Schedule 1 (Hansard, 3 February 1982)

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 39, line 20, leave out from '1961' to end of line 22.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may discuss amendment No. 72, in page 39, line 41, leave out from '1961' to end of line 44.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Schedule 1, as it stands, Excludes from public entertainment licensing arrangements entertainment which takes place wholly or mainly in the open air. The purpose of my amendment is to provide a uniform system of licensing for outside entertainment that has been excluded from the Bill. Additionally, the Bill excludes 493 places of public worship and pleasure fairs, along with outside entertainment, yet a scheme exists in legislation in London whereby the object of my amendment applies.
In 1977 Baroness Stedman, in a report, concluded that pop festivals were not susceptible to a licensing system, although changes were proposed. The problems that exist for local authorities when outside entertainment takes place includes maintaining an adequate level of hygiene, adequate traffic control and policing arrangements and control of the level of nuisance to the neighbourhoods in the immediate vicinities of pop festivals. That is what the amendment tries to deal with. There are also problems of litter, which cannot be controlled while a pop festival is taking place, and that places on local authorities obligations that they have found difficult to carry out especially in the present climate of financial constraint.
I hope that the Minister will accept the need to include pop festivals. Some exclusions have already been allowed, and it should be possible to include outside entertainment, thereby clearly defining the intention of Parliament to include pop festivals.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has received a number of representations from local authorities. I am told that South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Kent have local legislation and are able to restrain and restrict outside entertainment in the way that my amendment suggests. That should be an example to the hon. Gentleman and his Department in whatever consideration they may give to this matter. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the amendment.

§ Dr. Summerskill
Amendment No. 72 covers the same ground as the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). At the end of our discussion in Committee the Minister said that he would look at this again in view of the feeling that existed.
He wrote to me on 22 January informing me that he would not be producing an amendment on Report, but added: We are seeking a mutually acceptable solution with the local authority associations". I understand that on 29 January the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils went to the Home Office for a meeting on this subject and urged the Minister to include public music and dancing in the open air in the licensing scheme.
I have carefully read the speech that the Minister made in Committee and I accept the civil liberties argument that village fetes and political rallies and marches would be covered if any music in the open air were included in the licensing scheme.
The Minister's second argument in Committee was based on the difficulty of enforcement. That argument is not valid in respect of the GLC, which is carrying out enforcement. The right hon. Gentleman's civil liberties argument has some weight, but I suggest that the Bill should deal with pop festivals. That was the burden of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and it is the argument of the local authority associations. Several authorities already have powers to license these festivals, but under the Bill as it stands those powers will be lost. That is ridiculous. As we observed in Committee, it takes a great deal of money and time for a local authority 494 to obtain these powers. I ask the Minister carefully to consider making an alteration to the Bill to include open air pop festivals within the licensing scheme.

§ Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South)
I approach this issue with some ambivalence. I neither support the clause as it stands nor support the amendments in their entirety. I compliment the Government on introducing legislation fairly swiftly in this area. Over the past few years there has been much concern about pop festivals that take place in theatres.
I first raised the issue of safety and security at pop concerts in an Adjournment debate in 1977. Many concerts were taking place in inadequate theatres. There were many instances of risk and death. Considerable risk was attendant upon those at the concerts.
I ask for the Minister's indulgence, because I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. I do so because I wish to ask him several questions. First, what will be the criteria for a local authority, police force or fire service in considering whether to grant a licence to enable a pop concert to take place in a theatre? Will it take into account public health considerations—for example, the number of toilets in relation to the number of people who will use those facilities, noise levels and security arrangements? Much concern has been expressed about the inadequacy of security arrangements for pop concerts, discos and dances, where people purport to be competent in acting as attendants, when they are grossly inadequate. They may create a crisis within a concert by their rough handling of clients, including young people. About two years ago the Daily Mail reported that there were 20 deaths in 1979 as a result of violence at pop concerts. I endorse the Minister's perspective of not extending licensing arrangements to outdoor events, although I strongly support the licensing of indoor concerts.
What will be the position when concerts take place in partially enclosed areas such as football grounds? Three or four years ago there was a concert at Charlton Athletic football ground, at which the attendance was considerably in excess of what the promoters admitted, and there was a court action afterwards. Would such an event come within the scope of the original proposal? Is it an indoor or an outdoor event? Would licensing apply to concerts in football grounds?
3 am
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) recognise that the amendments pose civil liberties problems?

