Licensing Act 1964 (Amendment) (Hansard, 21 May 1996)

§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the power of the relevant court to award costs in respect of a decision by licensing justices to grant a justices' licence, in cases where the unsuccessful objector is a properly constituted residents association. The purpose of my Bill is to remove from courts the power to levy costs against those representing residents associations in opposing the award of justices' licences. Knowing the fate of most ten-minute Bills, I am especially glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), has come to hear the presentation of my Bill, and I hope that he will listen to some of my arguments and consider whether something can be done to alleviate the problem encountered by some of my constituents.

I preface my remarks by saying that although the horrifying story that I am about to tell happened in Harrow, it could have happened anywhere—and that as a result of what happened in Harrow, it could now happen in anyone's constituency.

The background to the problem is the purchase of a British Rail sports ground at Headstone lane, in my constituency, by an organisation now known as Broadfield sports and social club. That is a cosy-sounding name that suggests people who want to do things for the local community and for people who play sport. But that is not the view of the local community, and it is not mine either.

We must take into account the fact that the organisation consists of people who operate under assumed names, and who disguised their sources of finance and concealed their objectives, as well as threatening local residents. They are an unsavoury bunch, and in my judgment, although regrettably not in the judgment of the Harrow licensing magistrates, they are unsuitable people to be running a club. Residents had every reason to question the application for a local licence. Local people were worried, and continue to be worried. I remind the House that the applicants lied about their ownership and obscured their intentions.

In the Harrow magistrates court a retired man, Frank Hayward, represented the Headstone residents association—a respected local residents association which I believe is the oldest in the borough—and two other families also represented local feeling. The applicants were represented by an array of expensive advisers, including a barrister. Of course, they were entitled to be so represented.

The licence was granted. I do not agree with that decision, but that was the judgment. Of course, the magistrates are entitled to make a judgment on the issues as they see them. The magistrates accepted the fact that the residents had put forward a bona fide case, yet the residents finished up with a bill totalling £1,000 in costs. The applicants wanted £5,000 in costs, and £500 was awarded against Mr. Hayward, £250 against Mr. Warburton and £250 against Mr. Way

When I have spoken to magistrates from other areas no one has been able to recall another case in which that has happened. Indeed, the other magistrates to whom I spoke 125 were stunned that such a thing should have happened. In my judgment, the ramifications are serious. Because of what I regard as an irresponsible act on the part of Harrow magistrates, no residents association can now risk opposing a licence application. They have made this a high-risk activity.

Local residents received what I regard as threatening letters the night before the hearing from the Broadfield sports and social club, which said that the club would be applying for costs. I met a delegation from all the residents associations in Harrow. They want the matter to be sorted out, and they also want people in other parts of the country to know what a serious position they may be put in.

My Bill aims to protect community representatives when speaking for local people. It will remove the right of courts to levy costs against those representatives, and require courts to keep a list of residents associations that are properly constituted. That is not a big imposition. Councils do this already, as I know from my experience on a council. We do not want to protect a bunch of cronies or a few cranks who get together to oppose a proper licence application, but properly constituted residents associations who represent local people should be protected. Residents associations have a right to represent people, and people in turn have a right to have their views put for them against applicants, however expensively represented they may be, who may threaten local people.

The Bill is simple and direct, and it will not be a burden on legitimate licensees or anyone else in the legitimate trade, including the brewers. But it will give people in every community the right to be heard. I believe that they demand and need that right. The actions of Harrow magistrates court show that something must be done to protect people who exercise their rights.