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

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I did not come into this Committee with any presumption that this would be a short debate or that the issue would not be examined carefully. As soon as I saw the composition of the Committee I knew that that would not be the case, and so it has proven. I also want to disavow the idea that I was trying to restrict the order to England, which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, suggested. I am not sure that I mentioned England—I am not sure that I could, during a week when it is only Wales that counts with regard to the rugby match on Saturday. He is right; the order applies to England and Wales. I am grateful for the points that were made. In a moment I will come on to the procedure that I mentioned and which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to. He has always taken a great interest in these issues. First, though, I shall deal with one or two of the more specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked me whether the order is intended to reduce burdens and increase flexibility. That is indeed its objective; it will give the community the option to apply to remove restrictions and make it easier for it to obtain a fully flexible licence. That is why, in our consultation, we have had support for this. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says about how we should go about it, but there was a desire that we should have an order that reduced these burdens and red tape. It is modest; we are not talking about huge amounts of money being saved, nor about a great issue in legislative terms. However, it is important to those concerned with organising these events. I reassure the right reverend Prelate that "management committee", although I am sorry that it is not spelt out in quite the same terms, is a generic term. It means those who exercise authority and can be held accountable, and of course a parish council is the most reputable body in those terms and meets the Bill. The issue is straightforward: we are all aware of the reluctance of individuals to get shouldered with the burden, if anything goes wrong, of taking the heat when in fact there is a broader structure that at the end of the day is responsible because it has identified the individual as being responsible. It is that broader structure that really holds the power, and it should do. Well, I say it should; the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said that it should not because members of the structure will disagree among themselves and you will not know where you stand. If that were the case, it would be problematic for the individual anyway if they were exercising that position on behalf of a divided management committee that could not make up its mind whether it wanted the event or not, or on what terms. We already think it is invidious for the individual to carry the load—how much more devastating if they were backed by a management committee that did not really think it was prepared to back them? The scenario that the noble Lord was developing is one where proceeding for a licence would be hazardous if there were that level of dissent. You could have an individual who could presumably, in Napoleonic terms, be the decision-taker, but it would not be a very happy state of affairs if he had taken a decision and the management committee did not back him. There is not really a substantial point there. Any responsible organisation involved in an event that requires this aspect with regard to a licence by definition has to have summoned up the will to reach a proper decision on that and takes responsibility for that decision. If it is so divided that it cannot, it will not get the licence, and that is the end of the matter. On how we went about it, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is right: we could have gone through the temporary events procedure. There are disadvantages to doing that. The temporary events concept is very light-touch indeed. The problem is that we would not get the same flexibility under that structure. Our anxiety would be whether the public are properly protected—which, after all is the basis of the licence concept—if we extend the very light-touch regime for temporary events. We had the option to do that, but we think that this is safer. This structure guarantees greater public responsibility, which is why it was chosen. The noble Lord is always accurate in his criticism of the Government and asks accurate questions. I think that this is a pretty neat solution. It is certainly one that has commended itself elsewhere. Just for once, I will not be too concerned about that element of criticism. There was a choice, there was a balance, and a balanced decision was taken. I do not have absolute confirmation on the question of the length of the review. Three years was suggested, but I shall have to write to confirm that. I apologise that I cannot give the answer immediately. On the question of the impact assessment, there are 2,000 community premises without an alcohol licence and 4,000 requiring flexibility, so we are talking about 6,000 premises. That is not epoch-making, but if we can reduce the red tape for 6,000 organisations, we have achieved something worth while. Is there a danger that the halls become like social clubs because they have licences? The definition of community premises is statutory and in our statutory guidance, so we are covered on that. We can draw a line between community premises and the extension of events to village halls and so on. One safeguard that we have in place is that the licensing authority on application must consider whether the appropriate management committee is in place and the premises must hold community activities. So, first, the premises must shape up as being clearly for the community; and, secondly, returning to the point made earlier, if the licensing authority thinks that there is a wayward management structure and no one knows what on earth is going on, it will not grant a licence. It has responsibility for that. I mentioned the conditions that we are introducing under the order in my introduction. They can be reintroduced following the review of the licence if there is reason for anxiety or concern; we can re-establish the regime that has obtained until now. I hope that it will be recognised that this is a well intentioned, benign measure of limited impact that nevertheless will help community events, and I commend it. Motion agreed.