Licensing Laws (Hansard, 10 April 2000)

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)
Madam Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement about licensing reform. I am today laying before the House a White Paper setting out proposals for the comprehensive modernisation of the alcohol, public entertainment and night refreshment licensing laws in England and Wales.
The present laws are complex and no longer match the expectations of the public and the industries concerned or the needs of community safety. For example, the Licensing Act 1964 provides for more than 40 different kinds of licence or permission.
The present system hinders business development and investment. Anyone wanting to change a licence in any way has to follow bureaucratic procedures that generate unnecessary costs and court hearings. There is often considerable duplication with planning controls and health and safety procedures. Many premises serving alcohol also require public entertainment licences, and so their operations have to satisfy an entirely separate and parallel licensing procedure run by the local authorities.
There have been no substantive changes to these laws for almost 40 years, while some aspects of the law have changed little in more than a century. In many ways, the law as it stands makes more difficult the problems of policing and public order. Fixed closing times may encourage binge drinking around last orders, with people hitting the streets—and sometimes each other—at the same time.
The law concerning the sale and consumption of alcohol by children and young people is profoundly confusing. Few people know exactly what the law requires, and those who do see little sense in it. A person aged 17 may enter a bar, but may not purchase an alcoholic drink. A person aged 18 standing next to him may purchase a drink, take it into a pub garden and lawfully give it to a five-year-old.
Venues providing hospitality and leisure are changing a great deal. It is now much more difficult to differentiate between a pub, a café a wine bar or a restaurant. The old licensing categories can no longer keep up with these changes. The effect is to force businesses to obtain multiple permissions at significant additional cost without delivering sufficient benefits or protections to the public.
To modernise the system, the White Paper proposes a single new licensing system which will give people more choice about where and when they eat, drink and enjoy themselves, while providing much better protection against the misuse of alcohol, especially in relation to sales to children. The White Paper proposes stronger powers where licensed premises cause crime and disorder, place the safety of the public at risk or lead to unreasonable nuisance for local residents.
The White Paper therefore envisages that more flexible opening hours should be balanced by clearer licensing criteria and more effective remedies against businesses that fall down on their social responsibilities. The proposals should significantly reduce the regulatory burden on business. In an appendix to the White Paper, we estimate that they should help to cut the costs of business by around £190 million a year.
22 Responsibility for the licensing system is split between local authorities and magistrates. Magistrates deal with alcohol licensing, while local authorities deal with the licensing of public entertainment, theatres, cinemas, late-night refreshment and planning and development control. We have carefully considered who should have responsibility for running the new streamlined and integrated arrangements, and have concluded that it should be local authorities.
Following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local authorities have important duties to tackle crime and disorder in their areas and are best placed to make judgments about local impact. They are also properly accountable to the people affected by their decisions. We therefore believe that they should decide which premises should be licensed and what operating conditions should apply, albeit within a national framework of clear criteria and under fair and consistent local procedures defined in statutory rules and guidance.
The criminal courts will continue to deal with offences against licensing laws. Local magistrates will therefore continue to have an important part to play in ensuring that licensing laws work properly for the benefit of free and safe communities. Local authorities' licensing decisions will be subject to review by the courts on appeal. We propose that that should take place in the Crown court, but we recognise that there are other options—magistrates or special tribunals, for example—and we are ready to consider representations on that, as on any other issue.
The White Paper proposals can be summarised as follows. There will be a single integrated scheme for licensing premises that sell alcohol, provide public entertainment or provide late-night refreshment. It will set out operating conditions, which will relate to the impact on crime and disorder, public safety and public disturbance. Licence conditions should protect against those threats, but not interfere in other ways with how premises are run. The conditions attached to such licences will be set locally according to the balance of the operator's requirements, the views of residents and assessments by police and fire authorities.
A new system of personal licences will allow holders to sell or serve alcohol for consumption on or off any premises. There will be new measures to back up restrictions on under-age drinking. To counter and minimise public disorder resulting from fixed closing times, flexible opening hours may be introduced as a condition of the premises licence, with the possibility that some venues—I emphasise that that means only some venues—may operate up to 24-hour opening, seven days a week, subject to consideration of the impact on local residents.
We propose tough and uncompromising new powers for the police to deal quickly with violence and disorderly behaviour by closing premises that licence holders have allowed to become the focus of such misbehaviour. We propose that the age for the consumption of alcohol in licensed premises, and for its purchase, should remain 18, with better provision for the enforcement of those powers. However, 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to consume beer or wine served with a meal.
Children should be allowed access to any part of suitable licensed premises at the personal licence holder's discretion, but licensing authorities would have powers to restrict or deny access by children to unsuitable licensed 23 venues. The new personal and premises licences would be issued by local authorities. An avenue of appeal for parties, including the police and local residents, would be available through the courts.
Licences would be supported by a flexible range of sanctions—including temporary closure and temporary reduction in opening hours—instead of the present all-or-nothing sanction of loss of licence. In the wake of the Marchioness Thames safety inquiry, there would be new requirements for licensing the sale of alcohol on boats travelling within England and Wales. New arrangements will be made for non-profit-making clubs—working men's, political, ex-services, sports and social clubs—that supply alcohol to their members to preserve their special status.
This is a radical package of measures; I am convinced that it strikes an important and necessary balance between the needs of business and the concerns of local residents. The new measures will be good for the police, because they should help them to cope with late-night disorder and reduce crime. The measures should be good for business, because they will sweep away red tape and offer business real flexibility. They will be good for consumers—citizens and visitors to this country alike—by creating a safer environment in which consumers can have greater choice. They will be good for families, by creating more opportunities for them to spend leisure time together without fear of intimidation or disorder, and by providing better protection against under-age drinking. The measures will be good for local residents, who will acquire a bigger say in a licensing process that will be properly accountable to them.
In preparing legislation to bring proposals before Parliament, we shall welcome and take account of any suggestions for improving the way in which licensing decisions are dealt with, or on any other aspect of the proposals. We ask for responses to be received by the Home Office by the end of July. We shall, of course, consult the Welsh Assembly on the proposals as they may apply to Wales, including on whether there remains a demand for Sunday opening polls.
I commend the proposals to the House.

§ Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)
I thank the Home Secretary for his customary courtesy in allowing us to have an early sight of the White Paper. We are not entirely sure about the new format of the document, with all its exciting pictures and photographs, but we are sure that Labour Members will greatly enjoy them.

§ Angela Smith (Basildon)
The hon. Gentleman is a sharp wit.

§ Mr. Heald
I am grateful to be called that.

§ Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)
My hon. Friend said "twit".

§ Mr. Heald
No, she did not. I am not getting into that sort of argy-bargy.
I welcome much of the Home Secretary's statement. We believe that it should be possible to move forward constructively in a spirit of consensus. There was 24 widespread agreement that the licensing laws needed modernising. We agree that the ending of the terminal hour and its replacement with flexible hours should end the practice of drinking to a deadline. The Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales commented: this will contribute to the policing of public disorder associated with drink … we would expect a staggering of closing times— [Laughter.] I stress that it is a staggering of closing times, not staggering at closing time. I am quoting the association directly.
A simpler system of penalties with a graduated scale is also useful and should enable the licensing authority better to target penalties. We welcome the tougher powers on under-age drinking and the fact that the police will be able to close rowdy houses. The new split system of licensing premises separately from individuals was strongly supported by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association. We believe that it could have benefits. We shall study the White Paper carefully and formulate a detailed and constructive response after careful consultations.
Although there are some points in the White Paper on which we agree, there are—as ever—issues that cause us concern. From a brief reading of the document, three matters are of particular concern.
First, we should resist the attempt to remove all powers from licensing justices, especially when it comes to licensing individuals. I was surprised to read, on page 22 of the White Paper, that it is seriously suggested that individuals should be licensed simply on the basis that they have an accredited qualification, without even being interviewed by a local authority. One would not employ people merely because they had a degree; one would want to see them to find out what sort of people they are.
That point highlights a mistake in the White Paper. Magistrates are used to forming views on the merits of the individuals who appear before them. They know the local area and the problems that the licensee will face. Furthermore, they are aware of the problems that have come up in criminal cases that they have heard. They do not represent any political interests in making decisions on licensing.
The Police Federation today said: we are totally opposed to powers to grant licences being transferred to local authorities. We believe that these matters should remain a judicial responsibility and not be a political judgment of the local authority. Will the Home Secretary listen to representations that magistrates should not lose all their powers, particularly over the licensing of individuals, or is his mind closed on that?
Secondly, we are concerned about late-night disorder. Will the Home Secretary guarantee that there is a firm regime to ensure that the changes do not lead to unsupervised late-night disorder making residents' life a misery? In his White Paper, he says that consideration will be given to the views of local residents, but we would like to know how that will be done and whether the presumption will be against residents so that they will have to prove their objections against a presumption in favour of a licence. What estimate has he made of the overall effects of the proposals on alcohol consumption and illness? Can he assure local residents that the measures will improve the situation for them?
25 Thirdly, we have had representations about Sunday being a special day. Will the Home Secretary explain in more detail the reasons behind his decision not to make any recognition of the special nature of Sunday in these changes? Will he confirm that he has no proposals to treat Sunday differently from any other day? When the proposals are brought to the House in legislation, the Opposition will have a free vote on the question of Sundays; will the Government have a free vote?
Finally, what is the timetable for legislation? We see that there is a timetable for responses, but do the Government aim to introduce these proposals in the Queen's Speech in 2000 or at another time?
There is much to be welcomed in the White Paper, but we should like reassurance on those three crucial points. We are prepared to be constructive and to try to reach consensus, but it is important that the Government are prepared to listen.

