|
Mr. Moss: I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation. Again, he is pleading for flexibility. However, if we accept that a time scale of any description will probably be inflexible, what is the point of including subsection 5(b) at all? Why have ''a reasonable interval'' if it means nothing? If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, premises can change quickly—circumstances can change at a given environment with a different licence holder within a short period of weeks or months—the idea of a reasonable interval goes out of the window. The fact that it was only a few months earlier that objections were raised and
Column Number: 308
applications for review were made is irrelevant to the changed circumstances, so I cannot see the point of the reasonable interval.
I do not dispute the fact that the scene can change rapidly, and we need to be flexible to deal with that. With my probing amendment, I simply wanted to get a sense of the Government's thinking on the subject, but the Minister has ended up arguing for removing subsection (5)(b) entirely. I cannot press that idea to a vote, because that is not my amendment, but his comments leave in question whether we need the definition of paragraph (b) at all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52
Determination of application for review
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 287, in
clause 52, page 31, leave out line 39.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 288, in
clause 52, page 31, line 40, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
Mr. Moss: The amendment would remove subsection (4)(c).
The Chairman: Order. I have just been told that we have a problem with the sound system, which means that Hansard is unable to take a correct record. I shall have to suspend the sitting briefly while the sound is sorted out.
10.20 am
Sitting suspended.
10.26 am
On resuming—
The Chairman: I apologise for the delay. I believe that the sound is back on and that we will not have to suspend again. For the benefit of all concerned, we should go back to the start of clause 52, if you do not mind, Mr. Moss. I am not sure how many of your pearls of wisdom made the record.
Mr. Moss: I do not think that I had said anything. I had just got to my feet when you called time on events, Mr. Gale.
Amendment No. 287 would remove subsection (4)(c). Subsection (4) lists the steps that the authority may take at the time of determining an application for review. We could not understand why the authority should be responsible for removing the designated premises supervisor. After all, it can take various measures under subsections (4)(a), (b), (d) and (e). It can modify the conditions of the licence, exclude a licensable activity, suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months or revoke it. Such onerous steps would have a significant impact on the business concerned.
It would seem logical in such circumstances for the premises licence holder to do something about the designated premises supervisor if activities were occurring under his or her supervision that led to problems and reviews. Therefore, it is logical that the owner of the business—the premises licence holder, in
Column Number: 310
particular—would do something about the designated premises supervisor who was in charge of the premises when the nefarious activities that led to the review occurred. The Bill should not include a power for the licensing authority to sack a designated premises supervisor, which is how we interpret the words in subsection (4)(c).
Amendment No. 288 would change the period in subsection (4)(d) from three to two months. Again, it is a probing amendment to get the Government's thinking on the matter. Why three months? It is an arbitrary period that may not strike the right balance. If a licence is to be suspended, the onus should be on the proprietor or the licence holder to get their act in order and continue trading at the earliest opportunity by facing up to the reasons for the review and accepting the strictures from the licensing authority or the police, as the case may be. They must ensure that changes are made so that the licence can continue.
In that context, we would have thought that two months would be more appropriate than three, so the suspension would be on a shorter time scale in order for the business to put right what it needs to and get up and running again. A suspension of three months or more would jeopardise a business in such a way that it could not continue at a later date.
10.30 am
I return to amendment No. 287, which is designed to question why the Government think it appropriate that a licensing authority at the end of a review—if it feels that certain actions need to be taken—can move in and sack a designated premises supervisor. After all, that person is appointed by the premises licence holder and not the authority in the first instance.
Dr. Howells: This group of amendments concerns the steps that are available to the licensing authority after it has heard representations in a review hearing. Those steps may be taken if the authority considers them necessary for the promotion of licensing objectives. Their importance lies not only in the flexibility that they give to the licensing authority in dealing with a range of potential problems, but in their creation of a deterrent to those who operate problem premises, and especially those who fall just short of breaching conditions of their licences but fail to take remedial action to prevent emerging problems.
Although the powers will be essential for bringing premises generating problems in the community back into line, they will also give the owners and operators of the business pause for thought. With changes in trading hours, suspension and revocation of the licence all in the frame, business operators will need to think carefully about a number of matters, including—dare I say—the training of the staff working at those premises.
Under the existing system, where a manager often held the justices' licence, it was often a question of the manager's licence being revoked, and a new manager being brought in to obtain a new licence. The business was rarely threatened by such decisions, and as a result, problems could and did fester. The new system offers real flexibility in how individual problems are handled, and it provides the ability for the outcome of the review to impact directly on the business. For example, a reduction in trading hours will hit its profits, and cannot be ignored lightly.
Most of the businesses in the scope of the Bill are excellent, are run professionally and enhance our constituents' leisure time and our national life. There are some premises that cause problems, and we have to provide a suitable means of putting pressure on them and allowing problems to be remedied.
Amendment No. 287 would remove from the licensing authority's arsenal the power to require the removal of the designated premises supervisor. The Committee has already enjoyed a lengthy, detailed debate about designated premises supervisors. We have made our position clear, and I do not intend to repeat it this morning. The amendment does not serve the interests of the licensing authority, the industry or the community. It reduces the licensing authority's flexibility where the problems emerging at review clearly focus on the actions of a particular manager rather than the business itself. If a change in the designated premises supervisor would solve the problems, why go further than that? From the industry's perspective, would it really want the licensing authority to consider suspension or revocation of the premises licence because the facility of requiring a change in the supervisor is not available? I cannot believe that the industry would be well served by such a measure.
Similarly, in the community, premises such as a local pub may be a much prized local facility that has begun to cause problems following the arrival of a new supervisor. People would not necessarily want the pub closed, even temporarily, but they may well want a new supervisor who will set the right standards. It should therefore be possible for the licensing authority to consider those matters.
Amendment No. 288 would reduce the period of potential suspension of a premises licence from three months to two months. We set the level of three months because we considered that any matter justifying the closure of a business for more than three months would probably justify revocation in any case. We recognise that closure for three months could come close to killing many businesses. There is no question about that. Businesses will be able to plead that point before the licensing authority. Suspension can be from one day to three months, and that provides the flexibility to deal with a great range of problems.
What does reducing the level from three months to two achieve? It certainly reduces the flexibility available to the licensing authority. There is, of course, nothing magical about the period of three months—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was quite right in that respect—but equally, there is nothing magical about two months.
Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay): Will the Minister clarify that the suspension could last between one day and a maximum of three months and is not set at three months?
Column Number: 311
Dr. Howells: Yes, I am absolutely clear on that point. The decision made by the licensing authority would be proportionate to what it considered to be the offences. Of course, many decisions are made in that way now, in many spheres of life. Such flexibility is very important.
The key point is that suspension must act as a real deterrent to those who allow their businesses to drift into lower and lower professional standards that begin to impact on the community and the promotion of the licensing objectives. That is why I favour the higher and tougher level. I sincerely hope that it will have to be imposed rarely, if ever, but what matters is that it could be imposed and operators will know that.
Against that background, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not insist on the amendments.
| 
