Licensing Act 2003 (Second Appointed Day) Order 2005

My Lords, the Minister said that we are having a jolly debate on the Licensing Act. However, neither the noble Lord, Lord McNally, nor I discussed the Licensing Act. We were discussing the implications of the Licensing Act because of the guidance that had been published by the Government. That was our debate. I have to say that the Minister has totally failed to answer any of the major questions that we put to him. It was a most disappointing answer. I realise that he has the unfortunate task of being a spokesman for the department without having any responsibility for the policy, but I have to say that he has been let down by his colleagues in another place. He kindly said that he would look at the definition of ““in the vicinity”” as regards objections, and he also said that the Government would review the ability of councillors to address their licensing sub-committees and objections. However, he did not mention the fact that two Labour councillors in Newcastle have to pay the costs of an appeal on a licence. Is that something of which the Government approve? Is that going to be replicated whenever councillors appeal against a large pub or club operator gaining a licence? He did not address that point at all. There were a number of other points that the Minister did not address, such as staggered closing times and the problems that that brings. However, environmental health officers already have the power to close noisy premises and it is just not true to say they do not. They do, and I can give evidence in Westminster that shows that they do. The Minister did not address the point about licence fees being self-financing at all. I was absolutely clear and I gave the Minister statistics showing that they are not. The Government promised that it would be a self-financing regime. He did not address the point about the code of practice for irresponsible drinks promotions. We have not heard anything about that, except that we know it is coming. We do not know who has been consulted or when it will come in. The Minister went on to talk about licences and the police. He said that applications had not been passed or completed. It is not a question of that. In Westminster, 350 licensed premises have not even applied. It is not an issue of finishing those applications; applications have not been made at all. People will be trading illegally because of the Government’s policy. It is clear that that is replicated throughout the country. Those are not my statistics: they are statistics from the industry. There might be up to 20,000 people trading illegally when that policy comes in because they have not even applied. Some have, but the majority of them have not. The Minister also failed to address 24-hour drinking. We already know that more than 600 premises have been granted licences, which was never intended by the Government’s policy. We are not debating the Bill. We are debating the guidance and policy of the Government following the introduction of the Bill. That is what we want the Government to review. That is what is wrong. The Minister should have said that the guidance would be reviewed. If the order is delayed, it is not a question of chaos. The chaos will be when the order goes through. If the order is delayed, all those people with existing licences will operate under existing terms, which will give local authorities much more time to get it right. I am very disappointed with the Minister’s answer, which leaves me no alternative but to ask the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 97.