| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no suggestion whatever of any evasion or lack of clarity. The Government have simply said no, they will not publish criteria. That is the matter on which I ask my question and that is the matter which I find deplorable.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord said that I was not clear, that the answer lacked clarity and that in some cases I did not answer the question.
I too pay tribute to the assiduous efforts made by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke in trying to right what he and other noble Lords see to be a wrong. He is not unaware of the Government's view about the need for the Bill. Nevertheless, as is customary, the Government will not seek to stand in the way of the Bill passing to another place.
Finally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, the Bill passes to another place, which will not be unaware of the views of this House. As I leave the Dispatch Box on any issue I always report back to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I shall do so on this occasion.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, there is little more to say about the matter. We have gone around the course several times and I do not propose to do so again. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently and movingly in support of the Bill. I pay tribute in
particular to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who has been a tower of strength and has helped me a great deal. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in his tribute to the late Lord Bonham-Carter, whose Bill this really is. We are merely picking up the baton where he unfortunately left it.I thank my noble friend Lady Blatch, who has replied with great courtesy and clarity to all the points we have made. I am only disappointed that there is absolutely no sign of movement as regards the Government's position, which I find odd and disturbing. We have all said everything that there is to say and I ask the House to pass the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Viscount Thurso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the representations made both by the licensing trade and 43 chief officers of police in England and Wales, they will consider a complete review of existing liquor licensing regulation.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I must begin by declaring my interests. I am a former licensee in England; I am the owner of an hotel in Scotland; and I am a director of a number of companies with licensed premises. I have also served on a trade panel of the British Hospitality Association. Indeed, I am indebted to the association for much of the technical briefing which I have received for tonight's debate.
I thank in advance those noble Lords taking part in this short debate. I am pleased to see noble Lords who have a strong connection with the industry and considerable knowledge of the subject. I look forward to their contributions with keen anticipation. I am also particularly pleased to see that the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, is to make his maiden speech tonight. I am sure that his will be a splendid first contribution to your Lordships' House and I look forward to hearing it.
Liquor licensing legislation in this country is extremely complex and dates back to the early part of last century when socio-economic conditions and social custom in respect of liquor consumption were entirely different from those which exist in the latter part of the 20th century. The Ale House Act 1828 incorporated all of the previous statutes relating to the grant of licences. Between 1828 and 1910 a number of Acts were passed such as the Beer House Act 1830, the Beer House Act 1834, the Licensing Act 1842, the Refreshment Houses Act 1860 and the Wine and Beer House Act 1869 as well as licensing Acts in 1872, 1881 and 1902.
In 1910 the Licensing (Consolidation) Act reproduced licensing law in a simplified form, while at the same time correcting many of the doubts and anomalies which had arisen over the years. In 1914, during the First World War, the Central Control Board introduced emergency statutes restricting opening hours, largely to prevent munition workers from working in munitions factories while under the influence of alcohol. These were consolidated by the Licensing Act 1921, which
removed the requirement for licensed premises to be closed during certain hours by substituting the system of permitted hours. These constraints were reinforced by the Licensing (Permitted Hours) Act 1934.In 1949 a new Licensing Act was introduced containing numerous provisions which amended the law relating to licensed premises and clubs. In particular, it provided the licensing committees in the form of those with which we are familiar today. The Act also amended the law relating to permitted hours in various establishments and prohibited the employment in bars of persons under the age of 18.
The next major alteration was brought about by the Licensing Act 1961, which addressed issues such as types of licence, drinking-up time, special hours certificates and late night drinking. These were subsequently consolidated after the introduction of other pieces of legislation into the Licensing Act 1964, the provisions of which have largely remained in force to this day. However, significant changes in respect of afternoon opening and drinking-up time were further introduced by the Licensing Act 1988 in which the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, played such an important part.
I do not contend that simply because legislation has a long history and has been much amended by many different statutes over the years it is necessarily bad. In the case of licensing legislation, however, I believe that a strong case can be made to show that the result today is legislation that is no longer relevant to modern times, is unnecessarily complicated and involves a quite undue burden both on all branches of the licensing trade and on the authorities involved in dealing with licensing applications. It is a burden in terms of time and effort and it is also costly both for those applying and for those dealing with licence applications.
The reason I am today asking the Government whether they will consider a review of licensing legislation--and, indeed, why I urge them to do so--is because any examination of licensing legislation brings one to consider major points of principle within the legislation. I hope that the result of a review will be the introduction of a new licensing Act in tune with our times and appropriate for the new millennium. However, my Question asks for a review rather than for new legislation because I believe it is important that all those with a legitimate interest need to contribute to the framing of any new legislation.
