HL Deb 26 June 1996 vol 573 cc931-45

3.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Licensing conditions for certain events]:

The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("or renewing").

The noble Earl said: In November 1973, or thereabouts, I was a parliamentary commissioner on an opposed order, promoted by the City of Glasgow, which we approved. That order became the Glasgow Corporation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order Confirmation Act 1974. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office and the Private Bill Office for giving me a photocopy of that Act of so many years ago.

The order covered persons of any age and applied to any place of public entertainment—that is to say, dancing, music or suchlike—but excluded licensed premises, dwelling houses, premises used mainly for religious worship and clubs for instruction or training. It also covered both the licensing "and the renewal" of a licence of any premises covered by subsection (3) of the new Section 18A to the 1976 Act, which appears at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill. Hence the first of the amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour both for the explanation of the amendment that he has moved and, indeed, for the historical perspective that he brings to this part of the proceedings. It is clear that my noble friend is, as ever, driven by a spirit of constructiveness and helpfulness.

On the face of it, what is proposed is eminently sensible. Licensing boards should, of course, consider whether they need to exercise their duty in respect of imposing appropriate conditions not only when they are considering an application for an entirely new licence or permission but also where these come up for renewal. Indeed, that was always the intention. In fact, we have gone further by also providing that boards can vary existing licences to enable conditions to be attached as appropriate. The insertion of a reference to renewing the licence or permission is, however, unnecessary.

The definition of grant to be found in Section 139 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 provides that a grant in relation to a licence includes a grant by way of renewal and that references to "granting" and "application" are to be construed accordingly. The provision of the 1976 Act will of course extend, as appropriate, to the new measures once they are enacted. Consequently, the matter is already covered. However, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to explain the position in greater detail. In view of my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Balfour

I am very happy with the reply just given by my noble friend the Minister. Clearly, I do not wish to put anything into the Bill which is unnecessary. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.45 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 16, leave out ("prescribed").

The noble Earl said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 8 to 10 and 12 to 16. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 should be taken together. I shall explain the reason for that after speaking to Amendment No. 6, which is the principal amendment. It introduces an additional and new subsection (3A) to the Bill which, as noble Lords will see from the Marshalled List, would ensure that, on granting or renewing a licence, the board would "impose conditions as to": first, the maintenance of law and order; secondly, controlling the number of persons present at any one time; thirdly, the means of escape in case of fire and proper fire precautions, including the lighting, sanitation and ventilation; fourthly, the safe condition and heating of the premises; and, finally, the hours of opening and closing the premises to avoid nuisance in the neighbourhood.

Subsection (3B) of the amendment would enable the licensing board to specify the conditions required from the applicant. Subsection (3C) would enable the board to revoke a licence where any conditions have not been complied with. Subsection (3D) would enable the board to know something about the background of the applicant and the exact address of the premises. Lastly, subsection (3E) would enable the board to hold on to any plans of a premises which it may wish a fire officer or a police officer to know about. Those words have been lifted directly from that Glasgow order of all those years ago. I felt that they were so sensible, particularly for my suggested new subsection (3A).

I wish to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to Clause 1(4) which is to be found at the top of page 2 of the Bill. It deals with the conditions that the Secretary of State may prescribe. In Amendment No, 8, I am suggesting that he should be permitted to prescribe additional conditions.

Moreover, as regards the provisions in subsection (6), which permit: The holder of a licence [to] appeal to the sheriff against— (a) the terms of any condition

except, quite rightly, under subsection (4), I am suggesting that the very important safety provisions in my proposed subsection (3A) should also be excluded by my Amendment No. 9. I hope that my brief explanation covers the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 9 and 10, together with Amendments Nos. 12 to 16. I should like to record my thanks to the Public Bill Office for its assistance in the drafting of these consequential amendments.

On Second Reading, other speakers and I expressed our concern about "rave" parties, which persons as young as 15 can attend. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said that the safety provisions we were seeking were covered in the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982. I must admit that they are partially covered in Section 41 and Schedule 1, but not as comprehensively as I am seeking to achieve with my amendments to this Bill. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay

Once again, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for providing me with a useful opportunity to explain precisely the purpose and the benefits of Clause 1. However, I should like, first, to thank my noble friend for the careful and detailed explanation that he has given to the Committee of the aims and purpose of his amendments.

