Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, I, too, share the view that alcohol is not a bad thing and that done responsibly it is good. I also do not take the view, although I know the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, did not touch on it, that advertising is not the major problem it is sometimes made out to be. It is more complex than that.

I support these amendments particularly because of proposed subsection (2) in Amendment 244, which is quite an interesting idea as it would enable a local authority to focus on a growing problem in that area. I obviously do not want to rehearse the previous debate. I simply say to the Minister, who has become even more of a friend of mine now that she thinks I am a baby boomer, that in fact I am so pre-baby boomer that I am pre-war. But I like the idea, so I am with her on that.

However, I take issue with the view sometimes taken that things are fundamentally different now. The key difference, with which we have so much difficulty coping and which I am not sure can be dealt with fully in this Bill, is the availability of drink as a result of price to income and the availability of outlets. As regards all the things that people worry about, I have to say that, although I am not proud of it, in the 1950s we boasted about how much we had drunk the night before and went to work with hangovers. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that one of the differences is that we would hide the drink and not leave it on the windowsill.

The role of women is fundamentally different. In the 1950s, their role was to get you home again. People would boast about how quickly they could drink. All those things were happening. The crucial difference is that you did not have enough income to do it regularly, so Friday and Saturday nights were bad. The other factor was the outlets. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, you can go to the supermarket. In the 1950s, you would drink in the bars. As the pub came to closing time, you would say, “We have got to buy some drink”. There were not as many off licences around as there are now. You could not buy it over the bar in most cases, so the barman would tell you that you have to go to the off licence. That usually meant going out of the pub into a pokey little room on the side, which would have enough room for only two or three people, where you could buy drink at greater cost.

The outlets have exploded and the difficulty for society to face is that, although we like alcohol—I include myself in that—and most of us can enjoy it responsibly, there are two big problems. A minority cannot drink responsibly and there is the very real problem, as we indicated in the previous debate, of young people trying to learn how to handle drink responsibly. There is not an easy answer to that. Ultimately, this problem is about ease of availability in terms of price to income and the outlets. Under subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 244, at least in those areas suffering most—I would include from my past areas in east London—you could focus on some of the pubs and areas causing problems.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as a baby boomer myself I will not add to the confessionals this afternoon, but I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that she was clearly a particularly well-behaved student. My recollections—though I think the expression is that if you remember the 1960s you weren’t there—were pretty similar. Despite not having known in advance that they were being grouped, I can see why Amendments 237A and 244 have been grouped. But the devil is in the detail and I prefer Amendment 244, with one rather large and glaring exception to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred. Notwithstanding the enthusiasm of my noble friend Lord Shipley, the drafting of a public health duty for a licensing authority is fraught with difficulties. It could cover a huge range of issues, not just issues relating to local A&E and so on but to pricing, siting and marketing of alcoholic products.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

Is the noble Lord aware that the Scottish Parliament has already drafted one?

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I am extremely aware of that, and for that reason I do not think that it is necessarily a practical way forward. People are drawing on that experience and also thinking that that is not the way forward. I much prefer Amendment 244, which is much more specific. Although I am not a lawyer who travels to south Wales and appears before licensing authorities—I may have been born there but I do not travel there for that purpose—you have to have something which is capable of proper interpretation and clarity. I do not believe that the broad public health duty implied in the first amendment is really the way forward. The second proposed new clause, however, is much clearer.

