New clause 3 - Revocation of registration of designated premises supervisor
Licensing Bill [Lords]
3:30 pm
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Absolutely. I should have thought that we had debated those issues long enough for Conservative Members to realise that.
The new arrangements under the Bill provide that the new supervisor with his personal licence—we fully
expect him to be in managing control of the premises so I shall call him the manager—can, if needed, take up his post immediately. I repeat, the manager can take up his post immediately. That was a concession that we made to the pub industry before the Bill was published. On taking up his post, the manager's details must be sent with a copy of the schedule to the premises licence—just a page from it—to the licensing authority for amendment. A copy of the details will also go to the police. The police can intervene on crime prevention grounds, but only in exceptional circumstances and only in those rare cases will a hearing be needed.
Those changes represent a huge reduction in the existing bureaucracy as anyone who understands the new and old systems realises. The problem is that I am not sure that people do understand the differences. Despite that, there have been many challenges to the concept of a designated premises supervisor as it appears in the Bill. The different approaches have included the removal of the concept completely, the removal of the requirement to include, and therefore vary, details of the premises licence, or the reduction of police powers to intervene when a new premises supervisor arrives at the premises. Amendments Nos. 147 and 189 would deny the police the right to make representations about the designated premises supervisor, and even the industry no longer supports such a radical and unacceptable position.
The Government have made their position clear: all the approaches are a significant weakening of the Bill's provision to enhance the prevention of crime and disorder. The issue of the designated premises supervisor arises only in the context of the supply of alcohol. It is an important safeguard and will be vital to the police and other enforcement agencies. It is not burdensome for either an applicant, who will be the applicant for or holder of the premises licence, or the licensing authority. I am pleased to see the industry, in pressing for the scheme that most of the amendments tackle, has recognised the need for the police to have a right of intervention when a new designated premises supervisor arrives at a new premises. That is progress.
The industry has recognised that problems can arise upon the marriage of the two licences—personal and premises. It also recognises that the name of the individual must be displayed on the premises so that enforcement officers, or local residents who want to complain, know with whom they should be dealing.
The changes that the Opposition amendments would make generate a scheme that is so like the one in the Bill that the only differences are the terms used and who makes the application. Opposition Members believe that they are moving amendments that will reduce bureaucracy. I am happy to challenge them to demonstrate exactly where bureaucracy will be saved. Under the scheme that they propose, two pieces of paper—a notice and a form of consent—will be sent to the licensing authority, with copies being sent to the police and the person previously designated as premises supervisor, if there was one. The licensing authority then amends the details in the register, and the person may take up his post as soon as the notice
has been received. Unless the police choose to intervene, the person will display his name on the premises and begin supervising.
Let us compare that with our proposed arrangements. Under the Bill, on the arrival of the new manager, two pieces of paper—a page from the licence and a form of consent—will be sent to the licensing authority and copies will go to the police. The licensing authority will make the necessary amendments and the individual is allowed to take up his post immediately the application is received. Unless the police intervene, the individual will display on the premises the summary of the licence bearing his name and begin supervising.
I cannot for the life of me see the difference between those two arrangements in terms of bureaucracy or the numbers of pieces of paper involved. I cannot see anything in practice that is significantly different. The movers of the amendment call the arrangements registration, whereas I call it specification on the licence. Their scheme involves displaying two pieces of paper in the pub and the Government's involves displaying one, so we might be slightly ahead on the paper count. I would be disinclined to make changes that are purely cosmetic. If there are no real changes in practice or to the level of bureaucracy, what are the amendments pursuing? Are they a smokescreen for something else? Although the two rival schemes are remarkably similar, hon. Members may have missed some rather subtle differences that raise important matters for the Committee's consideration.
The first and perhaps most important issue is that of the person on whom the burden of complying with the duties described in the amendments falls. Under the Bill, it is the duty of the premises licence holder to specify a personal licence holder as the designated premises supervisor. Under the registration scheme proposed, it is the duty of the personal licence holder to register with the licensing authority and the premises licence holder has no role. So, we come to the heart of what all the hot air is about.