HL Deb 06 February 1997 vol 577 cc1816-36

6.31 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was introduced in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Barry Legg. It received support from all parties.

Drugs misuse over the past 10 years has escalated into the single greatest risk to the health and welfare of our young people. Drugs have always been a menace to society. What is different now is the sheer scale of illicit drug misuse and the extent to which it has become enmeshed in dance and youth culture. For example, it is estimated that up to 1 million Ecstasy tablets are sold each week in Britain. Almost all are taken in the context of dancing and entertainment. Every parent's nightmare is that they will see their child sucked into the world of drug misuse.

The pressures on youngsters to try drugs are enormous. Drugs such as Ecstasy are peddled as a necessary ingredient to having a good time. Dealers target the clubs where young people go to enjoy themselves. If a club is not properly managed or the owners are corrupt, it becomes a focus for drug dealing and drug misuse. As a result, the physical health and mental well-being of young people are put at risk and, all too frequently, there are deaths.

The majority of deaths associated with dance drugs such as Ecstasy have been caused by heat stroke. Others have been caused by brain damage linked to excessive water consumption, liver failure and heart failure. Deaths grab the headlines, but there are no statistics on the number of people who are suffering serious non-fatal reactions to Ecstasy. Recent research has suggested that regular use of Ecstasy can lead to longer-term psychological effects including depression.

But it is a mistake to concentrate only on the damage caused by one drug. There is a substantial polydrug culture on the dance floor with users selecting different drugs, or a combination of them, according to the desired short-term effects.

So how will the Bill address the problem of drugs misuse in venues which are covered by a public entertainments licence? The Bill is designed to give local authorities the power to close down those clubs where the owners cannot or will not deal effectively with the serious problem of drug misuse on or near the premises. As the law stands at present, a licensing authority can revoke a public entertainments licence only after a court has convicted the club operators for breach of a licence condition. It can also reject an application to renew a licence, but the legislation specifically allows a club to remain open pending the outcome of an appeal process which can involve both the magistrates' court and the Crown Court. The appeal process can take many months, during which time a club can stay open and more young people can be put at risk. That cannot be right.

I shall now briefly describe the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 amends the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. It allows a local authority to revoke a licence in the light of evidence supplied by the chief officer of police that there is, a serious problem relating to the supply or use of controlled drugs at or near the premises". After the local authority has considered the evidence, it may decide to take no further action. On the other hand, the authority may decide that action is necessary and that the imposition of terms, conditions or restrictions on the licence will deal with the problem. If it believes that will not resolve the problem, the authority will have the ultimate sanction of revoking the licence.

Whatever action the local authority decides to take, either to add further conditions to the licence or to revoke that licence, it must first meet a test before taking that action. It must be satisfied that to do so will assist in dealing with the problem. If it cannot meet that requirement, it must take no further action.

If the local authority decides to vary the terms of the licence or to revoke it, it is then required to give reasons for its action to the holder of the licence, and he or she can then make representations which the authority must consider within 21 days. After considering any representations, the authority must decide whether to confirm the revocation or the imposition of new conditions, or whether the licence should be reinstated in its original form.

Club owners will retain their right to appeal to a court against the decision of the local authority. But pending the outcome of that appeal, the club will be closed. Clause 1 also gives a court the power to revoke a licence following a conviction in relation to the licence on a similar basis. But in certain circumstances the court can order the licence to remain in force pending an appeal.

Clause 2 amends Schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1960, which applies to public entertainment licences in Greater London and makes similar provisions to those introduced by Clause 1, which I have already detailed.

The Bill before you has been welcomed by local authorities and the police. It is seen as an important step towards cutting off the supply of drugs to young people. The main thrust of the Bill has also been welcomed by the club owners and promoters as represented by the largest of the trade organisations, the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association (BEDA). But they also have concerns that the tough provisions in this Bill may be applied unfairly on their members and that businesses could suffer as a result.

These are indeed tough powers, but they are necessary to deal with what is a most serious problem. I believe, however, that these powers will be used sparingly. The majority of clubs are working hard, often in co-operation with the police, to keep drugs off their premises. BEDA is in the forefront of those who are taking the threat posed by drugs in the clubs seriously. It is putting in place effective security measures and training its staff, in particular its door staff, to deal with the threat. I applaud those initiatives and I am confident that responsible club owners will have nothing to fear from the new powers in this Bill.

I believe that BEDA's concerns, which include whether it will receive adequate notice from the police of the identification of a serious drug problem on a club's premises and how some of the Bill would be interpreted by the authorities, can be effectively dealt with by a code of practice. The Government have already undertaken to produce such guidance in consultation with local authorities, the police and representatives of the club industry, and to give this code of practice wide circulation before those new powers come into force.

This Bill addresses a very real area of public concern. It can help to prevent every parent's nightmare from becoming a reality. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Anelay of St. Johns.)

6.38 p.m.

Lord Monson

My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill and explaining it so well. We are all horrified by the extent of drug misuse, in particular hard drug misuse by young people.

