that many of them will not be ready in time—we will discuss the transition period later—for the huge undertaking involved in transferring the issuing of licences from justices.
Perhaps there is a hidden agenda. Huge changes are required in the magistracy, so perhaps the move emanates from the Lord Chancellor's Department, rather than from the Home Office or the DCMS. If magistrates are to perform different roles in the future, if their responsibilities are to be reduced and their activities curtailed, and if there are ideas of winding down the service or making it more cost-effective, perhaps those things are driving licensing away from magistrates and into the arms of local authorities. Local authorities already do a lot of licensing work, so it seems easy to shift the whole process across to them. A number of matters need to be considered.
Column Number: 110
Good licensing practice needs local knowledge of known troublemakers, problematic haunts and so on. Magistrates have gained local knowledge through their experience over time. Many local councils do not. Councillors change at every election. In many cases, they do not have the thread of experience that magistrates have acquired over many years. Regional councils do not have the slightest idea about what is happening in pubs 50 or 60 miles away.
Who is supporting the move to local authorities? In a recent independent poll of about 1,000 publicans, 94 per cent. of the respondents wanted to retain magistrates. It will be hard to introduce new systems without the good will of licensees. Magistrates have done a good job for many years. The Minister is nodding his head. There is no question that they have failed in their duties and responsibilities. In the main, there have been no substantial complaints about the way that they have administered the system. On the contrary, there is a general acceptance both by those who apply for licences and the general public, that they have done an excellent job. Why make the change? It is a cost-effective service. The current licence fee administered by magistrates is about £10 a year. The new fee is expected to be between £100 and £500, an increase by a factor of 10.
Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a one-off charge for the lifetime of premises. The savings are considerable and are not disputed in that respect.
Mr. Moss: I thought that it was a 10-year licence.
Dr. Howells: No.
Mr. Moss: Is it a lifetime licence that is renewable every 10 years?
Dr. Howells: No.
Mr. Moss: Perhaps we should check that. We will come to that matter later. Whatever the fees will be, local authorities are already worried whether they will cover their costs.
Mr. Jones: Would there not be a saving to individual premises? At the moment, those without a public entertainment licence have to apply for a separate licence and expense would be involved in that. Fees also vary from council to council. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, some licences cost £20,000 a year.
Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We do not dispute the fact that there is variation in licences from authority to authority, and we know that in many cases they are extremely expensive. We have not discussed costings or fees, so we do not know what the new regime will introduce. The Minister and the debate in the other place suggested that those would represent a saving, but we have yet to see the result of adding fees to the system.
Mr. Hoban: Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the suggestion that there may be a saving, most licensees oppose the change from magistrates to local authorities? There is widespread concern among licensees in my constituency who are prominent in their industry and trade bodies that the
Column Number: 111
system will be more bureaucratic and oppressive for pubs, despite the savings.
Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I mentioned the response to the poll, which was that 94 per cent. of licensees—mainly pub landlords and tenants, I readily admit, and better the devil you know than the devil you don't know—want to retain magistrates. In my experience as an MP, I have had a number—not many—of complaints from licensees who had problems with the magistrates, but in those cases I concluded that the magistrates were taking the right action. No doubt many hon. Members have had the same experience.
Mr. Sanders: Has the hon. Gentleman shared my experience that most of the objections to the current system are not about the decision of the magistrate, but the High Court appeals that overturned it?
Mr. Moss: I cannot agree or disagree with that, because I have not dealt with such cases. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can elaborate on that, but I have not received any complaints of that nature.
Mr. Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley): The hon. Gentleman makes the case that extra costs are associated with the provision. The regulatory impact assessment shows a £1.97 billion saving. Can he explain where he disagrees with that?
Mr. Moss: I was going to deal with costs later. I, too, have the assessment and I intend to speak about it. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there are £1.9 billion of savings, he would believe anything.
While we are on the subject of costs and cost-effectiveness, it may be true that there is an element of subsidy involved in the present system and the magistrates in their fee-charging structure do not cover the real costs of providing the service. That is a separate issue that could be addressed by changing the fee structure, rather than shifting the whole thing across to local authorities. As the Minister mentioned, there will be costs upfront during the transition period. I have had information from the British Beer and Pub Association. It has calculated the costs as best it can, on the basis of possible fee structures that may be implemented. Managed premises could be faced with transition costs of around £200 in legal fees, which is twice the figure normally allocated. Given the application fee of about £500 per pub, the cost of advertising would add nearly £400, since most pubs are likely to seek a variation at least to retain the two-musician band on their entertainment licence.
Setting aside the cost, the transition period will require each local authority to set up new systems and recruit staff. That is supposed to take place in six months. Every pub and every licensee will have to apply for a licence and there will be double handling of all the charges during the transitional period. That short time scale could lead not only to a high-risk policy, but to potential disaster. Speed of response to changing circumstances is an essential requirement in the licensing arena. At the moment, magistrates respond extremely quickly to local needs as they arise. Many will give up time at a weekend to have a sitting and agree a licence application. We do not
Column Number: 112
envisage that local authorities will be anything like as co-operative and flexible.
| 
