Licensing Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Dr. Howells: Watch what you are saying.

Mr. Turner: I am not talking about Wales.

Column Number: 210

The further one moves away from a tendency to examine the detail of the legislation, the more likely it is that things drift and become lax.

Dr. Howells: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the further we go from London into the sticks, the thicker the councillors are?

Mr. Turner: I accept that challenge, because it is sensible. I was talking about metropolitan areas, because I accept that near Newcastle, for example, there may be areas that are fairly metropolitan and influenced by metropolitan good practice.

Jim Knight (South Dorset): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Turner: Wait a moment, or I will forget what I wanted to say.

We find a tendency in some areas for people to be a bit more lax about the details of legislation. For example, morris dancing is not licensed in my authority area.

Mr. Jones: It should be.

Mr. Turner: My local councillors and officers have adopted a sensible and sane approach by not bothering about every detail of the legislation concerned—but I would not recommend that, because they should ensure that legislation is applied properly.

I shall now give way to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight).

Jim Knight: I think that the hon. Gentleman is digging well enough on his own.

Mr. Turner: My point is that in some areas, application of the legislation is a bit lax. Given a loophole, councillors will occasionally sneak things through it—just as, in the mind of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), the promoters of public entertainment do.

Mr. Jones: North Durham.

Mr. Turner: I am sorry for that confusion; one Member here represents Devon and one represents Durham.

I hope that I have illustrated why the Minister's answer was inadequate. He has allowed for an escape route; he has demolished the whole of local government legislation, yet proposes, under subsection (2), to reinstate it. However, will it be reinstated in a manner that is confusing to members of the public? Regulations for the licensing committee will be different from those for other committees.

Mr. Moss: The Select Committee gave us a clear steer on this when it said:

''The House may wish to enquire what use might be made of this power as the regulations could not override primary legislation.''

A wink is as good as a nod. The Government regard subsection (2) as the thin end of a big wedge. We accept that there may be occasions when the public should not participate in certain meetings. The Minister cited an example of matters concerning social services. However, his Department wants to take powers to itself to determine how committees and sub-committees of local authorities should operate.

Column Number: 211

That is a whole new ball game. It takes us into all sorts of areas. Why does the Department consider it necessary to put such provisions into the Bill?

I accept that the word used is ''may'', but we all know that that usually leads to the provisions being implemented. The Minister and the Department say that such provisions are a light regulatory touch, designed to make it easier for things to happen. They say that they do not want them to be too onerous, and that they want a reasonable fee structure, but such matters are still left in the air. I accept that the Bill can be promoted as a positive social measure, but the words used could lead to problems and difficulties. They are so prescriptive that they leave me speechless.

Dr. Howells: Not quite.

Mr. Moss: The words in the clause run counter to the stated aim of the Bill, which is to give local authorities more power by making them the licensing authorities for alcohol. The Government are giving local authorities more power under one part of the Bill, yet at the same time they are saying that they do not really trust the authorities to do the job properly. A provision will be left in the Bill so that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can intervene and set down requirements and provisions that may run counter to the local authorities' standing orders.

It is no good saying that each licensing committee may regulate its own procedures and those of its sub-committees, subject to the regulations that the Government may impose. That is not good enough because if they wanted to, the Government could take over all the responsibilities. The Minister has not attempted to answer a fundamental question. If he will not do so, I shall have to wait for his written answer. These are probing amendments, designed to enable such crucial matters to be debated. If we do not receive satisfaction in Committee, we shall return to the matter on Report.

Dr. Howells: Clause 10(3) does not demolish local government procedure. Under the Local Government Act 1972, there is a presumption that the proceedings of local authority committees will be open to the public, but that is subject to specific provisions under other legislation that covers certain functions. When the hon. Gentleman asked about occasions when proceedings would not be open to the public, I referred to social services, but there could be other examples.