Having said that, the day before yesterday this House struck a blow, albeit a wholly inadequate blow, for the rights and interests of a substantial body of people, namely, the pistol shooters, their families and the businesses supplying them—well over 100,000 people in all. Mainly of mature years, they include ex-servicemen, serving and retired police officers, solicitors, nurses, bank managers, skilled craftsmen and similar people. Many of them might be described as pillars of the community. The people we are discussing today would rarely be considered pillars of the community. On balance, they are probably younger, and they are certainly far less numerous. They probably include a slightly larger than average—albeit small—minority of "dodgy characters". Fairly or unfairly, they are unlikely to be people with whom the public instinctively feel sympathy. But no matter. Everybody in this country, sympathetic or otherwise, deserves justice. There seems to be a fear, whether justified or not, that under the Bill people may no longer be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

So much depends on how the word "serious" is interpreted by the police. Will one drug find, or two such finds, be enough to close a club or discotheque, throwing dozens of employees out of work in the process? What happens if an unscrupulous owner plants drugs on a rival's premises so as to drive him out of business? Will there be written warnings if a problem is perceived to exist? That would be in everybody's interest. Willing co-operation with the police on the part of club owners is surely the best solution. Will there be pre-trial disclosure? Will there be properly constituted hearings? Will there be consistency between local authorities in applying the law? Might there be a fast-track appeals procedure? I look forward to the noble Earl's reply, and also to that of the noble Baroness. The Bill should not be rushed through this House automatically. We have the right to examine it in Committee if that is the feeling of the House.

6.42 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, before commenting on the Bill, I declare an interest. I am a director of Rank Leisure Limited, which operates clubs that have public entertainments licences. I also declare another interest. I have been involved with the Boys' Clubs organisation for almost all my adult life. We grown-ups are often very critical of young people—of their fecklessness, self-centredness and fondness for loud music, but, more often than not, their perfectly reasonable desire to congregate together to discuss their problems.

Most noble Lords will appreciate that the relationship between young people and their parents is often at best difficult and at worst impossible. Broken homes and single-parent families only add to the difficulties. Providing young people with somewhere to meet and use their time productively has for a long time been recognised by the Boys' Clubs movement as being important. The provision of well-managed meeting places, with some purpose-built clubs, has encouraged the young to gather for sporting and social purposes and the clubs are justly proud of their achievements in that regard.

Although it would be naive to consider that nightclubs or other establishments with public entertainments licences are anything like what I described, they also provide young people with a place to meet and socialise and form a considerable part of the leisure industry and the tourism industry. The nightclub industry contributes over £2 billion to the UK economy annually and employs more than 130,000 people. About 1 million young people, mostly between the ages of 18 and 25, visit these clubs every week.

The Bill concerns itself with the misuse of controlled drugs and directs its attention particularly to one form of leisure provision; namely, clubs and pubs with public entertainments licences, but not licensed premises generally. Therefore it might be seen as being stricter with the young than it is with the adult population. Nothing in my remarks should be construed as suggesting that I approve in any way of the use of controlled drugs. I do not. What is more, I am in favour of the thrust of this proposed legislation and pay tribute to my noble friend for introducing the measure.

What concerns me and others—I have received letters from a number of organisations expressing concerns-is some of the uncertainties that are left hanging in the air. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned a few of them. In both operative clauses of the Bill, the local authority may revoke a public entertainments licence on information from the police that there is a "serious drugs problem" at or near the place of entertainment. Will my noble friend the Minister tell the House what is meant by a "serious drugs problem"; and will he consider inserting into the Bill a definition clause, in order that local authorities which will have to interpret this legislation following complaints, will act in the same consistent way across the country rather than arbitrarily and inconsistently? I am sure that the Minister will tell me that that matter can be dealt with more properly by guidance notes from the Home Office. We heard from my noble friend that BEDA has already had meetings with the Home Office and that a code of conduct has already been outlined. However, this is such a pivotal point of the Bill that I believe it should be on the face of the Bill. Without the identification of a "serious drugs problem" none of the provisions of the Bill can be activated.

My next point concerns the phrase "at or near". I can well understand the "at". The "at" is under the control of the management of the club. But the "near" is much more problematic. For instance, a club might easily be close to a car park or shopping mall where young people might gather for less favourable activities. The club may be seen by the police as attracting young people to the area, and they may feel that the revocation of the club's licence will assist in dealing with the drug problem. Is it fair that a nearby club with its single entry point and trained doormen should be served with a notice of the revocation of its licence without some written warning and without being able to stay open while an appeal is being prepared? How near is "near" to be judged in a city centre? Is St. James's Park near to the Palace of Westminster? Section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 makes it clear that warnings are required on the basis of "minded to prosecute". That Act was amended to that effect in this House. It is not right to abandon that principle so soon after the passing that legislation.

I am entirely on the side of the Home Office when it strives for the proper management of establishments which hold public entertainments licences. The training of doormen and bar staff is a vital ingredient of a successful establishment, and a statutory registration scheme for doormen might go a long way to improving this aspect of protection for young people. However, there can occasionally be a rogue member of staff who can let the side down. The management, who do not have the day-to-day responsibility for the running of an establishment, should be given a written warning that the police have identified a serious drugs problem so that they can take remedial action immediately. In that way the Government's initiative, Tackling Drugs Together, can be properly pursued.