I want briefly to address the third part of this because I do not understand why subsection (3) is included in the new clause set out in Amendment 244. It is rather extraneous to the general message. I certainly sympathise with bodies like the Association of Convenience Stores, which says that there is no evidence that licensed forecourts are less responsible than any other type of premise. They say also that changes in the market mean that it is vital that a store has alcohol as part of its convenience offer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, if they did not stock it, they would close. The association says that there is adequate provision in this area under Section 176 of the Licensing Act 2003, which already requires forecourts applying for licences to demonstrate that their primary use is not as a petrol forecourt. If petrol sales outweigh other sales, they will not be granted a licence. I do not see how subsection (3) can form a legitimate part of the clause. If something was brought back in a better form, it would definitely be more supportable.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to support Amendment 237A and Amendment 244, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I will not repeat all the problems we face with regard to alcohol because we are all fully apprised of them. We know also that there is no simple solution, and in that context I look forward to the Government’s alcohol strategy, which I believe is due to be published later in the year. I hope sincerely that it is helpful and that it is not just warm words and little action, which can often happen with strategy papers. But the Government, like my noble friend Lord Soley, have recognised that two immediate and fundamental problems need to be addressed. The first, without any question whatever, is the price of alcohol, and the second is accessibility. We can all put on our rose-coloured spectacles and remember the days when pubs opened at 11 or 12 in the morning, closed at three o’clock, and reopened from five in the evening until 11 at night. Off-licences kept similar hours. In many places in Wales, pubs closed all day on Sunday. There was not the same degree of accessibility.

We are now in an entirely different world, one that since the adoption of the Licensing Act 2003 and subsequent amendments made by the former Government, has seen an escalation in the granting of licences on a wide scale right across the board. I am thinking particularly of off-licences, which have been transformed out of all recognition. We now have access to alcohol in many places, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks of the year. Very few countries in the world are as free as we are, and we have to reflect on whether we have done the right thing.

I commend the Government, as I did at Second Reading, on the steps they are taking to try to rebalance the rights of those who are seeking to get licences and the needs of the community. Over the past decade, problems have increasingly arisen through the use of alcohol. Even though I sit on these Benches, I have no hesitation in saying that the Government are moving the right way. On pricing, there must be a question mark over the extent to which the Government have been bold. I shall leave it at that, but personally, I do not think that they have gone far enough. As time passes, others may come to the same view. On accessibility, again the Government are tightening up the rules related to the granting of licences, but from what I have seen and heard so far, I do not think that they are likely to move fast enough and far enough to deal with the problem.

I shall be a little provocative and say that I am pleased that the Government have revised the fee structure, but I would like to know why they have limited the reimbursement of fees to local authorities simply to the administrative expenditure. Originally we had the use of a licence for a particular purpose, which was limiting. Why do local authorities now not have the freedom to set the licence at a level which is appropriate to the needs of their communities, particularly the health needs of a community when facing difficult problems related to alcohol? I would be grateful for a response. I know that the question is not proper to the amendment, but it is the only place in which I think I can pose it. If we believe in localism, and I have come across substantial support for it in many areas, local licensing authorities should have the freedom to set fees for licences at a level necessary to meet the needs of the community. We increasingly see that health needs are not being met within the context of the licensing regime. Although the new clause proposed in Amendment 237A is general, I strongly support the view that it should be added to the four existing objectives which were drawn up in 2003.

There has been saturation granting of licences in some places. I live in an area of Brighton—I have talked about it previously—where within 100 yards of each other you have two supermarkets and a post office which is no longer a post office for all intents and purposes because it is piled high with alcohol. I have taken photographs of it. Next to it, you have an off-licence as well. The post office has been granted permission to open from 6 o’clock in the morning to 11 at night. The area is immediately adjacent to the most underprivileged area in Brighton—more people are unemployed there and there is more illness there, much of it alcohol and drug-related, than in any other part of the city—yet the post office is selling alcohol from six in the morning to 11 at night.

We now have 11,000 post offices left which are guaranteed to stay in business. I return to the Minister’s point about our changing culture. We shall probably see 11,000 post offices converted over the coming two or three years so that they become nearer to off-licences than post offices. That will change the culture in those areas where they exist. It is happening not just in post offices. Greengrocers are now turning over to selling alcohol in some places. A halt needs to be called. Requests have been made to the chief medical officer in Brighton to do that. The only way, as far as I can see, to tackle this is by having a close look at what is proposed in the amendment. The idea has been adopted in Scotland; we wait with interest to see how they address it. They are looking particularly at saturation, where too many licences have been granted in certain locations, and are going to try to call a halt to that. We should do the same in the rest of the UK.