§ Mr. Straw
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he made his comments. On the photographs, my contribution to the typographical design and layout of the White Paper was to remove additional photographs of myself that I spotted. I am afraid that I take a rather po-faced view about White Papers, but I point out gently that the previous Government introduced the revolutionary idea of including photographs in such documents.
As I made clear in my statement, this is a White Paper, so it contains reasonably firm proposals, but the point of publishing one well in advance of legislation is to seek the views of the House, interested organisations and the public. We shall take those properly into account, and I almost guarantee that the final proposals will differ to some degree from the proposals in the White Paper; that is the whole purpose of having such consultation and open debate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the powers of licensing justices. To pick him up on one detail, if someone simply had an accredited qualification, they would not be granted a licence by virtue of that fact, without an interview. They might be granted a licence without an interview if they also had no previous convictions, which is an extremely important clarification. If they had convictions, they would almost certainly have to be subject to interview. At the moment, licensing justices who have before them someone who has an accredited qualification and no previous convictions are almost bound, as a matter of obligation in law, to issue that person with a licence, unless something else is known about them.
The question of who should make the initial decisions about licences is a matter of fine judgment, which we debated at some length. We continue to be open to argument about that. If we are to have a streamlined system, one authority must make the decisions about all the licences that affect a particular set of premises. At present, the local authorities have considerable sway over the circumstances in which licensed premises operate. The only licence that in practice is issued by the magistrates is the alcohol licence. I appreciate the very good work that has been done in the past by magistrates, and they will continue to have a significant role in these proposals, as I will explain.
It is a matter not of the local authorities exercising a political judgment, with a capital P, but of ensuring that they can develop a policy for determining, for example, 26 whether 24-hour opening can safely take place without disruption to residents. Typically, that would be only in the centre of large cities and towns. With regard to public houses in residential areas, of which there are many, the authority's policy must ensure that it operates in a way that gives first preference to the interests of the residents. That answers another point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Apart from split responsibility, the problem with using the courts is that courts of law must operate under much less flexible arrangements. As I will take proper account of the hon. Gentleman's points, I ask him to consider this in return: we thought that the sensible way to square the circle was for the local authorities to make the initial decisions about all licensing matters—as I said in my statement, within clear national criteria and clear statutory rules and guidance about how they operate locally—but to provide for a right of appeal to the courts.
I said that our preference was for the appeal to go to the Crown court, where there would be two magistrates sitting with a Crown court judge to hear the appeal. They would be experienced magistrates, so they would have a clear role there. I also said in my statement that although that is our preference, we accept that there are arguments for using the magistrates as the appeal court or for a special tribunal, and we will consider them.
The issue of Sunday is discussed in the White Paper. As it happens, given my Nonconformist background, I am one of those who voted against an extension of Sunday opening hours for shops, but that argument was lost. It is difficult to argue subsequently for special arrangements for Sunday opening for public houses or, say, supermarkets, separate from those that apply to shops. It is better for those to be taken into account in the overall policy set by the local authority, except for Wales.
Unless the law is changed—I take my cue entirely from Welsh Members and the Welsh Assembly—it will be possible to trigger polls in Welsh counties in 2004. That is a matter for the people of Wales, as expressed through their representatives.
On timetable, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more detail, except that we intend to legislate as soon as we can, once we have gathered together the consultations.

§ Madam Speaker
May we now have a brisk exchange? There are so many hon. Members seeking to put questions that it may not be possible for me to call them all. I am sure that the Secretary of State will oblige with brisk replies. Thank you.

