Standing Committee D
Tuesday 29 April 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
Clause 47
Interim authority notice following death etc. of licence holder
8.55 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I beg to move amendment No. 276, in
clause 47, page 27, line 19, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 277, in
clause 47, page 27, line 42, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
Amendment No. 278, in
clause 47, page 28, line 17, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
Amendment No. 279, in
clause 47, page 28, line 18, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
Amendment No. 280, in
clause 47, page 28, line 23, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
Amendment No. 281, in
clause 48, page 28, line 37, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
Amendment No. 282, in
clause 48, page 28, line 43, leave out '48' and insert '96'.
Amendment No. 283, in
clause 48, page 29, line 1, after 'it', insert 'within 14 days'.
Amendment No. 285, in
clause 50, page 30, line 6, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
There is only one group of amendments to the clause. It is entirely up to the judgment of members of the Committee, but I am prepared to allow a fairly wide-ranging debate to take place along the usual terms. If that happens, there will be no stand part debate. I leave that for hon. Members to determine for themselves.
Mr. Moss: Thank you, Mr. Gale. Welcome back to the Chair after what, I hope, was a pleasant Easter break. The amendments are probing amendments. They deal with various time scales to test the Government's thinking behind the length of the periods set out in the Bill. They relate to clause 47, which deals with the interim authority notice following the death et cetera of a licence holder as defined by ''death, incapacity''—I suppose that that is mental incapacity—
''or insolvency of the holder''
under subsection (1)(a).
Such events are fairly traumatic and, one way or another, would throw the business into panic. The Bill allows seven days after such an event for the notice to be submitted. We argue that that period is probably on the tight side, in light of the circumstances that gave
Column Number: 288
rise to such events. A10-day period would give an extra three days, with perhaps a weekend in between, to allow people to collect their thoughts and take stock of the situation, for example, when a person has died or been admitted to hospital. It would give people time to adjust to such matters and to make the necessary arrangements as well as thinking about the serving of an interim notice. We want to elicit from the Government their reasons for wanting a period of seven days after a fairly traumatic event has happened.
Amendment No. 282 would increase the time between the chief officer of police receiving a copy of the interim authority notice and notifying the relevant licensing authority that he or she was duly satisfied. It would change the time from 48 hours to 96. We want to test why 48 hours is deemed to be appropriate. At present, our police force says that it is overworked and under great pressure. As we know, our constabularies suffer problems of one sort or another and to state, under the Bill, that they should react within 48 hours of receiving a notice seems a little on the tight side.
Let us consider the Easter break, when there was a holiday period of four days: Good Friday, the weekend and Easter Monday. Obviously, police officers do not down tools for the whole Easter period, but there would probably be fewer of them on duty and to say that they had to respond within 48 hours in such a holiday period would put undue and unreasonable pressure on them. Have the Government taken such matters into account?
Amendment No. 283 would impose a time limit of 14 days for a hearing to take place by a local authority under clause 48(3)(a), which states that the authority must hold a hearing to consider the notice
''unless the authority, the relevant person and the chief officer of police agree that a hearing is unnecessary''.
Time scales are imposed on everyone else, such as the person who must submit the interim authority notice and the police, but nothing in the Bill requires the local authority to respond within a particular time. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me otherwise. Everyone else seems to be held to a time limit and the local authority should be, too.
The situation could be fairly tricky. The business may be in a period of hiatus and there may be questions about how it should continue, who would take over, and so forth. It seems unreasonable that the Bill provides no time limit within which the local authority should respond and hear the police objection. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether, in the interests of a speedy transition, it is necessary to impose a time limit within which a local authority should hold a hearing.
If the police object to an interim notice, a cloud of suspicion may hang over the head of the individual who wishes to take over and it is important that that be removed quickly and reasonably, for the success of the business.
Dr. Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) for the spirit in which he moved the amendment. He was correct to frame it as he did. Such incidents are often traumatic for the family of the persons concerned and for
Column Number: 289
employees of the establishments. The system set out in the Bill is designed to benefit principally those sections of the industry that lease property to tenants, although the range of circumstances in which such arrangements might apply goes wider than that.