The one illness that was not mentioned when we talked about the consequences of too much alcohol was diabetes. We have an epidemic of diabetes, much of it related to alcohol. A bottle or can of alcohol may show the units, but what does that convey? It does not tell you how many calories you will consume in that can or bottle of beer, or indeed within a bottle of whisky—God only knows how many calories there are in that. If the Government are to look at this in the longer term, they will have to start addressing some of those issues, because they go much broader than the rather narrow issues that we have been talking about.

I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the amendment is very challenging and interesting. It is a test for the Government. They gave quite a sympathetic hearing to it when it was dealt with in the Commons. I felt that my side, the Labour side, perhaps for historical reasons, was a little bit soft in its handling of it, so I was pleased to hear the way in which my noble friend on the Front Bench tackled it today. If we are not going to make great progress with it, I hope that we will stiffen up our views before we reach Report on where we want policy on alcohol to go in the future. There is a lot of pressure in this House for change and legislation on drugs. I wish that as much energy was devoted to addressing the really big problem that we have: alcohol. What chance is there of regulating drugs if we cannot effectively regulate alcohol in a way that is in the best interests of the health of our community?

I commend these amendments to the Government. I give notice that it is time for some of us in Parliament to stand up more forcefully than we have in the past in taking on the mighty drinks industry. Given all the wealth that it has behind it, it is David against Goliath in many respects. I hope that I can find a David on the Government’s side.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

237B: Clause 106, page 67, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert “for paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) substitute—
“(a) a person who lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the authorised activities,(b) a person who has a business interest that might be affected by the authorised activities,(c) anyone representing persons who satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b),”.”

[Lord Clement-Jones]

In moving Amendment 237B, I will also speak to whether Clause 106 should stand part and Amendment 239A. As Clauses 106 and 108 stand, the vicinity test for making representations will be removed and any person will be able to object, broadly, to a live music event if they are located in the licensing authority area. A person will no longer be required to be an interested party in order to object. However, there is no doubt that removing the vicinity test could entirely open up the licensing process to an excessive number of people making representations who have no ties to the local area—for example, national campaign groups running a postcard campaign. This could lead to a significant increase in the number of appeals and reviews, increasing the bureaucracy and cost to local authorities and businesses.

As currently drafted, the Bill, while removing the vicinity test, introduces a different constraint in that it restricts participation to those living and based in the local authority area concerned. This could mean that a resident living on the other side of the street could not make representations if they were in a different local authority area. The current state of the clauses in the Bill is far from satisfactory. These amendments therefore seek to define who can make a representation more robustly, restricting it to either someone living sufficiently close to the premises that will be affected by its activities or to an affected business. This will ensure that only those with a local interest are able to intervene. It will ensure, however, that anyone directly affected by licensed premises will be able to make representations, even if they do not live in the local authority area where the premises are situated. This will improve the position of local communities with legitimate concerns about licensed premises and ensure that they are able to have their say.

Clearly, this is a compromise suggestion. It is not clear that the Government have entirely demonstrated the mischief that must be cured by Clauses 106 and 108. This is, in a sense, the clause stand part discussion, Clause 106 being on premises licences and Clause 108 on club premises certificates. As was clear from the consultation process, this proposed removal received a majority negative response. Respondents of all kinds suggested that this proposal could lead to a rise in vexatious complaints and give disproportionate influence to non-local individuals. I believe that of all the consultation proposals, that one received the greatest negative response. The onus of proof is really on the Government to demonstrate that Clauses 106 and 108 should be there in the first place. Thereafter, I hope that they will accept the necessity to amend them. If they demonstrate that, they will demonstrate that they support the amendments that I have put forward.

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because I am concerned about the drafting, particularly in Clause 106(3)(a), which allows anyone who is “involved in a business”. However, that might be totally unrelated to pubs, clubs, bars or anything like that. What is important is to allow people who live in the local area to have a view. It should not be restricted to local authorities because if you are dealing with the city of London, local authority division might be down the middle of a street. People can live 100 yards away but be in a different local authority. I commend what the Government are trying to do but I am concerned about the wording and how it will be interpreted.

