| Licensing Bill [Lords]
|
|
Dr. Howells: The Minister is not looking blank; he is amazed. After all these Committee sittings, is the hon. Gentleman seriously trying to argue that if alcohol is sold at agricultural shows—sometimes in vast quantities, and I say that having been to many of them—no licensing conditions should be imposed? Mr. Turner: No. The Minister referred to flower shows in his final speech in the previous debate, but I understand from my reading of the Bill that neither flower shows nor agricultural shows are licensable activities, and I just wanted to make that clear, so that the Minister could correct me if he felt it necessary. He is not doing so, so I assume that I am right. Column Number: 416 What is licensable about an agricultural show is the sale of alcohol, the conduct of music or dancing, or something else of that kind: the event itself is a non-licensable activity. The licensable activity—the sale of alcohol—is incidental to the non-licensable activity. It is not the purpose for which the agricultural show takes place; although it may appear to the Minister that that is the case, the fact is that other things go on at agricultural shows as well as drinking inside and outside marquees. My argument is not that the licensable activity should not be licensed, but that the restriction of 72 hours on the availability of a temporary event notice should not apply until an event reaches a duration of 14 days, and that the qualification for that should be that the licensable activity is incidental to non-licensable activity. I am trying to extend the scope for a temporary event licence, and I am asking the Minister to tell me whether he thinks it unreasonable to apply for a temporary event notice for a bar operated for four days at an event such as an agricultural show—it is clear that when he drafted the Bill, he thought that it was. My aim is as simple as that. I am concerned that people will have to apply for permanent licenses to operate a bar at, for example, an agricultural show, even if it lasts for only four days a year. I now want to talk about Cowes week, and I am indebted to Chris Troup, the landlord of the Anchor Inn, Cowes—the concessionaire who runs events in the Cowes yacht haven—for assisting me with my questions. Mr. Troup is concerned about the back-to-back restriction on temporary event notices, and about the fact that only five temporary event notices would be available for a particular set of premises. Once again, we get into the question of what is a premises. The Cowes yacht haven is a large area containing many birds, moorings, pontoons, and so forth. It is possible to define that area as more than one place by drawing a line on a map that does not represent any physical feature on the ground. If the marquees are placed in two separate places and those are defined as two separate sets of premises, it would be possible for Mr. Troup to serve five temporary event notices for place A, at the western end of the yacht haven, another five for place B, which immediately adjoins it but is not within the curtilage of place A, and again for place C, which is a little further along the yacht haven. If he could do that, he would be happy. However, he is concerned that the definition of premises is not in his control. Should the person serving the notice define the premises, or is another body able to define those as well? The definition contained in clause 190 says that premises are ''any place''; but who will define them? If Mr. Troup cannot get more than five temporary event notices a year, I assume, although perhaps the Minister will correct me, that he should apply for a permanent licence for the Cowes yacht haven. The problem with that is contained in the operating schedule, to which I referred earlier. It is impossible, at the beginning of the period for which a permanent Column Number: 417 licence runs, to predict precisely the use to which it will be put.I would be happy if the Minister could assure me that the following example is acceptable—and so would Mr. Troup. Perhaps it would be possible to say, ''We intend to hold various events over a period of five years''—depending on the duration of the licence—''some of which will run from 8 am to midnight, although we intend to run others until 2 or 3 am. We are not yet sure about the size of the marquees, because we have not had the bookings. We are not exactly sure where the marquees will be, because we do not know whether there will be boats being renovated or repaired on the surface of the yacht haven. We have not yet made the arrangements for the location of the stalls, stands and other non-licensable activities on the yacht haven.'' If that were acceptable as an operating statement, Mr. Troup would be happy. However, if it were not acceptable, he would have to acquire a general premises licence and would repeatedly have to apply for modifications, or serve temporary event notices. First, why is there a 72-hour limit? Would it not be more appropriate to have a much longer limit that would cover agricultural and sporting events? Secondly, why is there a back-to-back restriction? Thirdly, what is a ''place'', and who decides that? Fourthly, what level of detail is required in the operating schedule? Will it be sufficient to provide an operating schedule that gives general scope for meeting the specific needs that may arise within five days?