§ Dr. Summerskill
indicated assent.

§ Mr. George
I am glad that that has been recognised. I have been in touch with the National Council for Civil Liberties, and it is worried that many types of events may be caught in the orbit of the amendment. Music is now increasingly played at political events. The organisers hire folk groups, pop groups or bands of one kind or another. I hope that the Minister has thought about this problem. If so, perhaps he will suggest ways of meeting the amendments and give his view on the matter.
The point about enforcement is valid. We must distinguish between the lavish pop concert outdoors, organised on a commercial basis, which attracts thousands of people, and the more modest kind of enterprise, which emerges almost spontaneously, for which it would be 495 difficult to get any form of accountability from the people organising it. However, there must be some form of licensing.
I support the amendments. I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that this grey area between the original proposals and the amendments will be explored, if not here, in another place.

Mr. R. C Mitchell
I did not serve on the Committee on the Bill, and I have not read in detail the report of the proceedings, but the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) raised a serious matter. Am I right in saying that not only does the Bill not provide for licensing for pop concerts, but, where a local authority has obtained the power to license through a Private Bill, this Bill will supersede any such measure and the powers will automatically fall? If so, it is a serious matter. Is it not possible to have an amendment which would allow authorities which have obtained these powers through the Private Bill procedure to retain them?

§ Mr. Raison
Broadly speaking, it is true that the powers obtained by local authorities will lapse with the passing of the Bill. That is one of the factors that we have had to consider. The Government do not necessarily agree that, because local authorities have obtained these powers through Private Bills, they should remain unaffected by subsequent legislation.
We are aware of the complexity of the problem. Attempts are being made, in conjunction with the local authority associations, to try to find the right answer. I am sure that those efforts will continue, but so far we have been unable to solve these tricky problems.
I shall try to pick up, perhaps in correspondence, the points made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I must say that the hon. Gentleman seemed to be under a misapprehension about what is going on. We are not introducing measures to control pop festivals. An amendment has been put forward from the Opposition Benches, but there is no Government scheme. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be asking for the ingredients of the Government scheme, but since we do not have a scheme it is difficult for me to answer his points.
On the main point of the debate, the Government have never denied the problems caused by pop festivals or called into question local authorities' right to try to take action to lessen them. What we have grave doubts about as a basis for national legislation is the method embodied in this amendment of using a licensing system, and one, moreover, that would cover any and every public entertainment, however innocuous, which took place in the open air.
The difference between the power exercised by the GLC and those which will be available elsewhere can be justified quite simply. Any pop festival held in London will be in the middle of an urban area and will disturb hundreds or even thousands of people. It will also take place in a well-defined and relatively small open space. It cannot move into the next field or on to an adjacent property. Not only is the need for strict control undeniable, but there are few, if any, problems of enforcement. All the evidence points to a different conclusion outside the capital.
As I have said, we accept that pop festivals cause problems. The main problems, however, seem to be caused by unlicensed or informal festivals, and we are far 496 from convinced that a licensing system would catch the organisers of such festivals, who seem to prefer to be elusive. The local authorities disagree with this point completely, arguing that organisers can always be found where there are thousands of pounds' worth of equipment. Whether they can be found in time to apply the licensing conditions is another question.
Our second objection is a legal one. We have consistently felt that it would be very difficult to distinguish between pop festivals and other open air musical events, and whatever the merits of controls over pop festivals, no valid arguments have been put forward to control the mass of other outdoor entertainments that take place. The local authority associations acknowlege that they do not want to control them, but have not so far put forward any proposals for controls relating to pop festivals only.
The difficulty of distinguishing between pop festivals and other outdoor events is now being enhanced by a new development. Political rallies now commonly devote considerable amounts of time to music so that, for instance, a CND rally may be entertained by several rock bands between speeches. Possibly the music will predominate and undoubtedly larger crowds will be attracted if there is the prospect of free entertainment. Local authorities say—and I accept what they say completely—that they would never use their licensing powers to prohibit a rally on political grounds. Any restrictive action they took, however, would be seen by those of a different political leaning as evidence of bias.
To give them blanket powers, in effect, to prohibit political rallies would be unacceptable; to insert into licensing power an exemption for political rallies would invalidate that power from the start, because organisers would make sure they had a political link, however tenuous. The last development seems to me a particularly cogent reason for leaving pop festivals alone.
As the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, there was a recent meeting between officials in my Department and representatives of the GLC and the local authority associations, but so far it has not brought us any futher forward. The local authority interests have made it plain that they are interested only in ensuring proper control of and proper facilities at pop festivals.
These amendments do not achieve that purpose, and I therefore hope that they will not be pressed. I recognise that there is a problem here. If the local authorities come forward with any proposals that will meet the problem of how to control pop festivals without interfering or controlling other activities, and if we can find a way round the political point that I have just ventilated, we shall listen sympathetically. So far, however, we have not found an acceptable answer and I therefore cannot advise the House to accept the amendments.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell
May I ask the Minister why it is necessary to take away the powers that local authorities have already gained? Why cannot he make some arrangement to enable the authorities to retain their powers until such time as he produces his alternative legislation?

