Licensing (Reform) (Hansard, 10 December 1996)

§ Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the system of liquor licensing. The Bill's purpose is to reform licensing law by abolishing the system of permitted or opening hours for licensed premises while retaining sufficient safeguards to ensure that the public in the vicinity are not unreasonably disturbed. It would abolish the absolute discretion of licensing justices to control the establishment or conduct of licensed premises and abolish children's certificates.
Our present licensing laws are complicated, archaic and confusing. Few people understand them; they need urgent reform. The historic and traditional values of our pubs need to be set in modern times. The current Licensing Act dates from 1961, when the law was last reviewed. It was consolidated in 1964, and has no fewer than 204 sections and 11 active schedules. There have been numerous amendments, and another 17 sections have been added. So confusing has it become that a key section on late-night extension is now known as section 78ZA. From a purely logistical point of view, the legislation needs reform.
Piecemeal reform is no longer acceptable. A comprehensive review is necessary. The present law is antiquated and outdated. It contains whole sections which were included in one of the first Alehouse Acts passed at the time of George IV, which was also known as the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act 1828. In those days, there were closing times, not permitted hours. The closing times were intended merely to prevent potential disturbance at night and during Sunday services, although alehouses could open at all other times.
However, the Licensing Act 1872 forms the basis of the current law. Large sections of the Act are still in force and have not been substantially repealed or amended since that time. Procedure for the granting, renewal and transfer of licences has not substantially changed. It has to be remembered that, in those times, the vast majority of licences were granted to individuals who ran alehouses, inns, refreshment houses and off-licences. There were mainly local breweries with local tenants. There were no national breweries, retail groups, themed bars or restaurant chains, and there was no training or supervision. The laws which were in force then are hardly suited to the modern licensing needs of the 21st century.
The Bill attempts to update the legislation. It first deals with opening or permitted hours. Permitted hours are a hangover from the first world war and the requirement to get the munitions workers back to the factories in the afternoons. They are truly an anachronism, and they serve no useful purpose. Even the Association of Chief Police Officers has recommended that permitted hours as such be abolished. In its recent submission to the Home Office, it pointed out that removing the flashpoints of 11.30 pm and 2.30 am when pubs and clubs turned out would dramatically reduce violent confrontation and make policing easier during those periods.
The Bill seeks to abolish permitted hours on licensed premises, while ensuring that local residents are protected from unreasonable noise and disturbance. Pubs and clubs will be able to open when they want. The market will dictate when they open. Justices will have the power to 142 issue an order for a closing period when they think it appropriate. The police and the licensee will have the opportunity to appeal against such an order or ask for it to be revoked.
Complaints are sometimes made that licensing magistrates behave like barons in their own lands. The present system lacks transparency and leads to wide variations between benches. It just cannot make sense for Birmingham, which has twice the population of Nottingham, to have only half the number of late licences that Nottingham has. Such variations highlight the inadequacies of the present Act. Similarly, the Bill will stop people who want to drink later rushing from one licensing area to another, which permits later drinking, say, during the Christmas period.
What is more, the second focus of the Bill challenges the absolute discretion of the justices. In the modern leisure society, decisions on the viability of premises and their attraction to customers should properly be taken by the companies and operators who are risking their money, together with the appropriate planning authority, which, in every case, would give permission for any new venture. The control of the justices has been criticised as too dictatorial, and out of keeping with modern business needs.
Removal of the absolute authority of justices, but allowing them to refuse applications for inappropriate or unsuitable premises, has long been canvassed, as has the requirement for justices to give clear written reasons for refusing to grant a licence, to give the applicants to put things right if they can. I therefore propose that the discretion of the justices to grant or refuse a new licence should be limited to those areas outlined in the Bill. That will retain proper controls, but allow new entrants to the licensed trade to compete with established premises if they think that they have suitable premises and are fit and proper to hold a licence.
To those who say that the Bill will open the floodgates to new licences, I point out that the statistics show that the number of public houses is falling, not as a result of unfair competition from within but because there are competing leisure activities elsewhere, in particular home consumption. One cannot have it both ways. Either there are too many licensed outlets or they are not of the type that the customer wants. That is not a choice that justices should make. The choice of the consumer is clearly paramount.