I remind your Lordships that we are trying to keep pubs open in rural areas and, indeed, all around the country. We should not allow interest groups who have no interest and live nowhere near that particular pub to have an influence on whether it should get a licence. It is also important to remind your Lordships that, 20 years ago, 70 per cent of the drinks sold in this country were sold in pubs, bars and clubs with 30 per cent being sold in retails outlets. The reverse is now the case: only 30 per cent is sold inside a pub, club or bar and 70 per cent is sold in supermarkets and other outlets. If we are concerned about excessive drinking, we should make sure that we do not blame those who have only 30 per cent of the market. We must look much more closely at those who provide 70 per cent of the alcohol in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Licensing Act 2003, as currently drafted, allows local residents, businesses or bodies representing them to raise concerns about new licence applications and reviews to existing licences. To make a representation, residents or businesses must be within the vicinity of the premises in question. The determination of a vicinity is made locally by licensing authorities. However, residents or businesses are sometimes uncertain whether they are in the vicinity of a premises. Given that they are unable to make a representation if they are outside the vicinity, this is clearly of considerable concern to some people. As such, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones rightly says, we propose in the Bill to remove the definition of “vicinity” from the Licensing Act. This would mean that any person, business or representative body would be able to make a relevant representation to the licensing authority, regardless of their proximity to a premises.

I recognise that Amendments 237B and 239A are intended to restrict those who can object to persons who live sufficiently close to premises or whose business interests might be affected. This means that licensing authorities would still have to determine who lives sufficiently close to licensed premises. The purpose of what the Government propose is to remove any uncertainty for local residents and businesses if they are affected by premises, regardless of their—shall I say—immediate proximity to those premises. If accepted, these amendments would continue to raise uncertainty among local communities. They would also mean that residents and businesses that are affected by premises are unable to make a representation if the licensing authority decides that they do not live sufficiently close to those premises.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was concerned principally about from how far and wide relevant representations may come. “Relevant” means that the representation should specifically be about the likely effect of the grant or variation of the premises’ licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives and, if the representation has been made by anyone other than a responsible authority, is not frivolous or vexatious. The licensing objectives are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. One noble Lord—I think it was my noble friend Lord Shipley—said he understood that an objector must live in the same local authority to object. I can tell him that that is not the case; that is not how the Bill is drafted.

I also recognise that Amendments 238 and 239 are intended to ensure that residents and businesses in adjoining local areas receive more information on licensing applications. Currently, applicants for licences are required to advertise new licence applications in the local newspaper, as well as to display notices at or close to the premises. However, during the consultation entitled Rebalancing the Licensing Act the Government received significant representations from the alcohol industry, asking for the requirement to advertise to be removed altogether. We feel that the existing methods of communication, which require an applicant to advertise in the local newspaper and display notices at or close to the premises, complemented by the new requirement to publish key information on licensing authority websites, will ensure that all persons who could be affected by premises will have access to the relevant information, while balancing the burden on business. For these reasons, I ask that these amendments are not pressed.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I confess to being rather disappointed because, if anything, he has interpreted the clauses more widely than I had. He has said that they both apply regardless of proximity. That means that although they may have been constrained to some extent by their objections having to be relevant—it is perfectly possible to be relevant—the individuals or organisations involved will not in any sense have to be proximate. That is an extraordinary proposition. We have, perhaps, the example of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, of somebody coming down from Scotland and objecting to something in the Edgware Road. This means that some uncertainty is removed, but it seems to me that there is the certainty that a licensed premises is fair game for anybody, which creates enormous business uncertainty for them. Licensed premises—club premises—will essentially be fair game for national campaigns in the future. I cannot really believe that that is the objective of these clauses.