§ Mr. Raison
The answer is related to the particular nature of this kind of legislation. That is the way in which the provisions work. I understand the hon. Gentleman' s point and I will, without any commitment, have further 497 inquiries made on the point, but I think that there are practical and technical difficulties that are difficult to overcome.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The Minister could have been a little more positive. I was not altogether expecting him to accept my amendment. I tabled it as a probe to ascertain the Government's thinking.
Do the Government fully understand that local authorities have no law with which to deal with pop festivals? Pop festivals are completely unrestricted activities, yet for many local authorities they are a major problem. For those authorities there is an urgent need for some legislation to give them the powers that they need.
Many local authorities thought that this would be the Bill by which to do it. The Minister says that if they can prove at some time in the future that they have something viable he will consider introducing it, but in what legislation could it be introduced? As I understand the position, it can be done only in the form of a miscellaneous provisions Bill of this nature.
Perhaps before the Bill gets to the other place the Minister will have consultations and try to find an urgent solution. Local authorities are looking to us to take a decision.

§ Mr. Raison
With the leave of the House, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not ruling out the possibility that there might be further attempts to deal with the problem in another place. But, as I have had to say once or twice during the debates today, it is not enough just to have a sentiment and a desire to do something. It has to be the right and wise thing to do. That is the problem that has so far defeated us.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 40, line 24, at end insert 'Provided that 14 day's notice of intention shall be given in respect of any application for an occasional licence in accordance with paragraphs 1(5) or 2(5) above.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 75, in page 40, leave out lines 30 to 36 and insert—

'(3) An applicant for the grant renewal or transfer of an entertainments licence shall furnish such particulars and plans as the appropriate authority may by regulation prescribe and give the following public notices of the application

(a) by displaying a notice in a conspicuous position on or near the relevant premises for 14 days beginning with the date of the application: and

(b) except in the case of application for the renewal of a licence, by advertisment in a newspaper circulating in the area of the appropriate authority published not later than 7 days from the date of the application in such form as the appropriate authority may by regulation prescribe.

(4) In considering any application for the grant, renewal or transfer of an entertainments licence, the appropriate authority shall have regard to any objection made against the application of which notice has, not later than 28 days after the date of the application, been sent to the appropriate authority and to the applicant, stating in general terms the grounds of the objection.

(4) In considering any application for the grant, renewal or transfer of an entertainments licence, the appropriate authority shall have regard to any objection made against the application of which notice has, not later than 28 days after the date of the application, been sent to the appropriate authority and to the applicant, stating in general terms the grounds of the objection.

