|
Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give us a steer as to his thinking? Does he think that a time scale of 14 days is appropriate or acceptable? I understand that he wants to build in flexibility, but there should be some definitive time scale within which the hearing takes place. Will he share with us any thoughts that he has had up to now about the appropriate time scale?
Dr. Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not good at sharing confidential information with the Committee, but I can tell him that he is in the right area. We have to think about the job that the local authority and the applicant will have in marshalling their cases.
Mr. Moss: Given that we will not reach clause 180 until our last or last but one sitting on 20 May, there is a lot of time between now and then for the Minister to hold any necessary meetings. At least when we reach that clause, he will then be able to give us the assurance that he has honed his thinking. We are not asking the Minister for trade secrets, we are simply asking him to put some flesh on the bones of the promise he made to the Committee. I am happy to withdraw the amendments, but when we get to clause 180 we will focus on the assurances that the Minister has given us. We hope that some serious thinking happens before then, so we know where we stand before the Bill leaves Committee.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 46, in
clause 47, page 27, line 31, at end insert 'or'.
No. 47, in
clause 47, page 27, line 33, leave out 'or'.
No. 14, in
clause 47, page 27, line 34, leave out paragraph (d).—[Dr. Howells.]
Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Supplementary provision about interim authority notices
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 284, in
clause 49, page 29, line 31, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 290, in
clause 56, page 33, line 29, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
Mr. Moss: These probing amendments deal with the failure to comply with certain sections and subsections and with the appropriate level of fines that could be levied. I want to ascertain why the Government think it is such a serious, heinous offence not to comply with the provision of the interim authority notice. If an individual does not comply, they may under subsection (6) be subject to a penalty fine not exceeding level 3—a sum of £1,000. That is a heavy-
Column Number: 295
handed, draconian penalty for what may be an error or oversight.
We are dealing with interim authority notices that would be issued when people may be focused on other things. Traumatic times may follow after someone has died or gone into hospital, or if a business has gone into receivership, during which it may be fairly easy to overlook certain matters. Nevertheless, the Government are saying that if someone is a naughty boy and does not comply they could be fined up to £1,000. That is somewhat over the top and rather draconian.
Amendment No. 290 refers to clause 56 and a fine of level 2—some £500—which is also a little too heavy. We wish to ascertain why the Government believe that certain omissions, such as failing to submit notices or provide information, are so terrible that fines of that order must be implemented.
Dr. Howells: Clause 49 makes supplementary provision on interim authority notices; subsection (4) provides that a person becoming a holder of a premises licence by virtue of an interim authority notice
''must (unless he is the designated premises supervisor) forthwith notify the supervisor . . . of the interim authority notice.''
Subsection (5) provides that it is an offence,
''without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (4)''—
I emphasise that for the hon. Gentleman. Subsection (6) provides that
''A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale'',
which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Amendment No. 284 would remove the offence of failing to notify the designated premises supervisor of an interim authority notice. It is anticipated that that person would, in practice, be responsible on a day-to-day basis for what goes on at a premises on behalf of the holder of the premises licence, especially for the sale of alcohol. If the licence in question has lapsed, the authority for carrying on with the sale of alcohol or any other licensable activity on the premises no longer exists. Those licensable activities may not be carried on again until an appropriate authority—in this case, an interim authority notice—is in place. Such a notice will, for want of a better word, revive the licence in the same form that it took immediately before its lapse. It will specify the designated premises supervisor, and will allow the continuation of the licensable activities.
9.30 am
It is vital that the supervisor is made aware of that fact, particularly as he needs to know the identity of the licence holder, just as he does when a licence has been transferred, as well as the fact that he or she is susceptible to committing certain offences on licensed premises. Of course, there is a strong vested interest in the removal of a potential offence, but such a removal would simply undermine the importance that the Bill attaches to the specification of the designated premises supervisor, the need for transparency and the certainty attaching to those involved in the licensing regime.
Column Number: 296
The amendment would remove a requirement on businesses that has been put in place not only because that requirement is important, as I have said, but out of regard for fairness. The Bill ensures that a designated premises supervisor will know who is responsible for the premises licence, and there can be no good reason why there should not be a similar requirement on the business. The premises supervisor will have certain duties and obligations by virtue of his or her position in an organisation. In order to carry out those responsibilities properly, he or she will need to be familiar with the details of the premises licence, and the name of the person or company holding that licence, or given an interim authority notice, is an important detail. It is therefore only right that he or she be told when the person holding the premises licence—or in this case an interim authority notice—has changed. Because that is important, we need to ensure that the requirement can be enforced with appropriate penalties.
Clause 56 provides that if a licensing authority makes a determination or receives a notice in relation to a premises licence, or if the licence lapses or an appeal against a decision made under part 3 is determined, the authority must make any appropriate amendments to the licence and, if necessary, issue a new summary. Subsection (2) provides that if the authority is not in possession of a licence or the appropriate part of it, it may require the holder of the licence to produce it or the appropriate part of it within 14 days. Subsection (3) provides that a person commits and offence if he fails to comply with such a request, and subsection (4) says that a person guilty of that offence is liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
Amendment No. 290 would remove the offence of failing to produce the licence, or the appropriate part of it, for the authority within 14 days to allow it to be updated. It is important to all of those involved in the licensing system, including the police, the licensee, and the licensing authority, that premises licences be kept up to date, so that any information obtained from them is accurate. It therefore seems entirely reasonable that the licensing authority should be able to request licences, or parts of them, when they need to be updated, and that it should be an offence not to comply with such a request.
Mr. Moss: The Minister has moved on to clause 56 and amendment No. 290 to it. Subsection (2) of that clause says that
''Where a licensing authority is not in possession of the licence (or the appropriate part of the licence)'',
the person who has taken over the interim authority notice must, under penalty, provide the licence. However, the local authority will not have to pay a penalty for not having a copy of the licence. I can understand that the person taking over might not have the original licence, but surely the local authority will have a copy of the licence in its records. It could therefore see what was written on the licence, and the licence could be amended accordingly.
I fail to understand why there is a penalty if someone who has just taken over in special circumstances does not comply with that provision
Column Number: 297
of the licence. He may not know where to find it. The local authority should have a copy, yet the Bill does not say that the local authority is responsible.
Dr. Howells: That is a good point, and I assure the Committee that for the vast majority of premises, such requests are not likely to be frequent. As the hon. Gentleman says, in many instances the licensing authority will already have the licence, or the appropriate part of it, when an update needs to be made. For instance, an application for the variation of the designated premises supervisor must be accompanied by the licence or the appropriate part of it, and no additional request will be needed. When those requests are made, the Bill allows 14 days for compliance before any offence is committed. That seems reasonable to me, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Turner: Again, having listened to the Minister, I am more puzzled than I was before he started. That might be my fault, rather than his.
I shall illustrate some of the circumstances that may arise on the death of the holder of a premises licence, and I want the Minister to tell me whether he thinks that it is just that the person who serves the notice should be prosecutable under subsection (5). [Interruption.] I did not hear what the Minister said.
|
