New clause 3 - Revocation of registration of designated premises supervisor
Licensing Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I do not consider that to be a very sympathetic response.
The industry has long agreed to the split in licensing; if we go back far enough, we shall find that it probably suggested the concept in the first place. It also recognises that the personal licence holder would need to be known to the authorities, and
that the information needs to be registered somewhere. It therefore has no quarrel—nor do we—with the need to identify and register the premises supervisor.
We disagree with the Minister about the support of the linkage to the premises licence through the requirement to regard the change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence, and, following on from that, the requirement to write the name of the designated premises supervisor into that premises licence. That is incredibly bureaucratic. Has the hon. Gentleman had any communication with the Better Regulation Task Force? Has he written to that organisation? Did he ask its views? If it has responded, perhaps he will share its views with the Committee—or if it has used its own initiative and made its views known, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what they are?
What are the views of the Small Business Service, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry, about the regulations that are required? The premises licence should be a stand-alone licence. It is concerned primarily with the suitability of particular premises to provide alcohol and/or public entertainment at the times and under the conditions granted to it. That must stand irrespective of the personal licensee, who we accept has the duty and responsibility to uphold the terms of the licence and the law.
The consequences of the linkages that the Government have set out in the Bill can be seen as a series of obligations. The name of the designated premises supervisor must be given at the time of the application for a new licence. That person will not always be identified at the time of the application. For example, a supermarket chain that wants to obtain a licence may not even appoint the relevant manager until near the opening day. The identity of the person who will be responsible for the licence should make no difference to the application for a premises licence, so long as he or she is qualified professionally under the Bill to undertake such duties. When the new licensee is ready to commence business, it would be a simple matter to notify the police and the licensing authority of the identity of the personal licence holder, who is designated as the premises supervisor. Such matters are set out in new clause 2.
The second problem is that under the Bill, the premises licence must be altered each time there is a change of manager. That can happen frequently in larger businesses where managers move around constantly for career development and other reasons. Currently, about 155,000 premises hold an alcohol licence. In many of those businesses the turnover of staff is high—much higher than in many other businesses. Even if we pluck out of the air a 10 per cent. turnover figure, it means that in 15,500 cases a variation in the premises licence will be triggered by a movement of personnel, which means a rigmarole of applications to the local licensing authority, and the associated costs.
The industry, and most other people, were happy with the White Paper when it was drafted. For the purpose of my argument, I shall read out the relevant
paragraph to the Committee. Paragraph 43, on page 23, states:
''On arrival in a new licensing area a personal licence holder intending to work in new premises would be required to notify the police and the licensing authority of his or her arrival. This would enable the police to check details against the central database''—
as we mentioned in a previous debate, that was dealt with in the same chapter of the White Paper—
''and maintain a closer eye on certain licence holders whose history might demand it. We have considered whether the police or the licensing authority should have a right at this stage to refuse to permit a licence holder from elsewhere to become responsible for premises in their area. On one hand, there is a danger that this could undermine the basic principle of allowing a fully transferable licence and encourage the application of different standards in differed parts of the country. The normal presumption must therefore be''—
this is critical—
''that any personal licence holder will be acceptable.''
A little later, paragraph 44 says:
''In these exceptional cases, problems could sensibly be avoided by personal holders giving the police advance warning of their impending arrival, thereby allowing issues to be resolved prior to the transfer and avoiding the need for premises to be closed for a temporary period.''
Whoever wrote that was offering a practical and sensible way forward. The industry accepts that advice, as do we, so why on earth, in the gestation period between the publishing of the White Paper and the coming to fruition of the Bill, has there been such a huge increase in bureaucracy? [Interruption.] The Minister scoffs, or perhaps laughs—I am not sure which. We are talking about deregulating, yet here is what we will be doing under parts of the Bill—I am sorry, the markings on my Bill look like a St. Andrew's cross; I did not mean any offence to any Scots here.
New clause 2 would take away whole clauses on this subject, to replace them with a couple of subsections that simply say what was intended in the White Paper: that when a change occurs, the new personal licence holder will notify the various authorities. We have set that out in new clause 2, and for the Committee's delectation, I shall read it out:
''A holder of a personal licence seeking to become the designated premises supervisor for premises shall serve a notice in the prescribed form, together with the signed consent of the holder or the premises licence''.
That leaps over the police's objection that they need to know that the premises licence holder knows who the designated premises supervisor is. Such a licence should be served
''upon—
(a) the relevant licensing authority,
(b) the chief officer of police, and
(c) the person previously designated as premises supervisor, at his last known address''.
The new clause then goes on to cover other aspects.
We believe that the requirement to serve notice achieves all the Government's aims in bringing forward the concept of a designated premises supervisor. We accept that that concept was not in the White Paper, and that the police want a named person—but new clause 2 gets round that difficulty. We also suggest in the new clause that the name of the
supervisor should be displayed prominently on the premises, so that if the police turn up they know exactly who that person is, and can take action pretty well immediately.
It is time that the Government took notice of the arguments on the subject. I hope that the Minister will make at least some movement towards our position—although the fact that he would lose some six clauses and two schedules might make him think that doing so would not look too good on his record.