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)
In this sensible package of ideas, my right hon. Friend did not mention the difficult matter of the direct connection between alcohol and violence in domestic circumstances. Will he undertake to bear that in mind? Longer drinking hours may result in even greater pressure on those who abuse alcohol, and that is in no one's interest.

§ Mr. Straw
Yes, I will. My statement was replete with concern about the effect of alcohol on crime.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)
The White Paper is greatly welcomed by the Liberal Democrats. It seems to contain eminently sensible proposals for the modern age, both for the customer and for business.
27 I have two short questions. First, can the Secretary of State be slightly more specific? When applications are made to the local authority, as I believe that they should be, will the local authority have absolute discretion to accede to or turn them down—for example, on the ground that there are too many other premises in the immediate area for the extension to be needed or properly managed? Secondly, linked to the question of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the incidence of violence in or outside public houses in the community be taken into account when applications are considered?

§ Mr. Straw
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the measures. No absolute discretion will be available to local authorities. They will have to work within the law as this House and the other place provide and, as I have said, under national criteria, statutory rules and guidance. The police and residents will have a right of appeal against any local authority's decision.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is emphatically yes. As he will know from the White Paper, we propose to give the police important additional powers, including one, at the decision of a police inspector or someone above that rank, to close for 24 hours licensed premises where there is serious disorder—under similar powers to those already available to fire authorities.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the proposals will rightly assist those who want a pleasant, social drink, residents whose lives can be made a misery by loud music, riotous behaviour, hooliganism and vandalism, about which I have many complaints in my constituency, will be protected? Will he also confirm that organisations such as Gorton Trades and Labour club will retain its special status?

§ Mr. Straw
I had Gorton Trades and Labour club at the forefront of my mind when I agreed the proposals; clubs will retain their special status. The proposals in the White Paper will give local residents a much greater say in, and influence over, the licensing arrangements for pubs and clubs. Indeed, my right hon. Friend's comments illustrate the fact that current arrangements are not properly working to safeguard local residents.

§ Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)
Pursuant to the previous question, since the impact of the proposals on inner-city constituencies impinges particularly on the residential community, does the Secretary of State recognise that the number of police supervising the behaviour of licensees in recent decades has remained static, while the number of licences in the west end has risen sharply, and that, until that ratio changes, the residential community will take little comfort from his encouraging reassurances?

§ Mr. Straw
I acknowledge the particular pressure on residents of areas such as the one that the right hon. Gentleman represents. I also accept that he has not had a chance to read the White Paper. I look forward to his views and those of his local authorities, particularly 28 Westminster. Modernisation of licensing arrangements and greatly strengthened powers of the police, local authorities and courts should ensure that his resident constituents have a better and safer life.

§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)
Pursuant to the previous two questions, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that extension of licensing hours and, indeed, changes of licensed premises are of particular importance in a constituency such as mine. Although I welcome the importance that he attaches to the opinion of local residents, will he ensure that they may know well in advance of any proposal either for extension or change of venue? At the moment, it is virtually impossible for my constituents to know what is proposed.

§ Mr. Straw
Yes. Current arrangements are obscure and complicated, and residents often do not know about proposals until it is too late. I hope that a simplified but toughened system will ensure that one authority—the local authority—must describe the policies that are to be followed before it makes decisions in respect of individual licences, so that there is proper and effective consultation, not least in the crime and disorder partnerships, for which Camden is a model for much of the rest of the country.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
Does the Home Secretary share my fascination with the fact that, owing to the much more liberal and relaxed regime in continental countries—France in particular, but others, too—there is often much less disorder and drunkenness? I therefore warmly welcome the proposals if he has in any way modelled them on the continental experience, and generally welcome his much more liberal and civilised approach to the matter.
I seek a reassurance, however, that sanctions will be tough and effective. Although I strongly support the idea that the licensing regime should be as liberal as possible, it must surely be coupled with strong, reassuring sanctions so that, if disorder arises from the licensing of premises, it will be swiftly and effectively dealt with in the interests of the local community.

§ Mr. Straw
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am grateful for his support. In the spirit of consensus, I say that it is a refreshing change to hear him speaking up for a policy that is not only liberal but European.

