Legislative Reform (Supervision of Alcohol Sales in Church and Village Halls &c.) Order 2009

I thank the Minister for his brief and succinct introduction to this LRO, which constitutes a significant amendment to the Licensing Act 2003. Noble Lords on these Benches want to give the order a fair wind as its motives are valid. However, as I say, it constitutes a significant change to the Licensing Act 2003 and a number of questions about its implications and likely effect need to be considered and answered by the Minister. It is interesting that the Government have chosen to use this LRRA procedure in this case. Those of us who have campaigned about live music know that that matter would also be a perfectly worthy recipient of the procedure but it has been rather slower in coming forward in that case. However, I recognise that a huge number of premises will be affected by this order, as, indeed, would be by a reform of the de minimis live music provisions. Why was this mechanism adopted? The Government decided after consultation—albeit on rather a small base of consultation—that extending a temporary event notice from 12 to 15 days, or whatever, would not fit the bill and would not be sufficient to meet the requirements. Instead, they decided to amend Section 19 of the Act and add this alternative condition, which you can opt into. I recognise that they consulted widely on the different options available as regards how the alternative condition could be invoked. They have allowed those who run community and village halls to opt into this process where there is a management committee that can hold the licence. These are long-term licences. My reading is that premises licences last for as long as the building itself. Therefore, in theory, these licences can last for an extremely long time. As my noble friend pointed out, a very big change is involved from individual responsibility—that has considerable consequences for those who hold these licences—to collective responsibility, which is a very different matter. I recognise the proviso that the licence can be reviewed if there are complaints from the local community in accordance with Sections 51 to 53 of the Act. Can the Minister also confirm that a general review of this LRO is automatically provided for after three years? I believe that that is the case and I would be grateful to him if he could give that assurance. But what is key here is that he should set out the Government’s thinking behind the question about altering Section 19 versus an extension to the TENs regime. What that says is that village and community halls hold so many events that 15 or even 20 occasions are not adequate, so the procedure is not adequate. However, what we are really seeing is the conversion of some village halls into permanent social clubs, which is a significant change. That may well be justified by the consultation and be welcomed by many communities, but it could have a considerable impact on the local environment. I believe that the Government and local communities need to take this step with their eyes open. The reason we are prepared to give this order a fair wind is not only the review mechanism, but also the clear recognition that this is a deregulatory step, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Luke. We are as a party committed to deregulation and we welcome it wherever it occurs, particularly for small and local community organisations. However, if deregulation is at the cost of potentially turning some local village halls into social clubs to compete with commercially run pubs, one really does need to think again, and the review will have to look hard at this. In those circumstances, one needs to look carefully at the fee level, and I see that there was some debate about that in the explanatory document. I am sorry to speak at length because I am sure the Minister thought that this would be completely non-contentious, but there are underlying issues. We should be grateful not only to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords for pointing out in its report published on 22 January that this should be dealt with under the affirmative procedure, but also to the Regulatory Reform Committee of the other place. That committee did an even more thorough job than our own committee because it looked at the content of the order in greater detail. It made exactly the same point: that this kind of LRO in these circumstances should be dealt with under the affirmative procedure. The Minister should tell us what lessons the Government are drawing from the observations of those two committees. It is all very well for the other place to produce one paragraph saying that the order has been passed by the negative procedure without debate while one of its own committees recommends that it is dealt with under another one, but it is not healthy for the Commons to find itself having to backtrack and have another committee look at it. We need a clear process that reflects the significance of orders being put forward in these circumstances. At the time, the LRRA was welcomed as legislation that would lead to the real possibility of delegation, but that does not mean that we can just do it by sneaking legislative reform orders through the parliamentary process. There has to be a full and proper debate when these matters come up. Finally, in terms of the impact assessment, I would be interested to hear what the Minister’s latest intelligence is on the number of church and village halls that are likely either now or in the future to take up the new procedure under Section 19. I believe that this is a very significant matter. The consultation was poor in terms of take-up, with a very short second phase. Indeed, if one looks at the sheer number of village and community halls across the country, this could affect thousands of them, and that in turn means that there could be a considerable impact on communities.