No doubt we will ruminate further on these parts of the Bill and the implications of the abolition of the vicinity test. However, I remain to be convinced that it is a sensible way forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 237B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, this is an important amendment. The industry is concerned that the changes in the Bill could affect someone’s ability to operate a business because it would allow a review to look at the business in a totally different way from what has been done before, and produce a severe financial impairment.

One should start off by saying that it is not easy to get a licence. It is extremely difficult. You have to persuade the local police and get them on your side. You have to persuade the local authority, all the local interest groups, your competitors and almost everybody else who has a view. It is a not an easy process. It is a high-hat hurdle. It is a major barrier. It is quite right that it should be. As part of that you have to show why various things are necessary. That process is understood by the industry, local authorities and all those who look on it from the outside.

The Government seek to change the evidence test for the attachment of licence conditions by using “appropriate” rather than “necessary”. There is no evidence that local authorities are in favour of this change or that there is any barrier to imposing tough trading conditions. The problem is that the word “appropriate” would allow decisions to be taken on the grounds of subjective judgment as opposed to the actual facts of a case. “Appropriate” is not clearly defined in law. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will say that “necessary” is not defined in law either. However, it has been defined by various judgments in the courts so that everybody understands what it means whereas “appropriate” has not.

I should remind your Lordships that in these circumstances the only right of appeal is in effect judicial review, which is an incredibly long and expensive process. Will my noble friend explain what evidence there is for promoting this change? What benefits do the Government think will be gained from it? Those have not been properly demonstrated. The Minister in another place suggested that there was pressure for the change, but during that debate and since then the Government have produced absolutely no evidence that there is any pressure to make this change.

The worry about the change is that you might have a responsible operator who has invested large sums of money in a pub or bar, or whatever it happens to be, and is doing exactly what he should do under the law, but somebody reviews his premises under a totally different set of decisions based on an arbitrary view rather than on anything that is evidence-based or is required for the benefit of the local community, and the operator might either have to review how he operates his premises or lose his licence and suffer a substantial loss not only of earnings but of all the capital that he has invested in the business. This is a very important issue—perhaps the most important issue in this whole area of licensing so far as I can see. I hope that my noble friend will give it his usual careful consideration when replying. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I support Amendment 240 moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I wish to speak to Amendments 240A, 240B and 240P. Amendments 240, 240A and 240B would retain the “necessary” test for the determination of applications for a review of a premises licence. Review proceedings are quasi-judicial, designed to deal with infringements of the licensing regime and have a wide range of penalties available to be deployed against the premises in question, from the imposition of new conditions restricting the operation of the premises to suspension or even withdrawal of a licence. Therefore, it is surely right that a higher evidence threshold should be retained in these specific circumstances.

Amendment 240P, which is grouped with the other amendments that I am discussing, reintroduces the need in Clause 120 for licensing authorities to consider that an early morning alcohol restriction order is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives, rather than appropriate. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has set out extremely well the need for these amendments and the significance of the change from “necessary” to “appropriate”. The Bill reduces the evidence test for the attachment of licence conditions so that these are “appropriate” rather than “necessary”. We seek to remove that provision from the Bill, either through opposing that the clause stand part or through amendments.

There is no evidence to suggest that local authorities find the evidential burden too restrictive and plenty of evidence from across the country that suggests that it is not a barrier to imposing tough trading conditions, as the noble Viscount mentioned. The substitution of “necessary” for “appropriate” would allow decisions to be taken on the grounds of political expediency, say, or subjective judgment. The fact that “appropriate” is not clearly defined in law, unlike “necessary”, increases the likelihood of legal challenge and appeal. In contrast, operators will still need to satisfy the higher evidence threshold. It is notable that the concerns of operators are shared by the Local Government Association and enforcement authorities, which are worried that it may undermine the robustness of decision-taking.

It is crucial to retain the necessary tests for conditions. Licensing authorities are already able to impose conditions that they and other responsible bodies need to promote the licensing objectives without difficulty. The vast majority do not find the evidential burden for this too restrictive. For those that have experienced difficulties, with a lack of representation being made by responsible authorities about problem premises, the Bill makes local authorities responsible authorities, which means that they will be able to tackle problem premises in their own right, not rely just on evidence supplied by the other responsible authorities.

