| Licensing Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Field: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Can I confirm that if we later want to table amendments to clauses 143 and 151, we will be entitled to do so, or is now our one and only opportunity? The Chairman: It is in order for the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member to table amendments to relevant clauses, but at the end of the debates on those amendments there will not be a stand part debate because we are having it this morning. Mr. Turner: Amendment No. 178 deals with the narrow description of an interested party. I shall furnish an example of an interested party that in my opinion, is not covered by paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3). It is certainly not covered by paragraph (e) and would be even less covered by it should the Minister achieve his objective of removing that paragraph. The example is a hospital. A hospital is not a person; it is not
or
unless, of course, it is private hospital; or
Neither is a national health service trust covered by subsection (4). If someone—it might be not the Isle of Wight council, but a private individual—aimed to promote a pop concert or festival on land abutting a hospital, the representatives of that hospital would not be a relevant person or ''interested party'' in terms of objecting to the application. The subsection is drawn too narrowly and ought to include any body, whether an individual or a corporate or unincorporated body, that may be affected by an application. I understand that there has been criticism from other sources of the use of the word ''vicinity'', because it does not mean a specific distance. Is the vicinity of the premises confined to the road or neighbourhood in which the premises are situated, or would it comprise the whole town or village in which they are situated? Is the vicinity the area over which one could hear amplified music, were the licence to be granted? If so, I understand from some of my constituents who were around at the time of the Isle of Wight pop festivals in the early 1970s that it was possible to hear the sound of the festival from Totland to Newport. For those who are not as familiar as the Minister with the geography of the Isle of Wight, that is a considerable distance. I understand that it took the Minister about an hour to traverse that distance by car last year. Column Number: 222 Mr. Hoban: I am not familiar with the distances on the Isle of Wight, but I am familiar with the fact that the Isle of Wight is opposite part of my constituency. Could the noise from the Isle of Wight pop festival have been heard in parts of Fareham? Would Fareham be in the vicinity of such a pop festival? Mr. Turner: The pop festival was held at Afton farm in Freshwater, so although the sound could have been heard from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and possibly even from that of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), it is unlikely that it could have been heard in Fareham. Had the pop festival taken place in the grounds of Osborne house, which is not something to which I think that the Minister aspires, it is certainly possible that the sound would have been heard in Lee-on-the-Solent, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the adjoining villages in the southern and coastal parts of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). My hon. Friend does have a coastal part to his constituency. Mr. Hoban: I do. Mr. Turner: He does. The Chairman: Order. First, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that this cannot turn into a conversation. He is addressing a Committee. Secondly, although I am an ageing rocker and have an affinity with some of the things to which he is referring and a deep affection for the Isle of Wight, I have to say that he is going rather wide of the mark in defining the simple word ''vicinity''. Mr. Turner: That is my problem, Mr. Gale. How wide is the definition of that word? Dr. Howells: May I help the hon. Gentleman? The word ''vicinity'' can mean an area and a neighbourhood. We have chosen not to define that in the Bill to allow for flexibility and responsiveness to circumstances. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to let the Committee know his views on the matter. I am sure he understands the logic from the point of view of those who attempt to administer difficult situations, which are sometimes—exceptionally—like the one he mentioned back in 1971. Mr. Turner: I am pleased the Minister believes that the word ''vicinity'' may be interpreted flexibly by the licensing authority. I believe that the licensing authority will have to do that anyway. Certainly, it will have to err on the side of generosity to those making representations on the granting of a licence, rather than being unduly restrictive and determining that representations are not relevant under the Bill. That helps me considerably. I am also glad that we discussed the extent to which the sound—what some might call the noise—of the Isle of Wight pop festival could be heard on the mainland. I have dealt with a side issue in my amendment and I revert now to its substance, which is that the Bill does not cover public bodies that are not businesses. Column Number: 223 Dr. Howells: This is intriguing, because I am not entirely familiar with the definitions. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman this: an NHS trust is in business. I assure him that hospitals will be able to make representations if they are in the vicinity and if members of the boards of hospitals happen to live locally there will be an additional means of representation. Perhaps that will help him in trying to understand that hospitals are incorporated in the Bill. Mr. Turner: That is helpful. Perhaps the Minister will also tell me whether Her Majesty's prisons of Parkhurst, Camp Hill and Albany are businesses for the purposes of the legislation and whether the proposed inhabitants of HMS Daedalus in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, who are likely to be asylum seekers, will be living in the vicinity. Dr. Howells: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the Committee that some of the expressions of contemporary culture, for example, Robbie Williams playing at a live concert on the Isle of Wight, could be considered as a form of torture by the inmates of the prisons he mentioned? The Chairman: Order. We are not going any further down this route. Even my legendary tolerance is being stretched. It would be a good idea to come back to the point. Mr. Turner: I accept your guidance, Mr. Gale. My concern was not whether that might be torture, but whether a prison, a camp established for asylum seekers or a children's home is a business and therefore entitled to make representations under the proposed legislation. Dr. Howells: My advice is that the same arguments apply to prisons as apply to hospitals. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to give me a list of establishments about which he is worried. Children's homes certainly would be included and if asylum seekers were housed in some accommodation, they would be able to make representations if an application were put forward for such an event or licence. Mr. Turner: The Minister has demolished the case for the amendment, but this debate has been useful because he has put his interpretation on the record and that will be relevant in any judicial proceedings. Therefore, unless he wishes to speak, I will not press the amendment. The Chairman: Order. The amendment is not moved.
