Clause 52 - Determination of application for review
Licensing Bill [Lords]
10:26 am
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I do not think that I had said anything. I had just got to my feet when you called time on events, Mr. Gale.
Amendment No. 287 would remove subsection (4)(c). Subsection (4) lists the steps that the authority may take at the time of determining an application for review. We could not understand why the authority should be responsible for removing the designated premises supervisor. After all, it can take various measures under subsections (4)(a), (b), (d) and (e). It can modify the conditions of the licence, exclude a licensable activity, suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months or revoke it. Such onerous steps would have a significant impact on the business concerned.
It would seem logical in such circumstances for the premises licence holder to do something about the designated premises supervisor if activities were occurring under his or her supervision that led to problems and reviews. Therefore, it is logical that the owner of the business—the premises licence holder, in
particular—would do something about the designated premises supervisor who was in charge of the premises when the nefarious activities that led to the review occurred. The Bill should not include a power for the licensing authority to sack a designated premises supervisor, which is how we interpret the words in subsection (4)(c).
Amendment No. 288 would change the period in subsection (4)(d) from three to two months. Again, it is a probing amendment to get the Government's thinking on the matter. Why three months? It is an arbitrary period that may not strike the right balance. If a licence is to be suspended, the onus should be on the proprietor or the licence holder to get their act in order and continue trading at the earliest opportunity by facing up to the reasons for the review and accepting the strictures from the licensing authority or the police, as the case may be. They must ensure that changes are made so that the licence can continue.
In that context, we would have thought that two months would be more appropriate than three, so the suspension would be on a shorter time scale in order for the business to put right what it needs to and get up and running again. A suspension of three months or more would jeopardise a business in such a way that it could not continue at a later date.
I return to amendment No. 287, which is designed to question why the Government think it appropriate that a licensing authority at the end of a review—if it feels that certain actions need to be taken—can move in and sack a designated premises supervisor. After all, that person is appointed by the premises licence holder and not the authority in the first instance.