It should be recognised that licence conditions impose additional cost and restrictions on businesses, so they must be necessary—that is, essential—in order to justify the additional burden on the premises concerned. The breach of a licence condition is a serious offence and carries a fine of £20,000. Such a penalty is too great in respect of conditions that are simply deemed “appropriate”. A change from “necessary” to “appropriate” will introduce subjectivity into the licensing process and could lead to a disproportionately strong voice for minority interest groups that find themselves able to dominate the licensing process. There are many different types of conditions that could be considered appropriate for most, if not all, licensed premises, but would certainly not be necessary for the vast majority of them, which are well managed, responsible businesses. One can think of examples such as plastic glasses, CCTV, doormen, and duplication of existing legislative requirements—all of which could be imposed as perhaps being appropriate but not necessary in those circumstances.

In Committee in the House of Commons, the Government justified the lowering of the evidence test from “necessary” to “appropriate” on the ground that some local authorities feared that a particular condition or step they sought to take would not be regarded as necessary, and that support for the measure was based on “anecdotal evidence”. Surely, this is insufficient evidence on which to base a change of this nature that will fundamentally alter the basis of the Licensing Act. Indeed, the Local Government Association has also expressed its misgivings about the change, I understand.

Why should we reduce the evidence base for conditions so that the need for them becomes a more subjective matter of opinion? This will lead only to conditions being challenged more than is currently the case, resulting in an increased burden on licensing committees, the courts and licensed premises. The licensed trade claims that the current “necessary” test has worked well and has ensured that conditions attached to licences are fair and address specific concerns, as opposed to being unfair and disproportionate. Where is the evidence otherwise?

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, my understanding of the background to the change in wording brought in by the Government is a little different from that of my noble friend Lord Astor, although closer to that of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. My understanding is that it has proved to be difficult and costly for some licensing authorities to prove, on challenge in the courts by applicants, that such-and-such a condition or restriction to the licence was necessary to promote the licensing objectives. In the face of strong legal challenges by trade interests with deeper pockets than local authorities, particularly in these parlous times, some authorities have backed down. I am glad to say that Westminster City Council is a praiseworthy exception.

It is difficult for a local authority to prove that some restriction is “necessary” in advance of a licence being granted, even if on the basis of probability it would be sensible to do so. My reading is that the Government have effectively decided to reduce the burden of proof so that a licensing authority would in future have to prove only that a particular measure is appropriate to promoting the licensing objectives, as the Bill states. Members of my former constituency in Soho and Covent Garden certainly think that the Government’s proposals are sensible and should stand.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 113 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, this is a device to elicit from the Government their motives for introducing a barrage of new provisions relating to temporary event notices. We seem to be building up a parallel system through the TENs system. It has worked extremely well. The notices are used extensively by community groups. They are not intended for commercial purposes, but are used for community events, village fetes, charity fundraising events and so on. It would be extremely interesting to hear from the Government why they feel that it is necessary to introduce so many new elements into the TENs system.

It was always designed as a form of flexible licensing for community groups. What is now happening under the various clauses relating to temporary event notices is that we are adding environmental health to the scrutiny process and are adding cost to the regime for local government as well. I do not know whether it is because the Government feel that TENs are being used by commercial operators, but the evidence given to me—I think, in particular, that increased hours during the new year celebrations was cited by the Government in their response to their consultation—has not painted that picture about how they are used. Ironically, it is likely that in any event there will be greater reliance if premises are caught by the late-night levy. There will be a greater use of TENs by commercial premises in those circumstances.