My noble friend has already indicated the action that the British Entertainment & Discotheque Association has taken. I am sure that noble Lords will have received a letter from BEDA drawing to the attention of the House some of the points that I have made this evening, among others. I believe that the Association has also had a meeting with the Home Office to express some of its concerns, which I hope has been useful.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the Bill passed through the other place on Friday, 17th January in one day without the opportunity of a Committee stage, although reservations were voiced about some of its provisions during the Second Reading debate. I trust that this House will give this important piece of legislation the careful scrutiny it deserves.

6.50 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for presenting this Bill so clearly to your Lordships.

As a founder member of the all-party Drug Misuse Committee, I have followed the worrying growth of drug misuse over the years which seems to endanger every country in the world. I have attended the funerals of two young people, one young man, one young woman, both of whom died due to the problems of drug and alcohol addiction. The grief of everyone attending the funerals was united at the thought of the waste of life and what could have been.

Illegal drugs are a menace which destroys families and destabilises communities. The marketing of drugs by barons and dealers has been far too successful, even though the Government, police and Customs have worked very hard to prevent the spread of the drugs which have become endemic throughout the country.

Fashions among the young and peer group pressure are an important issue. The young seem to fear being different and become sucked into the dangerous culture which many parents have difficulty controlling.

Our young people are very valuable. We need healthy and happy young people who see a future and who can take up important positions in adult life, be it running the country or looking after the growing numbers of elderly people. We do not want people with chaotic lifestyles due to drug addiction who lose control of their lives and future well-being.

One of the things that many young people enjoy doing is dancing. They enjoy the music which is now played in the clubs, which is the reason for the Bill before your Lordships.

We must be careful that the younger generation does not become alienated from their elders. I have heard young people say about many of their parents' generation that the example set has not been exemplary. There has been a lot of heavy drinking, tobacco smoking and broken marriages. That should be confessed and admitted to the young people. Even though tobacco and alcohol are legal, it is the results which count. Young people need a positive and honest message about the long-term dangers of drugs misuse. The Bill gives new powers to local authorities to close down clubs where there is a serious drugs problem.

I have received, as I am sure that other noble Lords taking part in this debate will have received, letters from the British Entertainment & Discotheque Association, the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and the Independent Association of British Nightclubs and Discotheques. Those bodies have some concerns.

It is the job of your Lordships' House to try to improve Bills if they need improvement and to give the other place the opportunity to look again at a Bill. I understand that this Bill was not discussed in Committee in another place.

Anything to do with controlling drugs has become the most difficult challenge of our times. One only has to look at the difficulties in trying to keep drugs out of prisons to understand the problems.

Your Lordships may be a little surprised when I say that I have some sympathy with the entertainments industry over some of its wishes to see the Bill amended. It is important that everyone involved with young people and their entertainment should work closely together to safeguard them and for their well-being. I should like to ask the noble Baroness and the Minister whether they think there are enough safeguards in the Bill to ensure that owners and operators of entertainment premises are given adequate protection under the law. I have sympathy with the view that there should be a requirement for a formal written warning to be given to the licensee by the police before a club is closed down, setting out the problem and the necessary action and offering the licensee the opportunity to take remedial action within a specified period.

I also have sympathy with the view that the responsibility of the licensee should be confined to the premises themselves and not extend to those areas which are near the premises but outside the control of the licensee. I ask the question, how near is near? It is like the problem of beyond the school gate. Is Black Rod in charge of what goes on around Westminster Abbey? How much policing will the police do and how much have they been doing?

It is the drug traffickers who need to be caught. Traffickers are devious and cunning but very often desperate because they want to feed their own habit. Tackling the dealers at ground level can be dangerous work. I hope that the concerns will be addressed.

When I was a new Member of your Lordships' House in 1970 my grandfather-in-law, the late Lord Swinton, told me that all Bills should be clearly defined. What is the definition of a serious drugs problem? Other noble Lords have asked the same question. It is important to make this Bill as workable as possible because it deals with a very serious matter.

I should like to take this opportunity to bring the health and safety aspect of clubs to the notice of your Lordships' House. In Scotland there are codes of conduct and licensing arrangements for clubs. The Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1996 confers powers on licensing boards to attach conditions to licences in respect of premises where relevant events are held in order to safeguard the health and safety of people attending those events. In particular, the Act allows licensing boards to attach conditions to licences such as the maximum number of people allowed to attend an event, the provision of adequate stewarding and the provision of drinking water and rest areas (chill-out rooms).

In addition, the Act gives the Secretary of State discretionary powers to set conditions which boards must attach to licences and allows boards to vary licences to make events safer without having to wait until they come up for renewal. Guidelines have been produced supporting the new provisions.

England and Wales do not yet have these requirements, but the London Drug Policy Forum, a body founded jointly by the Home Office and the Corporation of London, produced a code of practice on health and safety at dance venues last December. The forum says that, although it is not possible as yet to evaluate the code, it is confident that it will be utilised by both local authorities and clubs themselves. It is important to ensure that people can attend clubs in the safest conditions possible and be in a position to make informed decisions about drug use. The forum does not condone drug usage but tries to give health and safety information. I feel that rather than just consensus, these necessary and sensible requirements should be in regulations, as in Scotland, and should be in the agreement before licences are given to clubs.

It seems to me that positive action over these issues is the message which may help young people realise they are valued, not the commercial attitude of some clubs when they charge outrageous prices for water and turn off the taps.