The third proposal in the Bill is one which I believe will be widely welcomed. Children's certificates have been a disaster. They were introduced as a deregulation measure, but quickly evolved into an additional form of licence, with procedures for application, complicated requirements from licensing committees, and considerable extra work for clerks and court administrators. So inhibiting are some of the conditions imposed that recent Home Office statistics show that only 3.7 per cent. of the pubs in England and Wales have been granted certificates. In the past year, among 75,000 public houses, only a few more than 1,000 certificates were granted.
The city of York, as a matter of policy, does not entertain children's certificates. It relies on the good sense of local licensees and the police to ensure that children are allowed only in pubs with a suitable environment. In contrast to York, licensing benches across the country apply differing and restrictive conditions. In Birmingham, 143 children's certificates exclude children in term time. One bench forbids children to sit on stools; no domines are allowed; children must be out of the line of sight of televisions. The list goes on. I believe that those judgments should properly be made by parents, not licensing benches.
Therefore, I propose to turn the burden of proof around and abolish the cumbersome and unpopular certificates. I propose that in their place, where necessary, a restriction order should be placed on unsuitable premises where it is felt appropriate that young children should not be allowed. The presence of young people under 14 is already permitted in a number of premises where alcohol is supplied and consumed, without creating problems of discipline.
Under-age drinking is and always has been a separate issue from that of allowing children under 14 in licensed premises. It is a hangover from the images evoked by Hogarth and others of youngsters in alehouses and gin palaces. The modern licensed outlet has clearly appealed more and more to families, who are inhibited from making full use of the facilities by the restrictions and the extra conditions imposed. They are unnecessary, and should be done away with.
This is a modest but necessary Bill. It has much support from bodies that take an interest in licensing. Many licensing magistrates acknowledge that the time for change has come. In today's society, there are ready opportunities to travel abroad. British residents are impressed by the cafés on the continent, which have become a symbol of the sort of place to which people can happily take their family. That trend exists here in Britain, and it is unstoppable.
In contrast, foreign visitors to Britain find our licensing laws bemusing. Like them, I have to confess that I am still not entirely clear where and when I can take my children into a pub. The Bill is not the final answer. The imminent general election means that it has little prospect of becoming law. The purpose of the Bill is to highlight the issue and raise its profile. The Bill is a vehicle for discussion and debate. It is merely a first step to comprehensive legislation—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
Order.

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Yes. I pick up where my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) concluded. 144 He said that it was a matter for debate. He wanted to canvass the idea of licensing reform. That is perfectly legitimate, but I will not acquiesce by my silence in the approval of the Bill.
The arguments which my hon. Friend has advanced are driven largely by the industry, which has selfish interests that are not always the same as those of the community as a whole.
Although I fully accept that existing regulations and legislation are not ideal and that there is a case for a thorough review, such a review should be comprehensive, after a great deal of debate and discussion. There is a danger that, if we acquiesce in approval of a ten-minute Bill, we give a nod and a wink to various people who think that they need to make just one more shove, do some more extensive lobbying or use the Parliamentary Beer Club to get where they want, probably on the back of some wider or deeper, voluminous legislation. I think that that is wrong.
I listened carefully to the my hon. Friend's speech. I had no prior knowledge of his arguments, and I had hoped that they would relate to the problem of smuggling, which substantially disadvantages British industry and small businesses such as off-licences. My attention was focused, however, by his reference to market forces and to the growing and transformed leisure industry.
My hon, Friend also mentioned theme parks, and here I have to declare an interest: I live near a theme park, and it is a pain in the neck. The park started in a small way, but the interests of local residents and neighbours of such leisure interests are subordinated to the avaricious and selfish interests of many of those who run the leisure industry. I perceive those interests as the theme behind the Bill.
For that reason, I have to register my objection to what might, on the face of it, appear to be an innocuous change. The most rigorous examination is justified before the House, on the nod, acquiesces and grants leave to bring in such a Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paddy Tipping, Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Alan Meale.