What is the justification for all these changes? What seems particularly odd is this extension: the change from a duration of 96 hours to one of 168 hours under Clause 116 and the increase in the number days from 15 to 21. If anything, one is making them more available for commercial purposes. We are changing from a temporary type of licensing to something much more permanent as far as I can see, so we have a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now we will have more conditions, and if there are going to be conditions, they should be standard conditions, so I have some sympathy with the amendments that follow in this group. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why we have to have more objectives, more bureaucracy and an extension of TENs as a concept in these circumstances. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not think my noble friend is moving that the clause stands part of the Bill. I have Amendments 240C, 240E, 240F, 240G, 240H, 240J and 240K in this group. My noble friend mentioned parallel provisions. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I have managed a degree of parallelism which probably adds to the confusion, but I think we are heading in the same direction.

In response to my noble friend, I say first that when we get to some amendments later on the subject of New Year’s Eve, I have a lot of sympathy for them. As I understand it, temporary event notices or TENs—I have always known that word in a completely different context—have grown in number far more than was anticipated. Almost 125,000 were used in the financial year to March 2010. They were introduced as a means of minimising the regulatory burden on small, ad hoc events, as my noble friend said, but they have grown somewhat. The Bill proposes that only following a representation from the police or environmental health will licensing authorities be able to insist that relevant conditions from the licence also apply for the duration of the temporary event notice and that regulations will stipulate the process, format and timescales for notifying applicants of the conditions.

I was glad to hear my noble friend’s comment about standard conditions. We know the view of the Local Government Association on this matter. It has briefed noble Lords that a more transparent and less burdensome approach would be for all existing premises licence conditions to apply automatically, apart from those that will be altered by a temporary event notice, such as hours. Licensing authorities should be given the ability to add appropriate conditions to a temporary event notice. Currently, there is no mechanism for adding controls in unlicensed premises. During the Commons stages, the Government responded that TENs would increase bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not always a bad thing. Some bureaucracy is necessary. Giving authorities an effective tool would give them greater, but not disproportionate, control. Standard conditions would actually reduce bureaucracy.

Secondly, on the time allowance for temporary event notices, I share the LGA’s concern about the extension of the duration to seven days from the current four. Seven days seems to me to be qualitatively different from four. The Bill does not introduce a mechanism whereby unlicensed premises can be conditioned when using a temporary event notice, and the LGA is concerned about the scenario of periods of up to seven days with no conditions on things like closing times, door staff and so on. There would be a qualitative difference, and I think this extension would go too far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, consultation and guidelines are being drawn up, but I believe that I can give that assurance.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Some of the Minister’s explanation of individual clauses was very clear but I found her introduction about the philosophy of what was being done extremely convoluted. I will have to read Hansard at least twice to understand the philosophy behind this. Let me declare an interest. I live very close to Clapham Common. We have lots of temporary events on the common which work very well. The police make objections if they have them, but by and large they are well behaved occasions. Little bureaucracy is involved, but these are quite big events, in many cases involving thousands of people. I am sure that it is true up and down the country that many of these events take place without any problems. However, we seem to be building up a mountain of regulation to deal with a few problems. There is no pandemic of problems associated with temporary event notices. On the other hand, I can see within the new regime, as a resident near Clapham Common, that these TENs will mushroom into week-long music festivals.

I love music and I think it is great, but residents need to be given some consideration when activities take place on what is normally a common, where people walk their dogs and do whatever they do on Clapham Common and other open spaces; historically, I can think of a few other things as well. That said, it is extraordinary that in the end we will probably add to some of the problems rather than making it easier. We are adding a parallel form of licensing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that I already have the answer. I can tell my noble friend that the conditions must be tailored, which I hope meets some of her concerns. However, I will have to write to my noble friend so far as the Localism Bill is concerned. I am not familiar enough with that Bill to be able to make a comparison of how it interposes with this legislation, but I will find out for her.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for addressing my particular concerns. I am greatly in favour of live music, but in dedicated venues and small venues. Permanent live music on Clapham Common, even for a music lover, would be too rich for my taste.