Amendment No. 6, to which my noble friend spoke when moving Amendment No. 2, is the substantive amendment in the group. As he stated, the other amendments relate to consequential drafting changes. My noble friend's amendments proceed from the basis that the licensing board would be granting or renewing a licence under the new provisions. That is not the case.

There is no provision in Clause 1 which gives licensing boards the power to grant licences, nor should there be. There are already adequate provisions in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 for that purpose. The administrative requirements which boards should apply in these circumstances are also already set out in the 1976 Act. All this must have been gone through and the appropriate decision taken before the board turns its attention to the duty imposed on it by Clause 1 of the Bill. Therefore, there is no need to oblige the board to repeat these stages which would be part of the effect of my noble friend's Amendment No. 6.

Amendment No. 6 also sets out certain conditions which a licensing board should apply, presumably once it had satisfied itself that the licensed premises would be holding a relevant event. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate explained at Second Reading, all the types of health and safety issues set out in the conditions which my noble friend seeks to prescribe by his amendments are dealt with by the legislative requirements applying already to licensed premises. But, because a licensing board may want to go further in respect of an event covered by this Bill's provisions, it will now have the power to do so.

The purpose of Clause 1 is not to regulate the arrangements covering the granting of liquor licences or the activities of pubs generally which we know are already satisfactorily covered by the 1976 Act. The purpose of Clause 1 is to put beyond doubt that licensing boards have adequate powers to regulate specific events held on these premises. These are legal requirements on a licence holder which he must observe regardless of whether he is holding an event on his premises which would attract the provisions in the Bill, and that is as it should be.

However, under the new provisions in Clause 1 there will be additional safeguards imposed by licensing boards when they think it necessary. Again, this is as it should be. Boards now have the full range of appropriate powers at their disposal. My noble friend also mentioned the scope of Section 41 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Section 41 of that Act deals with public entertainment licences. These licences may be granted where the sale of alcohol is not involved. This Bill deals with licensed premises only.

Section 41 of the 1982 Act already enables the licensing authority to deal adequately with events on non-licensed premises. In our eyes it is therefore not relevant as respects Clause 1 of the current Bill. I hope that the explanation I have given satisfies my noble friend that his concerns about the Bill are all either covered by existing legislation, or that boards will be able to tackle them under the new arrangements in Clause 1. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment No.2 and the associated amendments in this group.

The Earl of Balfour

I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I am satisfied that these safeguards are provided. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 4, after ("it") insert ("reasonably").

The noble Lord said: I am sorry that I was not present at the Second Reading debate. The issue we are discussing arose out of the deaths of young people at Ecstasy raves and other such events. We have debated that matter at length in this Chamber on other occasions. It would obviously be inappropriate for me to express my views at this stage. This is an emotive issue. The amendment seeks to put an obligation on a licensing board to state its reasons for adopting a particular view. As at present drafted, Clause 1(3)(c) states, "at which it appears to the board that offences may be committed in relation to controlled drugs within the meaning of section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971". Any member of a licensing board may have public knowledge of a particular situation. A policeman may have had a word in the ear of a member of a licensing board. That is not unknown and we must be realistic about these things. My amendment seeks to insert the word "reasonably" in order to ensure that the reasons a board has for taking a particular step can be examined, perhaps by judicial review. As the clause presently stands, there is an absolute power with no provision for review. I appreciate that in the original Act the board has to state its reasons for doing what it does, but the measure we are discussing does not seem to follow the philosophy of that Act. By seeking to insert the word "reasonably" in the Bill, I seek to rectify that position.

I think all of us in the Chamber appreciate that this is a non party issue. We are trying to save young people from themselves and to control what happens in various places. We wish to ensure that the licensing boards behave themselves and do not display a knee-jerk reaction when someone applies for a licence. We are trying to ensure that licensing boards will be required to state—subject to judicial review—why they have decided that a licence should or should not be granted. I beg to move.

