Schedule 4
Policing and Crime Bill
1:30 pm
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat)
In the consultation, before the Bill was in its final form, Rob Hayward, the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, expressed a fear that a mandatory code would disadvantage already struggling pubs. He said:
“The Government has the weapons it needs to tackle irresponsible retailers by rigorously enforcing the Licensing Act”—
the existing laws—
“We don’t need new laws and regulations, just better enforcement of existing laws.”
I would not go the whole way along with him on that, but the general point is good. The vast majority of licensed premises are not a problem. With proposed new section 19A the Minister is creating a series of mandatory offences; and a blanket roll-out across every licensed premises, regardless of whether the measures are needed in nine out of 10 cases, is overkill. From working with the Local Government Association—I declare an interest as a former councillor for 12 years —I know that local authorities would rather not see blanket requirements produced from the centre, and would rather have the flexibility to act as they see fit. They know best because they are on the spot, are elected by and live in the local community, and know where the trouble spots are and what is needed to tackle them.
We have already debated the concept of decentralising power on police collaboration and direction from the centre, and the same principle applies here. We are one of the most centralised democracies in western Europe. If we really believe in decentralisation and localism, why not give democratically elected local authorities more flexibility and power to operate as they see fit in their localities?
Schedule 4 amends the Licensing Act 2003 to create the enabling power to impose mandatory licence conditions on all existing and new pubs through secondary legislation. Surely that is a retrograde step. Do we believe what all three parties have been saying recently, and the Liberal Democrats for a very long time, about decentralisation, devolution and localism? The Licensing Act 2003 introduced greater local flexibility and democratic influence in the licensing regime and this measure reverses that completely.
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister on the mandatory code and Conservative amendment 39. Out of interest, I should like to know how the Government have arrived at the figure nine in this measure. Why not five, six, a dozen, 10 or 20? It seems a strange figure to arrive at, but that is a side issue. Local authorities know which premises cause concern, and they can focus licence conditions on them, so why impose restrictions and requirements on staffing and so on that might be expensive and that will affect everyone, including many pubs that are struggling to survive in the present climate, with taxation and the economy?
Removing subsection (2) would remove a swathe of over-regulation that many well-run pubs and restaurants cannot really afford in the current climate. For example, the Licensing Act 2003 requires premises to have a designated premises supervisor, in the form of a personal licensee, in place whenever alcohol is sold. The unforeseen consequence of that blanket condition has been an excessive burden on community groups when organising events at which alcohol is sold on a relatively ad hoc and irregular basis. As a result, only 30 per cent. of such groups have carried on applying for licences to sell alcohol at such events, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has since undertaken a costly, retrospective legislative reform order to try to undo the damage done by that legislation. We are in danger of going down the same road and making a similar mistake that we might want to reverse in a few years’ time.
Local licensing authorities are best placed to know and recognise the diversity of premises, or groups of premises, in each community and the problems that do or do not arise from them, depending on the area. Surely, the Government’s licensing objectives could be better met through local conditions and flexibility for local authorities. Where regulations need to be consistent across the country, the Government should provide guidance to that effect, rather than having automatic, stifling legislation and a blanket, mandatory process.
Some people in the trade have said that the danger of letting local authorities have greater freedom and flexibility is that there will be different conditions in different local authority areas, but so what? We get that in varying degrees now in different areas of local authority activity, as there are different licensing regulations on taxis and minicabs in different parts of the country. That is why we have democratically elected local authorities. There are also different educational regimes in different parts of the country, in so far as the Government allow that, because that is what locally elected authorities want, but so what?
The Home Office has indicated that the mandatory conditions are likely to be totemic and concerning activities that no premises should be carrying out. In reality, they are likely to include many things that the vast majority of premises simply do not do, so why take a sledgehammer to crack a nut by imposing blanket regulations across the board? One example that comes to mind is an “all you can drink for x pounds” promotion. A mandatory list is likely to be a list of “do nots” rather than “dos”, and staff training would be affected when licensed premises moved from one category to another.
Elsewhere, the Government follow the logic that mandatory conditions apply to responsible retailers as well as to irresponsible ones, and that there should be some variation in local conditions. In defending the new cost of the code, the Government say in the impact assessment:
“Allowing local authorities the discretion to apply some of these conditions will ensure that, to a large extent, these costs will be targeted at those premises which pose a real threat to the four licensing objectives. This is in accordance with the principals of Better Regulation.”
If that logic applies to other provisions in the Bill involving local conditions, why does it not apply to this measure? Why not allow all nine mandatory conditions—I still do not understand why it is nine—to be within the gift and control of local authorities, which are locally elected and locally accountable, and know local circumstances far better than any Minister sitting here in London?