There are many concerted efforts being made to make clubs safer, but perhaps one of the big difficulties is that many young people may have taken Ecstasy, or whatever drug they have, before they arrive at the club to dance. This is a difficult matter. It is important to get the balance of the Bill right so that everyone will do their best to fight the scourge of drug misuse.

7 p.m.

Lord Meston

My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for introducing this Bill and for her explanation of it. The Bill is intended to deal with the acute and worrying problems which she has described, particularly worrying for parents of teenage children, as to which I suppose I should declare an interest.

As we have just heard, the Bill applies only to England and Wales and I suspect, not for the first time, we have something to learn from the Scottish law and procedure in this area. But I would be interested at some stage to learn whether there are, in fact, equivalent provisions or are to be equivalent provisions in the Scottish jurisdiction.

The statistics show that there were 48 deaths solely caused by the drug Ecstasy in and between 1991 and 1995. Of course, that is at present the most publicised drug but it is certainly not the only prevalent drug. And, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, death is not the only consequence of taking Ecstasy: it can also cause serious and permanent damage.

We fully support the principle of the Bill. Those who assist or knowingly permit drug supply or use at licensed premises should, where necessary, be put out of business quickly and firmly. The concerns I have about the Bill are essentially concerns that it should work effectively and fairly and that it should not create as many problems as it might solve.

The first concern has already been touched on by several speakers. It is the looseness of some of the wording used. What is meant by, a serious problem relating to the supply or use of controlled drugs"? It may be difficult to assess when a problem is to be regarded as a serious problem. What is meant by "near" the place? Clearly the legislation should apply to the licensed premises and to anything adjacent which is in the ownership or control of the licence holder. But licence holders cannot control what happens on the public highway or in the car park in the next street. Those are the sort of places where drug transactions are likely to take place if there is sufficient security and sufficient surveillance at the club itself.

Of course these clubs act as magnets to the drug users and drug dealers. But the licence holder and his staff can only be said to have any control over and any indirect responsibility for what may go on outside if they do not try to stop and search people coming into the club who may have drugs or who are under the influence of drugs.

The other expression in the Bill which is not easy to grapple with is that stating the ground on which it is proposed that the licensing authorities and the courts are to base their decisions to revoke or to refuse or restrict the licence. They will have to be satisfied that to do so will assist in dealing with the problem. I assume that this really means that the revocation or the refusal or restriction is found necessary to reduce the problem substantially. If so, it would be better if the Bill said so clearly.

I accept that precise wording is difficult and that, so far as proximity to the premises is concerned, it may be unhelpful to state some arbitrary distance. However, the vagueness of the wording is likely to leave a lot of room for argument and room for the benefit of lawyers. It may well create inconsistencies between different licensing areas. I understand that some guidance may be issued by the Home Office, as we have heard, but such guidance is not binding and may not be enough to make up for the lack of precision in the Bill. It is also not satisfactory if the guidance is not to be issued until after this Bill is passed. I would therefore ask whether there are yet any draft guidelines and, if not, whether they can be produced before the Bill completes it passage. I would also ask whether any draft guidelines have received or will receive any direct input from the various interested bodies.

Perhaps I may turn briefly to the question of bouncers or "door supervisors", as they are euphemistically called, who are vital to the prevention of drugs in and around clubs. I understand that the setting of proper standards for the training of such people is patchy and variable as between different authorities. It is important that there is some level of training and registration and that the Government should set minimum standards for regulation, not just limited to criminal record checks.

I understand there has been some form of consultation exercise and wonder if the Minister can inform us as to whether there will be a national scheme of regulation. I also understand that the Government have produced a draft circular of good practice for the running of clubs and events. It seems to me to be terribly important that there is a uniform standard of good practice so that compliance with individual local initiatives is not taken as tacit recognition by the licence holder concerned that he has a problem. If he complies voluntarily with some local code of conduct, he may well be making a rod for his own back. That will not be the case if he is complying with a nationally laid down minimum standard.

Finally, perhaps I may return briefly to the Bill as it will work in practice in its present form. I do suggest that there are procedural deficiencies, in particular in allowing for revocation of a licence on the basis solely of a report by a chief officer of police that there is a serious problem at or near the place concerned.

No doubt the vast majority of chief police officers will act properly in making such reports, but there may well be a risk that they are influenced by the wish to save the manpower resources which these clubs undoubtedly require. They may also be unwittingly influenced by evidence provided by trade rivals. The Bill provides that these reports go just to the licensing authority not to the licence holder affected by it or to anyone else. So the licence holder has no opportunity to assess or to comment on the accuracy of the report or the validity of its conclusions.

The report and what to do next are then to be considered by the local authority. There is no provision for any representations at that stage or for any sort of hearing before the decision is made. So the licence holder is given no notice of what is happening, no opportunity to test or to question the evidence and no opportunity to give assurances for the future. The first he may hear of the process is when he receives the reasons for revocation, by which time he may have been operating unlawfully without a licence for several days. Under the Bill it is only after the decision is made that the licence holder first has the right to make representations in some unspecified form. Those representations could lead to reinstatement of the licence, by which time the business may have suffered irreparable damage and jobs may have been lost. I suggest that this type of procedure invites appeals and costly applications for judicial review. Surely the licence holder has the right to be informed and the right to be heard earlier before the decision is made.

