Clause 55 - Fees
Licensing Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Amendment No. 230 is a probing amendment, seeking clarification from the Minister on why all applications under the Bill require a fee except the review of the premises licence, which we covered under clause 51. Excluding that from fee
charging makes it possible that interested parties might call for reviews of premises licences for any reason—although vexatious reasons are covered earlier in the Bill—whether valid or not, as there is no fee or cost for the people making the complaint. There is, of course, a cost to the licence holder or holders, whether of premises or personal licences, if such issues are raised. The whole matter seems to be weighted in one direction.
We query the motives behind that exclusion, especially in the light of the need to fund reviews of premises licences from some source as yet unspecified. Do the Government envisage that those who instigate the review will meet the costs of carrying it out? If so, how will that be done? Perhaps an idea would be to put a charge on an application for a review but to refund that fee if the review leads to a successful conclusion and the complaint is upheld.
Amendments Nos. 226, 227 and 228 would introduce a new subsection (5), from which consequential amendments follow.
We remain unconvinced that the Government's assurances are enough to satisfy the worries of local authorities and licence holders about the regulation of fees. They claim that the system will be self-financing and that it will not burden licensees with excessive costs or leave local authorities with cost deficits for the administrative responsibilities of licensing.
Licensees fear a repeat of past experience when they paid fees, in some cases at ridiculous levels, to obtain public entertainment licences. They also have fears about the fairness of the proposed three-tier system and that local authorities will inherit a huge burden with massive financial consequences. The new computer systems will require new administration, additional working hours and other costs, which the licensing authorities will have to cover in their new role. Let us consider the consequential implications for the local authorities of street cleaning and transport systems. We know of the experiences of Soho and Westminster and are not convinced that such costs can be met by the Government's current proposals.
The self-financing scheme cannot succeed without a variation of the fees that are set, as suggested under amendment No. 228, with a maximum cap established to prevent undue costs from being recouped from the fees. As history has taught us, some local authorities have a fee structure for entertainment licences, which must make them a substantial profit. Naturally, we want to avoid that situation.
The situation, size and location of the premises should be taken into account when setting fees. For example, a venue in an urban area surrounded by several other licensed premises should pay a lower fee, owing to the fact that those premises also pay their contributions to the necessary costs. It is imperative that the system, as outlined in the draft guidance, is fair and workable for all parties and that the Government can ensure that a self-financing system will definitely work before they implement it.
Amendment No. 229 deals with those premises that will not be charged a fee. They will still have to make an application, but the Government have promised a nil fee. The amendment would insert such a proposal in the Bill, so that it makes it clear to all parties, especially those involved, that their applications will be received on a nil-fee basis. The new subsection would state:
''In regulations made under this section, the Secretary of State shall prescribe a nil fee to certain categories of premises which shall include—
(a) church halls,
(b) village halls,
(c) parish halls,
(d) community centres, and
(e) similar community buildings.''
There was much debate in the other place on the issue. In fact, the Government gained considerable ground by accepting the argument that such premises shall be subject to nil fees, when making applications. They promised that such matters will be dealt with in the guidance, rather than in the Bill. Nevertheless, in the interests of clarification and commitment, it is important that the nil-fee basis should be designated clearly and unequivocally and amendment No. 229 sets out to do that.
Amendments Nos. 207 to 209 apply to fees for clubs, which are dealt with in a different clause. It seems appropriate to deal with that matter while we are discussing fees. The Bill is inconsistent in its approach to club premises licences. For example, clause 1 stipulates that a club premises licence is necessary for both entertainment and alcohol. The exact wording in 1(1) is as follows:
''For the purposes of the Act the following are licensable activities . . . the provision of . . . entertainment, and . . . the provision of late night refreshment.''
In 1(2), both alcohol and entertainment are specified as qualifying club activities. On turning to clause 76, however, we see that qualifying club activities for which the premises might be used must be specified on the form of certificate. Clause 90 does not accommodate those various activities by prescribing different fees for them. There is therefore some concern, especially among small clubs, that one uniform fee will be imposed on all clubs, regardless of their activities, and that it would include the costs of fire and safety regulation checks, for example, and for the sound insulation necessary for an entertainment licence on top of the entertainment licence fee. The prescribed fee would be additional to the application fee and a possible annual fee.
Surely, such measures are not necessary for premises that are not used for entertainment as that is defined in the Bill and should therefore only be imposed on club premises where such activities are likely to take place. One such small club, from which I have had some representation, is Ramsgate croquet club—[Interruption.] There are lots of croquet, tennis and bowls clubs throughout the country; I happen to have been approached by that club, and it makes a strong argument. Ramsgate croquet club would not require the inclusion of entertainment in their premises
licence and would therefore be paying fees that were unrepresentative of its needs. It would be more reasonable if different fees were prescribed for different activities taking place on club premises. For example, if a club premises licence covered the sale of alcohol, not the provision of entertainment, the fee should be lower. That ought to be articulated in the Bill, so that specific provisions could be made for the benefit of the licensing authority and the clubs. By prescribing a maximum fee, clubs need not be charged for inapplicable administration fees and the licensing authorities will maintain the apparent flexibility afforded to them under other clauses.