COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 11 May 1987)

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak to Amendments Nos. 5A, 6 and 6A. During consideration of this Bill in another place the Government's attention was drawn to an anomaly in respect of the Royal Albert Hall. Clause 42 of the Bill introduces new licensing requirements for indoor sports premises in London. The Royal Albert Hall is not to be exempted from licensing under Clause 42 and it will be subject to licensing controls for all indoor sports entertainments there to which the public are invited as spectators.

Because of the exemption for the Albert Hall in the 1963 Act licensing code for music and dancing entertainments, however, the result is that a tennis tournament or boxing match at the hall will be subject to licensing requirements whereas the last night of the Proms, or any concert, will not. We accepted that this was not a situation we could justsify. The public expect premises of this kind to satisfy standards—as I am sure the noble and learned Lord does as well—on a musical occasion as much as on a sporting occasion. The Government agreed an amendment accordingly to correct the anomaly.

The Royal Albert Hall is not the only premises exempt from the music and dancing licensing controls in the 1963 Act. The Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, the Royal Covent Garden Opera House, and the Theatre Royal, Haymarket are similarly excepted. With the best intentions in mind, the Government considered whether these exceptions should continue. In the case of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and Covent Garden, letters patent dating back to the 17th century effectively prevent the application of the entertainment licensing requirements and it would not have been practicable within the time constraints on this Bill, or within the consent signified by the Queen, to remove their exemption. No such constraints applied to the Theatre Royal, Haymarket and hence the Government included in their amendment the removal of its exempted status together with that of the Albert Hall.

However, it appears that we may be in danger of creating a hybrid Bill. The Albert Hall stands in a class of its own. By singling out the Theatre Royal, 486 Haymarket, however and treating it differently from the other two theatres, we are now advised that the Bill is prima facie hybrid and that reference to the Examiners is likely to be required to determine whether the procedure relating to private business should apply to the Bill. Such a reference would place the entire Bill in jeopardy because of timing.

Although the amendments were welcomed by the Opposition in another place, the sensible course is to remove, by the amendments in my name, the reference to the Theatre Royal in the Haymarket. If your Lordships agree to these, the Government will then be asking in effect only that your Lordships' House agree to an amendment in another place which removes the exempted status of the Albert Hall from the requirements contained in Schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963.

I can only offer my sincere apologies for this and for causing inconvenience to your Lordships in having to make these amendments. The amendments were carried in another place with the best will in the world to try to rectify an anomaly, and I am sorry that such a danger as a hybrid Bill has occurred at this late stage.

I should add that so far as concerns the provisions of this Bill, the new licensing controls on indoor sports premises will apply to the Albert Hall and these theatres as they will apply to all other premises. The amendments in question relate to music and dancing and other entertainments of a like kind covered by the London Government Act 1963, and the Government will consider how best to remove the anomalies on a future occasion. In the meantime, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority have assured us that the standard of fire precautions in these premises is satisfactory. I commend Amendment No. 5 to your Lordships.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

§ Lord Mishcon

My Lords, this is one example, if the Minister will forgive me for saying so of bad legislation as a result of too much rush. One really wonders whether questions of safety ought to be imperilled merely because a government are anxious to get legislation through in time to satisfy a general election date.

It is not just a question of safety, it is equally a question of fairness. Whatever may have been discussed in the other place, I was not satisfied that it was right, again because of the need of expedition of legislation, that the Theatre Royal, Haymarket, was going to be put in a position different from the Royal Opera House and the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, purely because of certain ancient statutes, exemptions and regulations dating back a few centuries, which would have made a certain procedure necessary in order to catch those two theatres. That is not operable now that we are trying to expedite this legislation.

I acknowledge the courteous way in which the Minister addressed the House on this subject and apologised. I say this with great deference, but really when we hustle things through presumably we miss the advice that ought to be given, after proper consideration, that questions of a hybrid Bill arise.

487 This is not very satisfactory. There is no point in my asking the House to vote against the noble Earl's amendment.

The noble Earl says that he understands from the fire authorities that things are all right at Drury Lane and at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, from a fire point of view, but I most certainly ask him from this Dispatch Box on behalf of the Benches I represent to do more than that. It is to ask the fire authorities, because of this exemption that they are granted, to see that all these places are very carefully watched indeed. I believe that we owe that to the public, and I hope that the Minister will concede this.