Yes, but it was a very measured one. He homed in on a problem that has been discussed again this evening, namely that of village halls. We will take those issues on board through the high-level committee. One issue has been taken out of context today: Members said that there had been just one meeting with ACRE. There has been a whole series of such meetings, and ACRE welcomed the fact today that we had moved on temporary licensing. I should like to quote ACRE’s newsletter of June 2005. It states:"““ACRE (Action with Communities in Rural England) has been following the implementation of the Act and working with the Communications and Strategy Team at DCMS who have been very helpful in explaining the new processes and providing guidance and legal interpretation of the new legislation. They have set up the Live Music Forum to encourage the provision of live music in licensed premises . . . and published Countdown to explain the Act in a user-friendly way . . . Training sessions for village hall advisers have also taken place with the support of DCMS””."
I am not going to say that all the problems have been resolved. Clearly they have not, and a great deal of concern has been expressed this evening. However, let us be clear that what we are trying to do with this piece of legislation is to modernise in a way that most sensible people would want us to. We are reducing bureaucracy by merging six regulatory regimes into one. That is important for this country. This is about bringing the licensing regime into the 21st century. Central to that is the empowerment of local communities by increasing their right of intervention, which will be particularly important in licensing cases. The Act will enhance the democratic accountability and empowerment of local authorities; that is where we believe such powers should lie.
On the problems of binge drinking in modern society, we have removed the nuclear option that existed before. We have expanded police powers the better to enable the police to respond in a proportionate way when tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. That has been welcomed by many, particularly those in the police force and in the Association of Chief Police Officers, which recently reaffirmed its support for the Act.
The Act merges six complicated and, in some cases, outdated regulatory regimes into one. This will affect about 190,000 licensing authorities. We accept that there will be problems with implementation, but we shall be able to implement the provisions in regard to fees and to the operation of the Act, particularly for village halls and sports clubs. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) did not choose a very good example of a club. Yesterday at Question Time, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) mentioned Wimbledon cricket club. The club has an adult membership of 1,200, and an additional 800 junior members. It has a 9-acre site and is one of the wealthiest clubs in the country, thanks to the six-figure sum paid to it by its neighbour, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet club, which uses the site for car parking and corporate hospitality. It is therefore quite a wealthy club. I know that some Conservative Members might want to prosecute their case that such clubs should not pay the licence fee, but that would be wrong.
The main reason for this major piece of modernisation is something that the Opposition have been crying out for for years, namely the reduction of red tape and bureaucracy. That is what we are going to achieve. We are moving the whole licensing regime in a direction that many people in the tourism industry have been calling for. We have debated the tourism industry many times in the Chamber, and discussed how we want to modernise it and to increase its activity. The Act provides the tools to do that.
In relation to entertainment, which is linked to tourism with regard to central London, it is important that we modernise our licensing regimes. The chairman of the British Beer and Pubs Association said as late as 15 May this year that the Government"““have delivered flexibility. We have seen the back of the ludicrous 11 pm closing time.””"
Therefore, the Act has had tremendous support across the board.
In terms of sports clubs, no Government have helped truly amateur sports clubs more than we have. We introduced mandatory rate relief, for which there have been calls for more than 30 years, and our investment in amateur sports clubs is second to none. If there are problems with genuine sports clubs, we will consider that, as I said that we would with regard to village halls.
I cannot do justice to all the points raised this evening, but I will respond in writing on those that I do not cover. Let me just respond to the point made by the Opposition spokesman about 24-hour opening not being an issue. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who might be the new leader of the Conservative party, said on 30 June,"““What on earth is the Government doing? In the face of these figures, its policy of 24-hour drinking is nothing short of madness.””"
And on 8 June, he said:"““Given that a lot of violent crime is caused by binge drinking, it beggars belief that the Government are going ahead with 24-hour opening””."
How can Opposition spokesmen say that there is no disagreement about 24-hour opening? They ought to get their act together.
As for the comments of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—[Interruption.] The Yorkshire pronunciation is ““Bath””, although I know that it is ““Barth”” down there. I think it is also ““Bath”” in Scotland. On the question of delay, the hon. Member for Bath accused me, as the then Minister with responsibility for licensing, of procrastination and of not bringing the measure forward. At the turn of the year, he changed his mind, as the Liberals are prone to do, and now argues that he wants a delay. We never know where the Liberals stand. On the one hand they argue that they want a delay, while on the other they say they do not. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no delay. We will make sure that the Act is implemented.
Licensing Act 2003
Proceeding contribution from
Richard Caborn
(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 c801-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:36:22 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_258215
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_258215
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_258215