Viscount Thurso

I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. Before I do so, I should again declare my interest as the owner of a licensed premises in Scotland. During the Second Reading debate I spoke of the concern within the trade as regards the absolute power within the Bill as currently drafted. I am grateful for the letter which the Minister sent to me. I had asked for the words "reasonable suspicion" to be incorporated in the Bill. The Minister wrote to me and informed me that that had been objected to by CoSLA who felt that it was going too far, and that it would make it difficult for it to come to a decision. However, I believe this amendment, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, represents a compromise position. It asks for reasonableness on the part of licensing boards without imposing too many of the conditions for which I had asked originally. I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

I, too, wish to support the amendment but from a slightly different point of view from that of my noble friend. I believe that anything which focuses attention on health and safety measures as regards young people's events is helpful. I hope that the Minister will regard that as a positive feature of the amendment.

The Earl of Lindsay

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, raises an interesting topic. I am grateful for the additional comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The question of how to define a relevant event and, in that connection, what test boards should apply when considering whether the characteristic in the present definition about contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 applies, has been debated at length in another place. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, reminded us, the subject was also touched upon during the Bill's Second Reading in this Chamber.

Those earlier concerns, particularly about the test which boards should apply, were taken seriously. Indeed, that issue, as the noble Viscount reminded us, was subject to consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities during the passage of the Bill in another place. We were anxious to have its views on the issue. CoSLA was firmly opposed to any change which could prevent licensing boards from discharging their functions properly. We have concluded therefore that what is in the Bill at present will not hamper the boards in fulfilling their statutory duties.

This present amendment is in fact unnecessary. It seeks to insert a requirement that boards must act reasonably when reaching a decision as to whether or not there is likely to be a contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Of course boards must act reasonably here and on every occasion where they are called upon to take a decision. If they do not, they lay themselves wide open to a challenge in the courts. Consequently, there is no need to make express provision as the charge to act reasonably is naturally implicit.

I remind the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that in subsection (6), at line 25 of page 2 of the Bill, there is reference to a route of appeal. I have also reminded the noble Lord that the requirements in the 1976 Act to act reasonably apply equally to the provisions of this Bill. The grounds of appeal are clearly laid out in Section 39 of the 1976 Act. There are four specific criteria on which an appeal can be lodged by an applicant who is unhappy with the decision made by a board.

In the 1976 Act, and in this Bill, there are well recognised routes of remedy. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

I am grateful to the Minister for his clear and informative reply. However, I still believe that the word "reasonably" should be inserted in the subsection. I shall not divide the Committee. However, I hope that the Government take further advice on the matter. I am not sure that Section 39 of the 1976 Act meets the observations made by the Minister.

I declare that I have no connection with the licensing trade apart from the fact that I have a pint from time to time in the Bishop's Bar. I have no vested interest in the issue. We seek to achieve a measure of fairness in the administration of this difficult area of life in the community.

I am sure that all noble Lords who have an interest in ensuring that young people in particular are protected from themselves—I believe that that is what the Bill is about—will note with interest what the Minister says. No doubt if representations are made from appropriate bodies those may be brought before your Lordships' House on Report. I thank the Minister for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4 p.m.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("or that alcohol may be consumed to excess or consumed by people who are under age.").

The noble Earl said: I propose the amendment in the belief that licensing committees will want positively to introduce health and safety measures to young people's events. The amendment seeks to extend the duty placed on the licensing committee when it considers an application for a rave or, more strictly speaking, an event with music and dancing. The amendment is designed to bring the illegal use of alcohol within the scope of the legislation.

The reason for my proposed extension of powers is based on the even greater chance, statistically and numerically, of a young person having a serious accident or dying from the misuse of alcohol. Such accidents and deaths are caused by alcohol overdose or alcohol poisoning—that is, drinking a pint of whisky too quickly with the encouragement of friends—alcohol-induced aggression, fighting, and the chance of a road accident while the inner ear or balance mechanism is temporarily inoperative. The youngster or adult is paralytic, staggering about on the way home, or, even worse, trying to drive home.

Further, alcohol, which is normally a legal recreational drug, can easily become an illegal drug. It is obviously illegal for young people under the age of 18 to possess alcohol in a public place. It is illegal to possess alcohol which has been stolen—for example, shoplifted on the way to the party. It is illegal to possess illicitly distilled alcohol; and it is illegal for an unaccompanied person to be drunk and incapable of looking after himself in a public place.

