HC Deb 27 July 1976 vol 916 cc564-6
Mr. Rifkind

I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 76, line 37, after 'may', insert 'subject to the approval of the sheriff'. I understand that with this we are to discuss the related amendment, No. 85, in page 76, line 37, leave out 'any' and insert 'an entertainments licence but no other licence'. Clause 124 is a completely new departure in licensing law as it seeks to repeal the restrictions of previous legislation that in effect prevented a local authority from granting a licence to itself for the conduct of licensed premises.

We had a very full debate on this subject in Committee, but I should like to restate the basic issue. Many of us believe that it is positively undesirable that a local authority should be both judge and jury in its own case. The licensing board will consist entirely of persons who are elected councillors. Therefore it is wrong in principle, dangerous in practice, and likely to create a harmful impression on the public if a local authority makes an application to the board for a licence to conduct licensed premises. There is an essential conflict of interests here.

9.0 a.m.

We know that the Bill makes many specific provisions that no one is entitled to sit on a licensing board if he has any direct or indirect interest in an application to that board. But Clause 124 is an exception to that necessary and desirable rule. It will give the local authority a privileged position in society in that it will be able to apply to a board consisting entirely of its own members for a licence.

In supporting this provision in the Bill, the Minister argued that it was necessary for a local authority to have this right to provide licensed premises for itself, its own staff, or institutions run by it in matters covered by entertainment licences. As this was the only argument put forward by the Minister we have put down an amendment to restrict this right on the basis of that qualification. The Minister's argument would be fully covered by restricting the type of licence granted by a local authority to itself to entertainment licences.

Amendment 84 is an additional protection in that it provides that the granting of licences should be subject to the approval of the sheriff.

I would argue that in a situation where a local authority that this privileged position, as far as its own licence applications are concerned, there should be not just an appeal by another party to the sheriff but an automatic requirement that he should consider whether the granting of the licence is justified.

This is the old principle of justice being seen to be done as well as actually being done. The public would feel grieved if they thought that a local authority was granting itself a licence—particularly if it were a contentious licence, or one which might be objected to. Undoubtedly members of the public would feel grievously prejudiced knowing that the application for a licence had gone from local councillors to a licensing board consisting of the same local councillors. That is not a desirable impression to make on the public.

I am not seeking to denigrate local authorities. This amendment is necessary for the protection of local authorities themselves so that there can be no questioning of their integrity and no claiming that they have a privileged position in society in respect of licensing. In its present form, the clause raises such objections.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment to restrict a local authority's applications to those circumstances which the Minister himself said were the only circumstances provided for when he introduced this clause in the first place.

Mr. Harry Ewing

I am not prepared to accept the amendment, but if the hon. Member will withdraw it I will consider which types of licence can be granted to local authorities.

The amendment suggested is far too restrictive, and we certainly cannot agree to licences being granted by the sheriff when there is already a built-in appeal to the sheriff.

Mr. Rifkind

I am grateful to the Minister for that generous offer. It is generally accepted by everyone including the Minister that it is highly unlikely that a local authority will apply for a public house licence, but nothing in the Bill would prevent it from doing so. I am grateful that the Minister has offered to consider whether there could be a restriction on the kind of licence for which local authorities can apply. That would meet the legitimate objective without creating potential prejudice, which we are anxious to avoid.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to