| Licensing Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham): My hon. Friend said that he would have got more comfort from the Minister if the wording of clause 9(6) had been changed from ''may to ''shall''. He may have got more comfort if the Government had taken serious steps to amend clause 4, rather than trying to delete it, to assure us that the register would be set up sensibly and that it would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. Column Number: 138 Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes a good point. So far, the attitude of the Government to the debates and the successful amendments in the other place has been to dump on them from a great height; they are chucking them out without even considering the real basis for the argument why the amendments were tabled. Perhaps, the Government do not want to go down the road of setting up a wholly new quango, as the Minister said. Certainly, we would not be in favour of huge costs. We must be assured that things will happen and that somebody, or some Department, will be held responsible for setting things up and ensuring they work. If there were a central authority, which is the intention behind clause 4—originally the amendment in the other place—it would at least be identifiable, would be given a clear role and resources to fulfil that role and there would be one set of IT dealing with things. However, we are not sure about that and the Minister has not given us any assurance that the IT systems used by different local authorities would be able to talk to one another sensibly. Dr. Howells: That is a reasonable argument. At the moment, there is hardly a single system encompassing all local authority systems. Everybody is trying to achieve interoperability, but so far they have found it difficult to achieve. We cannot let that problem hold back the Bill. We may not be able to see a way of achieving interoperability in the immediate future, but we will work towards it and that is precisely why we need flexibility. Mr. Moss: I hear what the Minister says, but it is a weak argument. During the gestation of the legislation, going back to discussions prior to and since the White Paper, the issue has not been properly addressed—not even at this late hour. The Opposition believe that a central database is absolutely vital and that the LGA and the police share our view. We shall vote against the Government's amendment to leave out clause 4, because until we get any indication otherwise that is the only reassurance in the Bill that a central registering database will be taken seriously. Dr. Howells: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman will vote against the amendment as I am not sure that I understand the logic of his position. I shall first try to answer the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. The Government are in regular and detailed discussion with the LGA and the Association of London Government about transition. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as having a large number of applications, local authorities will receive a large number of licence fees. It should be noted that during transition the licensing authority will not have an enforcement role. The fee revenue would therefore be more than adequate to cover set-up costs and see it through a difficult period. We are confident that the licensing authorities can manage the transition process. Mr. Field: Does the Minister fully understand that the so-called enforcement role does not simply cover policing, but giving advice and support? The notion that the need for that will disappear during the transition period is fundamentally mistaken. Local Column Number: 139 authorities have an important role in giving general advice and support to business, but it is often assumed that enforcement is all about coming down hard on people. Local authorities use the carrot, as well as the stick, approach.Dr. Howells: Yes, indeed. I want to encourage that approach. As a Minister who was responsible for trading standards officers departments, I advocated that approach as it is the way to tackle many of the problems that arise. The hon. Member for North Devon made some important points about access to information. Questions of access, privacy and data sharing are part of the detailed discussions being held with various partners. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must be clear about those questions and I certainly would not want a creep—if I can use that word—towards access being increasingly opened up to what might be very sensitive information. Some information may shade into information that is commercially confidential and that could cause difficulties. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised some interesting issues about who might know whom when decisions are made. All Members of Parliament will have come across some odd decisions, especially about planning. The situation is never perfect. We have one of the least corrupt planning regimes on the face of the earth and it has served us well. However, it could be refined in several ways, some of which the hon. Gentleman pointed out—at least, he suggested some directions that could be pursued. I am sure that hon. Members will recall that the Bill replaces the rather vague ''fit and proper person'' test with a much more open and transparent criteria. In the vast majority of cases, the situation that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight describes should not arise. Local authorities can apply for public entertainment licences and that illustrates many of the tensions that he mentioned. I assure the Committee that we have looked into this matter and we are confident that existing provisions governing the way in which local authorities discharge the functions vested in them ensure that where it is improper for an individual to be involved in a licensing decision, self-disqualification would take place. Therefore, there is no need to amend the Bill to ensure that, for example, where councillors have a financial interest in the outcome of a decision, they will not be party to any decision.
10 amI have every confidence that local authorities will be able to carry out their many functions effectively and impartially and that existing standing orders governing issues of propriety offer effective safeguards. The system set out in the Bill will ensure that licensing decisions benefit from the participation of councillors with knowledge of the local area and from a joined-up approach that allows licensing to be seen in the wider context of other local authority responsibilities. Mr. Turner: Will the Minister give way? Column Number: 140 Dr. Howells: I want to make some progress first. We will return to this matter when we discuss the role that MPs, MEPs and councillors play in notification and objections. Clause 9(6) is drafted as it is because the requirement to keep and maintain a register bites as soon as the provisions come into force and a central national register will not be available at that time. Therefore, the word ''shall'' is inappropriate in the context of that requirement. In the current draft, ''may'' is a strong word. A provision should not be included in legislation if there is no intention to use the power that is being given. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested, the legislation has to be drafted to reflect a practical problem: the appropriate machinery must get into the national register, if I can use that expression. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the difficulties that might arise from a case. He said that the inquiry might be in Cornwall when the initial licence was granted in Northumberland. That is a good example. The expense could be just as great if the case involved Cornwall and Devon. It is true that the application for the renewal of a licence is made to the authority that issued the original licence. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that would be an administrative process. As the hon. Member for North Devon pointed out, the numbers involved are not huge by any standard, and in the few cases where a hearing is required, all the relevant details would be available to the police and the licensing authority as a result of the provisions in the Bill that require an identification of convictions. The hon. Gentleman asked who would lead the database project. We are leading it—although I am not sure whether that gives him any confidence. We are leading an initial scoping phase and once we have a clear and detailed business case, we will be in a better position to determine ownership models and so forth. It would be wrong of us to pre-empt the results of those discussions. I hope that those remarks answer at least some of the doubts and questions that have been raised. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 5.
Division No. 5]
AYES
NOES
Amendments made: No. 45, in
No. 6, in
Column Number: 141 Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 8 April 2003 |