I accept that the thrust of the Bill is to make the licensing board focus on the extra health and safety conditions that it should attach to a licence for a dance when it anticipates the misuse of controlled drugs. I have absolutely no problem with the imposition of health and safety measures when cannabis or MDMA (Ecstasy) is likely to be used. But I want to ensure that similar health and safety measures are required when the misuse of alcohol is anticipated.

During Second Reading I spoke of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and Ecstasy as all being recreational drugs, and I stand by that. I have not sought to include tobacco in the amendment as I feel that the Bill focuses on sudden deaths and immediate accidents from overdosing. Therefore slow death from nicotine poisoning and cirrhosis of the liver do not fall within the scope of the Bill and are omitted from the amendment.

Perhaps I may say a few words about MDMA (Ecstasy). Unlike alcohol and cannabis, which are depressants, MDMA is a stimulant with the characteristics of an amphetamine. The Ecstasy user seeks the drug to extend his or her day time to allow vivacious all-night dancing and to give him or her good feelings about others around them—the love drug effect. I accept that that ignores the damage now believed to be done by Ecstasy to the serotonin producing brain cells. Noble Lords do not need a lecture from me about the pleasurable effects of alcohol with its disinhibitor effect and subsequent inoperation of the inner ear balance mechanism and loss of sense of place. But I hope that the different characteristics of MDMA and the more popular depressant group of drugs—alcohol or cannabis—will be recognised. Noble Lords will be happy that I consider the hallucinogenic use of drugs such as LSD to have an even more unhelpful effect than the recreational drugs that I believe we are discussing.

I believe that the Bill will be of even greater use to Scotland and its fun-loving people if the anticipated misuse of alcohol can be included in the health and safety measures proposed. I beg to move.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

With respect to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, his discussion seems to be slightly outwith the terms of the amendment before the Committee. The amendment is specifically related to alcohol but in terms of the Act it is related to controlled drugs. I do not make an issue of that. We are at one in that everyone in the Chamber seeks control as regards this issue.

As it stands, I believe that the amendment would be unenforceable in the courts. We do not have a Richter scale of excess to apply to someone coming through the door to a dance saying, "The chances of your getting an alcohol level of between one to 10 is"—whatever the odds might be. I took the opportunity to ask the noble Earl what the word "excess" means in the amendment. I shall not go into the question of drugs, rave places and drying-out places, because they represent another issue. Dealing purely with the amendment before us, I find that the words "to excess" make it extremely difficult to put this into legislation. Once the Government changes and we are on the other side of your Lordships' Chamber, I would certainly not wish to be asked to implement this particular piece of legislation. I support it in principle but feel that the wording would give rise to difficulty.

Viscount Thurso

Having sat next to my noble friend Lord Russell until the early hours of this morning and having greatly enjoyed his tutelage of how to perform when the House is in Committee, I believe this amendment is what he might describe as a probing amendment. My noble friend does raise a very important question; that of under-age drinking and the effect it has on young people. As a former licensee in England and the owner of licensed premises in Scotland, I believe that the vast majority of those in the trade are as concerned as all citizens are with this evil. In that respect, I thank my noble friend for having brought up this point to which we should have regard. However, I have to say to him that when I consulted with my publican friends in Scotland and particularly when I spoke to the British Hospitality Association's representative, who is also the convenor of the Licensing Committee of the Scottish Law Society, they were extremely dubious about this amendment and the effect it would have. I think it goes far wider than my noble friend might possibly have thought. While I clearly support his sentiments, I do not think I can support the amendment as it is.

4.15 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

I should like to raise just one question in respect of this amendment. I am under the impression in connection with the licensing laws that a person must be over 18 to purchase a drink, but I thought that a person as young as 16 could consume a glass of wine or beer on licensed premises. If I am correct then this amendment would prevent anybody from obtaining an alcoholic drink under the age of 18, whether they bought it or they were given it.

