§ Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Valley)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications; and for connected purposes.I admit at the outset that the title of my Bill is more ambitious than the content of the measure, but it is a sensible, limited measure which is sponsored by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that it will be given a Second reading.There is little doubt that the licensing system in Britain needs reform. The Small Independent Brewers Association tells me that the public house structure comes from the Beer House Act 1830. The Government recognised the need for liberalisation in 1988 as a result of the deliberations of the Erroll committee. Indeed, the Birmingham licensing bench, the biggest in the country, said in 1988:
The time has come for Parliament to instigate a detailed study of the licensing laws with a view to their wholesale reform.In July of this year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for these matters, said that the Government recognised that there was a good case for the wholesale reform and updating of the liquor licensing system.My Bill is more modest that that. It argues for changes to be made in the licensing system which would make it more objective, fair and transparent and more responsive to the needs of the community and the consumer. I emphasise that I have no intention of making relaxations in the existing licensing system. Indeed, I welcome Government measures against irresponsible drinking. In particular, I welcomed their decision in 1988 to give justices more powers to revoke licences with only 26 days' notice and to make the prosecution of under-age drinkers much easier. Even so, the existing system can be restrictive and oppressive in a number of ways.
My remarks may be taken in a geographical, or be thought to have a west midlands, perspective, in that I was a member of the licensing planning committee there for two years some years ago. The Birmingham Post has been conducting a vigorous campaign against what CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—has called
the notoriously restrictive Birmingham licensing bench.Even the editor of The Licensing Review has written:there is great concern about certain of the policies undertaken by Birmingham and the difficulty in challenging them.The measures in my Bill will be applicable to and will benefit England and Wales generally. Basically, the Bill contains four measures. The first is to give every applicant who has a licence application rejected the right to know the reasons for the rejection. It seems wrong that, when someone has made what might have been an expensive application and who may have tied up much capital in doing so, he should have no right to be given reasons if his application is rejected. The Home Office says that many benches are prepared to advise applicants of the reasons for rejection, but that is only advice, and my magistrates bench in north Worcestershire tells me:It is not usual, or a requirement, that justices should give explanations or reasons for their decisions.181 That must be wrong. They should be required to do so, as is the case in Scotland.The second measure would put a time limit on the length of time a person can chair licensing magistrates. I suggest that there is a balance to be struck between experience and a fresh eye and objectivity. Some cities, such as Cardiff and Manchester, have fixed terms. Others do not; for example, in Birmingham, one gentleman was chairman of the licensing magistrates for 22 years. That is not to comment on his integrity, but I suggest that there is a case for limiting the term to five years only.
The third measure would set in motion a maximum period for the consideration of applications that are properly made. Before 1988, that was more difficult, because the transfer sessions met only a few times. There is no such limit now, and although most licensing benches comply with reasonable limits on time, there is a minority which, irrespective of the agreement of the police and the fire and planning authorities, use their powers unnecessarily to delay applications.
For example, in Birmingham recently, there was a £2.2 million scheme for which it took 15 months to obtain even a decision from the licensing magistrates, despite the fact that planning permission had been given by the Labour-controlled council. Eventually, the applicants withdrew in disgust.
The most important measure is to remove from licensing magistrates the criterion of the need to justify a refusal. The criterion of economic need gives rise to inconsistencies and arbitrary decisions, and tends to stifle competition, create local monopolies and reduce consumers' choice without meaningfully protecting the public. Under the Licensing Act 1964, Justices in England and Wales have a wide remit as long as they act, in Lord Widgery's words, "honestly, fairly and conscientiously". It is increasingly recognised that refusals on the ground of need have undesirable consequences.
First, the decisions become prone to inconsistency and become more arbitrary. It is wrong that licensing magistrates, who may not have done market research or put down the capital that applicants did when they entered their applications, should try to second-guess the market, despite the fact that the application would pass on planning grounds, in terms of police objections, the licensee's responsibility and fire objections. It is wrong if, despite those grounds, the application is turned down because it is said that there is no public need for the premises. In its pamphlet "Licensing Law in the 80's", the Justices' Clerks Society said:
The licensing system, as a result, is often unfair, and expensive to applicants.Secondly, economic need stifles competition. It is no coincidence that the Justices' Clerks Society said that most 182 objections to licences come from the larger brewers which like to protect their own competitive position. It is no wonder that they control 57 per cent. of off-licences in the United Kingdom. The Small Independent Brewers Association wrote to me recently in support of my measure, saying:Our members wish to compete on equal terms with companies who contrive to stifle competition by offering heavy discounts or low-interest loans when trading out of a protected market which our members cannot penetrate.CAMRA, which also supports my measure, said:CAMRA is convinced that the licensing system acts as a barrier to entry and can reinforce local monopolies in the ownership of pubs.Obviously, those local monopolies are not in the interest of the consumer or our constituents. The Government have recognised that. Lord Young recognised two years ago that the licensing system should not fortify local monopolies, but the Government have yet to act. I hope that my measure will be a further prod to get them moving in that direction.The criterion of economic need reduces consumer choice. Surely it is wrong that my constituents can satisfy the licensing magistrates, the local planning committee, the police and fire authorities of the need for an off-licence and have it turned down. It is wrong that the Birmingham licensing magistrates should turn down a £750,000 application which has the support of the Labour-controlled city council, the police, fire and tourist authorities and the architects, and say that they refuse it because
existing facilities in the area are adequate for the requirements of the public.That is paternalistic and arrogant and denies consumers choice and variety. Therefore, the ground of economic need should be removed from the criteria available to licensing magistrates when considering such decisions.The measure is modest and sensible. It has support from both sides of the House, and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Roger King, Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Simon Burns.
Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 51.]