Licensing authorities should not be exposed to litigation or complaints that they acted unfairly, prematurely or on insufficient evidence. They could face substantial claims for damages for lost business from a licence holder whose licence has been taken away and then reinstated. Indeed, it seems to me that there is also a possibility that those very risks may make some licensing authorities over-cautious, which is contrary to the intentions of the Bill.

I suggest, as several noble Lords have mentioned, that we should build into the statutory framework as a first step a formal warning to the licence holder that there is a problem, a warning requiring him to take remedial action or at least to make proposals for remedial action. In many cases, particularly of licence holders who have become complacent or careless, that may be all that is needed: one firm warning letter. Most licence holders will react promptly to show the police and the authorities that the warning has been taken seriously. Surely that first step will be cheaper and create more co-operation than confrontation. Moreover, if the warning is not acted upon, the police will be in a much better position to show in any report that there is a problem. In any event, those reports should go not just to the licensing authority but to the licence holder and, I suggest, to the owner of the premises, who may have rights under a lease to require action to be taken and who may be concerned about the value of the property which he owns if the licence is at risk from the negligence or worse of his tenant.

There should also be some opportunity to make representations and be heard by the licensing authority before a decision is made. The Bill gives a right of appeal to a court after the event but the Bill provides for time for an appeal to run from the date on which the representations are considered, which may be a date quite unknown to the licence holder. He may be deprived of time by not being informed for several days. Also, it is not clear to me that there is a power to allow a licence to remain in force pending an appeal when it has been revoked by the licensing authority as opposed to by reason of a decision of the court.

Another problem—it is a specific technical problem but an important one—seems to be that even temporary loss of a licence before its reinstatement will lead to the revocation of the special hours certificate and the special hours certificate will not be revived by reinstatement of the public entertainment licence. In other words, the special hours certificate will have to be applied for all over again with the procedures laid down in the relevant statute, for advertisement, notice to be given and the opportunity for trade objections to be considered.

I suggest that it is possible to have a fast but fairer procedure. As drafted, the Bill may cause hardship to smaller operators who do not have the resources or the broader shoulders of the large corporations and may cause unnecessary hardship to their employees.

As has been said by several noble Lords, the Bill had no debate beyond the Second Reading in another place. We wish the Bill well but it needs a little scrutiny.

I hope that the criticisms that I have made are regarded as intended to be constructive. It is important that we choke off drugs from licensed premises and their customers. It is also important that licence holders are made to face up to their clear responsibilities in this difficult area.

7.14 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for introducing the Bill. She is right in saying that when the Bill received its Second Reading in the other place it was welcomed all round the Chamber. It is also true, as a number of noble Lords said, that the Bill did not receive proper scrutiny in Committee nor have a proper Report stage. Indeed, the Second Reading itself could be subject to criticism. It lasted for four hours but the last one-and-a-half hours at least of those four hours were taken up by honourable Members who were speaking in order to kill the next Bill, which was a Labour Bill to extend cold weather payments to pensioners. So, frankly, it was not much of a Second Reading and the debate was not very edifying. We have to look at the Bill extremely carefully.

All noble Lords who have so far spoken looked at the Bill, quite understandably, from the point of view of the holders of public entertainment licences. They looked at the provisions of the Bill and questioned whether they were sufficiently clear and the processes properly reflected the interests of the holders of licences. Surely, the starting point of the Bill is and has to be that it requires both the police and the local authority to be satisfied that there is a serious misuse of drugs and that it has to be dealt with quickly. If there were not provision for revocation, there would be no point whatsoever in the Bill. The points made by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Monson, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, all recognised that fact but failed to recognise the extent to which subsequent legal provision has to follow from immediate revocation rather than provide for processes to take place before revocation. We should not be having the Bill at all unless we were looking to immediate revocation.

Neither am I terribly convinced by the arguments used this evening about the wording of the Bill. The words "at or near" the place, and particularly the word "near" can be interpreted in different ways. But that is not the only provision in the Bill. The point is that the police have to make the application and the local authority has to be satisfied that not renewing or transferring the licence will assist in dealing with the problem. It is a purposive definition of "near" rather than a definition in terms of metres—yards, if your Lordships prefer—away from the place where the licence is held.

I have no doubt that noble Lords who have expressed severe doubts about the wording of the Bill will wish to propose amendments to the Bill. Otherwise there is not much point in debating it in this way. For my part, I shall listen carefully to such amendments. However, I shall not be very convinced if the amendments seek to remove the central purpose of the Bill, which is immediate revocation of a licence.

I myself have very considerable doubts about the Bill, but they do not require amendment to the Bill. I want to make that point clearly. Satisfying my doubts would not hold up the progress of the Bill. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made reference made to the London Drug Policy Forum. Indeed, it has produced a very valuable report. Reference was also made to the Home Office circular of February 1996 on drugs misuse. The point about those publications is that they provide, in the one case, and discuss, in the second case, codes of good practice for establishments with public entertainment licences. With this Bill the danger is that the codes of good practice could be in conflict with the provisions of the Bill. I suggest that the noble Baroness and the Government have to look at that point.