The Earl of Lindsay

On behalf of the whole Committee perhaps I may thank to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for the way in which he has set out, I assume from his observed experience rather than from his actual experience, some of the recreational drugs taken by younger people today. I also realise from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that the purpose behind this amendment is one that we would all agree with. However, the practicality is questionable, as the noble Lord himself stated.

Clearly we want to ensure that the excessive consumption of alcohol is, as far as possible, prevented and that under-age drinking is not encouraged. Indeed, both objectives are already covered in law and that law will continue to underpin the new arrangements which we are seeking to introduce in this Bill. The express purpose of Clause 1 is to protect the health and safety of young people attending certain events on licensed premises against drug misuse. In that respect it is, as your Lordships all know, a direct response to concerns expressed by Sheriff Neil Gow, following a fatal accident inquiry into a tragedy caused by drug misuse at an event at licensed premises, that there was potentially inadequate legislative provision to enable licensing boards to take appropriate action to regulate such events.

The provisions in Clause I put beyond doubt that licensing boards now have all the power they need. If necessary, the boards will be able to impose stringent conditions to help protect the health and safety of those attending the events which will be covered by the provisions of Clause 1. However, there may be other events held on the same licensed premises where clearly it is not necessary to impose conditions such as the provision of alternative rest areas, first aid or paramedic cover or stringent controls on numbers. The noble Earl's amendment would have the effect of bringing those events within the parameters of Clause 1.

I am not suggesting, of course, that other events should not be regulated appropriately. What I am suggesting is that other events should not be regulated excessively. We should not prevent responsible people from enjoying themselves at other events, be it in the Bishop's Bar or wherever, on licensed premises; nor should we restrict unnecessarily the licensee in the operation of his business. Licence-holders are already subject to strict controls by licensing boards in the general operation of their business, and if these are breached the licensee faces not only criminal sanctions but the threat of losing his licence and therefore his livelihood.

We have already heard concerns expressed both in this Chamber and in another place that the present definition of "events" in the Bill is too widely drawn and could mean that boards, taking a liberal interpretation of it, would impose conditions on innocuous events. We are not persuaded that this will happen. Licensing boards have enormous experience of dealing with liquor licensing and we feel that, with the assistance of Scottish Office guidance, they will bring that experience to the successful implementation of these provisions. I am afraid, though, that the noble Earl's amendment would put licensing boards into a position which gave them no room for manoeuvre or the exercise of their discretion and force the conditions to be applied where it might be quite clearly unnecessary.

I stress again that the motives behind this amendment are motives which we could all share, and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made a telling comment when he pointed out that this amendment, if it became part of the Bill, would be unenforceable when the Bill was enacted. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for giving us the benefit of his own experience and of the contacts he has within CoSLA and the licensing organisation.

My noble friend Lord Balfour was inquiring whether a person over 18 could buy a drink for someone who was under 18 but over 16 and that the younger person could then drink it legally. The answer is yes. A person over 16 but under 18 can drink alcohol on licensed premises but this is only legal when the drink is taken with a meal. No one under 18 can purchase alcohol legally.

I hope that on the basis of the explanations I have given, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I would also draw the noble Earl's attention to issues which we have raised in the recent White Paper on crime and punishment as they hinge upon the areas that he is concerned about.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

I should like to thank various noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. It was of course designed to produce a debate and it has done so. Might I reassure the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench that, apart from my experience in the Bishop's Bar, which has helped perhaps, the majority of my experience was learnt while working on an intensive probation project—on the staff, I hasten to add, because it is not first-hand experience.

To be slightly more serious, I am concerned about the resistance of the noble Earl to under-age drinking. He said that the licensing committee can take a hard line on this but I actually do not think that is what is needed. I think it is important that we actually get to work with under-age drinkers and persuade them not to do it, rather than just close the pubs which they are currently using. These days drug workers go to raves and work with people who take controlled drugs. They give information about drugs and what they are doing. Occasionally they give advice, there being a substantial difference between the two. Presumably they also ensure that water is available and they notice if anyone begins to go under. People can be picked up there and then and the health problems which might arise are prevented. Perhaps I see the problem too much as a health and safety issue and not enough as a licensing issue. I appreciate that there is a problem with the rule of law and that we are bringing forward a Bill which takes into account illegal activity. Perhaps the noble Earl wishes to reply.

