| Licensing Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Jones: Hear, hear! Mr. Field: I hear that, but I think that everyone will understand the sheer absurdity of that situation. Clearly, if an individual is a licensee or has an obvious conflict of interest, that should be declared and that person should step off the committee. That applies to local councillors and members of local licensing authorities. The real danger with this sort of provision is that all too often what complainants desire above all is what they consider to be the right result, rather than the right process. Mr. Hoban: How would my hon. Friend tackle the conflict of interest that would arise if, to go back to the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, a council and a commercial promoter both sought to promote pop concerts? How would my hon. Friend do that if we left the framework as it is? Column Number: 218 Mr. Field: I accept that there is a lacuna and my hon. Friend has accurately pointed out that there would be an inevitable conflict of interest not only about the licensing, but about who should have the consent for such an event. I hope that the Minister will give some serious thought to finding a way around the problem, but the reality is that if we give the green light to the provisions as they stand, we would have to go down a litigious route that involves High Court injunctions and, potentially, human rights actions. Obviously, that would be a retrograde step. We have to accept that in some instances there will be a prima facie conflict of interest along the lines set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. I would be interested to hear feedback from the Minister on this skilful attempt to square a difficult circle on a problem that has applied to local government through the ages. The officers and Ministers of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport may prove me wrong, however, with their collective wisdom, and perhaps there will be genuine progress in the new, modernised local government of the 21st century. Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting contribution—as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. On the human rights ''ghastly'' warning given by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) mentioned the issue, too—I am sorry to disappoint, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights has concluded that there are no implications, under any of the articles, arising from the arrangements that we are debating. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight, who is a veteran of several Committees, will probably know that all legislation has to be tested against strict criteria on the human rights issue. He asked whether residents who objected to anything had a route of appeal. They can appeal to the magistrates court if they made representations on the initial application as, of course, would be expected. Also, they may be able to challenge the decision by way of judicial review, albeit with all the provisos involved, and he is right to highlight them. Judicial review can be an expensive process. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster had an interesting and illuminating approach in comparing the construction of a multi-million pound international air terminal with a licensing application from the Dog and Duke—[Interruption.] My advice note states that it was the Dog and Duck. Whatever the name of the pub, it is interesting. I like Dog and Duke better, actually. Amendments Nos. 176 and 212 would require, where the applicant or owner of the premises is the licensing authority for the area in which the premises are situated, that the Secretary of State designate another licensing authority as the relevant licensing authority. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight sums up on his amendments, he will give us some examples of that. I find it intriguing that Rhondda Cynon Taff council could be judged by Cardiff city council in that way. I should imagine that people would have to put on NATO uniforms for some of those sittings. The proposal is further Column Number: 219 indication of the hon. Gentleman's strength of conviction that we should do everything that we can to avoid conflicts of interest.On Tuesday, the hon. Gentleman cited some unfortunate incidents that took place in his constituency. As I made clear at the time, I have some sympathy with his views because we have all seen such things happen. I believe firmly that the amendments are unnecessary and would fly in the face of our drive to open up public venues, particularly where entertainment is concerned. I am worried about some of the observations that have been made by some of the groups representing morris dancers, wassailers and others, who are not particularly interested in the sale of alcohol. Some of their dances or storytelling may take place in a licensed premises—in a car park or a garden of a pub, or whatever. Often, those activities take place on property that is owned by the local authority, such as a road or a square. It is important that local authorities should not have to go through a long process, which it could become, of handling applications of all types relating to premises that they own or control. They have dealt with public entertainment licensing for many years with few problems, as far as I can make out, notwithstanding the examples that were cited by the hon. Gentleman. A robust regulatory framework governs the conduct of councillors, which prevents the sort of conflict of interest that we have discussed a great deal. I tried to tell the hon. Gentleman last Tuesday that the Bill is not concerned with re-engineering local government. If the rules are not strong enough—in his opinion—to deal with the problems that he described, perhaps he can make a case for the legislation using one of the many alternative routes open to him, but not necessarily the Committee. We will encourage licensing authorities to license venues that they own or administer for the purposes of making them available for public use and entertainment. That is part of our strategy to ensure that the Bill has a generally positive impact on cultural provision in England and Wales. Going through the rigmarole of getting the Secretary of State to nominate another licensing authority for such purposes would undermine that objective considerably. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whom I know cares about the encouragement of all sorts of cultural expression in his constituency and elsewhere, will withdraw the amendment. Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for his kind words. I recognise that the Bill is not concerned with re-engineering local government. It is only coincidental that under clause 10 he was trying to re-engineer local government, but never mind. We shall move on from that. I accept that many of the applications that will be made by licensing authorities for their own premises will be minor ones. Indeed, it is questionable whether some of those applications would be necessary. Morris dancers argue that it would be necessary. I think that the Minister argued that it would not be necessary for the licensing authority to apply to itself for a licence Column Number: 220 for morris dancing to take place in the square in Yarmouth because it happens to own the square. If it took place in Pier square in Yarmouth, which is adjacent, an application would be necessary—there is no barrier between the square and Pier square—because Pier square is owned by the harbour commissioners of the former borough of Yarmouth.
10 amThe Minister points out that many of the applications will be minor, which I accept, but some of them would be major. A councillor would not face a conflict of interest as an individual, but as a councillor—that applies to all councillors on the licensing authority. They would face a conflict of interest about a major application because they are part of the authority that is promoting the entertainment that needs to be licensed. I do not know about a domestic problem between Cardiff and Rhondda Cynon Taff, but— Dr. Howells: It is based on rugby. Mr. Turner: That is an excellent reason. I know that my licensing committee would be happy to license what was going on in Westminster—indeed, it would be grateful for the opportunity to visit the city of Westminster at the expense of either Isle of Wight or Westminster council tax payers. I recognise that investing this power in the Secretary of State may be controversial and I am glad that the Minister pointed out the route of appeal, under schedule 5, of the magistrates courts and the possibility of judicial review. That will be expensive and limited to those who have made a relevant representation; I think that will also be limited to interested parties in the context of clause 14(3). As we shall later discuss clause 14(3) and have an opportunity to return to this subject on Report if the conflict needs to be dealt with further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 10 April 2003 |