If a premises licence has lapsed due to the events set out in clause 47—the death, incapacity or insolvency of the licence holder—it may be reinstated so that its authorisation may be transferred to another individual, organisation, or an interim authority obtained, provided that the application is made within seven days of the lapse of the licence. That is a major improvement on the current system, whereby a full hearing before the licensing justices would be required for an interim authority. The time limit is sensible and has been set to minimise the impact of the unfortunate events on those who work at the premises. When the licence lapses, those employed at the premises will effectively be out of a job until the licence is reinstated by the means provided for in the clause.
The seven-day limit was chosen to strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for a bereaved relative, for example, to make an application and the interests of those who earn a living at the premises. Nevertheless, I understand fully what the hon. Gentleman said about the possible state of mind of the relatives at such a time. It is essential that the period of time is kept to a minimum, because the authorisation would essentially have gone with the unfortunate events leading to the lapse of the licence and any steps to put life back into the authorisation should be taken without delay. If there is a longer delay before the premises could again do business, much hardship may be caused to employees who, through no fault of their own, could find themselves unable to earn an income. There is likely to be some uncertainty for employees, even with a period of seven days. There would, however, be less uncertainty under the clause as it stands than with the extended limit proposed in the amendment.
I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to impose such privations on employees, some of whom may be at the lower end of the income spectrum of the licensed trade.
Mr. Moss: For clarification, is the Minister saying that as soon as a licence holder dies, for example, the business at the premises involved cannot carry on until the interim notice is filed and accepted? Does the business effectively close down on the death of the licence holder?
Dr. Howells: Yes, essentially that is what happens. Once the event has occurred, the permission is gone. That is why we have to act with a little more haste than that which might be allowed by the amendments.
Amendment No. 280 would extend the interim authority period—that is, the period after which the licence again lapses—from two months to three months. I understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that such an extension might benefit the industry. I remind him that clause 47 also provides
Column Number: 290
that if a relevant transfer application is made before the end of the interim authority period—that sometimes happens when people are very ill or if it is thought that something traumatic will occur—the transfer of the licence to the applicant will have immediate interim effect, pending the determination of that application. The provisions in the Bill that relate to the reinstatement of licences are designed to allow businesses to react to unfortunate circumstances and to keep businesses in being pending the taking of long-term commercial decisions.
Two months is plenty of time for such an application to be made and I do not think that there is any need to extend the interim authority period. Two months is, of course, considerably longer than the 28 days given under current legislation for interim authority notices to be granted.
Mr. Moss: Is the Minister telling us that he, or his Department, has received representations from the industry to say that the 28 days allowed under law is insufficient? Did industry ask for that period to be doubled, or did it ask for three months?
Dr. Howells: As I understand it—we have had extensive consultation with the industry on the matter—we have had no objections to the period of a month. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been speaking to other parts of the industry and those discussions are what lie behind his amendments. I accept that, but I can only give him that answer.
Amendment No. 283 would require that, if the chief officer of police told the licensing authority that he was satisfied that the interim authority notice should be cancelled, to prevent the crime prevention objective from being undermined, the licensing authority would be required to hold a hearing within 14 days. That is unless the authority, the relevant person, and the police agree that a hearing is unnecessary. I presume that the amendment was tabled because hon. Members are concerned that a hearing could be put off indefinitely—indeed, I think that that is the point that the hon. Gentleman was making—and that the police notice would therefore be ineffective. I agree entirely that that would be an unacceptable state of affairs and I assure hon. Members that the Secretary of State will use her powers under clause 180 to make regulations relating to the procedures for hearings, and that we will put a limit on the time that can be taken for hearings on interim authority notices following police objections.
With those undertakings, I hope that hon. Members are reassured and feel able to withdraw the amendment and that they will not press the other probing amendments grouped with it.
|