Wherever possible, what we must be concerned with is the prevention of drugs misuse and not its cure. Closing down an establishment ought to be the last resort. We want establishments with public entertainment licences which actually work without drugs. That is why the codes of practice and the publications to which I have referred are so important. Again, the noble Baroness has very helpfully referred to such matters as the adequate provision of free water for those who become dehydrated; chill-out areas for those who become overheated; the need to report all drug incidents immediately they occur; and the presence on the premises of outreach workers, for example, or paramedics under certain circumstances. All these are elements in the draft code of practice.

The first problem with them is that, as they stand, a club which implements that code of practice could itself be suspected of having a serious drug problem. That difficulty was identified in the school context when it was first suggested that there should be drug education in schools. Those schools which had drug education were accused of having a drug problem. It was not until it was recognised that all schools should have drug education that that problem was on the way to being resolved. I do not know whether it has been resolved yet. The suspicion and the danger is that those clubs which adopt and enforce the recommendations of the London Drug Policy Forum and the Home Office circular, will be thought of by the police and/or local authorities as having a drug problem and having to take these steps to deal with it.

I come now to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Not until we have a final version of the circular in force will we be sure that there is not a risk in having a code of practice. My view, like that expressed by other noble Lords, is that such a code of practice ought to be available to this House very quickly indeed, before this Bill completes its stages. I believe that does not require amendment of the Bill, but action by the Government.

The second problem has been referred to obliquely by other noble Lords concerned about the interests of the club owners: it is the liability of the local authority. Very considerable power is being given to a local authority, on the advice of the police, to revoke a licence and to close down a club immediately. As noble Lords have said, that involves a loss of business which could be terminal for the business, and irrevocable. Somebody suggested that they would continue to open illegally, but I certainly hope that will not happen.

If there is to be adequate defence for local authorities against claims for damages for the misuse of their powers, then the Government have to provide far more explicit criteria which local authorities can produce as a defence than are available in the Bill. They have to be able to say, "In making this decision we did not just act reasonably, we followed the criteria laid down by government". We would want to see government produce those criteria before this Bill leaves this House.

The third issue has also been referred to by other noble Lords. It is the registration of bouncers—"door supervisors", as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, reminded us they are euphemistically called. Again, there is a Home Office circular of December 1996 about regulation in the private security industry. I understand that that includes door supervisors. In order for this Bill to work and for there to be proper prevention of drug misuse in clubs, there has to be a national scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, for the training, supervision and regulation of bouncers, who are very often—far too often—the path by which drugs reach licensed premises.

There are many things which need to be done before this Bill can be effectively implemented and can achieve the purpose for which it is intended. They are the responsibility of government and of those who have advocated this Bill. They have to hold discussions before the Bill comes back to us at a later stage. I wish to see the Bill go through. I do not wish to see it either delayed or destroyed by complicated legal amendments, but I want the background decision-making guidance, advice and codes of practice drawn up by government to be available to us before the Bill leaves this House.

7.25 p.m.

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate on this subject. I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on the clear and concise way in which she has put forward the Bill. The Government fully support the Bill.

Last October the Home Secretary announced that he was determined that the law should be changed to help local authorities exercise their responsibilities in connection with public entertainment licences granted to clubs in cases where drug misuse is occurring. This Bill does just that by providing local authorities with a new emergency revocation power and by ensuring that once a club's licence is revoked it is closed immediately.

It is a sad fact of life that too many of our young people are tempted to experiment with illegal drugs. The latest British Crime Survey data reports that some 43 per cent. of 16-29 year-olds say they have taken a prohibited drug at some time in their lives. Recent or regular drug misuse is fortunately much less common with 14 per cent. reported use in last month, but that is still too many.

Ecstasy is the drug most closely associated with clubs by the media and the public. We are all aware of a number of tragic deaths in recent years—none more poignant than that of Leah Betts just over a year ago after taking an ecstasy tablet which had been bought in a club. Since her death Mr. and Mrs. Betts have worked tirelessly to prevent similar tragedies happening elsewhere and I pay tribute to the work that they are doing. We know that they support the provisions in the Bill.

Young people are at particular risk from drug misuse due to their natural urge to experiment and their inexperience, particularly in dealing with peer pressure. Regrettably, on occasions they are also set bad examples by a number of leading figures in the music industry. Clubs where young people go to enjoy themselves often act as magnets for the dealers who move in to sell their wares.

We accept that the provisions in the Bill are tough—some would say draconian. That is precisely the intention. As my noble friend said, it provides tough powers to deal with a very serious problem. Responsible local authorities trying to deal with the problem of drugs in clubs deserve our support.

At the same time we understand the concerns of responsible club owners and promoters that this Bill may affect their legitimate businesses. Representatives of the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association (BEDA) have met with Home Office Ministers and officials to air these concerns. The Bill puts in place the powers needed to deal with the comparatively rare, worst situations. We have undertaken to produce a circular to accompany the Bill when it becomes law to encourage the consultation and co-operation that is already taking place in many areas between the police, licensing authorities and club owners.

It is common knowledge that club door staff are a crucial influence in the extent to which drugs find their way into clubs. Stakes are high and the pressure exerted by criminals on club owners and staff who want to run a clean operation can be considerable. The Home Office has circulated best practice guidance, as mentioned by noble Lords, to local authorities and police forces who wish to set up local registration schemes for door staff who work at clubs. This has been based on the experiences of schemes run in various parts of the country and drawn up in consultation with the police, local authority associations and the entertainment industry. In many of the schemes, registration involves criminal record checks by the police and satisfactory completion of an approved training course.