9.45 amMr. Troup tells me that many people come to Cowes week and say, ''We want to have a party. Organise one on Friday.'' He has to get the marquee, the drink and the band with five days' notice. At present he can do so by using his licence for the Anchor Inn, by applying for occasional licences, which he can get in 24 hours from the Isle of Wight magistrates court, and by getting entertainment licences, which are broad in scope, from the Isle of Wight council. Jim Knight: That is much more complicated. Mr. Turner: Mr. Troup and I agree that the process is more complicated than having a single licence. Mr. Troup went out of his way to commend that aspect of the Bill, but he will not believe that things are less complicated if he has to use a crystal ball when he applies for his permanent premises licence to forecast exactly what uses his premises will be put to over the long period of the licence's duration. Nick Harvey (North Devon): The clauses in question replace the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983, which was brought in because of the inadequacies of the Licensing Act 1964 in dealing with temporary events. The 1983 Act has worked well. I am sorry to say that the clauses will in practice prove to be more restrictive than the 1983 Act. That is a pity when the Government say—and they sincerely intend this to be the case—that the Bill is liberalising and will give us a more permissive regime. Unless we can effect some of the amendments, we will end up with something considerably more draconian Column Number: 418 than the existing legislation. Many events that currently take place on a semi-regular basis are perfectly permissible under the existing law, but will fall the wrong side of the law as drafted in the Bill.One of my particular concerns is the number of hours. I understand that in proposing a limit of 72 hours the Government intended to accommodate long-weekend events—but would 72 hours do that? For example, often a beer tent at an event will open on Friday and carry on right through the weekend and into the bank holiday Monday evening. That exceeds 72 hours—albeit not by very much—so that sort of event will fall the wrong side of a 72-hour limit. I accept that wherever a line is drawn it will be a bit arbitrary and there will be things that fall the wrong side of it, but my object is to persuade the Minister that in drawing his line at 72 hours, he has drawn it just a little too tightly. There are two relevant amendments. Mine suggests extending the 72 hours to 120 hours. The other amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who will no doubt speak to it, suggests 96 hours. The Conservatives initially tabled an amendment specifying 168 hours. They have trimmed that back to 96 hours, or from seven days to four days. I am sure that that was done in an attempt to be reasonable and to entice the Minister to agree that the line should be drawn just a little beyond the 72 hours. If the matter is considered constructively, the Minister, being a reasonable man, may be persuaded to move the line a little. Many events—for example, carnival weeks, music festivals, one-off shows and so on—may fall on the wrong side, and my suggestion of five days or the alternative suggestion of four days, would allow many events that have taken place under the 1983 Act to continue. Drawing the line at 72 hours is too tight and will prevent such events from taking place. I urge the Minister to think about that. The amendments are constructive; we are trying to find a slightly more lenient limit. Amendment No. 340, in the name of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, concerns the limit of 500 people participating. That is new and, as I understand it, could cause problems in practice. Presumably, the limit relates to 500 people at any one time. If a festival lasts for a few days and a beer tent is running, clearly it is possible that more than 500 people will attend. Equally, if the beer tent is tangential to the principal event—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) touched on this point—it would be difficult for those running the beer tent to have the slightest idea of how many people would use it, either at any one time or in toto. I also want the Minister to tell us whether the 500 people include the event staff. If a beer festival attracts 500 people, it will have a large staff—perhaps 30 or even 50—working in shifts and relays. Will they be included in the 500, and how will the number be policed? Jim Knight: I am trying to think through the hon. Gentleman's argument. If he is arguing for more than 72 hours—there are good arguments for flexibility—he Column Number: 419 is also arguing for removal of the ceiling of 500. The Glastonbury festival, for example, might be held under a temporary event notice and the ability to regulate such festivals, which attract 200,000 people and give rise to huge public safety and other concerns, would continue with the light-touch regulation.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 8 May 2003 |
