HC Deb 27 July 1976 vol 916 cc508-11
Mr. Harry Ewing

I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 20, line 31, leave out licensed 'premises' and insert 'vicinity of the licensed premises on the part of persons frequenting those premises'. The amendment would allow a licensing board, in considering the suspension of a licence after a complaint, to have regard to misconduct in the vicinity of the licensed premises on the part of customers of these premises.

In Committee we had a lengthy debate about the matters to which a licensing board could have regard in considering the suspension of a licence on receipt of a complaint from a neighbouring owner or occupier, a community council, a church or the chief constable. In the clause as originally drafted, these matters where any misconduct by the licence-holder and any misconduct occurring in, or in the vicinity of, the licensed premises. An Opposition amendment to delete the words 'or in the vicinity of' was carried, thus preventing a licensing board from taking into account misconduct in the vicinity of licensed premises in considering the grounds for suspending a licence.

The debate in Committee was to some extent, I suspect, based on a misunderstanding of the relationship of subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) sets out the grounds on which suspension may be ordered; subsection (3) sets out matters to which the board may have regard in considering a complaint. It follows that only matters relevant to the grounds in subsection (2) could be had regard to under subsection (3).

In moving the amendment in Committee which removed the original wording of subsection (3), the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said: I feel that subsection (3)(b) is too widely drawn and is putting the licensee in an invidious position in that he is virtually having to be answerable for misconduct of one sort or another which may have no relationship to his own conduct of his own premises and what may be going on in his own premises."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15th June 1976; c. 360.] We have tried to meet that criticism by making the misconduct to which regard may be had misconduct on the part of persons frequenting the premises. This is clearly conduct related to the premises, and I hope that this avoids the difficulties to which the hon. Member drew attention in Committee.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I welcome the fact that the Government, although they have not accepted the amendment we made in Committee, have not sought to restore the exact original wording. They have tried to meet our point in part, but I still have certain reservations. I understand the difference between subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) is obviously vital to the licence-holder. Subsection (3) is not of such direct significance, although it has a certain importance.

My concern in Committee which caused me to move the successful amendment was to make sure that the licence-holder was not to be held responsible by the board for conduct or behaviour which was outwith his control. However, accept that misconduct or nuisances occurring outside licensed premises as a result of what goes on in them should be taken into account. I entirely accept that, if there is habitual misconduct outside licensed premises and it is obviously related to the people using the premises, that would be a factor that the board would be entitled to take into account.

However, I am anxious about the single incident, the one occasion when, in order to conduct his premises properly, the licence-holder perhaps puts out of his premises someone who is causing a nuisance. I am distinguishing between the one incident and the habitual nuisance, and I hope that the licensing board will treat them differently.

While I do not expect the Minister to give a total assurance tonight, I hope he will say that he will consider this matter. If he feels that I have identified a problem, he might like to deal with it in another place.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has made a good case, as he did on this subject in Committee. The discussion is recorded at columns 377 to 380 of Hansard for 15th June. Does the Minister confirm that any suspension of a licence under this subsection will be subject to a right of appeal to a sheriff? If there is to be an appeal, as seems plain from subsection (2), it is unlikely that the court would uphold a suspension on the ground of only one incident.

Can the Minister explain why he has used the words on the part of persons frequenting those premises"? An appeal might be held up because of those words. The Government will be aware that the original Bill used the words vicinity of the licensed premises". The Minister knows that in this and in other respects he has my support. We had a good relationship in Committee and it is sad that circumstances of which he is aware have destroyed that.

Let us take the example of a street or city where there is very little trouble and no inconvenience. Let us say that a public house is built and that from that moment on there are people being sick and urinating in the nearby closes, that this is going on regularly and that with the arrival of the pub the situation changes from being peaceful, harmonious and pleasant. Will it be possible for the licensing board to defend itself in an appeal against the claim that the people concerned were not the people who frequented the premises?

There need not be any evidence that those who are sick and urinating in the closes are the people who frequent the pubs. How will the licensing board get evidence that the nuisance is caused by people frequenting the premises? If the matter goes to the sheriff court, which is more than likely, precisely how is it intended that the board should defend its actions?

5.30 a.m.

Is it wise to put in the words on the part of a person frequenting those premises at all? Even if it were possible to prove they were not frequenting a public house, is it fair and reasonable, if a public house becomes a gathering ground for people who cause undue nuisance, that no action can be taken about the existence of that public house? Public houses on street corners tend to be gathering areas. If a pleasant street is to be subjected to undue nuisance because of this, is it fair to restrict the basis of complaint in the way the Minister has done in this amendment?

I am suggesting that the Government had it right in the Bill as originally drafted when the words were misconduct occurring in the vicinity of licensed premises". By changing the words as they have done, they will make it very difficult for the boards to pursue an offence if a case is appealed to the sheriff, as it would be in the event of the suspension of a licence.

Mr. Harry Ewing

On the points raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), I give an assurance that we shall have another look at the wording and make any changes that we feel are necessary to meet the points. We hope that the wording in Clause 33(6), which defines the time limits in which a suspension would not take effect, and in subsection (8), which defines the question of appeals to the sheriff, will meet the points raised by the hon. Member. I think that this meets the point of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) also.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Perhaps at this point I may make a statement. A little while ago the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) asked whether a separate Division would be possible on Amendment No. 49. My predecessor ruled that it had fallen when Amendment No. 6 was agreed to. I have since taken further advice and have come to the conclusion that the two amendments are not incompatible. Therefore, there may be a Division on Amendment No. 49 if the hon. Member wishes.

Forward to