CLOSURE OF CERTAIN LICENSED PREMISES DUE TO DISORDER OR DISTURBANCE (Hansard, 10 May 2001)

§ Mr. Charles Clarke
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

§ Mr. Clarke
These amendments would require that any disorder, or likely disorder, in the vicinity of the licensed premises must also be related to the premises in question before a closure order could be made on the ground that it is necessary in the interests of public safety.
This, again, was a matter that we debated at length in Committee. The various interests concerned have been assiduous in making their representations on the issue. The amendments were tabled by Lord Cope of Berkeley during the Committee stage in the other place. We took the view that they were unnecessary for reasons that I gave earlier. We accept the need for all the parties affected to be clear about the Bill and the case for making it absolutely clear that disorder or threat of disorder must relate to the premises in question before a closure order can be made.
The other four amendments make consequential changes to give effect to this change wherever similar tests must be applied by the courts and the police, for example when the police are deciding whether to extend a closure order. I hope that the House will agree the amendments.

§ Mr. Heald
The amendments were tabled in Committee in this House and in the other place, and I am delighted that they appear on the amendment paper today.
Those who keep public houses and licensed premises—the industry—accept that it may well be necessary to close rowdy premises at short notice. However, they were particularly concerned that that might happen when the likely disturbance or the disturbance occurring in the vicinity of the premises had nothing to do with their particular premises. A police officer might therefore believe that there would be trouble in an area and close the public house when its activities did not merit it.
The scope of the original wording was too wide to catch the badly run houses that cause serious disorder problems and put public safety at risk. We therefore welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to accept the view of another place that the wording should be narrowed to relate the disorder that is in prospect, or that has occurred, to the premises.
I believe that the Minister made a vow not to mention the Committee stage and it was therefore a pity that he broke it. I defend my right hon. Friend the Member for 293 Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who did not act disgracefully. She took all the measures that were available to her to deal with circumstances in which democracy was at risk.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
We welcome the amendments. The battle throughout our proceedings has been to restrict the powers that the Bill grants the authorities against the liberties of individuals and businesses. It was a perpetual theme of the Committee stage. A Labour Government, trying to be excessively authoritarian, had to justify themselves against all sorts of arguments. Some were made by Conservative Members, others by us and many by people outside the House. We tried to point out that the powers were simply unnecessary.
I put my neck on the block on Third Reading, and made it clear that, if a general election had taken place on 3 May, various clauses would not have been passed. I can say with authority, after conferring with colleagues in another place, that although we would have tabled amendments such as those that we are discussing, other amendments, such as Government proposals to extend curfews and to hold samples of DNA from people who were shown to be innocent would not have been accepted. The House of Lords would not have allowed the Bill to proceed. The month's delay has meant more time for debate in another place, where the Government argued that their proposals had been tested and were able to win votes. Consequently. the Bill has been allowed to proceed in its current form.
We were unable to win some of the big battles against a Government who have a majority in the House. They have a majority under our electoral system, but not in the country. We are therefore grateful for small victories. There was a danger of imposing closure orders on pubs for unrelated activities outside them. That is unacceptable. In a busy, built-up area such as the Old Kent road in my constituency, the police might take the view that some activities were causing disorder and intervene. If the amendments are accepted, closure orders can be imposed only if the prospective or actual disorder is "related to" the relevant pub. Pubs that keep good order will not be in trouble. That is progress. We wish that the Government had been more enlightened on other matters for which we would support a more liberal and less authoritarian regime.