(5) Before refusing any application for the grant renewal or transfer of an entertainments licence the appropriate authority shall give to the applicant an opportunity of appearing before and 498 of being heard by a committee or sub-committee of the appropriate authority and, if so required by him, the appropriate authority shall, within seven days after their decision, give him notice thereof containing a statement of the grounds upon which it was based. '.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The amendment deals with the licensing of public entertainment. Where occasional licences are being sought, 28 days' notice is required by the local authority, the police and the fire authority.
Paragraph 1(5) gives the local authority power to grant occasional licences for music and dancing. Paragraph 2(5) gives local authorities power to grant occasional licences for boxing and wrestling.
The amendment qualifies those paragraphs by reducing the time notice from 28 days to 14 days. I hope that the Minister will concede it, as I am told that it already applies in London. Perhaps in his reply he will comment on that.
With regard to amendment No. 75, paragraph 1(3) of the schedule relates to the rights of applicants for and objectors to licences for entertainment.
I now consider sub-paragraph (3)(b) of my proposed new wording to be no longer relevant—indeed, perhaps dangerous—in the sense that it would place a requirement on applicants to advertise and perhaps enter into an expenditure which by statute they should not be required to undertake. Therefore, in part my amendment is not satisfactory.
Paragraph 4(4) says: In considering any application for the grant, renewal or transfer of an entertainments licence, the appropriate authority shall have regard to any observations submitted to them by the chief officer of police and by the fire authority. Sub-paragraph (4) of my amendment requires that attention be paid to any objection by a member of the public to the allocation of a licence. Sub-paragraph (5) ensures that the applicant for the entertainment licence has the right to present his case and is given written notice of the decisions taken by the local authority. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit, if not to accept the amendment, to comment on it. I am sure that he will not accept it because of what I have said about sub-paragraph (3) (b).

§ Mr. Raison
The spirit of the amendment is already contained in paragraph 4(2) of schedule 1. I accept that there may be times when applicants for an occasional licence will be unable to comply with a 28 days' noticerequirement through no fault of their own. In such cases a local authority may be willing and able to dispense with the requirement, and paragraph 4(2) enables the authority to do so. No minimum notice is prescribed in the waiver and I do not think there should be one. The various authorities involved may need more than 14 days to carry out inspections of the premises and to report on them, and they should not be rushed into a decision when public safety is involved. If they need less than 14 days, they are quite free to grant a license at shorter notice. I am sure that it is in the best interests of licensing authority and applicant alike that the authority's discretion should be unfettered and I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. In London 14 days' notice is required. A general waiver of the 28 days' notice was recommended, which we have adopted.
The Government do not object in principle to the contents of amendment No. 75. It is perfectly reasonable for people living in the neighbourhood of premises for 499 which an entertainments licence is sought to be given an opportunity to object to the proposed licensing or the applicant. But schedule 1 already makes it possible for them to be given this opportunity. Paragraph 4(3) provides the licensing authority with power to make regulations prescribing the particulars which the applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence must furnish and the notices that he shall give. The authority is free to make regulations on the lines of the amendments proposed. I do not believe that we would be justified in imposing an extra bureaucratic procedure upon the licensing authority, and I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 40, line 42, leave out 'or (b)' and insert `and shall remit the whole or any part of such fee where in the opinion of the authority the entertainment in question—'. The amendment has been recommended to me by a charities organisation, which has concluded that this part of the Bill is based on schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963. In that Act the exemption from the fee for charitable or other like purposes is mandatory and not discretionary as in the Bill.
The organisation suggests that, because of the difficulties being faced by charities—both in raising money and in keeping the money that they raise, as costs are so high—the word "may" should be substituted by "shall". The provision, would be in ine with schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963.