It would, for example, provide an opportunity for those concerned with the problems of under-age drinking--a concern that is wholly shared by the licensing trade--to see whether improvements can be enacted.
The first objective of the review would be to establish the principles upon which legislation should be based. I would contend that the principle should be for the consumer to have the maximum freedom of choice consistent with the safeguards necessary in respect of public nuisance order and safety. Except where necessary for public nuisance order and safety, it should not be for the law to determine whether, where and when customers should have the right to purchase or
collectively consume alcoholic drinks. Consumers must be treated as adults capable of responsible choice, as in other areas of consumer expenditure and leisure activities.It should not be for the law or a licensing authority to make a judgment on whether there is a commercial need for a retail outlet for alcoholic drinks, as is the case under the 1964 legislation. Nor should it be for the law to favour one form of commercial outlet over another by the way in which they are regulated. The purpose of the law should be to establish a level playing field in competitive terms, and the decision on which retail outlets are successful should be for consumer choice based on the products and amenities on offer.
I should like briefly to touch on one or two specific points. The first is the question of permitted hours. So far as I am aware, no other developed civilised country has a system of permitted hours.
Let us assume that the principle is accepted that adult consumers should be able to obtain a drink at whatever time they wish. What could be the case for denying them that choice? There is no evidence of increased alcohol abuse being linked to extending the hours during which premises are open. Indeed, my own personal experience as a barman working in the north of Scotland in the old days was that when you advised people that there was 10 minutes to go before closing time there was a mad rush for the bar. As a result, I believe that people drink far more than they would otherwise have done. I contend that if that pressure did not exist they might well drink less.
However, a valid concern must be that in relation to noise and disturbance by persons leaving the premises late at night. I believe that a policy document has been sent to the Home Secretary. A report in Leisure Weekly states:
The second point on which I should like to touch concerns the manner in which the licensing of premises is undertaken. At present, justices grant licences at their absolute discretion; in other words, no one has a right to a licence. Although the licence is granted to the licensee, it is specific to a particular property. I suggest that the issues concerning people and those concerning property should be separated. At present, each time a manager who holds a licence leaves an hotel or a publican moves on, there is a complicated procedure by which the licence must be transferred to the new manager or licensee. That is costly and burdensome not only on businesses which have to go through that process but also on the court system which must administer it. Therefore, I suggest that licensees should hold a personal licence. That
could be gained, perhaps, having attended a two or three day course which would provide the requisite knowledge. That could be administered easily by existing trade bodies such as the HCIMA or the Hotel Training Company.Having successfully achieved certification, the prospective licensee could be registered centrally and, rather like a driving licence, could be issued with a licence for life or until retirement. If one of the conditions of the property was that it must be managed and operated by a qualified and certificated licensee, that would obviate the need, when the licensee left, for the full rigmarole of transfer to take place.
Properties are already inspected, irrespective of whether or not a liquor licence is requested, by environmental health officers, the police and fire officers and are subject to the same building regulations and planning procedure as other similar premises. Therefore, it must surely be possible to incorporate all the requirements which police and local authorities may wish to impose through the existing planning system without the need for a separate body.
That brings me to my final point. I have personal experience in England of the diversity of application of licensing legislation by different area licensing justices. There are numerous examples of different interpretations which magistrates in England and Wales and licensing authorities in Scotland make. Indeed, I was telephoned today by the British Retail Consortium, which represents off-licences, and it made that point. It is surely wrong that by an accident of geography an applicant for a licence may be dealt with in a different way. It must be right to have a uniform application of the rules wherever they may be throughout the country. Therefore, I hope that any review would consider whether the licensing justices in England and Wales and the local authority committees in Scotland are the correct way in which to proceed.
I have mentioned one or two areas which I hope demonstrate that there are points of principle within the existing legislation which merit a full review. I believe that the Government are not unsympathetic to the representations which have been made to them by various bodies within the licensing trade although it may be that there is more sympathy at the Department of National Heritage, which has responsibility for promoting hospitality and the tourism industry, than there may be at the Home office which would have the responsibility for doing the work. But I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some grounds for hope that the Government will at least consider a review.
In its strategy document on tourism, the Labour Party mentioned licensing and I believe that in general terms it accepts the need for change. I hope that my noble friend on my Front Bench will be able to confirm that my party accepts and supports the need for such a review. I look forward to hearing the contributions of all noble Lords.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |