|
Clause 5
General duties of licensing authorities
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in
clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'to grant permission, in the form of a licence, to a person, business or organisation to provide—
(a) the sale by retail of alcohol,
(b) the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club,
(c) regulated entertainment as set out in Schedule 1,
(d) late night refreshment as set out in Schedule 2,
where it would otherwise be an offence without such a licence; and further to promote—'.
The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 8.
Amendment No. 107, in
clause 5, page 3, line 30, leave out from 'premises' to '; and' in line 31.
Amendment No. 66, in
clause 5, page 3, line 31, leave out 'and'.
Amendment No. 65, in
clause 5, page 3, line 32, after 'children', insert 'and other vulnerable persons'.
Amendment No. 67, in
Column Number: 142
Amendment No. 68, in
Amendment No. 69, in
Amendment No. 70, in
Amendment No. 71, in
Amendment No. 88, in
Amendment No. 134, in
Amendment No. 73, in
Amendment No. 74, in
clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert
'which shall in particular set out the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers justify the prevention of any licensing authority from restricting the number of licensed premises, regulating the type of licensed premises, or imposing a generalised closing time in any part of a town centre of other locality within the licensing area.'.
Amendment No. 119, in
clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert
'and
( ) the encouragement of the development of social, cultural and sporting facilities for persons living and working in that area, or visitors to that area, in such a manner as is consistent with the licensing objectives.'.
Amendment No. 79, in
clause 6, page 4, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) In drawing up keeping under review or revising a licensing policy, a licensing authority must take into account the need to promote such live music, dancing and theatre as it considers to be for the wider cultural benefit of its local community.'.
Mr. Moss: The key Opposition amendment in this group is No. 118, which would add to the list of licensing objectives. During our debate, we have discussed what activities should and should not be included in the scope of a licensing Act. That has exposed a fundamental flaw: during the translation of the proposal from the White Paper to the legal framework, the whole purpose of licensing seems to
Column Number: 143
have been lost, with overdue attention being paid to what has been termed as the licensing objectives.
The purpose of licensing in any activity or business is to give permission for something to occur that would otherwise not be permissible. Much has been said about the effects of the Bill as it stands, but little so far about its fundamental purpose. Few would disagree that the sale of alcohol should be regulated; the need to acquire a licence strengthens the effect and efficacy of the enforcement of that regulation. However, it is different to claim that the objective of the licence is to prevent crime and disorder, protect the amenity of the area and protect the public from harm, which is what the Bill sets out as its objective. The licence merely gives permission for alcohol to be sold and states the conditions under which it must be sold. The so-called licensing objectives that appear in clause 5 are much more duteous on those holding the licence—they should uphold them since knowingly contravening them can result in the removal of permission through the revocation of the licence.
It is questionable as to what activities should be licensed under the Bill. It is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but nowhere does it actively seek to promote the social life of the country. The main purpose of providing a licence is to give permission to do certain things and our amendment would make it clear that, in considering a licence, the promotion of social, cultural and sporting activity is as important as the promotion of public safety, nuisance issues and the prevention of crime and disorder.
Amendment No. 42, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, deals with amenity. Government amendment No. 8 would delete huge sections of clause 5(2)(c), which deal with amenity. It is important that we tease out from the Government why they are so much against amenity and in favour reintroducing the concept of nuisance to the Bill. The Secretary of State said in Parliament on 24 March 2003 that the Government did not intend to accept the amendment made in the other place to add the protection of amenity as an objective—that intention is clear from Government amendment No. 8.
The introduction of a licensing objective under which amenity generally may be considered can only constrain the ability to address public nuisance if the existing public nuisance objective is removed from the Bill. However, it is agreed in some quarters that that objective should remain. In fact, the term ''public nuisance'' may constrain the ability of licensing authorities to take into account all the potential adverse impacts that licensed premises may have, as it is a phrase that has been given a specific and relatively narrow meaning by the courts in the context of environmental protection. The term ''amenity'' does not have that disadvantage. It is wrong to suggest that amenity in planning terms solely concerns aesthetic and visual appearance. The word has been given a wide meaning by the courts in a planning context. In the case of Ellis v. Ruislip-Northwood UDC 1920, it was interpreted as
''pleasant circumstances or features, advantages''.
