Clause 49 - Supplementary provision about interim authority notices
Licensing Bill [Lords]
9:15 am
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Clause 49 makes supplementary provision on interim authority notices; subsection (4) provides that a person becoming a holder of a premises licence by virtue of an interim authority notice
''must (unless he is the designated premises supervisor) forthwith notify the supervisor . . . of the interim authority notice.''
Subsection (5) provides that it is an offence,
''without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (4)''—
I emphasise that for the hon. Gentleman. Subsection (6) provides that
''A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale'',
which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Amendment No. 284 would remove the offence of failing to notify the designated premises supervisor of an interim authority notice. It is anticipated that that person would, in practice, be responsible on a day-to-day basis for what goes on at a premises on behalf of the holder of the premises licence, especially for the sale of alcohol. If the licence in question has lapsed, the authority for carrying on with the sale of alcohol or any other licensable activity on the premises no longer exists. Those licensable activities may not be carried on again until an appropriate authority—in this case, an interim authority notice—is in place. Such a notice will, for want of a better word, revive the licence in the same form that it took immediately before its lapse. It will specify the designated premises supervisor, and will allow the continuation of the licensable activities.
It is vital that the supervisor is made aware of that fact, particularly as he needs to know the identity of the licence holder, just as he does when a licence has been transferred, as well as the fact that he or she is susceptible to committing certain offences on licensed premises. Of course, there is a strong vested interest in the removal of a potential offence, but such a removal would simply undermine the importance that the Bill attaches to the specification of the designated premises supervisor, the need for transparency and the certainty attaching to those involved in the licensing regime.
The amendment would remove a requirement on businesses that has been put in place not only because that requirement is important, as I have said, but out of regard for fairness. The Bill ensures that a designated premises supervisor will know who is responsible for the premises licence, and there can be no good reason why there should not be a similar requirement on the business. The premises supervisor will have certain duties and obligations by virtue of his or her position in an organisation. In order to carry out those responsibilities properly, he or she will need to be familiar with the details of the premises licence, and the name of the person or company holding that licence, or given an interim authority notice, is an important detail. It is therefore only right that he or she be told when the person holding the premises licence—or in this case an interim authority notice—has changed. Because that is important, we need to ensure that the requirement can be enforced with appropriate penalties.
Clause 56 provides that if a licensing authority makes a determination or receives a notice in relation to a premises licence, or if the licence lapses or an appeal against a decision made under part 3 is determined, the authority must make any appropriate amendments to the licence and, if necessary, issue a new summary. Subsection (2) provides that if the authority is not in possession of a licence or the appropriate part of it, it may require the holder of the licence to produce it or the appropriate part of it within 14 days. Subsection (3) provides that a person commits and offence if he fails to comply with such a request, and subsection (4) says that a person guilty of that offence is liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
Amendment No. 290 would remove the offence of failing to produce the licence, or the appropriate part of it, for the authority within 14 days to allow it to be updated. It is important to all of those involved in the licensing system, including the police, the licensee, and the licensing authority, that premises licences be kept up to date, so that any information obtained from them is accurate. It therefore seems entirely reasonable that the licensing authority should be able to request licences, or parts of them, when they need to be updated, and that it should be an offence not to comply with such a request.