§ Mr. SainsburyI beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 18, line 21, at end insert
'or subsection (3AA) of this section applies.(3AA) This subsection applies where—
- (a) the person under fourteen, or a person in whose company he is, is consuming a meal purchased before the certificate ceased to be operational, and
- (b) no more than thirty minutes have elapsed since the certificate ceased to be operational.'.
§ Madam SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 85.
No. 10, in schedule 6, page 81, line 11, after 'police', insert 'or any other person'.
No. 11, in page 81, line 22, after 'police', insert 'or any other person'.
No. 14, in page 81, line 25, after 'police', insert
'or the person making the application, as the case may be,'.Government amendment No. 84.
§ Mr. SainsburyAmendments Nos. 83 and 84 fulfil an undertaking given in Committee. Under the children's certificate provisions as they stand, every certificate will cease to be operational at some predetermined time. That will normally be 9 o'clock in the evening, but it may be earlier or later in an individual case. Immediately a children's certificate has ceased to be operational, the provisions of section 168 of the Licensing Act 1964—under which it is a criminal offence for the licensee to allow, or anyone else to cause or procure, a young person under the age of 14 to be in a bar in licensed premises during permitted hours—automatically resume their application to the bar concerned.
The absolute nature of the "guillotine" thus imposed could cause problems for families with young children to whom a meal has been served in a bar in which a children's certificate was in force, shortly before the certificate ceased to be operational. Such a family might have insufficient time to complete their meal comfortably before they had to leave the bar so that neither they nor the licensee would be committing a criminal offence. Hon. Members with children and grandchildren will know that they cannot always be persuaded to eat up quickly. The provision would therefore seem unreasonable.
The amendment therefore makes provision for a period of up to 30 minutes eating-up time immediately after the children's certificate has ceased to be operational. That will apply only for the purpose of allowing a young person under 14, or the adult in whose company he or she is, to consume a meal purchased before the certificate ceased to be operational. The amendment offers a sensible solution to a minor practical problem identified during the passage of the Bill and I commend it to the House.
262 Amendment No. 85 fulfils the undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) in Committee. It will require licensing justices who refuse to grant a children's certificate to give the unsuccessful applicant a written explanation of their reasons for refusing the application. That will, I am sure, introduce a greater element of transparency and openness into decision making in that context. It would also give unsuccessful applicants a better opportunity to consider, with their legal adviser as necessary, whether they have good grounds on which to exercise their right, for which the Bill already makes provision, to appeal to the Crown court against a justices' decision, or perhaps even to seek to have it reviewed in the High Court. I commend the amendments to the House.
§ Mr. FatchettI welcome the Minister's words on amendments Nos. 83 and 85 and I am grateful to him for carrying out the commitments that were given in Committee. I shall not detain the House for any great length of time at this stage. However, the amendments in my name—Nos. 10, 11 and 14—raised an especial point that came up in Committee, relating to the duration of children's certificates and the locus of various parties to appear before the licensing justices. I am advised that, despite the assurance given to me by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs the Bill as currently drafted would allow only an officer of the police and not any other person to appear and therefore would not be consistent with other legislation dealing with licences in that area. My amendments would therefore add "any other person", which I understand would be consistent with previous licensing legislation.
I do not intend to push the point much further at this stage. I believe that there is agreement between me and the Minister in terms of locus and if the Minister looks at the words and the commitments given by his colleague the Under-Secretary of State he will see that. Before the Bill goes to another place, may I ask the Minister to have another look at my amendments to see whether they are technically necessary? Perhaps he would write to reassure me on that point.
§ Mr. SainsburyI am happy to confirm that I shall look carefully at what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said and I shall write to him. I hope that I will be able to reassure him that what is proposed in the Bill is consistent with other aspects of licensing legislation.
§ Amendment agreed to.