Column Number: 144
10.15 am
Under section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for example, planning legislation requires a local planning authority to have regard to the interests of amenity. Such provisions have never caused problems or difficulties of interpretation. Given what I said about amenity, will the Minister explain why the Government consider it necessary to remove from the Bill any reference to amenity, as amendment No. 8 would do? There is a place for amenity. Surely the Bill's objectives are to promote cultural and social activities. After all, most people drink in a social context when they go out to enjoy themselves. We recognise that that activity needs to be licensed, but surely we must accept that, if drinking alcohol is lawful, the objectives should encompass some definition of why people undertake such activities.
Jim Knight: Amendment No. 88 is a probing amendment. I have no intention of putting it to the vote. It follows from my intervention on the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading, when I suggested that a licensing objective should be the safeguarding of cultural activity. My thinking is not dissimilar to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. We must provide a little more balance within the objectives, such as safeguarding against disorder and promoting public safety, and child protection. It would be helpful to have an objective by which cultural life was safeguarded to ensure that we achieve that balance. It may provide some comfort for the representatives of the culture industry who have lobbied so hard on the Bill.
A balance has been created in planning. When I was a member of a planning committee, we balanced the important regulation and control of land use with the need to stimulate and encourage economic development. Similarly, we want the licensing committee to balance the need to sustain and generate a good quality of life for citizens with the economic benefit that cultural life can generate. That economic benefit was well documented through the 1980s and 1990s, when John Myerscough carried out an excellent examination of the economic benefit of the arts in cities, such as Glasgow and Birmingham. Such work has continued and the Department fully supports it. We must balance that benefit with the need to protect against public disorder, to ensure public safety and protect children from harm.
Mr. Jones: Is not the problem the fact that the clause defines culture? Some people think that morris dancing and high art are culture, while others consider that Newcastle brown and football are part of the culture in the north-east.
Jim Knight: That was an interesting intervention. It may be up to individual licensing authorities to decide whether they want to protect Newcastle brown and football in the north-east. They may well want to protect such things—it is not for me to say. One of the benefits of the Bill is that it delegates such decisions to local communities, and they can judge which cultural activities to safeguard.
I have an example of a balance that has been difficult to achieve within the existing licensing of
Column Number: 145
public entertainment by local authorities. I have already mentioned to the Committee that I used to be a member of Mendip district council, which is the licensing authority for the Glastonbury festival. That festival is probably the most important and significant cultural festival in Europe, especially for young people. It is of great significance to youth culture. However, huge public safety, disorder and public health problems are presented when a community of 200,000 people is temporarily created in a farmer's field in Somerset.
Despite the precedents—the Glastonbury festival has existed for some 25 years, after starting as the Pilton pop festival—a consistent problem is that the local community is understandably ambivalent about whether the festival should go ahead. Michael Eavis struggles to obtain licences because elements in the local authority care as lot about crime and disorder, public safety, the protection of children and so forth, but do not balance potential problems with the need to protect the cultural life of the nation by allowing the Glastonbury festival to go ahead. The negotiations continue.
In many ways, that example informs my reason for tabling the amendment. I wish to ensure that licensing committees balance the two concerns when they make their decisions. Glastonbury festival is an extreme example, but similar points could be made about the folk festivals in Weymouth and Swanage, both of which take place in my constituency. I am sure that we in the Committee are all united in wanting to encourage and enhance folk music and other such activities.
I would like the Minister to respond to my concerns and consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce an amendment on Report, because I will not press my amendment to a vote. The Secretary of State responded to my intervention on Second Reading by saying that she was worried that we would overload committees by giving them too much to think about, but it is reasonable to ask licensing committees to balance the objectives in the Bill with safeguarding the cultural life of their areas.
|