The Earl of Lindsay

I am grateful to the noble Earl. The Bill seeks specifically to deal with the problem of misuse of drugs by young people. We have a basket of other measures and initiatives specifically aimed at under-age drinking. I should not like the noble Earl to think that, because we are not convinced of the benefits of his amendment to this Bill dealing with the misuse of drugs, we are therefore in any way slack in our commitment to prevent under-age drinking. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State regards the misuse of drugs and alcohol by young people as an absolute priority.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for that. I did not know it and I look forward to the legislation which will be proposed. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 8. leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. It is a famous Scottish amendment going back to the days of Willie Ross, George Willis and all those great characters. Every Scottish Bill contained an amendment saying "omit 'may' and insert `shall'". However, there was usually a reason for it.

Amendment No. 7 is to ensure that the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe certain conditions applicable to raves. The Bill currently allows the Executive discretion on the issue of conditions. The amendment removes or curtails that discretion and requires mandatory action by the Secretary of State.

Raves are fairly new. They are not necessarily harmful but can easily go over the edge. Therefore, we believe that firm minimum conditions should be prescribed by the Secretary of State which can act as a basic standard countrywide. Then in response to local conditions and the local climate, there can be alterations. I was amused, when we were listening to the earlier debate, to hear that a person aged 16 can drink with a meal. The noble Earl may remember the famous Scottish bona fide traveller. If you travelled a certain distance in a bus, coach or train, you could go into a public house, order a meal and then get a drink, although it would not be allowed in your local area; you had to be a traveller. The definition of a traveller was someone who dropped in for food. There was some truth in the myth—it was not just a joke—that the traveller got the same pie every week. It lay on the table until he had finished eating and then it was taken away and brought back the next Sunday.

I seek certain parameters. That kind of thing can happen and much more dangerous things can occur with events like raves. Therefore, the Secretary of State should lay down much more precise rules and then local people, with his permission, can add to them or adapt them. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for moving his amendment. I endorse the story of the bona fide traveller: it seems mad to throw out a good pie unfinished if it can be used again the following Sabbath.

The question of whether the Secretary of State should exercise immediately his power to prescribe minimum conditions was debated at length in another place. The conclusion of that consideration was that his power should remain discretionary. Let me take this opportunity to explain the rationale behind that decision.

The Secretary of State's power to make an order prescribing certain conditions was introduced in response to concerns that boards might not act reasonably and responsibly in the way they discharge their obligations under the new measures and that there may be inconsistencies throughout Scotland.

We are, of course, committed to issuing guidance to licensing boards on the nature and terms of conditions that may be attached to licences. But we cannot guarantee that the guidance will be followed consistently by each board. The health and safety of the young and vulnerable are important enough to require certain minimum standards to be applied across the country as a whole. Giving the Secretary of State a power which he can exercise, if required, to prescribe minimum conditions which boards must attach to relevant licences, will ensure that the basic policy underlying Clause 1 will not be undermined through inconsistency of approach.

However, this is very much a precautionary measure. There is every reason to believe that licensing boards will act responsibly and implement the policy fully. There is every reason to believe that that will be the case.

To impose mandatory conditions immediately would fetter the important element of local discretion and knowledge which boards can exercise when taking local decisions.

The Scottish Office will monitor practices closely. If it appears that licensing boards, supported by detailed guidance, are unwilling to impose appropriate conditions, then the means are available to enable the Secretary of State to move swiftly to put matters right. The detailed guidance of which I speak will also include model conditions which will give boards an idea of the type of issues to be addressed. However, I should say that a good number of licensing boards already impose those kinds of conditions on public entertainment licences and are therefore familiar with the concept.

Those model conditions will illustrate minimum requirements such as the maximum number of people who can attend the event, the provision of rest areas away from the main activity and that there should be adequate security and support staff of both sexes. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was concerned about that point.

