Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, this has been an interesting brief debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for supporting the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that we must have a system that is rigorous and fair. I agree with him. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that it must be reasonable and she was worried whether appropriate can be reasonable. My noble friend Lord Brooke suggested that the Government got it right because Westminster Council and other councils face strong legal challenges. I will own up to having taken Westminster Council to judicial review and won. The worry is that by putting in ““appropriate””, legal challenges will not diminish but increase because everybody will argue about its meaning. Of course Westminster Council would like the word put in; it gives local councils more power. Everybody likes more power, including Governments, local authorities and councils. However, this would give them power without the safeguards that are required, because it would enable someone in a local authority who has a view about a particular operator to put conditions on them such that they would have to close down. That would result in huge legal challenges because it would destroy the value of their business and would affect employment and lots of other things in that area. The Minister gave an interesting reply, but I was marginally disappointed by it. She suggested that using ““appropriate”” would help to get rid of irresponsible operators. However, it is quite easy to get rid of irresponsible operators; that problem was not put by anybody who gave evidence to the Government. A licence to trade is incredibly valuable; it takes a lot of money and you have to go through a huge number of hoops. People do not trade in order to lose their licence because that will destroy their business. Of course there are bad operators, but they get removed easily; there is no evidence that local authorities have problems closing down irresponsible operators. It is important that conditions should apply to licences, but they must be fair. My noble friend suggested that the Government would issue guidance. It would be helpful if the Government could produce draft guidance for noble Lords. In that context, I wonder whether between now and Report my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I could meet the Minister in order to understand better the concerns of the Government and come up with a solution, either by another amendment to the Bill if this amendment is not right, or by understanding what guidance can do to solve the problem of giving some assurance to operators that their business will not be impaired by unfair decisions that will involve them and local authorities in substantial legal costs and will be detrimental to everybody. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 240 withdrawn. Amendment 240A not moved. Clause 110 agreed. Clause 111 : Reducing the burden: club premises certificates Clause 111 : Reducing the burden: club premises certificates Amendment 240B not moved. Clause 111 agreed. Clause 112 agreed. Clause 113 : Temporary event notices: who may make an objection Clause 113 : Temporary event notices: who may make an objection Amendment 240BA not moved. Debate on whether Clause 113 should stand part of the Bill.