Licensing Act 2003

The hon. Gentleman is largely right. However, I suspect that his constituents, like mine, will welcome some aspects of the Licensing Act, such as the increased powers of the police to take action against bad behaviour in pubs and clubs. Some people might, in certain circumstances, welcome the flexibility that the Act provides, but there are many other aspects about which people are rightly concerned. I do not wish to repeat the points made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who identified a large number of problems relating to the Act. I merely wish to add a few more to the list, so that the Minister can explain, to the House and to anyone else who might be interested, how we got into a situation in which the Government have introduced legislation that is frankly a complete and utter Horlicks from beginning to end. For example, the Act provides for an escalator for the fees charged for big pubs in town centres where there are problems. That is fine—we understand the ““polluter pays”” principle—but why will nightclubs not have to pay an escalating fee as well? Nightclubs contribute equally to the problem in many of our town centres, yet they will get away scot-free. That simply does not make sense. Why will pubs have to pay £1,200 for the first year and £700 in subsequent years, when nightclubs will pay nothing? We know the answer. The legislation defined nightclubs as not being primarily for the sale of alcohol. The Government should have spotted that and done something about it. At Question Time yesterday, I raised the issue of a special saturation policy. Surely the Minister must acknowledge that only about one in five local authorities have availed themselves of what might have been a good opportunity for local communities to control problems in their locality, because, as Andrew McNeill, the director of the Institute of Alcohol Studies says,"““it’s going to be a legal minefield””." We need a solution to that problem. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead and the Minister have talked about a late surge in applications. Has it not occurred to the Minister why there is a late surge? It is because of the way in which the Act is framed. It says, bizarrely, that if someone applied for their new licence on the first named day, back on 7 February, they would next have to pay for their renewed licence on 7 February next year. However, if they delay applying for their licence for as long as possible, they will not have to pay for their renewed licence until very much later. So there is a perverse incentive for people to delay their applications, and it should come as no surprise that that is what pubs and clubs are doing. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) is not in his place at the moment, but I know that he is particularly exercised about this aspect of the Act. He had a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall on 2 June, during which I intervened on the Minister and asked him to explain a number of potential anomalies in the legislation. I should like to give the Minister the opportunity to do that tonight, because he has now had more than a month to work out his answers. Can the Minister tell me whether the licensee of a hotel will breach the Licensing Act if a 16-year-old is left by themselves in a room in that hotel that has a mini-bar? Hoteliers are concerned to know. Clearly, after a month, the hon. Gentleman still does not know. I shall try again with another point. Is it illegal for a 16-year-old to go into a supermarket between midnight and 5 am to buy a loaf of bread, if that supermarket is selling alcohol?