§ Mr. Raison
The Government gave careful thought to a departure from the model of the London Government Act 1963. We realise that some educational and charitable organisations might lose a considerable proportion of their profits through having to pay a licence fee. I am sure that licensing authorities are as aware of that fact as we are, and I hope and expect that they will exercise their discretion to waive all or part of the fee in the proper spirit, but I see no reason why the licensing authority and, through it, the ratepayers should be forced to subsidise the wealthier chaities, particularly when the licence fee may be a tiny fraction of the cost of the entertainment.
The amendment is defective, because is imposes an obligation on the licensing authority to remit the whole or any part of the fee. That would be met if the authority remitted merely a trivial amount. As the amendment is not likely to perform the function intended by the hon. Lady, I invite her to withdraw it.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Pitt
I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 43, line 10 at end insert 'if authorised to do so by a warrant granted by a justice of the peace'. Under existing law the police are able to enter licensed premises to inspect for compliance with conditions attaching to the licence without first obtaining a magistrates' warrant. I believe that the Bill would perpetuate that position.
There is a widespread view among a number of minority groups that certain clubs are the subject of 500 excessive attention by the police, going well beyond what would be required by routine licensing inspections. That appears to involve a degree of harassment, including, for example, the relative frequency of inspections for infringements of licensing conditions, the disproportionate number of officers sometimes involved and the recording in some instances of the names and addresses of all those in a club during an inspection. It may be that such views are held by more groups than I have been informed of.
Such abuses could be discouraged if the police were required to obtain a warrant from a magistrate before entering licensed premises to check for compliance with the conditions attaching to a licence. The Bill specifies the need for a warrant when unlicensed premises are being checked to see whether an entertainment for which a licence is required is taking place. It seems logical that the principle should apply to licensed premises. I shall be glad if the Minister accepts the amendment, but I certainly hope that he will comment on it and perhaps consider discussing the matter further in another place.

§ Mr. John G. Blackburn (Dudley, West)
I am not so much surprised as astonished by the amendment. It would create tremendous problems. Police officers have a vital role in visiting places of entertainment—without a warrant—particularly in view of the potential danger to young people in such places, quite apart from the possibility of offences being committed against legislation passed by the House. I oppose the amendment with all the power at my command. It would take us down a dangerous path.
The schedule refers to: An authorised officer of the fire authority". I was pleased to hear the comments of the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on the pop festivals amendment. The idea of a fire officer having to get a warrant to check whether premises are complying with fire regulations is absurd. The attack made by the hon. Member for Croydon„ North-West (Mr. Pitt) on the police force was totally unwarranted. It should instead be given a vote of confidence.

§ Mr. Raison
I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this amendment, although my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) made some crisp and pertinent points on it. I cannot see any reason for providing that a constable or authorised officer should have to obtain a warrant before having the right to enier a licensed premises where public entertainment is being or about to be given for the purposes stated in paragraph 12(1). After all, no questions of privacy can arise and to obtain a warrant would be a meaningless formality, since it is hard to conceive the grounds on which an application could be refused. That is wholly different when an offence is suspected and the question of entry to what might be a private home arises. However, of course, in these circumstances, paragraph 12(3) makes it clear that a warrant is required.
The essence is that a warrant is required when one is breaking into someone's privacy. These are not, in any meaningless sense, private, so I believe that this provision is wrong.

§ Mr. Pitt
I am saddened to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. No slur was intended on the police, nor, I hope, was one implied. I have good reason to believe that 501 the police do an excellent job. However, there is considerable evidence from many bodies that there is some police harassment as they see it; there is no specific evidence of that.
It would be sensible and just to avoid these accusations if nothing else, if the police obtained warrants to enter these premises which, after all, are clubs. However, in the circumstances—having seen certain information—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Raison
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we taking amendment No. 78 on its own or is it proposed to carry out a further grouping?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
My Amendment Paper gives No. 78 on its own.

§ Mr. Raison
I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page
44, line 24, leave out 'by the licensing authority'. This is a drafting amendment designed to remove an unnecessary reference to the licensing authorities; it is purely technical.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I now understand what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind. We cannot do that at this moment.

§ Mr. Raison
I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 44, line 37, leave out `(8)' and insert `(9)'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 80 and 81.

§ Mr. Raison
Again, these are purely drafting amendments.