§ Jane Griffiths (Reading, East)
I welcome the long-awaited White Paper, which genuinely reaches the parts that previous White Papers could not reach. My right hon. Friend knows that in an urban constituency such as mine, at least 20,000—mostly young—people, in addition to those who live in the area, come into the town centre on a Friday evening to have a drink. It is becoming difficult for the police to handle the problems of chucking-out time and people drinking to a deadline. We shall all have reason to be grateful for the White Paper if it gets rid of the chucking-out time problem and helps to end the lager lout culture, even if it achieves nothing else.

§ Mr. Straw
My hon. Friend is chair of the all-party beer group and I am grateful to her and her colleagues for their input. I know about the problems in towns such as Reading; they are not dissimilar from those in my 29 constituency and many other places. I draw hon. Members' attention to the chart on page 14 of the White Paper. It shows the number of public order incidents that occur not at 10 or 11 pm but at 2 and 3 am as a result of the current inflexible closing times. As I have already said, I hope that the proposals will make a big difference to residents.

§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)
I was the victim of an assault by a drunken gang while waiting to pay for a purchase. The assailants got away with it because the closed circuit television was using dummy cameras. I therefore suggest that the Home Secretary should consider making it a condition of licensing that places that sell intoxicating liquor late at night should be obliged to have functioning CCTV in the vicinity.

§ Mr. Straw
That seems a good idea; I shall take it forward.

§ Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North)
I very much welcome the White Paper. Much in it will improve our towns in particular. However, does the Home Secretary acknowledge that local authorities are worried about the additional burdens that it will place on them to police the licensing regime, especially through the night? I have recently spoken to my local authority officers, who do a good job in Luton. They are worried that additional responsibilities will need extra resources. Will my right hon. Friend consult them?

§ Mr. Straw
In an appendix, we set out our best estimate. It can be only an estimate of the costs of the change for different parts of the system: business, local authorities and others. As I said, we estimate that it should produce savings for business of approximately £190 million a year. Of course I accept that local authorities must be given proper resources for any additional function that they take on.

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant
(Lichfield): The Home Secretary said that he will invite responses by the end of July, but how flexible is he about whether licensing magistrates or local authorities make such decisions? Has he considered the possibility that one local authority may decide that it does not want pubs to open after 11 pm, while a neighbouring local authority will decide that it is willing for many pubs to open after 11 pm? Is there not a danger of a drift of people from one authority to another, perhaps by car, thus encouraging drink driving? That might be avoided if the decisions were left to local licensing magistrates rather than a political entity.

§ Mr. Straw
I have already tried to explain why we believe that, on balance, local authorities are best placed to make such decisions. We are open to argument on our proposals in the White Paper. I accept that some issues are matters of fine judgment, and I have tried to spell out some of the considerations.
There is a balance between what we should set out nationally and local discretion. The hon. Gentleman may find that one resort town has decided to cater for one sort of market and another for a different one. Blackpool and Morecambe offer markedly different attractions. Long may that difference continue.

§ Mr. Paul Flynn
(Newport, West): Does the Home Secretary agree that alcohol is the hardest of all hard drugs? 30 It kills 45,000 people every year, is involved in half all crimes of violence and abuse and is more toxic and addictive than all illegal drugs. His statement is courageous and rational. When will he apply those qualities to his policies on all other drugs? His statement and his reaction to the Runciman report leave him open to the accusation that he is hard on a soft drug and soft on hard drugs.

§ Mr. Straw
I did not think that the compliment would continue to the end of my hon. Friend's contribution and I was not disappointed. Alcohol, when abused, can be a very hard drug, but, taken in moderation, people can enjoy it and it is part of society's culture. I do not to believe that there should be a competition for us to determine which drug does the greatest damage. Sadly, for some people in our society, class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine cause as much damage as alcohol abuse—much more, in some cases. We should produce a sensible and proportionate approach to all the drugs that can cause harm in our society.

§ Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry)
Will the Home Secretary say a little more about breaches of the licence conditions? Will those in the first instance, particularly administrative or comparatively trivial failures, be dealt with by local authorities and only serious cases go to the criminal system and the magistrates courts? Is he satisfied that he can form a reasonable distinction between the two?

§ Mr. Straw
Such breaches would initially go to the local authority, but we have drawn an important distinction between the licensing of premises and personal licences, which will be portable. The proposal is that they should last 10 years and then be renewed. There would be a system of endorsements similar to that which applies to road traffic offences—depending on the severity of the offence committed by a licence holder—including the possibility of either immediate disqualification for some flagrant breach or what amounts to a totting-up procedure.