I know, however, that BEDA feels strongly that a statutory, national training and registration scheme for door supervisors is necessary, as noble Lords have said. In view of current concerns, the consultation paper we issued recently on the regulation of the contract guarding sector of the private security industry included an invitation for comments on whether door supervisors should be included in the proposed new statutory arrangements for the private security industry.

Other measures are in hand to combat the menace of drugs in clubs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, a draft Home Office circular was issued last year to encourage local authorities to exercise their licensing responsibility in such a way as to safeguard the health and safety of young people at clubs. The circular generated enormous interest and the consultation period had to be considerably extended to cope with the demand. We plan to issue the final version of that circular before too long.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, does "before too long" mean before the Bill leaves this House?

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, I shall come later to the point about the circular and the Bill. I am referring to the health and safety factors, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred.

The drug action teams set up under the Government's drugs strategy also have an important role to play in all this. The teams have been developing close working relationships with a range of voluntary agencies, community groups and other interested parties in tackling drug misuse locally. Many of the teams' action plans feature combating the menace of drugs to young people high on their list of priorities. We believe the teams are well placed to encourage partnership and co-ordination between local authorities, the police and the club owners and promoters.

Noble Lords have referred to our attitude towards written cautions. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate for the legislation to require local authorities to issue a written caution before they can take action. Where problems arise with public entertainment licences, there is already a great deal of dialogue between local authorities and licence holders. It is unlikely that, in the case of serious drug misuse, there would not have been prior contact with both local authorities and the police. The Bill is also intended to allow local authorities to take immediate action in extreme circumstances. We do not think that it is sensible to complicate such courtesies by specifically providing for a written caution.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned formal hearings. Although the existing legislation does not require them to do so, most local authorities already hold such hearings before deciding to revoke or to refuse to renew a licence. We expect that in the interests of natural justice local authorities will wish to continue to do that in the majority of cases. This matter will also be dealt with in the proposed Home Office guidance. The Bill already provides for an application to make representations and for them to be considered within 21 days of any decision on revocation or non-renewal. A statutory requirement for a formal hearing is unlikely to add anything in most cases and could delay urgent action in those instances where it was considered essential.

All noble Lords remarked on the guidance circular to local authorities. It is not yet available in draft form. It will be issued following the consultation which I gather is ongoing with the local authority associations, the police and the trade. I am told that it may not be possible to have the guidance in draft form in the time available to us before the Bill passes through Parliament.

Lord Mclntosh of Haringey

My Lords, that is very bad news. A number of noble Lords have said how important it is that we should know the Government's thoughts on this. Perhaps I may make a constructive suggestion. Consultation takes place by a document being sent out to the organisations concerned. They take their time in sending it back. The Government then collate all the responses. Could not the Government urgently now convene a meeting of the local authority associations, trade associations and the police within, say, the next couple of weeks, get their responses to the draft and then come to the House?

Lord Meston

My Lords, I support the noble Lord's last observation. The concerns which have been expressed about the Bill relate to the procedures. Those concerns may well be covered adequately by the guidance, but it is important, particularly for those of us who want to decide how to proceed further with the Bill and whether to table amendments, to have the guidance (at least in draft form) available to us at a very early date, preferably before the next stage. That is absolutely vital.

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, I realise that the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Mclntosh and Lord Meston, are constructive and that they both support the Bill. I shall, of course, take away everything that has been said and consult officials at the Home Office to see how near we are to being able to produce the circular in draft form. The areas that we shall be considering in the draft guidance and circular include liaison between the police and the clubs, security and safety features, particular drugs problems and effective communication between the various bodies. The police must contact the club about any perceived problem before the stage of bringing in the local authority.

My noble friend Lord Ullswater referred to young people. This Bill is not intended to stop young people enjoying themselves by closing down the clubs where so many go to enjoy themselves. The Bill is designed to deal with the worst situations when clubs cannot or will not take effective action.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned Scotland. I understand that the arrangements in Scotland are different from, but complementary to, those in England and Wales.

Other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Mclntosh, asked whether we would be introducing statutory registration schemes for door supervisors. Door supervisors, or "bouncers", in clubs are known to be a greater problem in some areas than in others. There is no evidence of a simple national problem which could justify the introduction of statutory registration. Our policy of encouraging local voluntary registration schemes was endorsed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It recommended the introduction of guidance on best practice for the setting up of such schemes and that the expansion and effectiveness of such schemes should be monitored before national legislation is considered.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, was concerned about the power to allow the licence to remain in force temporarily. As my noble friend mentioned, that is not possible where the local authority revokes the licence, but if the revocation is ordered by a magistrates' court, the court has a power to order that the licence remains in force while an appeal is brought.

The noble Lord also mentioned a number of technical points which have also been raised by the industry. We are considering them at the moment. I refer particularly to special hours certificates and to the time allowed for appeal.

The Bill and the code should be complementary. We intend to present them as such. The police support and encourage the health and safety messages that are given out in clubs. Although I have answered a number of questions, I have probably left some outstanding and I hope that my noble friend will deal with them. However, if any points remain unanswered, we shall write to noble Lords.