Exceptional circumstances might occur with regard to licensing—for example, if a licence were being reviewed because a serious crime had taken place on the premises. When I was in Manchester, the police told me of cases when drugs had been put into the glasses of young women and rapes had taken place near the premises. In one terrible instance, a rape had taken place on the premises. When a rape had taken place on licensed premises and the identities of individuals needed to be protected to prevent judicial proceedings from being prejudiced, a degree of security that is not normal in local authorities may need to surround the hearing.

Column Number: 212

It is precisely to counter the level of inconsistency in some circumstances that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to that we seek to regulate some aspects. We must remember that we are talking about a new licensing function for local authorities, and a new committee procedure. That is why we see fit to include the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Moss: We still have not received the answers that we seek. I am pretty sure in my own mind that standing orders of my local authority allow it to go into closed session if that is deemed necessary and in the public interest.

The clause deals with more than public access to meetings. Subsection (2) could lead to a whole raft of interference in the standing orders of local authorities with regard to what they can and cannot do. One wonders why that applies just to licensing and not to all sorts of other areas of local authority responsibility.

I said that the amendments were probing, and there has been a good discussion, but we shall return to the matter because we are dissatisfied with the answers given so far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Sub-delegation of functions by licensing committee etc.

9.30 am

Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in

clause 11, page 6, line 33, after 'officer', insert

'or a panel of officers'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 85, in

clause 11, page 6, line 38, after 'officer', insert

'or a panel of officers'.

Mr. Moss: The amendments are fairly simple and short. They are intended to ensure that the decisions of licensing panels will be taken by the panel as a whole and not, as the Bill could be interpreted, by a single officer of the council. The amendments are intended to protect a status quo already established by some authorities, where the decisions on certain opposed applications, such as those relating to licences for street trading and door supervisors, are made by a panel of officers and not by a single officer. The system has proved successful and should continue after the legislation is introduced.

Mr. Field: I support my hon. Friend. Given the genuine lack of urgency in relation to licensing applications, it is sensible safeguard to give a panel of officers from the licensing authority, rather than an individual officer, a say with regard to any of the variations set out in subsection (4). I appreciate that if great urgency were required, for whatever reason, it might be sensible to put powers into the hands of a single, very senior officer. However, in the circumstances that we are discussing, and given the fact that we will be in somewhat uncharted waters in the next few years as the legislation is introduced, the

Column Number: 213

safeguard is sensible. That is the case not least because, under the new regime, there will be great concern, not only from residents, but from businesses that will be subject to the legislation.

I hope that the Minister will accept the fairly minor amendment, which is, none the less, an important safeguard. The Bill provides for a sub-committee of elected councillors within the licensing authority, so it seems only sensible that great authority should not be placed on the shoulders of one unelected officer of an authority.

Dr. Howells: The amendments explicitly provide for a licensing committee to delegate its functions to a panel of officers of the licensing authority, as well as to a sub-committee and an officer of the licensing authority. Under the Bill, any function that may be delegated to an officer can also be delegated to a panel of officers. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.

The amendments would have the effect of allowing a panel of officers to discharge those functions that, under subsection (4), may not be carried out by an officer of the licensing authority. In that respect, the amendments are also undesirable. The functions set out in subsection (4) represent those functions where, after representations have been made raising the public interest issues reflected in the licensing objectives, the licensing authority ceases to act in its administrative role and instead steps into a regulatory role.

The provisions of clause 11 aim to ensure flexibility. It is the intention that licensing committees should delegate to sub-committees and, where appropriate, to officers, the day-to-day applications and administration to allow decisions on applications to be made quickly. As paragraph 4.46 of the draft guidance made clear, licensing authorities will want to consider how to ensure the speedy, efficient and cost-effective handling of decisions and functions when deciding their approach to delegation.

The Bill already allows for delegation to panels of officers, where that is appropriate, and that may well be the approach that licensing authorities will wish to adopt under a system where the majority of cases should be dealt with administratively. Given that the Bill already permits the delegation of administrative functions to panels of licensing officers, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

 

---

Prepared 10 April 2003