§ Mrs. Sylvia Heal
(Halesowen and Rowley Regis): As a former licensing magistrate, I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals and anything that will simplify the complex matter of licences. No doubt members of the Magistrates Association will submit their views to him, but can he reassure me on two points? Will licence applications continue to be heard in magistrates courts in public? Most benches, my own included, regularly inspect licensed premises for security of spirits and standards of cleanliness. Will those continue?

§ Mr. Straw
The answer to the first question is yes. Hearings would have to be public; it would be wrong for them to be private. If the local authorities take over responsibility for issuing licences as we propose, they will also take on responsibility for inspection. We believe that we have been able to reduce the regulatory burden on business by ensuring that if there is a single licensing system, there can be a single inspection system as well.

§ Mr. John Bercow
(Buckingham): Is the Home Secretary aware that it veritably warms the cockles of my heart to hear him, as a socialist, elevate for once the cause of personal liberty above that of nanny-state paternalism? Although he is undoubtedly wise and circumspect to say that he will take into account all representations that 31 he receives, will he nevertheless confirm that in pursuing liberalisation, clarity, consistency and choice will be his watchwords?

§ Mr. Straw
I am grateful for the compliment, which I take genuinely in the spirit in which it is intended.

§ Mr. Bercow
It will not happen often.

§ Mr. Straw
I realise that. As a socialist, my aim in life is to secure a safe, just and tolerant society in which law-abiding people have the maximum liberty to pursue their lives as they wish. If they are not law abiding, different considerations apply. I think that I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his question.

§ Mr. Roger Casale (Wimbledon)
Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the last thing I want to be is a party-pooper, but I share the concerns of many of my constituents, as expressed through the Wimbledon Society, the Wimbledon Union of Residents Associations and Wimbledon Civic Forum, about the severe proliferation of pubs and restaurants in the area. Will he confirm that, as well as giving residents associations and other amenity groups more influence over individual licensing applications, the new legislation will strengthen their hand in shaping the overall balance of shops, recreational and other civic amenities in their areas?

§ Mr. Straw
I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and he has told me about the particular problems of Wimbledon on several occasions outside the House. What he says about those problems underlines the fact that the current arrangements are not working properly and need reform. That is why we have presented these proposals. I hope very much that the new system will help to ensure that residents, including those in the Wimbledon Civic Forum, can shape the policy and approach on licensing. I do not see how we could get to a position in which central Government determined the number of outlets available. That must be a matter for the market to determine, and the market is changing all the time. We must ensure that the market is properly regulated, and that the needs of local residents and the police to keep order are properly balanced against the demands of the business concerned.

§ Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
Every time I have been on a police patrol late at night, it is clear that problems come from a small number of premises and a hard core of thoroughly tiresome people. They are well known to the police and to magistrates. How will the 32 wider public be better served if the experience of the magistrates is not taken into account when a license is considered?

§ Mr. Straw
The experience of magistrates will be available to the local community. We will certainly consider whether there should be a representative of the magistrates on the licensing committee. This is a matter of balance and fine judgment. I have already made it clear that magistrates will be involved whether the appeal is to the Crown court, as we propose, or to a different tribunal.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that trouble typically arises from a small number of premises. Part of the present difficulty is that the only power available to magistrates is to remove the licence altogether, and that can take many months. The White Paper proposes that an officer of the rank of inspector or above should have a power to close premises for 24 hours on his or her own volition when faced with a disorderly situation—just as the fire authority can peremptorily close premises—and for there to be an appeal to magistrates or the local authority as appropriate. This and other changes that we propose should make a big difference in controlling the minority of premises and drinkers who cause almost all the trouble.

§ Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley)
From my right hon. Friend's statement, I understand that working men's clubs will continue to enjoy their special status. That being so, would he consider requiring a link between their special status and their conversion into either working women's and men's clubs or working people's clubs?

§ Mr. Forth
Oh, please.

§ Mrs. Cryer
This is serious. A club at Silsden in my constituency has used every trick in the book to keep women off its committee. That is not only sexist but undemocratic, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would comment on it. Such a measure would certainly have the support of the women in Silsden and many of my hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Straw
The proposition is for there to be special status for clubs. It would not be a personal licence, because of the club committee. Non-profit making clubs would be licensed—the premises would be licensed. The provisions that I have announced in respect of children would apply to children consuming alcohol whether in clubs or in any other licensed premises.
We will take my hon. Friend's main point into account in the consultation. I do not doubt that there will be some interesting debates when the Bill is before the House.

§ Madam Speaker
We shall leave it until then. Thank you.