10.15 amDr. Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 170, in
Amendment No. 179, in Column Number: 224
'local councillor of the local authority, (f) the council for the parish (in England) or community (in Wales) in which the premises are situated. (3A) For the purposes of subsection (3) ''local authority'' means the district or county (in England), county or county borough (in Wales), or London borough in which the premises are situated or the City of London or the area of the Council of the Isles of Scilly being the authority in which the premises are situated.'.
Amendment No. 181, in
Dr. Howells: Clause 14 sets out those individuals and organisations that are the ''authorised person'', ''interested party'' and ''responsible authority'' for the purposes of the part of the Bill that deals with premises licences. It provides that ''interested party'' means any of the following:
Members of the European Parliament, MPs and local ward councillors were added to that list by an amendment in another place. Government amendment No. 10 would remove them from the list. I note from amendment No. 170 that Conservative Committee members are almost but not quite of the same mind as the Government on this issue. Under part 3 of the Bill, interested parties may make representations about applications for premises licences and may also apply to the relevant licensing authority for reviews of premises licences. Therefore, the amendment that was made in another place would allow MEPs, MPs and local ward councillors to make representations about applications for, and apply for reviews of, premises licences for any premises in their constituency or ward. Hon. Members are aware that the Government strongly believe that the licensing system should be managed by democratically accountable bodies. That is why we are transferring responsibility for alcohol licensing from the licensing justices to local authorities. We also believe that local residents and businesses should be given the opportunity to have their say about the licensing of premises in their vicinity. That is why those groups are included in the list of interested parties. Any local business or resident living in the vicinity of the premises may use any representative to put their case. That could be a solicitor, friend or relative, an MP, a ward councillor, an MEP, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales or a body representing the amenity interests in the vicinity. However, why should any of those individuals have a say in their own right? In every case that I have cited, Column Number: 225 ''representative'' is the appropriate word. If no local resident or business in the vicinity wishes to exercise their right to make representations or apply for a review—they might be enormously pleased to see a new licensed premises opening nearby—who would the MP, for example, be representing?I understand why many hon. Members might find the amendment that was made in another place attractive. When I read the initial drafts of the Bill, I exploded with self-important rage that I as an MP would not be able to come in on this, but a little later—after a full, frank and adult discussion—I saw the sense of what was being proposed. I was interested in the different views that were expressed on this subject on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) said that he wanted to be able to do something about the representations on alcohol sales that he receives from his constituents. The Bill as originally drafted, and as it will stand, if amendment No. 10 is accepted, would allow him to represent them if they ask him to do so. On the other hand, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) suggested that we should remove ''Member of Parliament'' from the list of interested parties and replace it with ''any peer of the realm living in the district in question''—which I thought was very witty. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not want to give peers a specific role in the new licensing system, but I hope that his suggestion shows that he agrees with our amendment. The inclusion of councillors, MPs and MEPs makes sense. They are available if a local resident wishes to use their services, but they should not express views on a resident's behalf unless they have been consulted. We are given rights to make representations to protect those who are directly affected by the activities to be carried out on the premises concerned. It is not for others to tell residents that they know better. I shall set out the Government's arguments on local ward councillors specifically, as they are the subject of amendment No. 170. The reasoning that I have already set out regarding MPs applies equally to ward councillors. They will be able to make representations if they live in the vicinity of the premises or if they are asked to do so on behalf of their constituents. However, they should not be able to exercise a veto over the wishes of local residents and businesses or to gainsay the views of experts on individual licence applications. There is also a danger that arming ward councillors with the power to make representations in their own right, even if they do not live near the premises concerned, would lead to a hearing in almost every application. That would significantly undermine the deregulatory gains and savings that the Bill is designed to deliver. Similar arguments apply to parish councils and, in Wales, to community councils, which are the subject of amendment No. 179. Nevertheless, nothing in the Bill Column Number: 226 prevents a parish council from becoming involved on behalf of a local resident or business if asked to do so.Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 would increase the flexibility of the provision by incorporating the concept of the electoral division. I understand that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight tabled them to reflect the particular local authority arrangements in his constituency. In view of the Government's intention to remove ward councillors' ability to make representations, the amendments are unnecessary. I hope that they will be withdrawn and not pressed to a vote.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 10 April 2003 |
