Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, for some reason we seem to be in a ““vote early and vote often”” mode today. These amendments seek to remove three clauses from the Bill that lower the evidential threshold that applies to decision-making by licensing authorities. The clauses replace the requirement that licensing authorities should take actions that are ““necessary”” with the requirement that their actions are ““appropriate””. I do not want to engage the House too long on this debate because we would end up rehearsing all that was said in Committee, but I should say that I do not think that the word ““convenient”” is a substitute for ““appropriate””, although I suspect that he was being rather tongue-in-cheek when he said that. Lowering the threshold will make it less onerous for licensing authorities to refuse or revoke licences if it is appropriate for the promotion of licensing objectives. The four licensing objectives will still apply. My noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested that I was not clear enough about this in Committee, so I reiterate that the four statutory licensing objectives still apply. However, lowering the threshold will make it less onerous for licensing authorities to refuse or revoke licences if it is appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for advising me in advance of his concerns. On the ““necessary”” test and the importance of it being compliant with human rights law, the statutory test of what is appropriate as the basis on which licensing authorities must make decisions—alongside clear guidance to those authorities as to what is meant by this threshold, and the availability of statutory rights of appeal for licensing applicants and others affected by licensing decisions—ensures that the ECHR rights of those affected by licensing decisions are safeguarded. My noble friend prayed in aid his experience of previous legislation in this area. The requirement that an interference with ECHR rights must be ““necessary”” is a concept that has been developed in the context of human rights law and is not directly comparable with the meaning of ““necessary”” as it currently appears in the Licensing Act 2003. My noble friend suggested that the only right of appeal against licensing decisions, including the imposition of conditions, is judicial review. That is not correct. Section 181 of the Licensing Act 2003 already provides for a statutory right of appeal to the magistrates’ court against most decisions by licensing authorities, including decisions on the granting or revocation of a licence and the conditions attached. I must also inform the House that although it has been suggested that the Local Government Association is against these proposed changes, that is not the Government’s understanding. Indeed, in response to our consultation on rebalancing the Licensing Act, the LG Group said that it ““broadly welcomes this proposal””.