I hope that the noble Lord will agree that unless it proves necessary to take formal action, reliance on co-operation and the full exercise of local discretion provide a better way of achieving our objectives. I imagine that the noble Lord will read the response I have given in Hansard and ponder on it and I hope he will understand that there is little between us. We feel that ideally the exercise of discretion in response to local conditions should be the prime response of local licensing boards before the Secretary of State seeks to impose mandatory minimum conditions on them.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

The Minister will be aware that I always read Hansard to check on what was said. I thank him for the assurance he has given; it is a big improvement. His explanation clears up a number of problems. I only hope that local licensing boards will take careful note of what he said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 11: Page 3. line 28, after ("licence") insert ("or his representative").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which I have discussed with the Minister. Under the Bill at the present, if the holder of the licence does not appear, the proceedings fall. The reason for the amendment is so that the holder's representative can appear. Perhaps the Government can find a suitable term such as "authorised agent" instead of "or his representative", whatever the wording might be. We wish to widen the scope of representation before the board. Under the Bill as presently drafted, only the holder of the licence can appear, but, taking a strict reading of the Bill, he cannot do so if he happens to be in America. The amendment is to introduce a degree of flexibility in representation. On that basis, I beg to move.

4.30 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

I am grateful for the explanation of this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The amendment proposed would, effectively, enable a representative to attend in place of a licence holder at a licensing board meeting where consideration is being given to whether a current licence should be varied so that conditions may be imposed on it in cases where the premises will hold events attracting the provisions in Clause 1.

This issue was extensively debated when the Bill was considered in another place. Indeed, the matter was taken away for further scrutiny. However, after careful consideration it was concluded that the change was both unnecessary and potentially damaging.

I believe that my honourable friend the Minister of State in the Scottish Office wrote to the honourable Member for Dumbarton explaining the Government's decision. I could easily make a copy of that letter available to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay.

I welcome the opportunity to offer the same explanation to the Committee as to the reasoning that led to that conclusion. When this point was debated in another place it was suggested that this issue was precedented in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.

I acknowledge that there is express provision at Section 15 of the 1976 Act for an applicant or his representative to attend a statutory meeting of the licensing board when an application for a new licence or the renewal of a licence is being considered. That is an entirely separate issue and not directly relevant to the matter under review today.

Section 15 gives a board the discretion whether or not to proceed to consider an application for a new licence or renewal of a licence if neither the applicant nor his representative are present. Presumably, this statutory provision was made in order to prevent an applicant being unnecessarily disadvantaged through an inability to present himself at a particular meeting.

If we are looking for comparisons in the existing legislation then I suggest that Section 31 of the 1976 Act provides a more suitable example. Section 31 details the procedures for suspending an existing licence on receipt of a complaint. In these circumstances, the board must hold a hearing in the same way as is envisaged in the new arrangements to vary a licence. There is no express provision for the licensee to field a representative or to bring another person to the hearing to assist him in pleading his case. Nevertheless, the exercise of these options is accepted standard procedure which licensing boards use as appropriate.

There is nothing in the Bill as drafted to prevent a licensing board from exercising the same discretion where appropriate in relation to the procedures set out for varying current licences.

We feel that the amendment proposed is unnecessary on that basis. But it is also dangerous because it could call into question the legitimacy of existing arrangements under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and in other legislation where a representative or agent may attend in the place of, or to assist, the licensee without there being any express statutory provision.

There is potentially more to be lost by conceding this amendment than could possibly be gained. I imagine the noble Lord will want to consider the explanation that I have given. However, I hope that in the light of this response the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment today.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but Section 15(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 does not appear to cover the problem which we have in this Bill; nor does Section 31 cover it, in my view. It might lead to an interesting legal debate, but if you look at the interpretation clause of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, there is no definition of the licence holder apart from the words a & licence-holder' and 'holder of a licence' mean the holder of a licence under this Act other than under Part III of this Act". That does not take us any further in terms of the amendment. The issues that were dealt with in Sections 15(1) and 31(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 do not appear to meet the practical problem which has been raised, and I know it has been debated at length and no doubt will be debated again. But it seems to me, if I may say so, that this a very simple amendment which will make no difference to the progress of applications before the licensing board and, in fact, would introduce a degree of flexibility.

However, in keeping with the other amendments which have been put before the Committee, those interested in these matters, including your Lordships, will look with interest at what the Minister has said. In the meantime, with thanks to him for his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 12 to 16 not moved.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.