I beg to move, To leave out from ““House”” to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:"““commends the Government on its effective publicity campaign that has significantly increased the rate of applications to convert existing licences under the Licensing Act 2003 before 6th August; encourages remaining licensees to fulfil their responsibilities and get their applications in before that date; considers that failure to implement the Act without delay would deny local communities increased powers of intervention and improved democratic accountability with regard to licensing and deny the police the expanded powers that are vital to their efforts to tackle alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour; welcomes the powers in the Act to prevent crime and disorder and public nuisance, and protect children from harm; believes that the Act will benefit local communities, local economies and tourism and generate savings for business of almost £2 billion over 10 years; and furthermore, believes that the Act will be successfully implemented by 24th November 2005 and will be welcomed by industry and non-commercial organisations, including village halls and sports clubs, alike.””."
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regrets that she cannot be here for this important debate. As the House will be aware, she has been asked to take on a role working with the families of the victims of last week. I think that it will be understood why she is not able to be in the Chamber.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). After 28 minutes of her speech, I am still not clear whether she is in favour of more flexible hours or against them. There was no mention of her view on that or of the alternative policy that she was putting forward. We have some sympathy with her in that her quandary is really her predecessor’s fault. As has been said, the Tories have flip-flopped all over the place on the Licensing Act 2003. They started by being in favour. When the Bill was passing through the House, the right hon. Lady’s predecessor said that the Conservatives agreed with the need for greater flexibility on opening hours, and that they accepted the argument for doing away with universal chucking-out time. Then, just before the election, when the political editor of the Daily Mail telephoned and said that it was launching a campaign against 24-hour drinking, the Tories decided that they were wrong after all, that they would come into line with the Daily Mail and would oppose the extension of the opening hours that they had supported in the first place.
Today, the problem for the right hon. Lady is that she cannot say what she thinks about flexible hours. I suspect that she agrees with them, but she cannot say so because in another part of the forest the shadow Home Secretary is still busily campaigning against 24-hour drinking, even though no one has applied for 24-hour licences.
Licensing Act 2003
Proceeding contribution from
James Purnell
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 12 July 2005.
It occurred during Opposition day on Licensing Act 2003.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
436 c768 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:38:38 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_258131
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_258131
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_258131