My noble friend has illustrated that we are in what is almost a vicious circle, although she would probably say that it is a virtuous circle. We are investing TENs with longer time spans; they will be much greater in number; and as a result we have added environmental health officers to the process. We are to have tailored conditions and so on. She spoke about parallels, and we will be in a parallel situation where TENs are an important way of delivering these events. I am not sure that they were designed to do that, but because we are investing them with greater significance we have to introduce all these safeguards and conditions. It may require a second look, because, after all, it is very easy just to keep on regulating without thinking what the whole purpose of the exercise is. As I have said, I shall read the introduction to the Minister’s reply extremely carefully, because I am sure that I shall be able to discern the philosophy behind the measure without any problem.

Clause 113 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, given the late hour and that this is our last group of amendments, I shall not tempt fate by seeking to open a more general debate about alcohol and young people. We will perhaps be able at the start of our sixth day of Committee to debate more general issues under Amendment 240M in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins.

I do, however, wonder whether we have got right our approach to children and alcohol. While I accept that there are very serious issues around allowing the sale of alcohol to children, there is no doubt in my mind that the crackdown on the sale of alcohol in pubs to older teenagers up to the age of 18 has not really had the desired effect. It seems to have encouraged those young people just to buy or get booze and drink it on the streets, whereas many 16 and 17 year-olds were clearly much better off under supervision in licensed premises. I worry about the advice that organisations such as the Royal College of Physicians have again given to parents about alcohol and young people. It seems so unrealistic as to lack any credibility. I do not expect the Minister to answer these substantive questions; I shall just say to her that I am not sure that either the Government of whom I was a member or hers, or many of the bodies involved, have taken a realistic attitude.

The amendment brings us back to a debate that was held in the other place, where there was a vote in Committee. It suggests that among the penalties available it might be useful to have a training order. Where appropriate, it would enable those persons who sold alcohol to undergo training and help to ensure that the behaviour in question is not repeated. I understand that there is considerable support for this proposal. I would be interested to know whether the Government, in the light of the debate in the other place, have given some further thought to this matter and consider that it might be appropriate. It is not a substitute for other penalties; it is just another option that might be adopted. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I shall speak to Amendment 240N, which has a similar concept, and Amendment 240L.

Training orders would be a more proportionate way of addressing instances of underage selling where there has been no intent to do so. They would provide a positive alternative to a fine or a closure order and give an additional discretion to the authorities. Under Amendment 240N, a training order would require a business to close for a period of 24 hours to train staff in their legal obligation not to sell alcohol to those aged under 18 and on the importance of checking proof of age. There would be a cost to business in terms of lost revenue but the staff would still be paid, which would not be the case in the event of a closure order. Training orders would provide a remedy that would address the issue and provide a long-term solution. At the same time the business concerned would still suffer the penalty of a temporary closure, resulting in loss of sales for the period of the order. Both Amendment 240KA and Amendment 240N are to be commended.

Amendment 240L is rather more radical. It would remove the proposed extension to closure notices. A closure of more than 48 hours could have a severe impact on any licensed premises and their staff, not least in the current difficult economic climate. The current system has, I am reliably informed, worked well, and it is unlikely, the licensed trade tells me, that many premises would accept a notice to close for longer than 48 hours but would instead opt to go to court.

The need for and benefits of extending the current norm of 48 hours is therefore questionable—certainly the upper two-week period, 336 hours, would seriously damage businesses, particularly small hospitality businesses, which have been among the hardest hit by the recent recession. A two-week closure would affect the income not only of the business itself but also of its employees who, in most instances, would not be paid. Such extended closures could be justified only where the underage sale was made with intent; otherwise training orders, as we have discussed, as proposed by Amendments 240KA and 240N, would be a more effective and fairer solution.

No one would condone deliberate sales to those who are under age. However, a closure notice extending to 336 hours is an extraordinarily draconian proposal. I hope that the Government will accept that many breaches are not with intent but are inadvertent; and that where staff need proper training the concept of training orders is a more constructive way forward.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I make the fairly obvious point that training of staff should apply before people take up a job. Training orders cannot just be applied for persistently selling alcohol to children. “Persistent” implies several occasions. Surely a training order should apply from the first offence. It is a small but important point that training should apply at the beginning of the process, not after persistently failing to abide by the law.