In conclusion, I repeat that the Government's view is that this Bill closes a serious loophole and makes an important contribution towards protecting our young people from the menace of drug misuse. I commend it to your Lordships.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him—because so many noble Lords have mentioned this point—about the definition of "serious". How serious is "serious"?

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, I understand that my noble friend will deal with that point.

7.39 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for answering so many questions and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate with such good will. I take all of their contributions in the spirit in which they were made—to produce the best possible Bill. I hope that their support will continue so that this Bill can pass into law as soon as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to one particular definition. I am not a lawyer but a magistrate, and I tread very warily. One intriguing rule of this House is that I cannot refer to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, as the noble and learned Lord, although I know that he is learned in the law. For that reason I am even more careful about what I say. As to the definition of "serious", whether or not such a problem is serious will be determined in each and every case. Although that sounds very woolly, in a more down to earth and perhaps flippant way what may appear to me to be a serious drug problem may not be a serious problem to someone like Liam Gallagher. It may not appear to the police to be serious. The police deal with clubs day in and day out and they will be aware of what constitutes a serious problem with drugs in the context of the dance and youth scene. I believe that, as each and every incident arises, what constitutes "serious" must be decided upon. In addition, as in other areas case law will be built up from which one will gain a better idea of what "serious" means in the context of the Bill.

Questions were raised in regard to the phrase "at or nearby". I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, who referred to the underlying purposive definition. I believe that that sums up the intention very well. I do not believe that a definition based on distance would be helpful. Anyone who was unscrupulous would immediately be able to get round the Bill simply by setting up shop with his drugs just a few centimetres beyond the distance defined in the Bill. There is another important consideration in relation to "nearby". If the police have identified a serious problem in a nightclub or dance club and they know that people are being kept out of the particular establishment by very efficient doorkeepers, and therefore people have set up shop nearby, the Bill will give the police the opportunity to take strong action against the club. But that will occur only if the local authority is satisfied on the evidence it is given that taking action against the club will assist in solving the problem. It cannot simply take action against the club unless it feels that it will stop the drug peddling next door. It must be satisfied that the problem will be eased or solved by closing it down or adding to or changing the conditions of the licence. Although the word "draconian" has rightly been used by my noble friend, this measure will be used only in very narrow circumstances and after a good number of precautions have been taken along the way.

A particular concern voiced by a group of operators was that "pernicious" local authorities and police authorities could act to close down clubs. Under the Bill, to close down a club, first, the police must establish that there is a serious problem and must have evidence to prove that to the local authority. Secondly, the local authority separately must arrive at a proper decision that there are grounds to take action under the Bill. I do not believe that in a democracy it is likely that a police authority and local authority will be engaged in some kind of conspiracy. In this House there are noble Lords with experience of how local authorities work, and they will know that that is not how they proceed.

References were made to one or two other legal definitions. As a layman, I will attempt to deal with them. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, expressed worry about whether people would be presumed to be guilty from the start. He did not want to lose the old presumption that a person was innocent until proved guilty. However, this Bill provides that at the very first instance the police must present their evidence to the local authority. There is no closure, revocation or change of any conditions until the local authority has considered that evidence and made a decision. One knows that that is the situation before other tribunals outwith the magisterial and Crown Court system.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also referred to the worry that unscrupulous traders in drugs could plant drugs in premises. In that way they could get their rivals closed down. That view has been expressed by some operators. However, on the basis of discussions before coming to this House I believe that the police have such day-to-day knowledge of clubs on their patch that they will have a pretty good idea, if they are carrying out their duties properly—as I believe they are—which clubs have rivals and which clubs already have a problem. Although that practice may exist, I do not believe it is one that will prejudice the intent of this Bill or its practical effect.

Mention was also made of the risk of local authorities having to pay compensation if they revoked a licence and thereby the club owner lost his business, and subsequently the licence was reinstated because the local authority was found to be in error. My understanding of the law is that the local authority would be liable to pay such compensation only if it could be shown that it had acted maliciously and negligently. I believe that if the local authority follows carefully a code of practice as to how to weigh up evidence and carry out the procedures, it should not find itself liable to pay such compensation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. That was exactly the point I made when speaking of the need to have the codes of practice in effect before the commencement of this measure. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that if they act in accordance with codes of practice they will not be at risk.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

My Lords, I appreciate that. I believe that my noble friend the Minister is aware of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I believe that there is a good measure of agreement on the principles of the Bill. Some Members of this House will have had the opportunity to witness the effect of drugs on young people. Some of us are doctors, lawyers and magistrates who are involved in treating, advising and sentencing those involved in the misuse of drugs. Others are probation officers who help young people along the road to independence from drugs. Many of us are parents who are concerned about the safety of our children or their friends. Noble Lords will have seen, as I have at close quarters, young lives at best blighted and at worst ended by the misuse of drugs.

I do not claim that this Bill will solve the social problems of drugs misuse in clubs overnight. It must be seen as part of a wider assault on abuse of drugs. I support all the educational programmes, advertising campaigns and good work in the community to try to convince people of the harm that drugs can do. I welcome the efforts of the Government to crack down on drug dealers. This Bill will make it possible to close down unscrupulous clubs straight away as soon as the police have determined that they pose a serious drugs problem and the local authority, having considered all the evidence, has come to the same conclusion. The Bill proposes a specific solution to a specific problem. I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at eleven minutes before eight o'clock.